Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Here's a question... how many of you think that Obama's "tax cut for 95% of Americans" with either...

A - be a free handout for the 40% of that 95% who currently pay nothing, and a modest cut for the remaining 45% (this is what some conservatives are trying to say right now)

or

B - be a modest tax cut for the 45% of the 95% who DO pay something, and that's it? That the "95%" jargon just means that 95% of americans make less than $250k as a family and fall under that criteria. And clearly, that Obama says it that way to make it sound better, because 95% is far better than 45%.

I actually think that it's B.. but if anybody can verifty through some written non-Republican source that it's A, I'm going to explode in a ball of rage.

first it is not true that 40% of tax filers pay nothing. it's closer to 20%.

and yes it is political speak, when obama says "95%" he is referencing the fact that 95% of the households make less than $250,000.

it is accurate to look at the obama tax plan and see that the middle class- those who make between $50k and $150k- will see their tax liability go down, and while their tax liability will also go down under the mccain plan, the decrease is greater under the obama plan because under the obama plan the taxes on the higher income households is going to increase.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I have a slightly different question?

How many think that unemployment goes up significantly when those that make more than 250K are taxed more, so they stop investing as much in business?

not a clear linkage.

the answer lies in if there are otherincentives to invest, and if there are the answer will be no.

for instance, let's say that there is a tax credit for investing in alternative energy. a household could get a tax credit of up to 20% for installing solar panels. there would be more investment in those businesses in the soalr panel industry as a response to the increased demand.

one of my favs is a tax credit for getting rid of old gas guzzlers. let's say a program where cars and trucks that are at least 10 years old get put to pasture and a tax credit is given to purchase a new american made vehicle that gets x mpg. the result is a) increase demand for american made vehicles helping employment, b) cleaner air by removing the older more polluting vehicle for the new less polluting vehicle, and c) better mpg resulting in less fuel consupmtion and corresponding less oil demand.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

The "wealth" that Jesus spread had no monetary value.

Well, scratch that, it was and still is priceless.

He also doesn't preclude you from it if you make more than 250K.

"...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

no, he doesn't preclude it.



I honestly just don't get where this original post generates all this rage. You people try to view EVERYTHING in such stark and black and white terms. There is a pretty big difference between

"spread the wealth"

and

"take all the money from everyone who works hard so that the lazy can sit on their asses and smoke crack and everyone will be exactly the same"


BOTH candidates are proposing at this time tax changes that REDUCE overall tax burden (so there are no new entitlements implied) it is just a mater of basically how the existing $x of revenue is gathered.

[rabbitproof]

Thanks, mcsluggo. I probably would've backed off though I know Jesus isn't particularly capitalistic. I reckon he's more "socialist" than Obama is..

Modern Rights probably would hate the holy shit outta the young man even though he's Jesus!

Plus, he's middle eastern. Long dark hair, dark eyes, big nose.. He'd definitely get searched by Homeland Security.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Here's a question... how many of you think that Obama's "tax cut for 95% of Americans" with either...

A - be a free handout for the 40% of that 95% who currently pay nothing, and a modest cut for the remaining 45% (this is what some conservatives are trying to say right now)

or

B - be a modest tax cut for the 45% of the 95% who DO pay something, and that's it? That the "95%" jargon just means that 95% of americans make less than $250k as a family and fall under that criteria. And clearly, that Obama says it that way to make it sound better, because 95% is far better than 45%.

I actually think that it's B.. but if anybody can verifty through some written non-Republican source that it's A, I'm going to explode in a ball of rage.

Rhylan, not sure if this answers it or not (or if this qualifies as "non-Republican" because I can't figure out who wrote this WSJ thing)...

Obama's 95% Illusion
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
WSJ Link

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.



There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

[rabbitproof]

Am I missing something? If you make 46k under the current tax law, you aren't taxed?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Thanks, mcsluggo. I probably would've backed off though I know Jesus isn't particularly capitalistic. I reckon he's more "socialist" than Obama is..

Modern Rights probably would hate the holy shit outta the young man even though he's Jesus!

