The second paragraph says: It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. Which is exactly what he's said he's doing, which is exactly what the article says he's doing, which is exactly what he's doing, which is exactly what the article says he's doing, which is... well you get the point. It's a cute trick. The whole article, to boil it down to one sentence, says, "Obama says he's for a tax cut on the middle class, but he's raising taxes for the top 5%." The but makes you assume there must be something contrary somewhere in there, when of course there isn't. It's not worded like that though, because then even Joe would catch on. More or less the whole article is a big trick. The Wall Street Journal is written by and for that top 5%. And the majority of them think the middle class should be turned into a slave race anyway. (If they aren't already.)
522 days ago | Tagged As: slave race
Don't any of you ever read the WHOLE article? Your characterization of the WHOLE article is total BS> What sums up the whole article is one word. WELFARE! The article is about how Obama's scheme to have fewer and fewer Americans pay any taxes at all and more and more get checks from the government. It isn't cutting taxes when you send government checks to people who pay nothing, zero, nada, zippo in taxes themselves. It is all about taking money away from productive Americans and giving it to welfare leeches. Over ten years these new welfare programs will cost us 4 times what traditional welfare does. Obama is the ultimate Democrat liar. He wants to turn the whole country into lazy welfare recipients. And the lemmings follow him right off the cliff. How is it a tax cut to send a check to millions of Americans who don't pay taxes in the first place?? Answer? It isn't It is welfare but you can't run on a platform of vote for me and I will put you on welfare. Either IAMDAVID didn't read the whole article or he is dumber than those people in the Howard Stern clip on the thread asking if American voters are ignorant. Because his summary of the whole article has nothing to do with what the article is about. As for me, I would rather be forced into a slave state than vote myself willingly and eagerly into a welfare state.
521 days ago | Tagged As: Biased article
It's not welfare, it is indeed a tax cut. The article states that some of Obama's tax cuts are going to people who don't pay income tax, but it neglects to mention that they do pay payroll tax.
520 days ago | Tagged As: Biased article
SO what?? Payroll taxes are already spoken for! Is he going to cut their social security tax? With the trust fund heading for bankruptcy already? Is he going to cut their Medicare payments? Those programs are either already or are almost insolvent as it is. Now you think he is going to cut the moneys going into those programs? Nonsense! And tax cuts are not welfare, sending out checks to people for no good reason other than he is buying their votes is welfare. Whatever taxes he cuts have to be made up somehow. Plus he needs to pay for the programs he is promising. I don't care if it is income tax, payroll tax or the lottery. It has to be made up from somewhere and making 5% of the population pay taxes to support the rest of the country is crazy! The math just cannot work. You can change the words around and thinks it affects the discussion but whatever taxes they cut from 95% of the nation has to be made up and he thinks it can be carried by just 5%? How can anyone believe that?
I agree, but can't they just print more money? I mean, isn't that how they are fixing this financial disaster thing (by printing more money)?
in a word, no. The solution involves loose monetary policy but that is not the solution. It is what they do with the new paper.
Yeah! I hate those freaking, lazy, welfare recipients!
521 days ago | Tagged As: Where's my piece of the pie
With a President Obama 95% of us will be on welfare. Prepare to do a lot of hating.
520 days ago | Tagged As: Where's my piece of the pie
Maybe I'll figure out a way to get some of those checks ;)
The Wall Street Journal is written for those who worry about the future of capitalism and the corporations of America. obviously, a tax on corporations and small business owners WILL increase the price of everything. they pass the taxes onto the consumer...
522 days ago | Tagged As: WSJ is People who worry about Capitalism
Good point. Tax increases are probably bad for the economy in the short term. Two things though: 1) We will take that money and invest it in ourselves: building new roads, improving education, researching alternative energy, speeding up the internet, etc. These investments in the long run will more than make up for the economic cost of the increased taxes. 2) We have problems and money is needed to solve them. It's a balancing act. We sacrifice some economic growth in order to ensure every American has access to health care, that social security doesn't run out, that we have strong national defense, etc.
522 days ago | Tagged As: Government spending can be a good thing
Why do you think they wont continue to funnel it to ACORN and other entities who will then put it back into the coffers of congressmen who vote the way they want? I still say there is no damn way that Obama can tax the 5% enough to cut taxes for the other 95% without HUGE amounts of money being taken out of circulation so that it does NO DAMN GOOD for the country. It was patriotic to throw British tea in the harbor to protest exorbitant taxes and it will be patriotic to keep my money out of the hands of Obama. And that is exactly what I will do. It is an Atlas Shrugged situation in the making. The Best and the Brightest will flee the country. Corporations will flee the country, not just jobs. To illustrate what I mean, My money is out of the market where it provides capital to build the country and economy. As the market comes back, instead of putting my money back into the market where it would be productive, I am paying off mortgages so that I need less income. I will not pay the increased capital gains to take income because of the taxes. Instead I am cutting my bills so that I won't take as much income. With no mortgages, no car payments, no credit card payments, I can take out loans which are not income and avoid the taxes. All legal, and in my opinion the right thing to do to prevent Obama's socialist, unamerican redistribution of wealth. And I am a little guy. Imagine what the big guys can come up with!
521 days ago | Tagged As: Government spending can be a good thing
Funnel it to ACORN? Really Inkwell? Like every arguement I see you on you're attempting vainly to spread this absurd idea that Obama is somehow connected to terrorists. So if Obama is elected you're fleeing the country? Right. That's the most juvenile thing I've heard all day, congratz. You claim you're the little guy, I'm assuming that means one of the 95% who will be paying less taxes. I fail to see where all this rage stems from. It's one thing if you think he's just lying, but you seem to believe him, yet still your storming about CD like a bull in a China shop with your crazy sepratist talk. The idea that a slight increase in taxes for the top 5% would somehow stagnate the economy is completely false. This would only be the case if all of that wealth of that top 5% was in the market or invested in business, which it obviously is not. The oldest, and most desparately wrong and decieving notion perpetuated by many mis-guided little guys such as yourself and greedy corporations is that less capital (after taxes are raised) = less productivity, and so less jobs, higher prices, etc. This is absolutely incorrect. There is only one thing that drives jobs and how much of something is produced, and that is demand. Conservatives of all people should know that. If a widget sells for $10, then that's what they will sell for. Not more, not less. If there is a demand for more widgets, then people will be hired to make more widgets. End of story. A tax cut for corporations has never lead to more jobs, just more money for corporations, likewise, a tax increase only would lead to cuts in things like CEO bonus packages. A company isn't going to start selling widgets for $12 just because taxes are raised if their competition is still selling them for $10. If a company sells out all their widgets every month, they are not going to make less because their taxes have been raised, they will make more. I realize that was extraordinarily confusing for you. But put some thought into it, even you will understand it in time.
