or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist - Page 3

post #81 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. It was.
2. It is.
3. That I don't agree with. Clearly some regulation is needed.

Government regulation and taxation of any kind is socialism. Keep in mind there is a difference between socialism and capital S "Socialism."

Consider for a moment what happened with railroad companies. They royally screwed over farmers, charging huge amounts of money to transport goods, and the railroad companies were even paid by the government to develop the railroads. Free market led to huge abuse and huge problems. Eventually, the government decided the railroads should be owned and regulated by everybody as a whole. Another example of how regulation and socialism have occurred for a long time throughout our history to correct the free market.

Are unions socialist? Yes. But I doubt you'd see any candidate going around calling unions socialist or opposing them.


Quote:
No, socialism does not work. It does not help capitalism work. Certain safeguards can be put in place on unrestrained capitalism, but that's not socialism.

Remember, there is a difference between socialism and capital S "Socialism." Capital S socialism describes positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy.

Quote:
Actually, you're totally wrong. It does work. Why? Because "the rich" pay the taxes. The rich create jobs. It's been proven three times in the last 40 years that when the upper brackets are cut, the entire economy is stimulated. Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. Bush did it, but to a lesser extent. Trickle-down works.

Then why the hell did the government give everybody $600 economic stimulus checks? To the wealthy, a $600 stimulus is entirely insignificant compare to their income and the taxes they pay. To the middle class, $600 is 6/10 the average tax cut under Obama's plan.

Quote:
No. It comes from them EARNING it, either through investment, business or employment. The only way in which you're correct is that the "rich" provide jobs for the lower and middle classes. They can't do that if they are taxed into oblivion.

Don't dilute yourself. Wealthy people don't EARN their extra money by working longer or harder. Wealthy people have the resources and skills required to get a larger distribution of wealth than others. Essentially, the are better competitors in the market. You can't make a good investment if you don't have capital to invest. Wealthy people are able to turn excess capital into more wealth by investing it. This is far harder for the middle class where there is little excess wealth.

Quote:
The middle class doesn't have money unless the wealthy do. That's the flaw in your reasoning.

Yes. And if the wealthy class has all of the money unless the middle class has some. And when the middle class has none, the exchange of money and goods slows down, the economy slows down, investments crash, and there are major problems.

Quote:
The ignorance and faulty assumptions are astounding. Where does the extra money per customer come from? What you're describing is demand-side economics, which won't work on its own and in spite of tax increases on the supply side.

Really? That's funny... your said yourself:

Quote:
Now we're talking about raising the top marginal rate from 36 to 50 percent, doubling capital gains, raising corporate taxes and giving out $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes.
post #82 of 208
Economics: The Gini Index (Uses calculus)

A small set of family incomes is given in thousands of dollars: 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 22, 39, 74, 115. If this population is split into fifths (quintiles) based on income levels, then a distribution of the income within this population can be found. Each quintile will have different aggregate incomes with the first quintile having an income of 16, the second quintile 19, the third quintile 26, the third quintile 61, and the fifth quintile 189. If each of these is divided by the total income of the population (311), then a percentage of the income can be found for each quintile. Using aggregate percentages of the quintiles, a distribution curve (also called a Lorenz Curve) can be created showing the income distributed among the bottom 20%, 30%, etc. The two end points should be (and are) (0,0) and (1,1) because 0% of the population gets 0% of the income and 100% of the population gets all of the income.

The Gini Index is an economics tool used to show the distribution of income within a population. The Gini Index is the area under the curve Y equals X minus the area under the Lorenz Curve divided by the area under the curve Y equals X, from 0 to 1. The area under the curve Y equals X from 0 to 1 is ½, so the ratio is equal to twice the integral of X minus the Lorenze Curve from 0 to 1. Therefore, an equal distribution will have a Gini index of zero, whereas a completely unequal distribution will have a Gini Index of one. In the small population, the Gini Index was found to equal about .487, meaning that distribution of income for the small population was nearly as unequal as it was equal.

Data of income distribution of the US and other countries is given. This data was analyzed and Gini Indices were produced from the data, by first taking the data and creating aggregate percentages, which allows the data to be placed in a graph like the one above. The Gini Indices for the US and three other countries (Columbia, Poland, and UK) were calculated by approximating the curve using a function xn and solving for n using the data and the function n=ln(y)/ln(x). This xn function gives a good approximation for the data points and allows the Gini Index to be calculated. The results and Gini Indices are in the following table:



The Gini Indices for the US can be plotted to see the general trend of income distribution within the US for the last 60 years. This shows that the Gini Index was highest in 1941, during the end of the Great Depression and the beginning of WWII for the US. This seems logical since most people were poor during the Great Depression and only a few were rich, but they were enormously rich in comparison, which means that the distribution is unequal, hence a higher Gini Index. The Gini Index seems to have dropped after WWII, meaning a more equal distribution. This also seems logical because more workers had jobs from the industry boom in the US. There were more jobs and money in the US from after the war, so workers were paid more. The rise in the Gini Index from 1950 to 1964 can be explained by the two wars that occurred: Korean War and the Vietnam War. These wars were expensive and took money out of the US via defense and weaponry spending, which doesn’t bring back the initial investment. This means that the remaining money is spread out more unequally. This rise drops off after the wars start to come to a close. The rise from 1975 to 1991 can be seen because of rising inflation and the Internet boom, along with the stock market crash of 1987. This crash was a contributing factor that ruined many Americans’ financial security, causing many to loose wealth to the upper echelon (banks and financial institutions), which had the capital to bail people out, but for a cost (high interest loans, etc.). This in turn meant that the remaining income and money would be unequally distributed among the rest of the population, hence a higher Gini Index.