Plus, he's middle eastern. Long dark hair, dark eyes, big nose.. He'd definitely get searched by Homeland Security.

The end result of Christ's message is that money is distributed to people who are less fortunate.

But the means by which money is given should be personal, free, and without ulterior motive. See Matt. 6:1-4. I don't see government mandated charity in any of the gospels.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Thanks, mcsluggo. I probably would've backed off though I know Jesus isn't particularly capitalistic. I reckon he's more "socialist" than Obama is..

Modern Rights probably would hate the holy crap outta the young man even though he's Jesus!

Plus, he's middle eastern. Long dark hair, dark eyes, big nose.. He'd definitely get searched by Homeland Security.

Streeeeetch.

I'm not aware of when Jesus said that (I can't believe we're talking about this) people should be made by their government to help people. I believe in charitable giving, and helping those less fortunate, and I do so through my church with my time and my money. Absolutely people should help other people out. Absolutely.

But the government shouldn't have anything to do with it.

[DirkFTW]

Uhh... jinx.

[rabbitproof]

EDIT: I had whole thing with verses but I'm going to leave it alone. I'm in no position to argue as there are different interpretations of the same thing.

From my point of view, I do think a fear of taxes is based in attachment to worldly possessions, as is a fear in anything (physical failure, time taxes), and that attachment will be man's downfall. And I find it hard to believe that Jesus or any holy prophet would complain about higher taxes though.

[Murphy3]

I think the biggest issue with many on this site is that they don't want the government taking from the 'rich' to give to those that have no bigger aspiration in life other than getting a free handout so that they don't have to do a damn thing.

[Flacolaco]

No one was arguing against taxes altogether. Of course we need to pay taxes.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

And I find it hard to believe that Jesus or any holy prophet would complain about higher taxes though.

he did have a problem with tax collectors using their power to line their own pockets. Considering how much of our taxes goes to line the pockets of government workers and the porkified friends of our elected officials, it shouldn't be to hard to believe that Jesus or any holy prophet would complain.

A bigger point we should keep in mind with this speculation is that we don't know what Jesus would do if he got to vote, and we do know that his ministry is not really a ministry of government, and that distorting Jesus for our own political purposes might land us in a burning hell for all eternity.

[rabbitproof]

Y'all must know some lazy people. Everybody I know wants to make a life for themselves.

Back to spreading the wealth, I wonder, if taxation and our government are best equipped to help people (certainly in scope and volume, questionably about efficiency), would it be something you guys would support?

I mean community organizing and service being so laughable and all for Palin and McCain..

[Murphy3]

I grew up in a small town.. There were 3-4 families in the town that were basically in a race to see how many kids they could have... trying to get to 13 as quick as they could. I think that once they reached that point, the state stopped giving them additional funding for each additional child. No one worked in any of the families... that was just their bit.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

A bigger point we should keep in mind with this speculation is that we don't know what Jesus would do if he got to vote, and we do know that his ministry is not really a ministry of government, and that distorting Jesus for our own political purposes might land us in a burning hell for all eternity.

While my opinions of an afterlife are still undetermined, I'm not sure I wanted to mix this convo up with Jesus so I apologize for that.

I guess it is more to mcsluggo's point how things are so black and white for people: that X is always good and Y is always bad and there doesn't seem to ever be possibility for Z.

[Flacolaco]

I wonder, if taxation and our government are best equipped to help people would it be something you guys would support?

Honestly, and I'm not trying to be an ass, I don't understand what you're asking.

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

cut to the bone. Good grief we are spoiled. You call yourself a (small) business owner, but to many people in this country, you are very rich. What it boils down to is this: I'm ok with raising taxes, as long as the tax is levied on someone else.

...just got back from mowing the lawn...

Yes I am rich compared to many people. I am not well off compared to others. I am also thankful every day for every bit of health and good luck I have had. I work six or seven days a week. (I get about one day off every two weeks-- today!). Like millions and millions of other people I work very hard.

If I was very rich I would still be voting for Senator Obama because Senator McCain's proposals are not different from what we have now. And we are in trouble because of those policies.