520 days ago | Tagged As: Inkwell is insane
I guess that you were not around the Regan years or, if you were, that you didn't pay attention to the lesson taught during his presidency. Cutting taxes works. Cutting taxes helps the economy.
Get a clue would you? ACORN has not been accused of being terrorists as far as I know. You have no idea what you are talking about. He was their lawyer. I don't have to make up anything about his connections to ACORN. He taught leadership training for them. He says he did it for only one year but several ACORN leaders have said differently. Don't put words in my mouth you ignorant pissant. I never said I would leave the country. The most ignorant thing you have heard is something YOU said, not me. How fitting based on the rest of your ludicrous post. I said exactly what I WOULD do so you can just read what I said and stop making things up. Separatist talk? WTF are you talking about?? Nowhere did I say anything about being a separatist. Stop listening to the voices in your head, or at least stop attributing what they say to me. Slight increase? You f-ing moron. He wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and GIVE them welfare checks on top of the cut and you think a SLIGHT increase to only 5% can pay for all of that? And I guess you agree with Obama that $18M is not a lot of money. Jeez! Have you ever earned a dollar in your life? Or are you just rubbing your hands in glee at the thought of my paying for your welfare checks? Plus his health care plan and all of the other programs he has listed? What do you consider slight? I have seen estimates at 60%. That isn't slight to me. You are clueless. He is not (yet) talking about taxing their wealth, we are talking about income. If you had either, you would know the difference. Despite your ignorance they are not the same thing. So it has no effect on their houses or boats or cars or jewelry. We are talking about income. Income comes from productive investments, either businesses or investments. So yes, oh ignorant one, the assets he is talking about taxing ARE invested in ways that provide the capital that this country runs on. Wealth is not income. Get through 6th grade before you go spouting off to me. LOL How the hell can demand create jobs in the absence of capital to satisfy that demand? There is a demand for new cars in Cuba but there is no capital to build a factory to supply that demand. In Soviet Moscow I saw stores with empty shelves. Not because the demand was not there, it was. People were lined up for goods when they arrived. The capital to create stock to fill those shelves was missing. How do you think a factory owner hires more workers to make widgets without capital? How do you think he builds a new widget factory to up capacity without capital? LOL you are totally backwards. The only thing your scenario produces is a thriving black market. If an industrialist makes only what the market bears and what a widget sells for is the "proper" price for a widget . . . why are people complaining about Exxon profits or expensive gas? You just said very clearly that if gas sells for $4 that is the price it will sell for. No more and no less. YOUR WORDS genius. Companies don't pay taxes. Their customers do. If you raise taxes on all corporations they will all raise their prices. If their infrastructure costs go up they will raise prices. If their labor costs go up so do their prices. Companies are not in business to lose money. They make a profit or they go out of business. And then their labor force is unemployed. PERIOD. Your vision of this is so screwed up I don't know how you can even say the things you say with a straight face. Without capital to expand production, increased demand results in higher prices. Supply and demand. Very simple. Your explanation isn't confusing it is extraordinarily wrong headed. Taxes are a cost of doing business. You just said that increasing taxes and thus the cost of making a widget results in more money for the manufacturer without a corresponding increase in price. how in the world can you say something so backwards without hurting yourself? I don't have to waste time actually thinking about what you say. You make up stuff I never said and you make up economic principles that a third grader can see through. Why waste brain cells on you?
520 days ago | Tagged As: Inkwell is insane
Pissant? You seem upset inkwell. The Best and the Brightest will flee the country. That's what you said. Then you were comparing the Boston Tea Party to what you and others would be doing if Obama were elected. The Boston Tea Party was a precursor to the American Revolution, thus separatist. You're talking about a revolution because of a 3% tax hike for the top 5%. Unless the voices in my head post on CD under the name Inkwell, then I'm pretty sure it was you, and not them, who I was replying to. Obviously you haven't actually looked at Obama's tax plan. It calls for a 3% raise on those making over 250,000 a year. That's a "slight" raise I think by anyone's standards. "f-ing moron" I may be, but I'm apparently bright enough to figure that out, while you obviously are not. Then Ink, you start insulting me, claiming I've never earned a dollar in my life. Interesting. So you assume anyone who disagrees with you is on welfare then? I'm curious where all this anger comes from? I've actually worked since I was 15, and earn about 80k a year. I have my own home business where I put in about 60 hours a week, and recently I began working part time, about 30 hours per week parking cars. I imagine I probably work more than you Ink. Did you just ask me how demand could create jobs? Demand is the only thing that creates jobs. If no one wants products or services, then there's no jobs. This is pretty simple stuff. If a company does not have the capital to make more of a product, or offer more of a service, and there is a demand for that product or service, then they borrow. If they cannot, then another company will come along to fill the demand. It's the essence of freemarket. Now, to answer your personal attacks against me. Imagine Ink that I'm in the room with you while replying. Do you really think you would be so obnoxious and condescending to a real person? Your deep and over-the-top hatred present in your replies I think proves that my arguements are pretty close to correct. Why would you be so mad if not?
