Obama vs. McCain Debate III

[Reddy]

so many big words!!!

[lostfan]

If this is legit why has AHB not been banned? Thats all he posts and you know it. Just because their are more dems on here and more of the mods are dems doesnt mean that they should be allowed to get away with anything. Which Ive seen first hand how that works on this site. If you want to clean it up and keep it civil start with the people who go out of their way to annoy not the people reacting to it.

If you categorized the views of all the mods who post in here and lined them up they're actually pretty balanced. That isn't even a consideration though, the only thing that matters is what's posted, not who posted it. Regarding AHB, most of the stuff he posts is kept to the Dem thread and if he gets carried away and starts posting partisan stuff elsewhere, he stops if someone asks him to. I can't ever recall him getting into personal attacks/insults against another poster.

 

If you feel like the mods are being unfair, picking on you/another poster, or otherwise not following the rules we're supposed to be enforcing, then let us know. Believe it or not we do take action (if there's something to it).

[NorthSideSox72]

so many big words!!!

I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

 

[DrunkBomber]

A lot of this is being lost in translation. What's really being asked by Obama supporters underneath all the parading and gotcha-ism is, if we are to take the "Joe the Plumber" metaphor at face value meaning we're talking about blue-collar middle class workers, how many of them actually make $250k (including the actual guy that started the metaphor) and need to be worried about Obama raising taxes on them? Apparently that applies to very few people/businesses - I don't know stats though and haven't bothered to look because they're twisted so often. Assuming we are also taking Obama's tax plan at face value, that is. Joe the Plumber is supposed to be a metaphor for blue-collar small businesses and it's the validity or relevance of the metaphor that's being questioned.

He said he didnt make 250 but would probably if he bought the company he works for, but again that is irrelevant. Forget about Joe the plumber, why should businesses or individuals be punished for being successful? The reason why Joe the plumber became such a big deal IMO wasnt because of his question, Obama gets that a lot, its because of how bad he fumbled the answer. He said exactly what the GOP have wanted him to say since day 1. He basically blurted out how similar the plan is to socialism but stamped it with being patriotic. I dont understand how someone can say being patriotic means if you make more money than a predetermined amount by the government than it is your patriotic duty to pay more in taxes to fund 1 trillion dollars in new spending and let the government allocate where it should go.

 

Now, I believe Patriotism first being used in regards to the US was around the time of the Revolutionary War, you know, the war we fought because our governing body was taxing us too much...

[lostfan]

I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

Variously, simplification can equal profundity as well as complexity.

 

^^holy s***, I would bet those words have never been used in that order in the English language, ever...?

[DrunkBomber]

If you categorized the views of all the mods who post in here and lined them up they're actually pretty balanced. That isn't even a consideration though, the only thing that matters is what's posted, not who posted it. Regarding AHB, most of the stuff he posts is kept to the Dem thread and if he gets carried away and starts posting partisan stuff elsewhere, he stops if someone asks him to. I can't ever recall him getting into personal attacks/insults against another poster.

 

If you feel like the mods are being unfair, picking on you/another poster, or otherwise not following the rules we're supposed to be enforcing, then let us know. Believe it or not we do take action (if there's something to it).

Basically I was more commenting on what you said about posting just to provoke others.

[Reddy]

I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

watchoo say? you best not be callin' me a staggrin' profunnity. that wut i heared?

[lostfan]

He said he didnt make 250 but would probably if he bought the company he works for, but again that is irrelevant. Forget about Joe the plumber, why should businesses or individuals be punished for being successful? The reason why Joe the plumber became such a big deal IMO wasnt because of his question, Obama gets that a lot, its because of how bad he fumbled the answer. He said exactly what the GOP have wanted him to say since day 1. He basically blurted out how similar the plan is to socialism but stamped it with being patriotic. I dont understand how someone can say being patriotic means if you make more money than a predetermined amount by the government than it is your patriotic duty to pay more in taxes to fund 1 trillion dollars in new spending and let the government allocate where it should go.

 

Now, I believe Patriotism first being used in regards to the US was around the time of the Revolutionary War, you know, the war we fought because our governing body was taxing us too much...

Yes, he fumbled the answer pretty bad. It's not the first time he answered that question but of all his answers I'd guess the quality of that one easily ranks last. Because "punished for being successful" is really an oversimplification of what progressive taxation is supposed to do, the person pushing a tax increase on the rich is supposed to explain this but his reply was a fat slice of red meat for the righty blogosphere.