To answer your statement: it's not about taxing someone else; it's about shrinking the deficit while maintaining our core and necessary government programs. Yes cut the extra unnecessary stuff. But we have to have a military, social security, an infrastructure etc.

Just roll the tax code back to the way it was under previous administrations of both parties. The economy was healthy then.

Beyond that it's about dramatically changing our energy policy which automatically will change our ecomony and foreign policy.

Look, it's obvious to me that everyone in this discussion loves this country every bit as much as I do. We may have some differing opinions about one or another of the issues, but we all care enough to be particpating here. The issues are often complicated and the world is changing very fast. We'll all disagree and agree on various things.

In the greater country we've all got to quit being nonstop enemies. There's too much bitter name calling and too much division in our nation. It's the worst since the Vietnam War. I don't think people that disagree with me on an issue are bad. We just disagree for the moment. We likely will agree on the next topic. It hurts everyone when people start tossing aroung words like "socialist" or "fascist" when they don't apply, or use the words "liberal" or "conservative" as an insult. There are good sincere people everywhere, from every background: Republican, Democrat, or independent.

This forum is largely made up of well-meaning well-spoken voices. I wish the rhetoric in the greater nation would tone down a bit as well. No matter if our next president is Senator McCain or Senator Obama, he will face grave problems and will need our support.

[rabbitproof]

Thanks for going against your nature.

If higher taxation and more government were the best means to help people those without, due to its size and scope (can raise money faster and direct it towards any cause faster than any other entity), would you support higher taxes on those who could afford it?

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Thanks for going against your nature.

If higher taxation and more government were the best means to help people those without, due to its size and scope (can raise money faster and direct it towards any cause faster than any other entity), would you support higher taxes on those who could afford it?

I'm not sure if this was asked of me. I don't think I understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

I think high taxation is a very bad thing. But we're faced with a crippling budget deficit and a crippling trade deficit. Those are very bad things too and they have to be addressed. We either have to get more tax revenue or dramatically cut central government programs, or both. There's not enough pork to trim to touch the kinds of numbers we're talking about.

It's ugly but that's the reality. The next president is faced with some really tough choices. I do not envy the winner of this coming election.

Eight years ago we had a surplus...

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Thanks for going against your nature.

If higher taxation and more government were the best means to help people those without, due to its size and scope (can raise money faster and direct it towards any cause faster than any other entity), would you support higher taxes on those who could afford it?

I would be more inclined, but I'd still have to think about the morality of taking someone else's money for this sort of thing. But since it isn't, I won't.

And to you: if the mormon church were the best means to help those people, due to (whatever), then would you be in favor of the government forcing people to support the mormon church, under threat of imprisonment?

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

From my point of view, I do think a fear of taxes is based in attachment to worldly possessions, as is a fear in anything (physical failure, time taxes), and that attachment will be man's downfall. And I find it hard to believe that Jesus or any holy prophet would complain about higher taxes though.

Fear of taxes is rooted in the premise that private citizens are more efficient with their assets individually than the government is with all of those assets confiscated under a central authority. Most of us believe in the wisdom of crowds, and the concept that a quarter billion people each fulfilling their own needs, wants & discretions results in a more efficient distribution and consumption of assets than through central planning.

More taxes -> more central planning -> less efficiency -> less capital available -> lower standard of living.

More taxes -> less personal discretionary income -> less incentive to earn discretionary income and/or produce goods & services consumed with discretionary income -> slowed employer growth -> fewer jobs, wage stagnation

Or, you could take the simple route of more taxes -> less personal discretionary income -> less individual liberty.

Anything ending in "less individual liberty" should be enough for any sane American to at least think twice, but these days, I'm really beginning to wonder.

The end. There will be a test on Friday.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

...just got back from mowing the lawn...

Yes I am rich compared to many people. I am not well off compared to others.

It is very likely that you are very well off compared to someone, and that if you own a business, you have more money than most.

If I was very rich I would still be voting for Senator Obama because Senator McCain's proposals are not different from what we have now. And we are in trouble because of those policies.

because someone thinks you are rich, why don't you send in more money to the government than the IRS is currently demanding of you? That is, since you make more money than someone, why don't you send some more of your money to the government so they can process it and send a portion of what you give them to some people who need it more than you?