520 days ago | Tagged As: Inkwell is insane
Why shouldn't I be upset? It isn't enough I need to be an economics teacher but now I need to be a history teacher? But you flatter yourself. If I was upset I would merely refrain from enlightening you. It is all below my pay grade to quote your candidate. But what does that have to do with my calling you insignificant? You ARE insignificant in terms of this discussion. You keep proving your ignorance on the subject and just engage in what appears to be stock in trade here, trying to back me into a corner by twisting my words and getting me to defend positions I never took. Stop assuming that because I say "A" it means I believe "B and C" as well. Deal with what I actually said, not what you "think" I said. I predicted what I think will happen. That is not he same as advocating an action. I never said I would leave or suggested anyone should, merely that some will. As for teaching you your history, at the time of the Boston Tea Party very few colonists were even thinking about leaving Britain. They wanted fair treatment but were mostly happy as colonists. They wanted fairer treatment as colonists, not independence. The main exceptions were Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Adams (and his Sons of Liberty) organized the tea party and some say the Boston Massacre in order to cause a spark which would move the colonies towards independence and even later at the time of Lexington, Concord and the Battle of Breed's Hill, Independence wasn't a widespread idea, never mind goal. Thus it was 3 years before the Declaration of Independence was signed. So the reference to The Boston Tea Party was a reference to a protest of tax policy, not a call for separating from my "mother country". As I have explained already today, I have spent way too much time examining Obama's plan. In fact I spent an hour today at lunch with the smartest economist I know, my stepfather. He is a liberal democrat and Obama supporter. The only thing we understood about the plan is where he admits that his plan will raise less revenue than the plan currently in place. I do not understand where he says he is going after the richest 2% retroactively for taxes they collected over the last eight years. I am not aware of Gates and Buffett having collected taxes. I do not believe he can collect enough money from a 2% tax increase to offset all the programs and refunds or prefunds or whatever he is calling his welfare checks. I never said he couldn't raise the money. But 2% increase? What nonsense! He provides no numbers so it is impossible to add up the programs. His website talks in generalities about programs with no numbers presented. They cannot add up. And his website admits it. His checks and programs and increases are NOT revenue neutral. So he admits what I have been saying all along. So where do you think he will make up the difference? He admits he is spending more and collecting less. So does he up the deficit? Or does he know already he is lying and has to either raise more taxes or give less cuts and checks. No other answer that I can see. Here is your chance to regale me with your economic wisdom. What other path is open to him?. My evidence for your level of economic sophistication is the ridiculous crap you try and pawn off here. Has nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not. I do not have to agree with Menger and von Bohm-Bawerk of the Austrian School or Marx or Keynes or Hume to admire their genius. But all of them would snicker at your assertion that demand, in the absence of capital can produce jobs. In this post you fall back on two of your stock in trade elements. First you edit what I said in saying I asked you how demand can create jobs. As usual you conveniently leave out part of my words changing the meaning. I said demand in the absence of of capital. You conveniently left out the last part. Then, the other element you repeat, ignorance. Your assertion is that in response to a lack of capital, a firm would just borrow. Have you had your head in the sand for the last two months? Companies cannot borrow because we are in a capital crunch. Capital is not just what they have in the bank. It is what is available top them via loans or issuing bonds or warrants or selling stock. That is how companies raise capital. Which one they use is a function of the cost of each to them. But right now, there is no capital available. While you have apparently been napping, the whole world has been screaming about the constipated capital pipelines. Companies CANNOT borrow. Why the hell do you think the government is stepping to loan money and inject capital? Because there is no capital available to borrow!!! People are NOT buying stock or bonds. Capital is plugged up. McDonalds, as solid a company as there is today, recently had to cut back their plans for building their new concept, McCafes for next year because their primary lenders are hinky about committing to the scope of lending necessary. So if McDonald's cannot get money to build the 4,000 new units and cuts back to 2,000, do you not understand that it just doesn't matter how much demand there is for McCafe products, whatever they may be. The capital to build the new stores, which would employ however many thousands of people, just isn't there, no matter how much demand there is. If I do not buy bonds and stocks, McDonalds cannot raise capital. If the taxes on my investment in those bonds is abusive, I won't buy the bonds. I will sit back in T Bills or tax free munis or dividend stocks or gold or whatever is safe from Obama's tax grab. What is so hard to understand? But thanks for the chuckle. The idea of borrowing when there is no capital is funny. What the hell do you think they are borrowing?? MONEY = CAPITAL No one can borrow now, at least not as much as they need or at a price they can choke down. If McDonalds lead lender is cutting back, just who do you think is able to borrow? Go try and get a car loan! 1 of 3 is being turned down . . . and the sub prime applicants aren't even being submitted! This story is repeated throughout the world in all sectors. Capital is not available. Period. Demand be damned. Demand makes no impact without the ability to meet increasing demand. I can think of no circumstances, short of shackles and manacles which would keep me in a room with you discussing this nonsense this long. Hatred? Mad? Silly wabbit. I am disgusted at spending this amount of my life talking to someone who will not see the truth not because he is blind but because HE WILL NOT SEE anything not in keeping with his preconceived notions. You spout off silly points with sillier evidence to back them up. What makes you think I would sit still in real life to be submitted to your ignorance? I don't insult those i respect. But I don't respect those who don't earn it. When you edit my words in a weak attempt to make me defend positions I never stated, you lose any claim on my respect. If it makes you feel good to mistake my disdain for panic that you are correct, have at it. Engage in all the mental masturbation you want. Just don't get me all sticky while you pleasure yourself. So let's finish where we started. Pissant? Indeed, insignificant in terms of this discussion because you are incapable of presenting a cogent argument or opening your eyes to recognize the fallacy in your position. Mad? Upset? You flatter yourself.
