Say it aint so, Joe (the Plumber)

prytoj

further more: the very lowest quintile on your graph pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL. They are also getting THE BULK OF THE REFLIEF.

If you can think clearly, this will mean that the lowest quintile will get A CHECK IN THE MAIL SIMPLY FOR EXISTING. WTF is that?

And let's look at your 250k...what If my business generates an adjusted income of 240K? Say I wanna grow my company, but a whole 5% growth means that now I will no have increased taxes. Which means, I would have to experience, say, a 20% growth to see any real benefit to busting my ass to expand (depending on time investment, monetary investment, risk, and the new taxes i am burdened with). Maybe now i don't want to expand, buy equipemtn, hire more people...

See where this is going? THIS IS BAD FOR US... THIS LIMITS GROWTH. this is just not a great argument, this 250K business. Cutting taxes OVERALL is the better plan, not giving poor people checks to buy china-made crap from wal-mart.

digster

prytoj wrote:

further more: the very lowest quintile on your graph pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX AT ALL. They are also getting THE BULK OF THE REFLIEF.

If you can think clearly, this will mean that the lowest quintile will get A CHECK IN THE MAIL SIMPLY FOR EXISTING. WTF is that?

And let's look at your 250k...what If my business generates an adjusted income of 240K? Say I wanna grow my company, but a whole 5% growth means that now I will no have increased taxes. Which means, I would have to experience, say, a 20% growth to see any real benefit to busting my ass to expand (depending on time investment, monetary investment, risk, and the new taxes i am burdened with). Maybe now i don't want to expand, buy equipemtn, hire more people...

See where this is going? THIS IS BAD FOR US... THIS LIMITS GROWTH. this is just not a great argument, this 250K business. Cutting taxes OVERALL is the better plan, not giving poor people checks to buy china-made crap from wal-mart.

Once again; YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE. You said there would be no middle-class tax relief, that Obama's plan did not include tax cuts. The plan says otherwise. Independent analysts say otherwise. There's no arguing with someone who changes the argument when the facts don't support it. If you think people in the lower quintiles didn't "earn" their relief, good for you, that's your opinion. But that's not what we were talking about.

EDIT: That being said, I guess we've reached an impasse on this argument.

prytoj

digster wrote:

Once again; YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE. You said there would be no middle-class tax relief, that Obama's plan did not include tax cuts. The plan says otherwise. Independent analysts say otherwise. There's no arguing with someone who changes the argument when the facts don't support it.

Obama said: if you make under 250k, you will not see one penny increased taxes. That's what the guy keeps saying, not me.

You are the one who keeps saying that the middle class benefits more from Obama's tax cut. You are the one siting this graph or that from the report.

I am presenting analysis of the entire report in rebuttal to what you're claiming. Which is precisely the point. SO YOU stop dancing. People can read the report and make up their own mind who is better served. I am making the conservative case, deal with it.

digster

prytoj wrote:

Obama said: if you make under 250k, you will not see one penny increased taxes. That's what the guy keeps saying, not me.

You are the one who keeps saying that the middle class benefits more from Obama's tax cut. You are the one siting this graph or that from the report.

I am presenting analysis of the entire report in rebuttal to what you're claiming. Which is precisely the point. SO YOU stop dancing. People can read the report and make up their own mind who is better served. I am making the conservative case, deal with it.

It's impossible to make an argument when the opposing side will not concede where they were wrong. I conceded that I was wrong to say that everyone under 250,000 dollars will get a tax cut. You've refused to concede that you were wrong in saying that people getting a tax cut under Obama's plan pay income tax, and that when you refuted my point about tax cuts under Obama's plan you were wrong. It's hard to find credibility in an argument and the person making it when he or she will not concede the points where they were mistaken when the facts show they were. "It isn't a tax cut for ANYONE." You said that, not me. That was YOUR argument. I've shown you otherwise, and there's no point in debating someone who tries to shift the argument, who will not defend the argument they've made but change it. I appreciate your viewpoints and your arguments, but that kind of response is not a debate, it's a dodge.

Open

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So what he asked Obama about his policies. That is all he did. He did not call Obama a terrorist or spit on him or anything else. He asked him about his tax plan.

He lied dude, the business he wanted to buy, isnt even worth 250K....Under Obama's plan he's getting a tax cut.

prytoj

chiefojibwa wrote:

so, are you leaving the country on nov 5th?

hahaha, no of course not. I feel the McCain case is a little underepresented here at 10c. It's not that I don't like Obama overall. Who doesn't like to hear the guy speak? Who doesn't want to cross a HUGE bridge in the racial divide by voting in a black president? What a great day that will be. Very inspiring stuff.

He's a good man, a family man, a har working man. I respect that

He's just not the better man, in my view.