Gini Indices can be used to determine the distribution of a country. However, if this particular study is to be more effective, more data from the US and other countries is needed. Having data from the US at intervals of about ten years does not describe the overall trend of the income distribution, since it varies from year to year. Also, it only generalizes the data rather than showing a detailed trend. The Gini Index, however, is still useful to find the distribution of income within a country. It, however, is not as effective at comparing the indices of other countries to each other, since the absolute Gini Index isn’t as valuable as the change in the Gini Index. For example, some countries measure income in different ways. The U.S. counts income before benefits whereas France counts it after benefits, making the US appear more unequal vis-Ã*-vis France than it is. Also, some forms of welfare may not always be accurately reflected in the data used to calculate Gini Indices.



--

So what can we glean from this? The Gini Index was very high during the great depression, therefore the wealth was distributed poorly. After World War II, the Gini Index dropped precipitously. The period after WWII was a time marked by prosperity. Over the past few decades has been climbing back up to Great Depression levels.
post #83 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Again, I'm a little confused as to why people who have been very, very wrong about a great many things think it appropriate to lecture other people on "obvious" points of truth. I mean that as a general observation, not anyone in particular.

Facts are facts, adda. Obviously you're directing at me, and that's fine. But facts don't lie.

Quote:
BTW, if Social Security is "socialism", doesn't that mean that every president since FDR has been a supporter of socialist policies?

To an extent, yes.

Quote:

If the bailout is socialism, doesn't that make Bush the greatest socialist president in our lifetimes?

No, because on the whole he doesn't support socialist policies. He does support more government spending than I'd like.

Quote:

I guess I'm not sure why I should be concerned about Obama's "socialism", since the way it's being defined makes it the normal state of affairs for at least the last 70 years or so.

No, it doesn't. We're talking about radical economic change here. We're talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire (which will affect the middle class), giving $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes, mandating healthcare coverage, raising corporate taxes, raising individual and small business taxes, raising capital gains taxes and much much more.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #84 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Facts are facts, adda. Obviously you're directing at me, and that's fine. But facts don't lie.

Perhaps not, but you have a less than confidence inspiring track record when it comes to which facts are significant.

Quote:
No, because on the whole he doesn't support socialist policies. He does support more government spending than I'd like.

Funny, I don't see nationalizing the banking system as a minor blemish on an otherwise exemplary free market record.

Quote:
No, it doesn't. We're talking about radical economic change here. We're talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire (which will affect the middle class), giving $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes, mandating healthcare coverage, raising corporate taxes, raising individual and small business taxes, raising capital gains taxes and much much more.

You know, I had typed out a kind of long rebuttal to all this, and then I thought: "I'm responding to someone who thinks letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire is an indicator of creeping socialism" and I remembered I have an ignore button.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #85 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You know, I had typed out a kind of long rebuttal to all this, and then I thought: "I'm responding to someone who thinks letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire is an indicator of creeping socialism" and I remembered I have an ignore button.

Who enacted the tax cuts with a built-in expiration, anyway? Oh, it was Bush?

BUSH IS A SOCIALIST - I know it's true, because SDW said so!
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #86 of 208
Hey SDW! I have this friend at work that I let read your opening statement in your thread about Obama being a socialist because he wants to redistribute the wealth from the wealthy. She asked me to tell you this
Quote:
" Ok we just supported a bailout to help out those rich bankers. So tell him he can pay my part! Ask him for me tonight ".

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #87 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Facts are facts, adda. Obviously you're directing at me, and that's fine. But facts don't lie.



To an extent, yes.



No, because on the whole he doesn't support socialist policies. He does support more government spending than I'd like.



No, it doesn't. We're talking about radical economic change here. We're talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire (which will affect the middle class), giving $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes, mandating healthcare coverage, raising corporate taxes, raising individual and small business taxes, raising capital gains taxes and much much more.

SDW so far over the years you've been wrong about pretty much everything. WMD, elections, recessions, unemployment, you name it! What makes you think you're right about this? And as I might point out once again so many are saying you're wrong.

It's that mad scientist thing again!
Quote:
They're wrong! They're all wrong! They'll see! They''ll see! Ha! Ha!

I'm sorry SDW but you'll be familure with this well worn phrase : " Nobody seems to be buying today SDW ".

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #88 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Congratulations, you are about to suffer a landslide defeat and apparently have no clue why.

FEAR!

I don't think you know what "socialism" means.

Obama ain't a socialist.

"Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist," said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "I think it's hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks."


FIRE!



Add some race-baiting to the red-baiting.

Here's what I MUST WONDER: Do the social conservatives not realize why they are about to suffer a landslide defeat?

In 2000 Bush won by 5 electoral votes
In 2004 Bush won by 35 electoral votes

In 2008, Barack Obama will very likely win by at least twice as many votes as Bush won by in two contests.

Right-wing nuts: "BLACKS AND COMMIES! BLACKS AND COMMIES!"
American Public: " "
Right-wing nuts: "BLACKS AND COMMIES! BLACKS AND COMMIES!"
American Public: *votes for Obama*
Right-wing nuts: "But. what about blacks and commies ? "

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #89 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. Classic straw man tactic. I don't support corporate welfare.
2. Can you give examples of these "handouts" that Bush has supposedly supported?
3. Care to address this?





Founding principles of individual liberty and responsibility, limited government, freedom of expression of religion, low taxes. Do you recall learning about the Boston Tea Party by chance? That was about a .5% tax being levied. Now we're talking about raising the top marginal rate from 36 to 50 percent, doubling capital gains, raising corporate taxes and giving out $1000 checks to people that don't pay taxes.



Yes, but it wasn't about handing out other people's money through redistribution of wealth. At least, it wasn't supposed to be. It was about giving blacks the same opportunities whites had.



But what Obama said is that we're still dealing with those blind spots today. I disagree. Oh, and I'm sure there would be a lot folks that would argue that Brown was decided based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.