519 days ago | Tagged As: Inkwell is insane
You seem to be flailing in a lot of different directions here... 1) You say Obama is lying about his plans and is actually going to use the money to get Democrats elected. Are you not aware of Obama's work to government more transparent? He was one of the sponsors of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 which created usaspending.gov, the so-called "Google for government." He has also said he would put his spending proposals online for people to look at and comment on before they become law. In the face of the evidence your statements sound like paranoid ranting. 2) You say Obama won't get enough from the top 5% to cut taxes for the bottom 95% because the rich guys will find ways around paying. The example you give is that you will be taking out loans because they won't be taxed. So I guess your hoping that tax rates will come down in the future and then you will increase your income in order to pay off the loans? So the interest on those loans is cheaper than what you would be paying in taxes? And you say big companies will be able to do similar things on a larger scale? This seems to be your strongest point. I'd like to see some exact numbers and citations to back this up. 3) You say big companies will flee the country. I think this is not true because a) America is a good source of highly educated workers; and b) Companies like Wal-Mart sell to Americans and that requires them to operate here at home. Unskilled labor that doesn't involve selling physical products (i.e. tech support) will probably be offshored, but that's been happening anyway despite the lower taxes companies are currently paying.
1. That is not exactly what I said. A Democratic congress and President with no Republican counterweight would have sent money to ACORN out of the money they just allocated to fixing the economy. They tried to funnel money to ACORN but were foiled by the Republicans. The reason that everything they do includes funneling money through ACORN is that they get the skim just like the Mafia used to. They (Dems campaigns) get their cut off the top. That is documented and inescapable. How else does Obama get more ACORN donations in his two years in the Senate than all others but Barney Frank got in over NINE years? My question is why do you think they will do anything different once Republicans are out of the way? You seem to think that Dems wear white hats and Repubs wear black hats. I think they all wear black hats and don't trust any of them to do what they say they will or to be competent enough to pass good regulations that don't have symptoms worse than the disease they are designed to cure. Show me, don't tell me. I have heard of that bill. I have also heard of the Tax Simplification Act of 1986 which didn't simplify a damn thing. I also have heard of DC Comics, Harry Potter and other works of fiction. The difference between you and me is that you buy all this crap he is selling. You believe he can make 5% of the country pay all the bills PLUS give welfare checks to the other 95%. You apparently believe he will ask each of us to comment on his spending bills before passing them. Presumably he will listen/read those comments and take them into consideration before passing the bills or else why solicit the opinions? Which leads me to believe that he will never pass a single thing in a 4 year term. What an ignorant idea and how ignorant do you have to be to believe it? 2. Now, again, try to contest what I actually said instead of what you THINK I said. I said pretty damn clearly that he wont be able to collect enough money from 5% to pay bills plus pay welfare to the other 95% of Americans without crushing the investments that are crucial to our economy and are the productive capital that drives the economy. I then went on to explain how I personally would avoid income taxes and expressed my opinion that any other American of means would find other ways to avoid this unamerican redistribution of wealth. He can always crush the most productive investments in order to raise more taxes so I wouldn't say he can't raise enough. He can do what Stalin or the Catholic Church did for so long. Just murder the rich and take their wealth. Obviously a bit extreme, just illustrating that I didn't say he couldn't raise it, just not raise it without crushing productive investment and our economy. I believe that if Obama truly tries to implement his plans, he will be out in 4 years max and I can make it for four or even eight years if I have to without having to recognize much taxable income, certainly less than his threshold of $250K. Of course he could turn the whole code topsy turvy and tax loan proceeds or wealth or productivity or competence or who knows what? Of course the interest payments would be less than taxes. Taxes under Obama are predicted to be as high as 60% for those 5% who pay to give welfare to the rest. Do you really question whether loan rates are less than 60%? Or even the 38% that is common today? What numbers and citations would you like to see? I can give you specific examples of what I personally would do but I can't give you a citation of what I would do. Who am I supposed to quote? I don't believe that I said big companies would do the same. I said I am a small fish and bigger guys than me can pay their tax lawyers and accountants more than I can to come up with ways to avoid abusive redistribution. There are MANY places that are better sources of a highly educated work force. They also have much lower corporate taxes and no unions. All the same reasons India and Ireland to name a couple have been so successful. WalMart requires companies to be in the US? Are you sure about that? You don't think that Walmart sells items made in Indonesia, China, Taiwan, Korea, etc? I don't do much shopping at WalMart as the closest one is too far away from me but I would bet they sell one or two products manufactured overseas. I don't know what to make of this: "despite the lower taxes companies are currently paying." American companies currently pay the second highest corporate taxes in the world. And you describe this as "lower taxes companies are currently paying"??? These are the types of comments that just make it hard to respect people and keep my comments civil.
521 days ago | Tagged As: Government spending can be a good thing
I'm not sure why you seem to think ACORN is an evil organization. They give money to the Democrats and Democrats give money to them because their interests are one and the same -- helping poor communities. Republicans have their own organizations as well. "You seem to think that Dems wear white hats and Repubs wear black hats. I think they all wear black hats and don't trust any of them to do what they say..." I don't think Democrats are without fault, although I do believe they are more interested in the common good than Republicans. Further, I am convinced that Obama is better than most politicians. It's popular to demonize politicians these days, but they are people like you and me. They have a capacity for good. I think there are problems with the system as it is structured now, but I think we can solve those problems. To me the answer is not less government, the answer is better government. "I don't trust any of them to be competent enough to pass good regulations that don't have symptoms worse than the disease they are designed to cure." Do you seriously believe that no politician has ever passed any good regulations? What about the food and drug administration? Do you think we should do away with that? Are you advocating laissez-faire capitalism? Surely you realize the consequences of that would be disastrous. "You believe he can make 5% of the country pay all the bills PLUS give welfare checks to the other 95%." Could you please stop with the ridiculous spinning? Obama is not giving welfare checks to 95% of America. Check his website if you need a detailed description of his policies. As for loan rates, I honestly don't have any idea what the typical rate is. I've never applied for a loan. I googled, but couldn't find an answer. I really don't know much about finance and economics. All I can do is trust that people like Austan Goolsby and all those economists who responded to the Economist survey know what they're doing. Frankly I trust them a whole lot more than you with your biased rhetoric.