[Soxbadger]

He said he didnt make 250 but would probably if he bought the company he works for, but again that is irrelevant. Forget about Joe the plumber, why should businesses or individuals be punished for being successful? The reason why Joe the plumber became such a big deal IMO wasnt because of his question, Obama gets that a lot, its because of how bad he fumbled the answer. He said exactly what the GOP have wanted him to say since day 1. He basically blurted out how similar the plan is to socialism but stamped it with being patriotic. I dont understand how someone can say being patriotic means if you make more money than a predetermined amount by the government than it is your patriotic duty to pay more in taxes to fund 1 trillion dollars in new spending and let the government allocate where it should go.

 

Now, I believe Patriotism first being used in regards to the US was around the time of the Revolutionary War, you know, the war we fought because our governing body was taxing us too much...

 

How many times do I have to say that McCain does the exact same thing with his progressive tax.

 

Its not similar to Socialism, I already posted that Adam Smith (one of the founders of capitalism) advocated progressive tax.

 

The reason why Joe the Plumber is ridiculous is because under Republican or Democratic control the more money you make the higher you are taxed.

 

Thus if Joe made 250k under McCain hed be taxed higher just like if he made 250 under Obama.

 

The problem that most people have with Joe is that he was a plant who purposefully tried to ask a question that was to try and stump Obama. Why do you think he picked the 250k threshold then said or maybe 270, 280, because the 250k threshold is the exact line in Obama's plan where the tax goes up.

 

Now I dont know where McCain's top threshold is, he barely ever states the nuts and bolts of his plan.

 

But they both are for a "progressive tax", so its just a non-issue because Joe the Plumber gets taxed more when he makes more under both McCain and Obama, just like under Bush, just like under Clinton.

 

The only people who care are the ones who really think that taxation some how equals Socialism, which is just not true at all.

[DrunkBomber]

Yes, he fumbled the answer pretty bad. It's not the first time he answered that question but of all his answers I'd guess the quality of that one easily ranks last. Because "punished for being successful" is really an oversimplification of what progressive taxation is supposed to do, the person pushing a tax increase on the rich is supposed to explain this but his reply was a fat slice of red meat for the righty blogosphere.

Ok, were on the same page then.

[lostfan]

Basically I was more commenting on what you said about posting just to provoke others.

It may not seem like it to some, but AHB doesn't do that intentionally. He's been cooperative with what he's been asked to do/not do for the most part.

 

Posters occasionally make a sarcastic remark here and there but nobody says anything about that unless it escalates.

[southsider2k5]

(Edit)

 

SS2k5,

 

My post on socialism was to show why govt control of things does not always mean better, and that in most cases it actually creates situations that are worse.

 

I used the Recorder of Deeds example to show how a govt can create a monopoly on a service that people need and then use that monopoly to make money for other services that are inefficient. Thus the fear of more socialist society is that eventually the govt creates different types of monopolies and just uses them to finance the entire govt increasing the cost to the consumer and at the same time doing nothing to increase the service being given to the consumer.

 

I understand now. I wasn't following you. It almost sounded like you were arguing, but then agreeing in your explanation.

 

[Soxbadger]

Yeah the first sentence may have been a little convoluted.

 

I need an internet argument secretary.

[kapkomet]

How many times do I have to say that McCain does the exact same thing with his progressive tax.

 

Its not similar to Socialism, I already posted that Adam Smith (one of the founders of capitalism) advocated progressive tax.

 

The reason why Joe the Plumber is ridiculous is because under Republican or Democratic control the more money you make the higher you are taxed.

 

Thus if Joe made 250k under McCain hed be taxed higher just like if he made 250 under Obama.

 

The problem that most people have with Joe is that he was a plant who purposefully tried to ask a question that was to try and stump Obama. Why do you think he picked the 250k threshold then said or maybe 270, 280, because the 250k threshold is the exact line in Obama's plan where the tax goes up.

 

Now I dont know where McCain's top threshold is, he barely ever states the nuts and bolts of his plan.

 

But they both are for a "progressive tax", so its just a non-issue because Joe the Plumber gets taxed more when he makes more under both McCain and Obama, just like under Bush, just like under Clinton.