Jesus H. Christ! No one is challenging his views on the Civl Rights movement. What they are challenging is the views he intimated on redistributing wealth by what amounts to force. You can't just ignore the underlying views in what he said.



Yeah, and so did Obama. Get real.



So socialism isn't that bad and we have it already so we might as well expand it. Wow.



Yeah, he really is. He's saying exactly what I claim he is. He's talking about redistributing wealth through the courts, something he laments is not possible with our Constitution.



The United States is not Denmark. Period.



Uh...what is wrong with that clip? He's talking about the progressive tax system, which he is saying is not as bad for the rich as it would seem.




Uh, no..socialism is not a progressive income tax. Also...a little help? Are you kidding? We've transferred over $5 trillion to the poor in the last 40 years, and where has it gotten them? No where. The kind of programs Obama supports expanding have only made things worse, because they, not the nation's economic philosophy are fundamentally flawed.



Who in the hell would that be?

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology



That is so ridiculous it doesn't merit any further response.

Well what did you expect? You aren't going to get serious answers to a laughable argument! What's ridiculous here is the idea Obama is a socialist.

Also what's really funny is you treat the term " Liberal " like they were saying " Rapist ".

You know if the founding fathers could see what your Neocons and George Bush have tried to do with the constitution they'd be throwing them in instead of the tea!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #90 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

The real irony of this is that McCain picks Palin as a VP, supposedly staunchly conservative, but governing a state that treats oil reserves largely as a public resource, redistributing much of the wealth that comes from the sale of oil to all of the citizens of the state.

Is there a difference between distributing public wealth among citizens and distributing private wealth among citizens?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

She also uses people and discards them without a whim, including her own daughter. Though she claims to be a Christian, I see very little of that faith showing through.

And Obama's a great Christian who sold out his maternal grandmother in front of the whole planet.

Personal attacks are cheap and easy and fun!
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #91 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

And Obama's a great Christian who sold out his maternal grandmother in front of the whole planet.

Er, in what way? You're not going back there again, are you?

Because that assertion is like saying that evangelical Christian girls are more likely to put out.

Oh wait.
post #92 of 208
Entertaining thread ... SDW has a pretty good understanding of economics. (Yes, I'm serious.)
I agree that Obama sucks as a choice for president.
Unfortunately, I think McCain also sucks as a choice for president.
No one who would actually do a good job in that office wants the position.

The US government (and therefore the populace in general?) has dug itself such a huge hole in the last few decades that there is no way out without experiencing some pain.
We need desperately to CUT FEDERAL SPENDING! (not just decrease the amount that the budget is going to increase... can you believe they call that a "spending cut"???) At the same time, we need to NOT CUT TAXES! ... but those revenues need to be used to pay down our national debt and build up our treasury so that one day... in the future... we might be able to re-instate some of our social programs with the ability to actually fund them.

While I don't agree with high tax rates, or progressive tax rates... I do think they should not be reduced right now... but ONLY assuming we could get the government to actually stop spending money like a sailor on shore-leave!


Sorry... after reading the entire thread, I just felt like putting my two cents worth in.
SDW gets bashed a lot in this thread... but his economic ideas are generally good... but McCain isn't any better than Obama if you're looking for responsible fiscal/economic policy!!
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #93 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Entertaining thread ... SDW has a pretty good understanding of economics. (Yes, I'm serious.)

SDW gets bashed a lot in this thread... but his economic ideas are generally good... but McCain isn't any better than Obama if you're looking for responsible fiscal/economic policy!!

Did you read my post on economics and the Gini Index?

While it's nice to say someone has a general grasp on economics, it doesn't really say much at all.

Look at the math. It tells you all you need to know.

People get afraid of "redistribution of wealth" and denounce it to be bad, but they don't realize that there's a big difference between absolutely even distribution of wealth (i.e. a 0 on the Gini Index), versus very poor distribution of wealth (i.e. one person owns all of the wealth and no one else owns anything, a 1 on the Gini Index). Capitalism REQUIRES a strong middle class, and in order to have a strong middle of class, the distribution of wealth has to be reasonable. As you can see in my earlier post, the depression was essentially caused by an uneven distribution of wealth.

To restate one more time, absolute distribution of wealth is bad. Some distribution of wealth is, as evident, necessary. Unless you want to live in a place with very few personal freedoms.
post #94 of 208
Quote:
The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent. The latter is what it would be under Obamas proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bushs tax cuts expire on schedule.

(source)
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #95 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Is there a difference between distributing public wealth among citizens and distributing private wealth among citizens?

There's such a thing as "public wealth"? How does that work? Are the oil companies that do business in Alaska publicly owned? Are natural resources to be considered beyond the reach of private property?

Does that mean that you support a scheme wherein levies collected from America's energy, mineral, lumber, agricultural and fishing industries will be converted into cash payments for every citizen?

This is all very good news to a socialist like myself, but it confuses me to hear it from you.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #96 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Entertaining thread ... SDW has a pretty good understanding of economics. (Yes, I'm serious.)

Really?
Quote:
Please read this carefully: Deregulation is not the problem. The free market is not the problem.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...0&postcount=34
If you read the entire thread, you'll notice SDW left, not to return even though I invited him to defend his argument with facts, not opinion.

At least e1618978 was fun to argue with and even agreed with most of my points in the end.

And Greenspan, a believer in the free market and deregulation admitted his mistake in trusting the free market to do the right thing.

But SDW, he'll never admit it, just leave the thread to post the same baloney later as though everything posted earlier never happened.
post #97 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

This is all very good news to a socialist like myself, but it confuses me to hear it from you.

He's conflicted, being in a socialist country like ours, socialist to Americans, and conservative, what to give up is a tough decision.
post #98 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

I agree that Obama sucks as a choice for president.
Unfortunately, I think McCain also sucks as a choice for president.