You don't know why I think ACORN is evil? Maybe the fact that the FBI is investigating them in 15 different states? Maybe the fact that the State of Ohio is spending millions having to go over 250,000 voter registrations now thought to be fraudulent. Maybe because i don't believe the end justifies the means. Maybe because I believe Saul Alinsky's tactics, as practiced by ACORN and taught to them by Obama are illegal and an attack on our society and government and on America itself. Maybe because I think extortion is an evil act. Should I go on? Or do you still think that as long as they break laws on the behalf of YOUR ideas they are saints. This is not the Dallas Cowboys where their fans think Pac Man and T.O. are just "misunderstood". These are criminals with a radical agenda to undermine our government in order to take America in directions that are the antithesis of what America does and should and has always stood for. the common good? please. don't be so naive. Republicans and Dems want the same things. The difference is how best to get it. Dems have been promising to help the poor for decades. It is the standard spiel. cut the fat from the budget, take from the rich to give to the poor, spend spend spend, tax tax tax. I am 50 years old. I have heard this crap for decades from every democrat candidate. Not one has delivered. Obama is NOT like you and me. At least not me. In the circles I travel in no one goes around bombing government buildings. No one at the synagogue I spent 20 years at ever said "God Damn America." And if he had, I would have known about it. Obama is a damned liar. I am not. Frankly I resent the implication that he is ANYTHING like me. I managed to make a living without surrounding myself with criminals. I managed to buy a home without the help of criminals. Less govt IS better government. There are very few endeavors in which government is not the WORST, LEAST efficient way to accomplish your goals. It is unwieldy, subject to partisanship, lacks competition, lacks incentive and is invariably the most expensive way to achieve most goals. I am really sick of critics trying to make me defend words I never spoke. Did I anywhere say no pol has ever passed good regulation? PLEASE stick to what I actually said or have the good manners to go away. I am not going to be dumb enough to fall for this tactic. Folks keep trying to use it and I keep refusing to fall for their traps and calling them on it. I said I don't trust them to pass good regulations with out the cataclysmic side effects that Democrat fingers on the GSEs have us in now. That does not mean what you tried to accuse me of saying. I did not say that no politician had ever in history passed a good law. Leaving aside for a moment the self interest of Frank, Dodd et al in funneling money to ACORN, I have said that I give them credit for good intentions in trying to expand home ownership, they still screwed the pooch with BAD regulations. The end result is that the people they tried to help will be out of the homes they never could afford anyway and the whole country will pay for the folly for years. Dodd and Shumer and Frank have come closer to achieving Al Quaeda's goal than all the events of 9/11 did. This country was, and to some extent still is poised at the precipice because of their well intentioned regulation of the GSEs. Why do you think Democratic leadership risked the ire of voters by putting hundreds of millions in payments to ACORN onto the $700B bailout bill? What purpose in saving the economy would it have served? The only purpose is to pay off favors and get their skim into campaign coffers. Why are you so willing to condemn oil lobbyists for ties to Republican but not the unions and trial lawyers and ACORN for doing the same for Dems? You are blinded by partisanship, that is why. Stop with the tax cut nonsense. I bet you were among the folks screaming bloody murder about Bush "lying" to get us in the war. But here you are gobbling up one turd of a lie after another that Obama is shoveling at you and declaring it the best meal you have ever had. Some of what Obama is projecting is tax credits. But sending the money before taxes are paid, with no guarantee those taxes will be paid is welfare. I have been all over Obama's website. None of it makes sense. The .pdf on his website which contains his tax plan is unintelligible. For instance, it says that the top two percent of Americans will return all of the taxes they collected over the last eight years. WTF does that mean? You mean to tell me that Buffett and Gates collected taxes? Huh? His website admits that his plan is revenue negative, meaning that it will not collect as much revenue as the year before. So he is going to spend more, send more back and collect less. Great! I have literally spent hours trying to understand his plan. I spent an hour at lunch today with my step father who is an economist, trained under Milton Friedman at U of Chicago, supports Obama, is a liberal Democrat. Spent decades at the Bureaus of Labor Statistics fairly high up, is world renowned as an expert on productivity who has lectured all over the world, and between us we could understand what he was trying to do but couldn't make heads nor tails of the plan. It is not about tax cuts. It is about tax credits and welfare checks. Call it what yo will but that is what it comes down to. I don't believe his nonsense about increasing the tax rates on the richest 5% only 2%. I suck at math but I can use a calculator. Frankly, how do you DARE contest this when you do not even know if interest rates on a loan are 6% or 38% or 60%?!?! Life is a theory to you, you have no experience. You just know that Obama is promising to pay you to vote for him. That is as far as you have explored this. Vote for me and I will send you a govt check. How can you presume to discuss the economy if you are so clueless you don't know the rates on a mortgage, a credit card, a HELOC or what prime is, what the tax rates are, what a CD pays, what a TBill pays? Life is real, not theory in a college textbook. How am i supposed to take you seriously? Lastly, Please explain to me why you trust the economists who responded anonymously to some survey but do not trust the 570 economists who signed off on the McCain plan publicly? Can you say Partisanship? You believe anyone who says what you want to hear. That is clear.
