Obama vs. McCain Debate III

[Soxbadger]

/sigh

 

I swear I already posted that Progressive Tax is not Socialism.

 

Is anyone even going to read that post about how McCain uses the exact same Progressive Tax in his tax ideas?

 

So either both Obama and McCain are Socialists (which would be using the term wrong) or neither are (which would be using the term correctly.)

 

I have yet to see Obama nor McCain differentiate themselves on this issue. Both McCain and Obama will have the highest tax rate at the highest income ie PROGRESSIVE TAX. Neither McCain nor Obama are going to get up there and argue for a FLAT or FAIR Tax.

 

This is not pure Socialism, Socialism would be more along the lines of Universal Health Care and Bank bailouts, in which the Govt owns the means of production or owns the services. The problem is most American's dont even understand Communism, Socialism, or Capitalism.

 

And the reason why no one cares is because both McCain and Obama have socialist ideas.

 

The most Socialist of them all is the Govt changing the principal on loans (a McCain idea) as that would be directly having the govt own property and change the value of property with out the market having any say as to the value and directly interfering with capitalism. Another socialist idea is to prevent immigration (more Republican than Democrat) as workers are nothing more than the supply of a good, so when the govt interferes with supply it creates artificial demand (ie American workers are paid more than they would on the open market) this artificial demand creates artificial costs and therefore raises the wage of the worker.

 

Thus why does it matter if Obama is called a socialist when McCain is also a socialist?

 

Not to mention Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, advocated progressive tax because most economists understand that a flat tax may not even be possible.

 

Here is an excerpt from Wealth of Nations, Chapter II:

 

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-1-ss3.htm

 

But what would Adam Smith know about capitalism, he must have been a socialist too?

 

[southsider2k5]

/sigh

 

I swear I already posted that Progressive Tax is not Socialism.

 

Is anyone even going to read that post about how McCain uses the exact same Progressive Tax in his tax ideas?

 

So either both Obama and McCain are Socialists (which would be using the term wrong) or neither are (which would be using the term correctly.)

 

I have yet to see Obama nor McCain differentiate themselves on this issue. Both McCain and Obama will have the highest tax rate at the highest income ie PROGRESSIVE TAX. Neither McCain nor Obama are going to get up there and argue for a FLAT or FAIR Tax.

 

This is not pure Socialism, Socialism would be more along the lines of Universal Health Care and Bank bailouts, in which the Govt owns the means of production or owns the services. The problem is most American's dont even understand Communism, Socialism, or Capitalism.

 

And the reason why no one cares is because both McCain and Obama have socialist ideas.

 

The most Socialist of them all is the Govt changing the principal on loans (a McCain idea) as that would be directly having the govt own property and change the value of property with out the market having any say as to the value and directly interfering with capitalism. Another socialist idea is to prevent immigration (more Republican than Democrat) as workers are nothing more than the supply of a good, so when the govt interferes with supply it creates artificial demand (ie American workers are paid more than they would on the open market) this artificial demand creates artificial costs and therefore raises the wage of the worker.

 

Thus why does it matter if Obama is called a socialist when McCain is also a socialist?

 

Not to mention Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations, advocated progressive tax because most economists understand that a flat tax may not even be possible.

 

Here is an excerpt from Wealth of Nations, Chapter II:

 

 

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-1-ss3.htm

 

But what would Adam Smith know about capitalism, he must have been a socialist too?

 

Nice change of pace, but it isn't the tax itself that draws these charges. It is the fact that under his plan almost half of the country would pay taxes to the other half. THAT is what draws these charges. You can have both a progressive tax system AND one that includes the second quintile of taxpayers paying SOMETHING.

[Soxbadger]

The system of the progressive tax does not change that it remains a progressive tax.

 

And here is my question, how is Obama's plan any different than whats currently going on?

 

In 2006, the top 5% of U.S. taxpayers, those with gross annual incomes of at least $153,500, paid about 60% of all income tax collected. In contrast, the 50% of taxpayers with incomes under $32,000, paid less than 3% of the total taxes collected. Taxpayers in the top 1%, those with incomes of $388,800 or more, paid almost 40% of all taxes collected.