McCain/Palin '08.

prytoj

digster wrote:

It's impossible to make an argument when the opposing side will not concede where they were wrong. I conceded that I was wrong to say that everyone under 250,000 dollars will get a tax cut. You've refused to concede that you were wrong in saying that people getting a tax cut under Obama's plan pay income tax, and that when you refuted my point about tax cuts under Obama's plan you were wrong. It's hard to find credibility in an argument and the person making it when he or she will not concede the points where they were mistaken when the facts show they were. "It isn't a tax cut for ANYONE." You said that, not me. That was YOUR argument. I've shown you otherwise, and there's no point in debating someone who tries to shift the argument, who will not defend the argument they've made but change it. I appreciate your viewpoints and your arguments, but that kind of response is not a debate, it's a dodge.

Here, It's been a nice debate, you're very intelligent, your data supports your argument very well. As it should coming from one who debates well.

There is considerable room for interpretation in the report you cite, in my view, including an examination of the report itself in the light of basic econimic principles.

That's my point, I guess.

Just quickly, I would point out that the graphs do not include Obama's 2%(.4 tril.) payroll surcharge tax on emplyees of companies netting over 250k (unless i misread that), while they do include the 1 tril cost of McCains simplified tax system.

At the end of the day, the report shows me McCain's plan has a net positive effect on everyone, including the bottom line: 1.3 tril more un-debased, un-inflated currency in the money supply.

digster

prytoj wrote:

Here, It's been a nice debate, you're very intelligent, your data supports your argument very well. As it should coming from one who debates well.

There is considerable room for interpretation in the report you cite, in my view, including an examination of the report itself in the light of basic econimic principles.

That's my point, I guess.

Just quickly, I would point out that the graphs do not include Obama's 2%(.4 tril.) payroll surcharge tax on emplyees of companies netting over 250k (unless i misread that), while they do include the 1 tril cost of McCains simplified tax system.

At the end of the day, the report shows me McCain's plan has a net positive effect on everyone, including the bottom line: 1.3 tril more un-debased, un-inflated currency in the money supply.

I'm not looking for a pat on the back; I find it frustrating when people try to change the arguments they're making. I see Obama's people and McCain's people do it all the time, and it is frustrating then as well.

Now, two points, although I'm no economist and things get sticky here. First of all, you've expressed outrage that people will be getting a "check in the mail" who do not pay taxes, those free-loaders! The problem with this argument is that it's not a "check in the mail" for everyone in the lowest quintile. Figure 2 measures the increase in income which will happen as a result of Obama's tax plan, not the amount of money received from the federal government. All of his "tax credits" and "tax cuts" are based upon the notion that you pay taxes; how you can you get a tax cut if you don't pay taxes at all? The results show that the lowest quintile will still benefit, and if anyone of them do pay federal income taxes (i.e. self-employed, etc) they will see the appropriate tax cut. But this notion that everyone in America is getting a check in the mail is unfounded. Show me the check in the mail in Obama's plan! It's not there; the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, college credit, you need to OWE taxes for these credits to be applicable. That's what makes a tax credit a tax credit in the first place. The only exception I see is if you are an undergraduate student in the 4,000 college affordability tax credit, in which you receive the credit as the dependent of another individual (who, surprise, must be a taxpayer). And tax cuts don't mean extra money; they mean you don't have to pay the money that was originally necessary by law. Again, where is this "check in the mail" you keep talking about? I made 800 dollars as a student last year and did not pay taxes; would I be getting that 'check in the mail?' Of course not. The Tax Policy Center shows, however, that I would benefit under Obama's plan, simply because in their view it is a better plan. A credit is the closest thing to the check in the mail, but those receiving the credit will be taxpayers. So how do non-taxpayers benefit directly?

Secondly, from Obama's website; "families making more than 250,000 dollars will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s." Now, let's take this policy at its' word for the sake of argument. You've called Obama's tax policies "socialist." Was Clinton, therefore, similarly socialist? Their tax policies are not significantly divergent, and seem to err on Obama's positions being less "tax-friendly." How does this work with your "Obama's a socialist! An Obama presidency is unacceptable!" According to these figures, we went through worse than that ten years ago.

prytoj

you're running me in circles a little bit here, back to the 90's stuff included.
We could go on for four more hours about all that.

I'll let my last comments rest on the issue of the report, and get back to hig-fiving joe the "plumber."

digster

prytoj wrote:

you're running me in circles a little bit here, back to the 90's stuff included.
We could go on for four more hours about all that.

I'll let my last comments rest on the issue of the report, and get back to hig-fiving joe the "plumber."