519 days ago | Tagged As: Inkwell is insane
Ok, so apparently some employees of ACORN committed voter fraud. However: "ACORN has said the "vast majority" of its workers are conscientious, but some might have turned in duplicate applications or provided fake information to pad their pay. Workers caught submitting false information have been fired, ACORN officials say. ACORN says laws in a number of states require it to submit all registration cards it collects even dubious ones, so its workers segregate applications with missing, suspicious or false information and flag them so state election officials can quickly check them further." source What of Saul Alinsky's tactics do you think are illegal? I'd actually never heard of the guy. I found this: http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm. Here Alinsky explicity advocates working within the system. These people are fighting to take power from the rich for themselves, I don't question that. But do the rich not do the same thing? It's human nature to compete for resources. ACORN crossed the line with the voter registration fraud and they got busted. The system works, justice is served. Moving on. "Republicans and Dems want the same things." They do, do they? I don't believe this is true. I think the Republican party consists of a coalition of fundamentalist Christians, warmongers, a minority of smart, selfish rich guys, and anybody else they can rope in. I think their primary goals are: 1) Christian Government, 2) As strong a military as possible, and 3) For the rich to get richer. These are the goals we have seen pursued by the Republican party these last eight years. "I have heard this crap for decades from every democrat candidate." You mean Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? Well I don't know about Carter, but Bill Clinton certainly helped the poor, as well as the economy overall: http://www.ndol.org/upload_graphics/BP29_economy_chart1.jpg http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg http://jimbuie.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/05/natl_debt_chart_2006_2.gif "In the circles I travel in no one goes around bombing government buildings." That's because your circles are on top. The fringe radicals in the Republican party are the ones preaching the more insidious yet equally destructive practices of laissez-faire capitalism. "I managed to make a living without surrounding myself with criminals." So has Obama. I bet if we examined your life as closely as we have examined Obama's we could find one or two dubious connections and blow them out of proportion. "Less govt IS better government." And here we find the core of your philosophy. Is this really true? I don't think it is. The market is not some magical entity that will solve all of our problems. It can work wonders, but it needs to be regulated. Also, there are some problems that the market just can't solve. I'm not saying government working alongside the market is a flawless solution, but it does seem to be the best we've come up with so far. I ask again, are you in favor of laissez-faire capitalism? Because that's the logical conclusion of this statement. If not, then where do you draw the line? When do you feel that government is necessary? "Why are you so willing to condemn oil lobbyists for ties to Republicans...?" When have I ever condemned oil lobbyists for ties to Republicans? "I bet you were among the folks screaming bloody murder about Bush "lying" to get us in the war." Is your memory failing you in your old age Ink? We had this debate already: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should_we_support_our_troops#arg18293 Now, as I have said, Obama may not be able to do everything he wants, but he will at least be able to do some. "it says that the top two percent of Americans will return all of the taxes they collected over the last eight years. WTF does that mean?" It's just obfuscated way of saying "their taxes are going up." Bush cut taxes for the rich, and Obama's framing his increases as them giving back a gift they received. "Frankly, how do you DARE contest this when you do not even know if interest rates on a loan are 6% or 38% or 60%?!?!" :) I'm picturing you stamping your slippered foot as you say this. Drama queen. Look back at my argument. I did not contest what you said. In fact I said it was your strongest point and was interested in hearing about it in more detail. "You just know that Obama is promising to pay you to vote for him. That is as far as you have explored this. Vote for me and I will send you a govt check." Wrong. I have no income so I don't pay taxes. I've been living cheaply off of my college fund since I dropped out a few years ago. "How can you presume to discuss the economy if you are so clueless bla bla bla..." I discuss it in order to learn more about it. "Lastly, Please explain to me why you trust the economists who responded anonymously to some survey but do not trust the 570 economists who signed off on the McCain plan publicly?" Do I have to explain to you the difference between a raw number and a percentage? Your number is meaningless. Here's some more evidence that economists support Obama: http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/09/66-of-economists-are-economists-for.html
In a related story, the mafia claims that just because of some bad eggs they should not be referred to as organized crime. When the same crimes by the same organization are committed in at least 15 states that we know of so far, when we find a systemic and illegal subversion of the election process by sending in ACORN workers to establish residency in states that are considered prime battleground states in order to cheat the early voting system, when they intentionally hire felons guilty of identification fraud to establish fake identities, this is not merely a few unsupervised employees. And this type of subversion is EXACTLY what Alinsky means by working within the system. The three core tenets of his book, Rules for Radicals, are that the system can only be changed by outsiders, they have to work within the system and the end justifies the means. Working within the system means like a parasite, feeding off of the host, eventually weakening it and killing it. Working within the system does not necessarily mean legally. Taking over and disrupting board meetings, city council meetings, government functions and subverting the election process is all EXACTLY what Alinsky espouses and what ACORN and other radical activists are taught. Within the system, not legal. The end justifies the means. You just believe in too many fairy tales. In your fantasy radicals bent on overthrow of the nation are heroes. You don't know the first thing about the Republican party. What other stereotypes do you believe in? Do you think I have a hook nose and horns because I am Jewish? That Obama likes fried chicken and watermelon because he is black(partly)? That he has a big schlong and secretly covets white women? Do you believe that everyone from New York is rude and everyone from California surfs? I am tired of people who know nothing trying to preach to me or convert me. You read one article on a man you have never heard of and come here telling me he is not advocating illegal actions because he says work within the system. I own his books and would be happy to lend them to you. I can give you examples of how his teachings are put into practice. Some putz who has never had a loan and has no clue whether interest rates are 1% or 100% is arguing theoretical economics with me. You have no idea who I am but are going to tell me who my circles are. If you want to come investigate me and my life to try and find the Reverend Wrights and terrorists and ACORNs in my past be my guest. I invite you to it. But those folks are already pointed out in Obama's life/career and the one doing the most distorting of those relationships is Obama himself. He has been contradicted by insiders in ACORN. And once again you trip yourself up by trying to interpret my words. I make a simple 5 word statement saying less government is better government. Your rebuttal? The free market needs to be regulated. First, I did not say NO government. I am on record as saying the market needs to be regulated to prevent abuses. But where in those 5 words did I mention the market? Government does not exist solely as a counterweight to the market. Laws saying murder is illegal have nothing to do with the market. I am clearly on record as saying the market needs regulation. I distinctly recall bringing up the robber barons of the late 1800s and