Therein lies the biggest problem of Election U.S.A. 2008.
The candidates are a small step up from the last one, but that isn't saying much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

There's such a thing as "public wealth"? How does that work? Are the oil companies that do business in Alaska publicly owned? Are natural resources to be considered beyond the reach of private property?

Does that mean that you support a scheme wherein levies collected from America's energy, mineral, lumber, agricultural and fishing industries will be converted into cash payments for every citizen?

This is all very good news to a socialist like myself, but it confuses me to hear it from you.

This is a good question (as snarky as it is posed.)

I think agriculture, lumber and fishing are separate issues, but a case can certainly be made that non-renewable resources like oil are found way beyond anyone's property lines and royalties should be paid to the benefit of all citizens.

That is a different discussion from how far the Government should go in playing Robin Hood, taking funds from the rich (wealth that has been earned privately) to "spread it around."
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #99 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Entertaining thread ... SDW has a pretty good understanding of economics. (Yes, I'm serious.)
I agree that Obama sucks as a choice for president.
Unfortunately, I think McCain also sucks as a choice for president.
No one who would actually do a good job in that office wants the position.

The US government (and therefore the populace in general?) has dug itself such a huge hole in the last few decades that there is no way out without experiencing some pain.
We need desperately to CUT FEDERAL SPENDING! (not just decrease the amount that the budget is going to increase... can you believe they call that a "spending cut"???) At the same time, we need to NOT CUT TAXES! ... but those revenues need to be used to pay down our national debt and build up our treasury so that one day... in the future... we might be able to re-instate some of our social programs with the ability to actually fund them.

While I don't agree with high tax rates, or progressive tax rates... I do think they should not be reduced right now... but ONLY assuming we could get the government to actually stop spending money like a sailor on shore-leave!


Sorry... after reading the entire thread, I just felt like putting my two cents worth in.
SDW gets bashed a lot in this thread... but his economic ideas are generally good... but McCain isn't any better than Obama if you're looking for responsible fiscal/economic policy!!

Well I'm sorry but if you've discussed the economy for any length of time with SDW and come to that conclusion you're wrong also.

Saying Obama sucks as a choice just shows where you stand. Obama doesn't suck.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #100 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

Entertaining thread ... SDW has a pretty good understanding of economics. (Yes, I'm serious.)
I agree that Obama sucks as a choice for president.
Unfortunately, I think McCain also sucks as a choice for president.
No one who would actually do a good job in that office wants the position.

The US government (and therefore the populace in general?) has dug itself such a huge hole in the last few decades that there is no way out without experiencing some pain.
We need desperately to CUT FEDERAL SPENDING! (not just decrease the amount that the budget is going to increase... can you believe they call that a "spending cut"???) At the same time, we need to NOT CUT TAXES! ... but those revenues need to be used to pay down our national debt and build up our treasury so that one day... in the future... we might be able to re-instate some of our social programs with the ability to actually fund them.

While I don't agree with high tax rates, or progressive tax rates... I do think they should not be reduced right now... but ONLY assuming we could get the government to actually stop spending money like a sailor on shore-leave!


Sorry... after reading the entire thread, I just felt like putting my two cents worth in.
SDW gets bashed a lot in this thread... but his economic ideas are generally good... but McCain isn't any better than Obama if you're looking for responsible fiscal/economic policy!!

Thanks, King. To be clear I don't really like McCain either. I couldn't agree more on federal spending...it is completely out of control. The entire tax and welfare systems need to be thrown out and redone. This isn't about one administration, it's about 50 years of insane social liberalism that has bankrupted the country.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #101 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Did you read my post on economics and the Gini Index?

While it's nice to say someone has a general grasp on economics, it doesn't really say much at all.

Look at the math. It tells you all you need to know.

People get afraid of "redistribution of wealth" and denounce it to be bad, but they don't realize that there's a big difference between absolutely even distribution of wealth (i.e. a 0 on the Gini Index), versus very poor distribution of wealth (i.e. one person owns all of the wealth and no one else owns anything, a 1 on the Gini Index). Capitalism REQUIRES a strong middle class, and in order to have a strong middle of class, the distribution of wealth has to be reasonable. As you can see in my earlier post, the depression was essentially caused by an uneven distribution of wealth.

To restate one more time, absolute distribution of wealth is bad. Some distribution of wealth is, as evident, necessary. Unless you want to live in a place with very few personal freedoms.

1. Obviously there are degrees of redistribution. IMHO we do far too much already.
2. The depression was not caused by inequitable distribution of wealth. It was caused by rampant speculation that brought on a crash. The government then made it far worse with the exact same kind of policies we're implementing today. Only WWII saved us.
3. The question is who does the distributing. The idea is not to have a small group control all the wealth, but also not to force redistribution through confiscatory taxation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Really?

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...0&postcount=34
If you read the entire thread, you'll notice SDW left, not to return even though I invited him to defend his argument with facts, not opinion.

At least e1618978 was fun to argue with and even agreed with most of my points in the end.

And Greenspan, a believer in the free market and deregulation admitted his mistake in trusting the free market to do the right thing.

But SDW, he'll never admit it, just leave the thread to post the same baloney later as though everything posted earlier never happened.

Alan Greenspan was wrong. Not wrong about trusting the free market, but about thinking that's the problem here. I stand by my position. If you disagree, I invite you to show which regulations were repealed that led to the current crisis.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #102 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I think agriculture, lumber and fishing are separate issues, but a case can certainly be made that non-renewable resources like oil are found way beyond anyone's property lines and royalties should be paid to the benefit of all citizens.

They are.

Leasing within the US territorial waters is done by the DOI (MMS) on the OCS out to at least 200 NM.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #103 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Alan Greenspan was wrong. Not wrong about trusting the free market, but about thinking that's the problem here. I stand by my position. If you disagree, I invite you to show which regulations were repealed that led to the current crisis.