 

The 40% of all federal taxes paid by the wealthiest 1% of Americans represents the highest percentage of all taxes they have paid since 1986, according to a July 21, 2008 report (.pdf) issued by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC).

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxand...taxburden06.htm

 

So its actually much worse than the 50% paying for the other 50%. Its more like the top 5% pay for over 60% of America, and under Obama's plan that will most likely increase to something like the top 5% pay for the top 70%.

 

Once again, not really such a drastic change that you can label Obama as a Socialist while at the same time having a straight face and not calling Bush or McCain one.

 

But then again I dont call any of them Socialists for their tax policies, their ideas start to blend with Socialism on a variety of other issues, but taxes is one where every politician has pretty much the same beliefs. So its fine to call them all Socialists, it just makes no sense to only call Obama one.

 

[DBAHO]

Well at least Joe the Plumber is a celebrity now.

 

As for last night, I thought McCain did well unfortunately, especially on the economy, which ain't his strong suit. He was outpointed on Health Care though I thought.

 

He may have clawed back the gap a little though, so I don't think this thing is over by any means yet. At least not until the next Palin Gaffe.

[BigSqwert]

Well at least Joe the Plumber is a celebrity now.

 

Indeed

 

Joe the Plumber, the star of tonight's debate, may have a very interesting connection to John McCain. In fact, Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher) of Cincinnati, Ohio may be related to one Robert Wurzelbacher of Cincinnati, Ohio, who happens to be Charles Keating's son-in-law.

 

Robert Wurzelbacher was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal, and sentenced to 40 months in prison in 1993.

 

Wurzelbacher is also a huge Republican donor.

 

So, let's find out a bit about Joe Wurzelbacher.

 

[southsider2k5]

The system of the progressive tax does not change that it remains a progressive tax.

 

And here is my question, how is Obama's plan any different than whats currently going on?

 

 

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxand...taxburden06.htm

 

So its actually much worse than the 50% paying for the other 50%. Its more like the top 5% pay for over 60% of America, and under Obama's plan that will most likely increase to something like the top 5% pay for the top 70%.

 

Once again, not really such a drastic change that you can label Obama as a Socialist while at the same time having a straight face and not calling Bush or McCain one.

 

But then again I dont call any of them Socialists for their tax policies, their ideas start to blend with Socialism on a variety of other issues, but taxes is one where every politician has pretty much the same beliefs. So its fine to call them all Socialists, it just makes no sense to only call Obama one.

 

Again the change comes in the middle when half of the country is not paying taxes. At least on the Bush side of thing he has attempted to flatten out the rates at the top, so it is hard to accuse him of being for this kind of thing.

 

[Soxbadger]

Well I guess as the say in Missouri, show me.

 

Show me how Obama's plan is going to be fundamentally different. Im pretty sure you are talking about the whole idea of tax credits and how people who pay no taxes could theoretically get credits and therefore be paid by the govt.

 

The problem is that I have never actually seen the policy so I dont really know the truthiness of those statements. I myself believe that it is most likely an exaggeration and the policy will allow credits up until the tax payer reaches 0, thus you could have taxes reduced to 0 by the credits, but could not actually get paid by the govt. I looked at the Obama website to try and find the answers but all I could find was:

 

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

 

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

 

But once again Im not sure how this differs from any of the other tax credits or tax loopholes that currently are available to the public.

 

As I already posted, under the current tax code the bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes. Even if Obama's taxes were to make the bottom 50% pay 0 in taxes that would equal a 3% decrease in tax revenues.

 

Im not exactly seeing the fundamental difference here, its not like under McCains plan the bottom 50% pay 50% or even 25%, they will pay roughly 3%.