To answer your statement: it's not about taxing someone else; it's about shrinking the deficit while maintaining our core and necessary government programs.

Then 1) send in your extra money, and 2) think of what's going to happen to the size of the government under a democrat super-majority and the team up of Obama and Biden.

I do appreciate and agree with the kumbaya stuff.

[rabbitproof]

UL,
I guess it would depend on how much those people needed help. While I would lean towards no, I wouldn't say no absolutely. I can see how I differ with some people here as this will violently disagree with some people (giving to something you don't believe in). Forget Mormon, how about something of an Muslim persuasion? For me, the ends might justify the means.

--

Rhylan,

I understand how the concept of not having to live paycheck to paycheck is going to improve you as a person and as an economic engine. Free to pursue personal investments, financial investments, etc.

What I am trying to balance is that individual luxury that I (and most people here) have with the needs of those who are not able to help themselves such as homeless children, youth unable to pursue higher education or people who can't get the medical care their family deserve.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

UL,
I guess it would depend on how much those people needed help. I wouldn't say no absolutely. I can see how I differ with some people here as this will violently disagree with some people. Forget Mormon, how about something of an Muslim persuasion? For me, the ends (helping those less fortunate) would justify the means (going through some religious blackbox).
.

I think that when you think it through, you need to think about the mechanism to which you are granting the power. I think the mass of uncoordinated individuals is a lot less corruptable than a government (or some church or whatever). Today it's just a bit more of richer people's money, tomorrow its your bread.

you can always go out and give more money directly. And you can always go out and convince others to give more money directly. I think those are better ways than giving someone else the responsibility to force us to give as much money as that someone else wants us to give.

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

It is very likely that you are very well off compared to someone, and that if you own a business, you have more money than most.


because someone thinks you are rich, why don't you send in more money to the government than the IRS is currently demanding of you? That is, since you make more money than someone, why don't you send some more of your money to the government so they can process it and send a portion of what you give them to some people who need it more than you?

Then 1) send in your extra money, and 2) think of what's going to happen to the size of the government under a democrat super-majority and the team up of Obama and Biden.


I do appreciate and agree with the kumbaya stuff.

Well I live in a much colder place than most of you and I have to heat my house (which is an old mink barn). That's a tall order the way fuel costs are going.

I think you're missing my intended point on taxation. It's not about taking from one group to give to another, it's a question about what works best for the nation as far as the progressive income tax. Before under the previous percentages the ecomomy was healthy. After tax cuts for the super rich, the economy is limping badly. Let's go back to what worked before. The very rich were rich before; they're rich now; they'll stay rich afterwards.

It's the current administration that has grown government to unprecedented levels. I miss the old fiscally conservative Republicans whose top priority was a responsible budget. I voted for some of those guys.

Senator Obama's budget does grow the deficit, but not nearly as much as Senator McCain's.

If Dwight Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt was running they'd have my vote!

[Flacolaco]

it's a question about what works best for the nation as far as the progressive income tax Before under the previous percentages the ecomomy was healthy. After tax cuts for the super rich, the economy is limping badly. Let's go back to what worked before

I don't think income tax rates have that much to do with our current economic climate. In fact (someone much more knowledgeable than I will come and correct me if I'm wrong, I welcome it but...) historically, aren't lower tax rates associated with economic growth? You're alleging that less capital being available in the market (higher taxes) is better for the economy?

We're screwed right now because of idiotic government policies encouraging lending to risky buyers, greedy idiotic banks who thought it was a good idea to lend money to risky buyers, and idiotic risky buyers....who were idiotic.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think that when you think it through, you need to think about the mechanism to which you are granting the power. I think the mass of uncoordinated individuals is a lot less corruptable than a government (or some church or whatever). Today it's just a bit more of richer people's money, tomorrow its your bread.

you can always go out and give more money directly. And you can always go out and convince others to give more money directly. I think those are better ways than giving someone else the responsibility to force us to give as much money as that someone else wants us to give.