I think we all can let AG's own words speak for themselves.

The problem wasn't too much regulation, or deregulation, but not enough regulation, oversight, or transparency.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #104 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

This CNN article wants you to feel bad for these families earning $500K because Obama's tax plan may mean they can't pay for gymnastics classes for their kids.

$250,000 per year, relative to the average income of an average world citizen, is almost obscene in comparison. The poor, put-upon $250,000 class is just gonna have to learn to suck it up and deal with driving a 3-year old Chevy Tahoe instead of the leather-appointed Escalade when shuttling little Trevor to and from soccer practice.

So just because my wife and I work very hard every day, many nights and most weekends we can't use some of that hard earned money for a nice soft leather butt rest and gold plate it if we want? We work hard, if we want to use it on luxury items, that's our choice. And most days I eat a $2 lunch I bring to work....so its not all filet and champagne.

You are saying we should take the fruits of our hard labor and pass it to someone who didn't bother to get up from the TV every evening and go to night school to better their life? I paid for my college degree, worked more than full time through school, and that was my choice. It was not easy.

Screw you man, if people don't want to better themselves, let them stew in the juice of their laziness. I'm not paying for their way in life.

Don't take this to mean I don't believe in helping those that need the help and seek the help. I'm all for loans and a step up for those that will work hard and pay it back. We actively help with charitable causes, some people just need help.

But for the lazy fat slobs that expect a free ride? I don't want any part of them and I especially don't want to fund their CSI marathon TV watching fat fest. Get a job. Get educated. Just read wikipedia, do something to improve yourself. Go.to.the.library.its.free.

Suck that up.
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
post #105 of 208
Thread Starter 
Guys, what this really comes down to is a difference in philosophy. Several differences, actually.

POV 1: Socialism is not a bad thing...we have it to an extent already. We should have more. We need higher taxes, especially on the wealthy.

POV 2: Since the middle class drives the economy, we should give them incentives through tax rebates (demand-side economics, but in a limited way). We should tax the rich more to pay for it.

POV 3: The way to stimulate the economy is to stimulate business and those that create jobs, as well as lower taxes for the middle class. This means tax cuts for the wealthy, corporations and the middle class. Those that pay little to no tax should not get a cut.


I clearly hold POV #3, because in my opinion it's been proven to work 3 times. Opponents would argue that it creates deficits, but I disagree. Deficits have been created through over-spending, not lack of revenue.

Obama at his core is a POV#1 guy. However, he knows that's not politically viable in this country, so he runs as a POV #2 guy. Either way, POV #2 is wrong even if implemented in its purest form. You can stimulate the middle class, but they have to have a job provided by someone else. You can't pay for this by biting the hand that feeds them...certainly not in this economy.

Now of course, Obama is not telling you that he wouldn't implement #2 anyway. Here's what will happen if he has his way:

1. Tax "cuts" for those under $200,000 a year. Except, over 30% of those people don't pay taxes now. He's talking about giving them $1000 checks. That is simply welfare. Period.

2. Tax increases on those making over $250,000 a year. This is a disaster for small businesses, especially those who are "S Corporations" and Sole Propietorships. These people provide jobs. They often report their business income on their personal tax returns.

3. Raise corporate taxes while giving them credits for creating new jobs. Business are not going to stay in the country to get the lousy tax credit per employee. Mark my words. They are worried about their tax rates and business climate.

4. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. This will have a HUGE impact on the middle class, offsetting any gains offered by the $1000 welfare check.

5. Raise Social Security/Payroll Taxes.

6. Raise various other nuisance taxes, estate tax, etc.


Now...my question is this: Is that a formula that will stimulate the economy? Of course not. You don't raise taxes to stimulate the economy. You just don't. What he's really doing is buying off the middle class with a tax cut. That sounds great, until you realize that it's going to kill business in the process.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

2. The depression was not caused by inequitable distribution of wealth. It was caused by rampant speculation that brought on a crash. The government then made it far worse with the exact same kind of policies we're implementing today. Only WWII saved us.

You're sorta right. No it wasn't caused by unequal wealth distribution (or free-market capitalism). Yes it was both caused (and made longer, deeper and worse) by government intervention (by both Hoover and FDR). Yes today has some eery similarities (I only hope that Obama isn't another FDR). And WWII isn't really what got us out of the Great Depression. That's another very common myth based on poor, incomplete and superficial analysis. Here's a good white paper on most of it: http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

3. The question is who does the distributing. The idea is not to have a small group control all the wealth, but also not to force redistribution through confiscatory taxation.

Agreed. Government distribution of wealth only politicizes it as it does with everything else government touches (e.g., health care, schools, banking, money, science, etc.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Alan Greenspan was wrong. Not wrong about trusting the free market, but about thinking that's the problem here. I stand by my position. If you disagree, I invite you to show which regulations were repealed that led to the current crisis.

He absolutely was wrong. I was embarrassed for him (since he didn't have the decency to be embarrassed for himself) to see this former leader of a government sponsored and protected banking/monetary monopoly/cartel which was responsible for creating two successive bubbles by printing trillions of dollars and loose credit trying to cover his ass and preserve his legacy and avoid accepting any real blame for his (personal) role in this whole fiasco. Fucking rich.
post #107 of 208
I would say that the most fundamental difference is about more government or less government.

Those who think government is the solution to problems vs. the cause of them.

This is the most fundamental disagreement/disconnect from my observation.

And the inability (or unwillingness) to examine the questions, presumptions, facts, data and evidence rather dispassionately and logically. That doesn't help.
post #108 of 208
I don't think a middle class tax cut is "socialist" merely because it is not an across the board tax cut.

Point # 1

Clinton raised taxes and during the time he was in office the budgets were balanced and he left a surplus for President Bush.