[BigSqwert]

Couple thoughts that ran through my mind during the debate. Why did McCain feel the need to rub it in Dallas Cowboy fans that Arizona beat them? If he's trying to win independent voters across the country we all know that the Cowboys have a large national fan base. The Cardinals have almost no following. Some schlub who barely follows politics and decided to watch part of the debate could have been annoyed by that. Sure it's petty but we all know some people vote for the dumbest reasons. I just didn't see any pluses for McCain to mention that.

 

Also, since when did wanting to have safe nuclear disposal equate to being an extreme environmentalist? That was a dumb thing to say.

[southsider2k5]

Well I guess as the say in Missouri, show me.

 

Show me how Obama's plan is going to be fundamentally different. Im pretty sure you are talking about the whole idea of tax credits and how people who pay no taxes could theoretically get credits and therefore be paid by the govt.

 

The problem is that I have never actually seen the policy so I dont really know the truthiness of those statements. I myself believe that it is most likely an exaggeration and the policy will allow credits up until the tax payer reaches 0, thus you could have taxes reduced to 0 by the credits, but could not actually get paid by the govt. I looked at the Obama website to try and find the answers but all I could find was:

 

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

 

 

 

But once again Im not sure how this differs from any of the other tax credits or tax loopholes that currently are available to the public.

 

As I already posted, under the current tax code the bottom 50% pay 3% of taxes. Even if Obama's taxes were to make the bottom 50% pay 0 in taxes that would equal a 3% decrease in tax revenues.

 

Im not exactly seeing the fundamental difference here, its not like under McCains plan the bottom 50% pay 50% or even 25%, they will pay roughly 3%.

 

Again you are stuck on the very bottom of taxpayers. I am looking at the 2nd and 3rd quintiles here. This is where the biggest changes are supposed to be. Including the bottom quintile in your number skews them because they already are paying a negative tax rate.

 

The reason you can find exact answers for Obama's tax policy is because they don't exist. We are going to battle with what he has said in speeches and the like. He has yet to outline exactly what the percentages will be and exactly where the cutoffs will fall.

 

I guess I am taking Obama at his word, so that is probably my first mistake. There is always the pretty obvious change that he pulls a Bill Clinton and goes back on his middle class taxcut promises.

[Dick Allen]

Rock Star Obama

Obama may be a rock star, but Sarah Palin is a bresh of freath air.

[Harry Chappas]

I thought McCain won and then I remembered his running mate and everything fadeed to black and the entire debate was rendered irrelevant in my mind.

[Soxbadger]

Well theres the difference between you and I, I dont believe anything that politicians say during an election year.

 

Right now is the only time in America when "middle class", "poor" etc matter, because right now Obama/McCain need their votes. As soon as they are elected they will go back to what all politicians do, care more about where the money comes from.

 

If you take Obama at his word he is simply going to do the following:

 

Raise taxes on those over $250k, lower taxes on the rest.

 

To that extent I believe him because thats really just a simple plan that does not take to much brains to come up with. If you increase the tax on people making over 250k 1% you can reduce the tax on people making 50k 5%. Thus with marginal tax increases on the rich, you can realize much higher tax decreases on the poor.

 

And its not being stuck on the bottom tax payers, my numbers state very clearly that the bottom 50% (that would be 50% not the very bottom unless now bottom is equivalent to 50%) pay 3% of taxes. If you want to focus on the top 50% of tax payers the numbers still are pretty stunning.

 

If you look at in from reverse I believe it said that the top 5% pay 60% of taxes.

 

That means that the high middle (50% to 95%) pay roughly 37% of taxes (subtract 100%- 60% (top 5%)-3% (bottom 50%).

 

So thus it goes back to my original math where I said that Obama's plan would likely increase the top 5% to paying 70% and lets reduce the bottom 50% to paying 0.

 

Thus the new equation is 100% - 70% (amount paid by top 5%)-0% (amount paid by bottom 50%) leaving 30% to be paid by the high middle.

 

This would leave the high 45% with a 7% tax decrease. So long as Obama's plan gets more than 63% from the top he can effectively make it so no one in the bottom 50% pays taxes and the rest stay equal.

 

Hence my belief that all Obama will do is raise the highest level taxes to a maximum of 70% of revenue and then drop the rest.