I hear most of what you're saying (corruptibility, efficiency) except I think I think we have the ability to change the mechanism, where you don't seem to (I may be wrong).

If government is ineffective, people will push it out. Regardless of our individual perceptions, that is what appears to be happening right now (the current mechanism is in the process of getting fired).

And yes, I can always go out and give money (and time) directly, and I do, and it is probably the most efficient spend of my personal resource but this is where I think the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts: too many contradicting, overlapping and unrelated energies being expended to really improve quality of life for the whole nation.

I'm still not sure if government can do it but we're discussing as if they can.

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I don't think income tax rates have that much to do with our current economic climate. In fact (someone much more knowledgeable than I will come and correct me if I'm wrong, I welcome it but...) historically, aren't lower tax rates associated with economic growth? You're alleging that less capital being available in the market (higher taxes) is better for the economy?

We're screwed right now because of idiotic government policies encouraging lending to risky buyers, greedy idiotic banks who thought it was a good idea to lend money to risky buyers, and idiotic risky buyers....who were idiotic.

It won't be less capital available. Overall it's the same amount of capital.

As far as the whole government/banks/risky buyers triad- you are right on the money... what little bit there is left.

[Flacolaco]

If government is ineffective, people will push it out.

Sounds like (ALL of us) need to get to work then, because it's crap after crap in Washington.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

Well I live in a much colder place than most of you and I have to heat my house (which is an old mink barn). That's a tall order the way fuel costs are going.

everyone has excuses when it comes to their own money (think of all the houses the super rich people have to heat!)

I think you're missing my intended point on taxation. It's not about taking from one group to give to another, it's a question about what works best for the nation as far as the progressive income tax. Before under the previous percentages the ecomomy was healthy. After tax cuts for the super rich, the economy is limping badly. Let's go back to what worked before. The very rich were rich before; they're rich now; they'll stay rich afterwards.

My memory is fuzzy (and hopefully that knowledgable person comes along to correct me when they come along to correct flaco), but I think the economy started limping along before the tax cuts went in.

Senator Obama's budget does grow the deficit, but not nearly as much as Senator McCain's.

Promises, promises - I think McCain has promised to balance the budget in fewer years than Obama has promised. And if you really missed the old conservatives, then Obama and a democratic congress should really, really scare you. If you really missed the old conservatives, you'd be arguing for any of the more conservative candidates that were out there.

[rabbitproof]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Sounds like (ALL of us) need to get to work then, because it's crap after crap in Washington.

They'll get their chance and then we'll get ours.

(And I'm not talking Republicans and Democrats. Talking representatives and then voters.)

It's a quirky but reliable system our founding fathers devised.

[minkbarn]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

everyone has excuses when it comes to their own money (think of all the houses the super rich people have to heat!)


My memory is fuzzy (and hopefully that knowledgable person comes along to correct me when they come along to correct flaco), but I think the economy started limping along before the tax cuts went in.


Promises, promises - I think McCain has promised to balance the budget in fewer years than Obama has promised. And if you really missed the old conservatives, then Obama and a democratic congress should really, really scare you. If you really missed the old conservatives, you'd be arguing for any of the more conservative candidates that were out there.

But as far as budget balancing Senator Obama is more fiscally conservative than Senator McCain.

That is only one part of the equation. There are lots of huge issues that will make all of us pick one or the other guy.

The economy and energy policy are the ones most important to me.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

But as far as budget balancing Senator Obama is more fiscally conservative than Senator McCain. .

"says" he is!

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I hear most of what you're saying (corruptibility, efficiency) except I think I think we have the ability to change the mechanism, where you don't seem to (I may be wrong).

I think it gathers momentum that gets harder and harder to change. (this is where I absolutely agree with the nutcases like alexamenos) If you hate what the Bush administration was able to do, then you have to hate all the votes that went into creating their opportunity over the past century or so. Where as people could have been saying, "lets shrink federal power because someday some guy I don't like will do things with that power that I don't like," people instead said, "lets give the government more power cause it makes it easier for the guy I like to do things I do like"

[Usually Lurkin]

I gotta go, probably out for the day.