To me this is better than simply running deficits and passing the debt to future generations to somehow work out and pay off which is exactly what has happened during the last 8 years of mostly republican control.

So republicans say they are good for business and all that jazz but I don't think the proof is in the pudding if you compare the Bush years against the Clinton years.

The difference as I see it is that at least during the Clinton years Republicans in congress were (ACTUALLY) fiscally conservative.

This is something far lost since that period and to continue to give these "conservatives" support so they can continue to be complacent is madness.

I say we need what we had in 1992 here in 08 to wake up the republican party.

We need a democrat in the White House and a democratic majority in congress to WAKE THESE REPUBLICANS UP!!!!!

It got them in gear after two years of Clinton - Democratic majority in congress from 1992 - 1994

Why can't so many of you conservatives see that the republicans need to hit the re-set button and reposition as they did successfully in 1994?

ARE YOU FREAKING BLIND? STUBBORN? or willingly IGNORANT?

a John McCain as president situation would do nothing to light a fire under the republican leadership in congress.

NOTHING.

Do you really want more failed dismal republicans spending like drunken sailors?

Rx Prescription Drug bill, Iraq War, on and on?

MAKE THE IDIOTS REALIZE THEY NEED TO HIT THE RE-SET BUTTON and let them face the music of their failed actions.

Vote Barack Obama for President so the republicans can re-group as they SO BADLY NEED TO!

PERIOD.

It has been done in History. I refer you to 1994 after the situation they (the republicans) faced from 1992-1994.

I don't understand you conservatives sometimes....

Snap out of your talking points and look at the larger picture here.

Look how horribly you have been let down by so-called "conservatives" in recent history.

DON'T keep blindly supporting these failures expecting a different result to materialize.

Let them take a breather and re-group so that they may see why they need to actually:

((( EARN YOUR VOTE.))) By leading as conservatives. NOT Neocons who spend like drunken sailors.

You KNOW I am making a serious point here.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #109 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I clearly hold POV #3, because in my opinion it's been proven to work 3 times. Opponents would argue that it creates deficits, but I disagree. Deficits have been created through over-spending, not lack of revenue.

When does it end, SDW? We need to get serious about government spending AND tax revenue. There is no way to continuously cut taxes (which is what McCain is seaking to do) and still fund the government.

Quote:
Now of course, Obama is not telling you that he wouldn't implement #2 anyway. Here's what will happen if he has his way:

1. Tax "cuts" for those under $200,000 a year. Except, over 30% of those people don't pay taxes now. He's talking about giving them $1000 checks. That is simply welfare. Period.

And most of those 30% don't work so they wouldn't see a dime in tax credit (and it's $500/individual, btw, one more thing to mark down as a clear misunderstanding of Obama's plan)

Quote:
2. Tax increases on those making over $250,000 a year. This is a disaster for small businesses, especially those who are "S Corporations" and Sole Propietorships. These people provide jobs. They often report their business income on their personal tax returns.

The tax increase on income earners from 250-600K is $112. That's a lot of suffering there. 98% of small businesses earn less that 250K.


Quote:
3. Raise corporate taxes while giving them credits for creating new jobs. Business are not going to stay in the country to get the lousy tax credit per employee. Mark my words. They are worried about their tax rates and business climate.

Um, you have no idea what the rate is going to be, and opportunity costs do drive business decisions -- regardless, corporations in the US pay one of the lowest ACTUAL rates of tax in the world. They aren't leaving, they are moving jobs overseas...


Quote:
4. Let the Bush tax cuts expire. This will have a HUGE impact on the middle class, offsetting any gains offered by the $1000 welfare check.

Its not welfare for the vast majority of those working people receiving a $500 check... I pay four times that amount in federal income taxes earning just less than 30K. So this welfare schtick needs to end, because it isn't honest, and it is false. The Bush tax cuts did nothing for the middle class compared to Obama's plan -- there is no offset. Go calculate your tax rate under Obama's plan...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #110 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Except, over 30% of those people don't pay taxes now. He's talking about giving them $1000 checks. That is simply welfare. Period.

He is? Can you provide a quote for this, because I was under the impression that Bush was the only person who gave straight cash to the poor folks.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #111 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Alan Greenspan was wrong. Not wrong about trusting the free market, but about thinking that's the problem here. I stand by my position. If you disagree, I invite you to show which regulations were repealed that led to the current crisis.

I did, but you never returned to the thread and I'm not about to go through it again.

Then I invited you to defend your last post in that thread, and guess what, you went poof.

As for Greenspan, he is absolutely right, admitting a mistake in not recognizing the greed he unleashed, allowed, with help from those lobbying for less oversight.

But then you know better, you must feel it in your gut huh?
post #112 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I did, but you never returned to the thread and I'm not about to go through it again.

Then I invited you to defend your last post in that thread, and guess what, you went poof.

As for Greenspan, he is absolutely right, admitting a mistake in not recognizing the greed he unleashed, allowed, with help from those lobbying for less oversight.

But then you know better, you must feel it in your gut huh?

I thought Greenspan's statement

Quote:
I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms

was pretty astonishing.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #113 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

He is? Can you provide a quote for this, because I was under the impression that Bush was the only person who gave straight cash to the poor folks.

No. Bush hates the poor because he's an evil racist like the rest of the Republikkkans.

Here's Obama's ... see page 2.


Quote:
A $1,000 Making Work Pay Tax Credit. For 95 percent of workers and their families150 million workers overallthe Making Work Pay credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. This credit will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes.

It's a know fact that 30% of tax filers don't pay income tax and many get a refundable tax credits now. It's estimated to go to 40% for 2008. So in effect Obama is giving away $1000 to working families. Which may be a good idea but notice how Obama isn't selling this a transfer payment to poorer workers.
post #114 of 208
For all those idiots out there spouting off about 30% 40%...