 

The only people who care are the ones who really think that taxation some how equals Socialism, which is just not true at all.

 

Ok maybe I'm not following now.

 

For me, progressive taxation isn't socialism. But a direct effort to redistribute wealth is. That is, I am going to tax the top people 5% more to give CREDITS to those who don't pay taxes anyway.

 

In addition, when you say you are going to create a profit windfall tax on oil companies just to penalize their profits, that's pretty "socialistic" to me.

 

I'm not saying they're "communists" - I'm saying they're "socialistic" in nature. Yes?

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Well it really depends on how you view socialism and capitalism, and the problem is that they often intertwine into definitions that really make no sense.

 

That is, I am going to tax the top people 5% more to give CREDITS to those who don't pay taxes anyway.

 

I discussed this with SS2k5, and because there is no actual statement on this from Obama its hard to tell whether or not some one can get a credit that exceeds their tax liability. My belief is that it will not and at most the credits will merely zero out taxes.

 

IE if I have tax liabilities of 3k and credits of 5k, even though the govt theoretically owes $2k they just consider it as no taxes owed and you get no money.

 

I really am not sure how it works, so these are assumptions on my part. I also think the way he phrases it like "making work pay" which means the only people getting credits are the people who are actually working and thus paying some income tax.

 

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

 

As you can see the examples only point out people making above 35k, so they all would be paying taxes. Whether or not people paying no taxes will receive these credits is something that no one has really expounded on. I dont believe it will be the case, but I have no certainty on the subject.

 

In addition, when you say you are going to create a profit windfall tax on oil companies just to penalize their profits, that's pretty "socialistic" to me.

 

Not really, Socialism would be more along the lines of because the oil companies are making so much money the US decides to take over the oil companies to therefore make the profits for themselves, and then spreads those profits to the American people. Because there is no "collective ownership" it does not really pass the test of socialism.

[southsider2k5]

Well it really depends on how you view socialism and capitalism, and the problem is that they often intertwine into definitions that really make no sense.

 

 

 

I discussed this with SS2k5, and because there is no actual statement on this from Obama its hard to tell whether or not some one can get a credit that exceeds their tax liability. My belief is that it will not and at most the credits will merely zero out taxes.

 

IE if I have tax liabilities of 3k and credits of 5k, even though the govt theoretically owes $2k they just consider it as no taxes owed and you get no money.

 

I really am not sure how it works, so these are assumptions on my part. I also think the way he phrases it like "making work pay" which means the only people getting credits are the people who are actually working and thus paying some income tax.

 

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

 

As you can see the examples only point out people making above 35k, so they all would be paying taxes. Whether or not people paying no taxes will receive these credits is something that no one has really expounded on. I dont believe it will be the case, but I have no certainty on the subject.

 

 

 

Not really, Socialism would be more along the lines of because the oil companies are making so much money the US decides to take over the oil companies to therefore make the profits for themselves, and then spreads those profits to the American people. Because there is no "collective ownership" it does not really pass the test of socialism.

 

There are already people who have a negative tax rate in this country because things like the earned income credit, which payout even if you have a zero tax liability. If people are already paying low, zero, or negative taxes and Obama said he is cutting taxes for 95% of Americans, all of whom are under the $250k mark, it means that there will be more people who are making money off of the income tax structure, at least that what Obama is promising.

[southsider2k5]

There are already people who have a negative tax rate in this country because things like the earned income credit, which payout even if you have a zero tax liability. If people are already paying low, zero, or negative taxes and Obama said he is cutting taxes for 95% of Americans, all of whom are under the $250k mark, it means that there will be more people who are making money off of the income tax structure, at least that what Obama is promising.

 

I had a hard time finding links, but here is a story that has the effective tax rates located in it from a couple of years back.

 

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_08_15_ch...267440494775082

[Soxbadger]

Unfortunately Im not really sure about any of that stuff. My tax knowledge is limited to what tax stuff I do and thats not for people or corps making $0

[mr_genius]

Well, technically, we are already a socialist country in many areas. Pooling resources for the common good can work. However, once the government starts taking obscene amounts of power away from the people (such as overbearing taxation, limiting free speech, committing mass voter fraud, and other authoritarian measures) things can go down hill very quickly.