Thanks for talking, all you neo-cons and commies.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I think it gathers momentum that gets harder and harder to change. (this is where I absolutely agree with the nutcases like alexamenos) If you hate what the Bush administration was able to do, then you have to hate all the votes that went into creating their opportunity over the past century or so. Where as people could have been saying, "lets shrink federal power because someday some guy I don't like will do things with that power that I don't like," people instead said, "lets give the government more power cause it makes it easier for the guy I like to do things I do like"

Props.

This is the fallacy of the liberal argument (and the neo-con argument).. which basically is, "government isn't the problem, it's that WE weren't running it at the time."

Well, how many decades of politicians are we going to believe until we realize that federal government just works best when it's limited to the letter of the Constitution? And state & local governments work best when they are at least fundamentally patterned after some of the same principles.

To minkbarn - ever wonder why nobody mentions how much it costs to cool a house in the south during the summer? Because election season is before it gets colder... I betcha a lot of us spent just as much this past summer on A/C as you will on heat.

To rabbitproof - I'm a strong believer that we need to treat health care as a product and not a right, if we're going to fix it (because I'm a market eco guy), but I agree that there needs to be a discussion because the current hybrid public/private/big insurance system is busted. What I am generally attacking is the federal spending that goes toward a lot more than helping homeless youth (how many are there, really?) and providing Medicaid for the poorest of the poor.

I'll never forget the PSA that came out in favor of the Medicaid prescription drug benefit plan a few years ago. Grandma comes on and says, "I'm not poor, but I'm not rich either. I like to be able to give my grandkids a nice birthday present." What I'm hearing is that my tax dollars are subsidizing her entitlement to spoil her grandkids. AWFUL. My grandma maybe gave me $10 for my birthday as a kid. That was all she could afford, and I'm sure glad. I learned the value of a dollar, and now I'm far better off and I give her far more for Christmas. And her 5 kids and spouses, and 10 grandkids (and 6 or 7 spouses) could all collectively support her for far less than we're being fleeced by Social Security, and with far more than the meager SS check she draws. But the Gubment intervenes, and forces us to use them as a middleman.

And on education... I think it's a big fallacy of the entitlement establishment that everyone should go to college. The reason high school largely sucks is because everyone has to go. The reason college doesn't is because not everyone can, for a variety of reasons. It's a shame that sometimes those reasons are economical, but that's the breaks. I'm a first generation college grad and my parents missed out solely because of money. There are so many scholarships and grants and all kinds of things available now (or when I was a kid) than 35 years ago when my parents were. Not a whole lot of this outside of Pell Grants and Sallie Mae loans has been aided in any way by Federal spending, and I think that's just fine. We're doing better. No need to tax the crap out of everyone to try and make us perfect.

Even today, I bet well over half the people who start college piss it away partying or just not being able to do it. Another half of those who graduate probably have minimal ROI on their investment because they majored in History or something.

I'd rather we concentrate on kids maximizing ROI relative to bachelors', associates', trade schools, whatever, based on skills & market conditions, rather than wasting time fooling themselves into thinking a four year university is right for everyone. All we're doing is encouraging 18 and 19 year olds to take on crippling loan debt that they'll be paying until they're 50. Whether they graduate or not. And that makes Sallie Mae some money!!!

[fluid.forty.one]

Originally Posted by minkbarn

...just got back from mowing the lawn...

Yes I am rich compared to many people. I am not well off compared to others. I am also thankful every day for every bit of health and good luck I have had. I work six or seven days a week. (I get about one day off every two weeks-- today!). Like millions and millions of other people I work very hard.

If I was very rich I would still be voting for Senator Obama because Senator McCain's proposals are not different from what we have now. And we are in trouble because of those policies.

woah woah woah

you're suppose to be selfish a greedy.. what are you thinking?

[Flacolaco]

Even today, I bet well over half the people who start college piss it away partying or just not being able to do it. Another half of those who graduate probably have minimal ROI on their investment because they majored in History or something.

lol truer words were never spoken.

[rabbitproof]

the smart piss it away partying and come out on top.