Read

Quote:
Let's say we're considering 100 workers. We know from the Tax Policy Center that five of them will not get a tax break under Obama's plan, and conversely 95 of them will. We also know that 38 of those workers do not owe any taxes thanks to credits and deductions.

So let's take the 38 workers who owe nothing and send them away. For the sake of our thought experiment, we're going to assume that all 38 got a tax cut under Obama's plan in the form of even lower tax liability. We should state clearly that this may not be the case — a few people with low incomes, depending on their specific circumstances, might not receive additional tax cuts under Obama's plan. But just to give the extra benefit of the doubt, we'll stipulate here that all 38 receive a tax cut.

So that leaves us with 62 workers who do pay taxes. If five of them don't get a tax cut under Obama's plan, that means 57 of 62 workers will get a tax cut. That's 92 percent.

So the "95 percent illusion" that the Wall Street Journal opinion piece describes is three points.

Would it have been better for Obama to say that 92% of income tax paying 'mericans would get a tax cut under his plan... possibly... would it have actually mattered?

No.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #115 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I don't think a middle class tax cut is "socialist" merely because it is not an across the board tax cut.

Point # 1

Clinton raised taxes and during the time he was in office the budgets were balanced and he left a surplus for President Bush.

You're assuming the surplus was the result of tax increases. I disagree. It was a result of the economy recovering based on the natural business cycle (itself influenced at the time by us shifting to a more service-based economy). It was also caused by the GOP controlled Congress demanding a balanced budget.

Quote:

To me this is better than simply running deficits and passing the debt to future generations to somehow work out and pay off which is exactly what has happened during the last 8 years of mostly republican control.

I agree, but there were a lot of factors that contributed to the surpluses going away.

Quote:

So republicans say they are good for business and all that jazz but I don't think the proof is in the pudding if you compare the Bush years against the Clinton years.

The difference as I see it is that at least during the Clinton years Republicans in congress were (ACTUALLY) fiscally conservative.

Well...OK, I see that. The question is though, what policies did Clinton pursue that helped the economy? Really...could someone name just one? The fact of the matter is he got lucky. The Clinton Years are portrayed as this huge economic boom, which of course was not the case. It was only from 1996-1999 that the economy really took off. This was created not by government, but by the tech boom.

Quote:

This is something far lost since that period and to continue to give these "conservatives" support so they can continue to be complacent is madness.

I say we need what we had in 1992 here in 08 to wake up the republican party.

We need a democrat in the White House and a democratic majority in congress to WAKE THESE REPUBLICANS UP!!!!!

It got them in gear after two years of Clinton - Democratic majority in congress from 1992 - 1994

Why can't so many of you conservatives see that the republicans need to hit the re-set button and reposition as they did successfully in 1994?

ARE YOU FREAKING BLIND? STUBBORN? or willingly IGNORANT?

If that's your position, you find an argument here. We need a New Reagan figure and New Contract with America that is actually implemented.

Quote:

a John McCain as president situation would do nothing to light a fire under the republican leadership in congress.

NOTHING.

Do you really want more failed dismal republicans spending like drunken sailors?

Rx Prescription Drug bill, Iraq War, on and on?

MAKE THE IDIOTS REALIZE THEY NEED TO HIT THE RE-SET BUTTON and let them face the music of their failed actions.

I think they woke up pretty hard in 2006. And McCain has been fighting big spending for a long time.

Quote:

Vote Barack Obama for President so the republicans can re-group as they SO BADLY NEED TO!

PERIOD.

It has been done in History. I refer you to 1994 after the situation they (the republicans) faced from 1992-1994.

I don't understand you conservatives sometimes....

Snap out of your talking points and look at the larger picture here.

Look how horribly you have been let down by so-called "conservatives" in recent history.

DON'T keep blindly supporting these failures expecting a different result to materialize.

Let them take a breather and re-group so that they may see why they need to actually:

((( EARN YOUR VOTE.))) By leading as conservatives. NOT Neocons who spend like drunken sailors.

You KNOW I am making a serious point here.

Fellows


Again, if that's your position, fine. I just think that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils here. Elections are not about idealism, they are about choice. McCain is clearly and without a doubt the better of the two candidates on almost every issue, from the economy, to the war, to waste and corruption, to experience. I can't in good conscience vote for Obama (whom I consider to be infinitely less qualified, naive and at odds with my overall political views) just to punish the Republican Party.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #116 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

No. Bush hates the poor because he's an evil racist like the rest of the Republikkkans.

Well, you may think that, but it was Bush who (bizarrely) gave the Katrina refugees fucking DEBIT CARDS with money on them.

Quote:
A $1,000 Making Work Pay Tax Credit. For 95 percent of workers and their families150 million workers overallthe Making Work Pay credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. This credit will benefit over 15 million self employed workers and for 10 million low-income Americans, will completely eliminate their federal income taxes.

I'm not sure where that says that Obama will give $1000 to 30% of Americans.




It's a know fact that 30% of tax filers don't pay income tax and many get a refundable tax credits now. It's estimated to go to 40% for 2008. So in effect Obama is giving away $1000 to working families. Which may be a good idea but notice how Obama isn't selling this a transfer payment to poorer workers.[/QUOTE]
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #117 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I am worn out with civility

I feel your pain.
post #118 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

When does it end, SDW? We need to get serious about government spending AND tax revenue. There is no way to continuously cut taxes (which is what McCain is seaking to do) and still fund the government.

No one is advocating endless tax cutting. And, you're again treating this like a zero sum equation. Revenue is not going to go down in the long term if taxes are cut correctly. Obviously it can't be cut to zero or close to it....but significant tax cuts will stimulate the economy and provide more, not less revenue. BRussell goes INSANE when I say this and links out of his wazoo trying to prove otherwise, but it's happened three times and there is no changing that. Take a look at government revenues in the 1980s after Reagan's massive tax cuts. Revenue nearly doubled during his term, and was up something like 20% when adjusted for inflation over the term. It works.