their abuses leading to child labor laws, minimum wages, etc. which I characterized as needed and good regulation. I offered that as a counterpoint to the example of Frank, Dodd and Shumer causing the current disaster through well intentioned but BAD regulation. Further while Glass Seagull was once good regulation, it needed the changes of Gramm's bill decades later to keep up with changing reality. Just like i personally believe the 2nd amendment needs to be changed due to a changing reality. But I do not believe that California bill 1520 to prevent force feeding ducks and geese to make foie gras is necessary regulation of the free market. I do not believe that regulating the sale of video games to minors is necessary regulation of the free market. I do not believe that a law requiring economic impact reports before allowing WalMart to build a store (of course this is from your precious ACORN). How can we entrust legislating to people like the Nebraska state senator who tried to sue God? I don't think we need the law proposed in Anne Arundel County, Md pushing out solo cabs in favor of large cab companies as a consumer protection act so that consumers felt they had somewhere to complain to if unhappy. All of this is government run amuck. It is why less govt is better govt. But that doesn't mean NO govt. But we don't necessarily need new regulation to manage the country. We broke up AT&T;so why couldn't we do the same to the GSEs? It wasn't a failure of regulation. Hearings were held. The folks who profited from the GSEs through campaign contributions blocked action. So what good would more regulation be? Clinton? He reformed welfare to lessen it, never promised it to 95% of the country. He did a great job under Rubin's tutelage but I will go to my grave believing that he got the benefit of the Reagan changes. Venture Capital and tech investing were products of Reagan's tax changes. Our 90s economy was partly the result of Reagan taking the burden off of American companies to restore them to competitiveness with foreign . . . and yes, Clinton gets credit too. He was an excellent president who cared more about legislating and accomplishing good than ideological battles, but lets not forget that we were in a recession at this point of his administration too. He lost the first three years of his first term by pushing the liberal agendas of others (Hillary's health care and Gore's kilowatt tax) and gave away his last couple years over a blow job. If I mistook your position on lobbyists with someone else's I apologize. EXACTLY what I am afraid of is Obama doing much of what he wants. I do not think you are correct but then we can characterize correctly almost anything Obama says as an obfuscated way of saying what he really means. While I am sure that you think I should be complimented by your admission that you picture me in my bedclothes in your head, I find it creepy. My reference was to the whole discussion as in how can you presume to disagree with anyone regarding economics when you have no practical experience with it and are completely ignorant of the most basic practical applications of it. I was just lectured that income taxes aren't the only taxes. Do you live in Alaska, Montana, Delaware, New Hampshire or Oregon, the only states with no sales tax? And may we presume that you purchase no goods created by or sold by a company which pays our extravagant corporate taxes and then passes the cost on to you? And further presume that you are a leech living off a fund given you by others? Please explain your circumstances further for me so I do not think you are just a leech who takes and gives nothing back. Liar. If you wanted to learn you would ask questions and shut up and listen to the answers. I am often in a situation where I have the opportunity to listen to those who can enlighten me and I don't waste my time arguing with them. I may disagree with their conclusions but I am not foolish enough to argue with someone whose depth of knowledge on a subject makes the argument ridiculous. You just get your rocks off dissenting and wont let your lack of any experience or knowledge on a subject get in the way of your pleasure. My number is not meaningless because it is not anonymous votes. It is a list of names who can be tracked down and recognized and held to the fire for their opinion or asked the reason for their holding that opinion. A poll of anonymous votes is a waste of time. The people casting their vote hide behind anonymity, do not have to give their reasons and do not put their professional esteem on the line. We don't know if it was actually an economist at all who voted in this poll because we have no names to tie to the ballot. As you don't actually spit out what it is you are saying here, merely ask if I want you to educate me which is a joke in itself, I presume you are telling me that a percentage indicates a more meaningful number. But please explain to me how ANY percentage, even 100% of 142 anonymously returned surveys is more convincing than 530 public names supporting McCain's economic plan. ANY percentage of 142 is less than 530. A million anonymous voices is not as strong as a single voice in full daylight, placing one's professional esteem behind ones convictions and explaining the reasons for one's holding their opinion. I don't need you to explain the difference between a percentage and an absolute number to me, merely explain how in your opinion it supports your point in any way. You play debate games here, saying anything, pulling from any source to support your pre conceived notion. You chase debate points and I profess what I believe and know
519 days ago | Tagged As: Inkwell is insane
Well yes actually he can, because he is raising taxes on the super rich. Which means people making over 250,000 dollars a year. Therefore the tax money that he gets from these people will be more than enough to cover all of the middle class, and working class families, who will also be getting taxed, just not as much. So when it comes down to it who's more important? the 5 % of the super rich, or the 95% of everyone else.
the reason why many don't like this is because, yes, they like taxes being used on public things that everyone uses and really has no choice on, but they don't like the idea of their money going to other people for personal needs. if you favor a socialist economy, then of course it's great, but most people in America prefer to live as individuals. they're mainly capitalist. but i guess, it's the politicians who decide.
521 days ago | Tagged As: WSJ is People who worry about Capitalism
"most people in America prefer to live as individuals. they're mainly capitalist." Well there's a difference between controlled and uncontrolled capitalism. Most Americans are not for laissez-faire capitalism. Obama is not a socialist, he would be better described as a social democract. Capitalism is a machine. It can produce great things, but left unchecked the top 1% will ruthlessly exploit everyone else in the name of profit. Government provides the necessary safeguards. "it's the politicians who decide." Yes, and it's the people who elect the politicians.
521 days ago | Tagged As: Social Democracy
capitalism unchecked doesn't automatically mean that we need socialists doctrines such as universal health care and massive tax increases for corporations. yes, we do need safeguards, but safeguards are different from public sector taking over.
521 days ago | Tagged As: WSJ is People who worry about Capitalism
With respect to health care, the public sector is not "taking over", it's just playing a greater roll. It's a fact that health care costs have been increasing while average incomes have gone down. More and more people can't afford health insurance. Something has to be done. McCain's plan for solving this problem will cost almost as much as Obama's while having a much smaller impact: Here's a telling quote from the Wall Street Journal: "Republican presidential candidate John McCain's health-care plan would make only a small dent in the ranks of the uninsured, at best covering about five million more people, two new reports conclude. Democratic nominee Barack Obama would cover more people -- eventually adding about 34 million, according to one of those reports, by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Sen. Obama's plan would be costly, the center concluded: $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Sen. McCain's would cost nearly as much: $1.3 trillion over the same span. The center doesn't give either campaign credit for initiatives to reduce the cost of health care."