 

But thats putting a lot of my own theories into it, as you said no one really has "nuts and bolts" about the plan because no one wants to alienate any of their potential voters. Right now both sides want everyone for them, and no one can promise a tax cut for everyone even if we use McCains idea of freezing spending. We are running a deficit thus we need more money, not less, so its hard to cut taxes.

[lostfan]

Obama may be a rock star, but Sarah Palin is a bresh of freath air.

She is more a breath of the air I breathe when the guy sitting next to me rips one.

[lostfan]

Well at least Joe the Plumber is a celebrity now.

 

As for last night, I thought McCain did well unfortunately, especially on the economy, which ain't his strong suit. He was outpointed on Health Care though I thought.

 

He may have clawed back the gap a little though, so I don't think this thing is over by any means yet. At least not until the next Palin Gaffe.

Why's it unfortunate? Well, I guess if you're an Obama supporter. I don't really consider that unfortunate though. JMO.

[RockRaines]

McCain comes off to me like a sour old man who at times doesnt know where he is or what happened with his shoes. I just dont see him inspiring people the way I hope candidates do. Its been awhile since a Presidential Candidate has given the American people hope. And picking an absolute retard as his running mate was not a wise decision.

 

Either way im still loyal to my green party, better environment and legalized marijuana.

 

Quick edit: When is the last time a President had such awful yellow teeth?

Edited October 16, 2008 by RockRaines

[Steve9347]

Well, now that we know that Joe the Plumber is related to a member of the Keating 5, that sure changes things.

 

Let's call him nothing but a glorified actor.

[Reddy]

McCain comes off to me like a sour old man who at times doesnt know where he is or what happened with his shoes. I just dont see him inspiring people the way I hope candidates do. Its been awhile since a Presidential Candidate has given the American people hope. And picking an absolute retard as his running mate was not a wise decision.

 

Either way im still loyal to my green party, better environment and legalized marijuana.

 

Quick edit: When is the last time a President had such awful yellow teeth?

not just that, but is it a requirement for republican presidential candidates to snicker instead of laugh?

[rangercal]

I'd be more comfortable with Joe the Plumber in office than Sarah Palin. At least he's clearing pipes, not laying them down.

[lostfan]

I'd be more comfortable with Joe the Plumber in office than Sarah Palin. At least he's clearing pipes, not laying them down.

Somewhere in this post is an inappropriate joke.

[BigSqwert]

Yikes

 

In politics it is generally not considered a good sign when voters are laughing at you, not with you. And by the end of the third and last presidential debate, the undecided voters who had gathered in Denver for Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg’s focus group were “audibly snickering” at John McCain’s grimaces, eye-bulging, and repeated references to “Joe the Plumber.”

[Dick Allen]

So Joe the plumber isn't a licensed plumber. Doesn't make $250k a year and isn't even registered to vote. Why does that make me laugh out loud.

[Reddy]

So Joe the plumber isn't a licensed plumber. Doesn't make $250k a year and isn't even registered to vote. Why does that make me laugh out loud.

link?

 

and yeah... that's just perfect.

[Dick Allen]

link?

 

and yeah... that's just perfect.

Aparently he is a registered voter because he voted in the republican primary. There were reports he wasn't registered, but there is a misspelling of his name on his registration. But the other 2 things he appears to have confirmed.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Dick Allen

[StrangeSox]

Aparently he is a registered voter because he voted in the republican primary. There were reports he wasn't registered, but there is a misspelling of his name on his registration. But the other 2 things he appears to have confirmed.

 

FWIW, he never claimed to be making $250k now. His concerns were if he bought the business that he currently works for.

 

So that $250k limit Obama keeps talking about, is that $250k gross income for the business, or $250k net profit for the business? I have no idea how businesses are taxed.

[RockRaines]

So Joe the plumber isn't a licensed plumber. Doesn't make $250k a year and isn't even registered to vote. Why does that make me laugh out loud.

How come Eric the electrician doesnt get any national love?