Quote:



And most of those 30% don't work so they wouldn't see a dime in tax credit (and it's $500/individual, btw, one more thing to mark down as a clear misunderstanding of Obama's plan)

My understanding is it was $1000, but I certainly could be wrong. And let's not forget the work requirement was added recently because McCain was slamming him on it.

Quote:

The tax increase on income earners from 250-600K is $112. That's a lot of suffering there. 98% of small businesses earn less that 250K.

Pardon me, but that is an utter crock of shit, sir. The top bracket would move its way up from 36 to 50 percent. So, let's take a look at a couple earning $500,000 a year as small business owners. They have $100,000 in deductions, making their AGI $400,000. This puts their top tax bracket at 36%. So....


2008 Total Tax: $144,000

2008 Amount Taxed at Top Rate: About $250,000 according to tax tables, taxed at 36%.

Total Top Rate Tax: $90,000

Post-increase top bracket: 50%

New Top Rate Tax: $125,000

Increase, dollar amount: $35,000

Increase, percentage of total 2008 tax: 24.3 percent

Increase, percentage of 2008 top rate tax: 38.8 percent.


__________________

Keep in mind, that doesn't take into account fines for healthcare plans, social security increases, etc.

Quote:

Um, you have no idea what the rate is going to be, and opportunity costs do drive business decisions -- regardless, corporations in the US pay one of the lowest ACTUAL rates of tax in the world. They aren't leaving, they are moving jobs overseas...

Wait...I thought the Bush Administration was "exporting" jobs overseas? That seems to have been the position since he took office. And while I don't know what the tax rate will be, it WILL go up. That is a very bad thing right now.

Quote:

Its not welfare for the vast majority of those working people receiving a $500 check... I pay four times that amount in federal income taxes earning just less than 30K. So this welfare schtick needs to end, because it isn't honest, and it is false. The Bush tax cuts did nothing for the middle class compared to Obama's plan -- there is no offset. Go calculate your tax rate under Obama's plan...

1. When people that don't pay taxes get a check, that's welfare. Period.
2. Lie: The Bush Tax Cuts did nothing for the middle class compared to the Obama plan.

I am as middle class as one gets. I currently make about $64,000 a year. When the original tax cuts were passed, I was making about $45,000. The cuts saved me a good $2000 a year....not to mention the changes in depreciation allowances and other deductions.

Now, I will say this: Assuming he doesn't wreck the economy and that he actually implements what he says he will, I personally might do a little better under Obama than I'm doing now. But that's a HUGE "if." And, it ignores that small business and people that make over $200K are going to get HOSED. They don't deserve to get hosed, and shouldn't pay more just because they make more. They already pay 40% of their income to a government agency (just as I do). Should they pay more?

Personally, I'd rather see the economy stimulated on the supply side, which would help me more in the long term and be far more fair in terms of letting people keep the money they earned.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #119 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, you may think that, but it was Bush who (bizarrely) gave the Katrina refugees fucking DEBIT CARDS with money on them.



I'm not sure where that says that Obama will give $1000 to 30% of Americans.




Refundable tax credits can take your tax liability negative such that you get that difference. If you're one of the 30% and file jointly and you're paying no income tax then you'll get an extra $1000 refundable credit and you tax liability will go to -$1000 (or more) and you will get a check for $1000. That's the way it works.

Obama says that's what he want to do so .... he's going to be giving away money to 30% of tax filers.

Simple, right?
post #120 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

Government regulation and taxation of any kind is socialism. Keep in mind there is a difference between socialism and capital S "Socialism."

Consider for a moment what happened with railroad companies. They royally screwed over farmers, charging huge amounts of money to transport goods, and the railroad companies were even paid by the government to develop the railroads. Free market led to huge abuse and huge problems. Eventually, the government decided the railroads should be owned and regulated by everybody as a whole. Another example of how regulation and socialism have occurred for a long time throughout our history to correct the free market.

Yeah, and they are working GREAT now!

Quote:

Are unions socialist? Yes. But I doubt you'd see any candidate going around calling unions socialist or opposing them.

I'm in one, and I would do so.

Quote:

Remember, there is a difference between socialism and capital S "Socialism." Capital S socialism describes positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy.



Then why the hell did the government give everybody $600 economic stimulus checks? To the wealthy, a $600 stimulus is entirely insignificant compare to their income and the taxes they pay. To the middle class, $600 is 6/10 the average tax cut under Obama's plan.

Because the government is stupid. It's a stupid idea that I've never supported.

Quote:



Don't dilute yourself.

Delude.

Quote:
Wealthy people don't EARN their extra money by working longer or harder. Wealthy people have the resources and skills required to get a larger distribution of wealth than others. Essentially, the are better competitors in the market. You can't make a good investment if you don't have capital to invest. Wealthy people are able to turn excess capital into more wealth by investing it. This is far harder for the middle class where there is little excess wealth.

Right, right. Wealthy people don't EARN anything. They are just lucky. It's not that they worked their asses off building businesses, marketing their skills in lucrative professions (skills they likely acquired at top schools they paid for or taught themselves). I mean, it's not like certain lawyers work 80 hours a week so they can make $500,000 a year. No, not at all.

Quote:



Yes. And if the wealthy class has all of the money unless the middle class has some. And when the middle class has none, the exchange of money and goods slows down, the economy slows down, investments crash, and there are major problems.



Really? That's funny... your said yourself:

Yeah, and the same happens when you tax the shit out of the wealthy, especially in bad economic times.

I ask again: Why do we raise taxes at all? Can anyone tell me?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congratulations, You're Going to Elect a Socialist