Supporting Evidence:
The article
(online.wsj.com)
520 days ago | Tagged As: McCain is wrong on health care
Here, here.... There, there....
Asking the Wall Street Journal about taxing the rich is like asking slave owners about emancipation.
522 days ago | Tagged As: Biased article
You mean like when slaveholders wrote the lie "All Men are created equal " when we know damn well that Thomas Jefferson meant all white, propertied males? Or letting Jefferson write the Commonwealth of Va slavery laws whose governance of return of slaves to their masters were so draconian that even a slavery state like Virginia wouldn't pass them? Sort of like that? Sounds kind of dramatic to me but ok.
521 days ago | Tagged As: WSJ is People who worry about Capitalism
I found this response by a guy named Alex Koppelman... --- It's no secret that the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is in the tank for Republicans, and often makes factually dubious claims and arguments in arguing for its position. But it's not often that it says something so silly that it actually makes me laugh out loud -- that happened today, though. The editorial, which is on Barack Obama's tax plans, begins this way: "One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today. It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?" John McCain has also made this claim. It is, frankly, ridiculous, a little like a child's attempt at a zinger -- they think they've got you, that this point is devastating and proves that Obama is a liar. Except it's, in this context, a meaningless statistic. It's totally irrelevant. Why? Two words: Payroll taxes. Notice the qualifier the WSJ used in that last sentence? Not "more than a third of all Americans already pay no taxes at all," but more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all." But Obama's plan just doesn't deal with income taxes, as the author or authors of that editorial know perfectly well. And with good reason -- as William G. Gale and Jeffrey Rohaly of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center pointed out in 2003, most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes: "In 2003, workers and employers each owe 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the first $87,000 of a worker’s earnings, and a 1.45 percent Medicare tax on all wages. Although the statutory obligation to pay payroll taxes is split between the worker and the employer, most economists believe that workers bear most or all of the economic burden. About 74 percent of filers owe more payroll taxes (including the employer portion) than individual income taxes, including 85 percent of those with income below $40,000. Among returns with wage earnings, 83 percent have higher payroll taxes than income taxes, including 97 percent of those with AGI below $40,000 and 90 percent of those with income below $100,000. If only half of employer payroll taxes are attributed to workers, 48 percent of filers and 53 percent of wage earners pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, including 76 percent of wage earners with income below $40,000." Sometimes I'm willing to give people credit and assume that they don't know about the falsity of claims like this. But really -- this editorial was written by people who work for the Wall Street Journal. Presumably they know about the details of tax policy. (If not, well, that's even more embarrassing.) So in this case I just wonder: Does the paper think its readers, who presumably also know a little something about tax policy, won't pick up on this? Naturally, this claim is being gleefully -- and uncritically -- repeated throughout the right blogosphere today.
Supporting Evidence:
source
(www.salon.com)
520 days ago | Tagged As: Biased article
What a load of horsehockey! Payroll taxes are not unspoken for. When I pay medicare, social security, state taxes and the other payroll taxes they do not just go into the general fund with no claims on them. Medicare tax goes to pay for medicare. Social security creates a debt from the general fund to the social security fund which is paid off by borrowing. These funds are not available for funding all of Obama's programs plus his welfare checks to 95% of Americans.. I have no idea who Koppelman is but he makes no sense. Is Obama going to cut social security taxes? The trust fund is already heading for insolvency. Medicare? Growing faster than Social Security. What am I missing here? Who cares which taxes he says he will cut? You cant spend more and cut taxes to 95% of Americans, it just doesnt add up.
This sounds like double speak to me.
He is giving the tax breaks to those who need it and to those who will spend the money. He has never said that he wouldn't raise taxes on the wealthy. The only double speak is the WSJ acting like he is being dishonest when really he has been very upfront about his plan.
521 days ago | Tagged As: Misleading Article
Well then, he should give it to me. I can spend money like crazy. I just bought a new PS3 and now I need money to buy blue ray movies and PS3 games!
His intentions give me such a thrill But his intentions wont pay my bills I want money that's what I want
Wanting and needing are two separate things. If it were possible, no one would have to pay taxes. And we could all have humongous houses and awesome cars that ran on garbage and spewed out gold. But in reality we need to balance peoples wants with societies needs. (Is that a song or did you come up with it on your own?)
It's a song. As far balacing peoples wants with societies needs, I think we're there. There's a nice balance between the haves and the half nuts. Wait..., that can't be right....
Combined Wealth of Top 1% of U.S. Citizens = Combined Wealth of Bottom 50% of U.S. Citizens Yeah, that's pretty balanced
We need a mathematician to tell us if this fits the bell curve (assuming the numbers are right of course). The bottom line though, if the top 1% earned fair and square, why take it away from them? If they want to give it to the bottom 50% then so be it. If they stole, then shoot them. Other than that, they should be allowed to do what they wish with their money. Handing people money and expecting nothing in return sends the wrong message. It says, do nothing and we'll pay you. It takes away the incentive to do something. This country offers a lot of opportunities. If poor people are not happy with their living conditions, then they they should try and take advantage of those opportunities and do something about their living conditions.
come to australia sell ya stuff & move over here 1 aud = 70 us cents =)
That's the best idea yet! What's your conservative / liberal ratio?
I think you'll find that in most of the world a "conservative" is about the same as an American "liberal" and the "liberals" are what Americans would call "socialists."
How did you get voted down? This is common knowledge.
Well thanks for letting me know. I almost packed my bags ;) Now what about those radical Muslims? Surely they must be ultra conservative!
Radical Muslims are conservative?? C'mon, Joe, everybody knows they're in league with the liberals. Barack Hussein Obama... think about it.
Well then, if they're liberals and the rest of the world is liberal and the US is turning liberal, where am I gonna go? What's gonna happen to us conservatives? We are becoming an endangered species and we should be protected! We are going the way of the dinosaurs. An evolutionary dead end. Next you'll be telling me that the Martians are liberal too. It's like I said in some other post.... I see liberals... they're everywhere... they don't know they're liberal...
liberal's in australia suck go for them and we are dead
|