I was mainly trying to figure out why you thought those people who pay no taxes would be able to receive those checks in the mail, considering the tax credits and reductions that are a part of an Obama plan go to taxpayers (i.e. "cut" those people's taxes and give them "credit" on taxes they owe).

fugawzi

prytoj wrote:

joe the plumber exposed Obama for the left-wing elitist that he is. listen very carefully to Obama's response. Carefully disguised socialism...

LOL. Yea except he's not a plumber, his name isn't Joe, and he's not intent on buying said business. The only one "exposed" was him. Ok but we know that. I do anyway. Are you aware that we are already in early stages of socialism? We've essentially nationalized the banking industry with the buyouts of Washington Mutual, Wachovia and others. Don't forget the bailout that's costing every taxpayer thousands of dollars. These are forms of socialism. The difference between us and other socialist countries is we've socialized debt, they socialize good things like healthcare, education, etc.

Socialism carries a negative connotation because many people incorrectly associate it with communism. That's actually wrong. There are many non-communist countries in Europe who institute forms of socialism. Canada is the same way. Heaven forbid we have positive socialism in this country. We wouldn't want people having free health care and free education would we? That would just be awful.

fugawzi

prytoj wrote:

An Obama presidency is unacceptable.

Unfortunately for the people who believe this, an Obama presidency is imminent.

prytoj

fugawzi wrote:

There are many non-communist countries in Europe who institute forms of socialism. Canada is the same way. Heaven forbid we have positive socialism in this country. We wouldn't want people having free health care and free education would we? That would just be awful.

Thanks for poitning out your socialist point of view. Why dont you move to Canada or Europe?

Socialism may be rising in America, thanks to left-wing elite globalists.

I'm not sure why socialists try to pollute our free society. I wonder why they do not prefer to just go to a more socialist country, and leave this free country alone.

But i'll be there to fight Fugawzi, SCB or any other socialist or communist in the way of my freedom. Thease ideas are enemies to the state. Treasonous.
In my view.

Anon

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So he asked Obama a Hypothetical question then. Does it matter? Politicians lie all the time. He owes 11 hundred in taxes big deal. That gives the press to smear him?

Personally i don't give a rats ass about joe the plumber who is not really a plumber.

Who cares about 'Joe the Plumber'? Senator McCain.

Anon

prytoj wrote:

Thanks for poitning out your socialist point of view. Why dont you move to Canada or Europe?

Socialism may be rising in America, thanks to left-wing elite globalists.

I'm not sure why socialists try to pollute our free society. I wonder why they do not prefer to just go to a more socialist country, and leave this free country alone.

But i'll be there to fight Fugawzi, SCB or any other socialist or communist in the way of my freedom. Thease ideas are enemies to the state. Treasonous.
In my view.

A free country for anyone that chooses to live here, whether they agree with your views or not. Toughen up princess. It's not your way or the highway.

prytoj

I didn't say they HAD to go, just wondering why I have to fight this fight, I mean, the are countries that better fit the ideology. It would be BETTER for them. I'm lookin' out for them. Becuase I care.

I got-cher socialism right here, pally!

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

Anon

prytoj wrote:

I didn't say they HAD to go, just wondering why I have to fight this fight, I mean, the are countries that better fit the ideology. It would be BETTER for them. I'm lookin' out for them. Becuase I care.

I got-cher socialism right here, pally!

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

I think there are better countries that might fit these peoples ideologies too.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0
But i don't think i'll ever get my wish and that they will leave anytime soon.
Get my point?

SoonForgotten2

prytoj wrote:

I didn't say they HAD to go, just wondering why I have to fight this fight, I mean, the are countries that better fit the ideology. It would be BETTER for them. I'm lookin' out for them. Becuase I care.

I got-cher socialism right here, pally!

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1669.html

Yeah, heaven forbid any country should progress, adapt or change in a way that would actually benefit it's citizens.

Though, I bet you're happy to have your civil liberties being raped in your so-called "free country". Masochist.

Shadowflame05

In regards to the original topic of discussion, I think its pathetic and disgusting that the news (and the two possible presidents to be) decided to focus more on some fucking plumber and even went to the lengths of going to his house to interview him when immediately outside the debate there were veterans being abused for peacefully protesting and trying to bring veterans issues to the forefront of the debate since neither candidate seems to give a shit about them. This is the state of our country, men and women can bleed for our so called "freedom" but as soon as they're done fighting our war, we're done with them...

prytoj

Probably not for this thread, no disrespect intended.

but the "plumber" got Obama to perfectly define his economy platform as socialism. That's a pretty big story. Unfiltered from the horse's mouth.

Let me repeat that, a textbook definition of Socialism is "spread the wealth around."

It is so significant that it may turn the election, although socialism is so deeply entrenched into our institutions already that it may not matter much. We'll see.