 

Right now, one thing that doesn't add up for Obama is where he plans an getting all this extra money for his programs. Merely taxing rich people won't get it done. Some of you guys are right, Clinton did promise no new taxes but he ended up raising taxes. I am sure my taxes are going up with Obama, now he might do some nonsense where the hike is referred to as 'a initial rate adjustment' in which he promises to give me a rebate.. however that rebate would boil down to nothing after fees or some other tactic is used to keep that tax money in the Obama system.

 

Now I would actually support a tax increase (even on my income) if this money would be used to pay down the national debt.

[lostfan]

Well, technically, we are already a socialist country in many areas. Pooling resources for the common good can work. However, once the government starts taking obscene amounts of power away from the people (such as overbearing taxation, limiting free speech, committing mass voter fraud, and other authoritarian measures) things can go down hill very quickly.

 

Right now, one thing that doesn't add up for Obama is where he plans an getting all this extra money for his programs. Merely taxing rich people won't get it done. Some of you guys are right, Clinton did promise no new taxes but he ended up raising taxes. I am sure my taxes are going up with Obama, now he might do some nonsense where the hike is referred to as 'a initial rate adjustment' in which he promises to give me a rebate.. however that rebate would boil down to nothing after fees or some other tactic is used to keep that tax money in the Obama system.

 

Now I would actually support a tax increase (even on my income) if this money would be used to pay down the national debt.

Could you imagine if a politician was just up front and was like "I'm gonna raise taxes for a few years without adding any new programs to pay down this deficit some"? He'd probably get nowhere with that.

[mr_genius]

Could you imagine if a politician was just up front and was like "I'm gonna raise taxes for a few years without adding any new programs to pay down this deficit some"? He'd probably get nowhere with that.

 

yea they would probably lose for sure. but i would probably vote for them.

[lostfan]

yea they would probably lose for sure. but i would probably vote for them.

Me too assuming they weren't a wackjob on their other policies.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, technically, we are already a socialist country in many areas. Pooling resources for the common good can work. However, once the government starts taking obscene amounts of power away from the people (such as overbearing taxation, limiting free speech, committing mass voter fraud, and other authoritarian measures) things can go down hill very quickly.

 

Right now, one thing that doesn't add up for Obama is where he plans an getting all this extra money for his programs. Merely taxing rich people won't get it done. Some of you guys are right, Clinton did promise no new taxes but he ended up raising taxes. I am sure my taxes are going up with Obama, now he might do some nonsense where the hike is referred to as 'a initial rate adjustment' in which he promises to give me a rebate.. however that rebate would boil down to nothing after fees or some other tactic is used to keep that tax money in the Obama system.

 

Now I would actually support a tax increase (even on my income) if this money would be used to pay down the national debt.

As LF said, that would go nowhere. But I'd like to see it.

 

I am still a proponent of a balanced budget amendment. If you want to be able to throw money out there in dire need (like a really bad economy), you cut spending and/or raise taxes. You need immediate war action, you still have some of that funded automatically to the Pentagon anyway, and then you authorize a war action for the big chunks (war exemption to the amendment). You want to ensure flexibility, you build slush funds into the budget for emergency use. Not that hard, really.

 

but I realize I'm in the minority on that one.

 

[mr_genius]

As LF said, that would go nowhere. But I'd like to see it.

 

I am still a proponent of a balanced budget amendment. If you want to be able to throw money out there in dire need (like a really bad economy), you cut spending and/or raise taxes. You need immediate war action, you still have some of that funded automatically to the Pentagon anyway, and then you authorize a war action for the big chunks (war exemption to the amendment). You want to ensure flexibility, you build slush funds into the budget for emergency use. Not that hard, really.

 

but I realize I'm in the minority on that one.

 

I am all for balanced budgets, but the killer in any budget amendment is that there would need to be exemptions for true emergencies. The fault lies here, just about everything could be considered an emergency. I would expect the 'emergency' exemption to be completely abused.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am all for balanced budgets, but the killer in any budget amendment is that there would need to be exemptions for true emergencies. The fault lies here, just about everything could be considered an emergency. I would expect the 'emergency' exemption to be completely abused.

That is definitely the trick. But I don't think its as big a hurdle as others seem to. I think the only exemption should be for war - as in, Congress funds and declares a war action. Any other "emergency" would need to use saved funds (which a balanced budget over time can provide), cutting programs, and raising taxes. Short term debt could still be raised for immediate cash flow in advance of planned program cuts or raised taxes.