Jump to content

Poor Joe


Pangloss
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think you're being too harsh on Obama as well, P. I realize he comes from that background and has a generally-liberal bent, but he also talks night and day about the importance of self-motivation, personal responsibility, and the need for a strong, conservative hand at the regulatory wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ParanoiA, can you please point out specifically what you don't like about Obama's plan? Preferably, can you post a link to the relevant section on Obama's web site and quote the relevant text you disagree with? You seem to be arguing about general ideas rather than specifics.

 

Well, my differences are more on general ideas than specifics, so that's consistent. Remember how you all were so taken by Obama's "nuance" approach to issues. Well, I'm not into to his liberal-socialist "nuance" on taxes. I'm not sure on his website where to find it, but they're well known and not disputed by his campaign.

 

1) The "Make Work Pay" refundable tax credit.

2) The $4,000 refundable tax credit for college tuition

3) A 10% mortgage tax credit - again, refundable

4) A "savings" tax credit - another refundable

5) An expansion of the Earned Income Credit for singles - refundable

6) A child care credit of 50% up to 6,000 bucks - refundable

 

The clean car tax is the only non-refundable credit.

 

A refundable credit is credit you get regardless of your income tax liability. So, if your income taxes for the year are zero, you still get a check for the credit. So if I pay nothing in income taxes, I still walk away with potentially thousands of dollars of PROFIT. I did this for years and years using the earned income credit, which is the nastiest of all of them. I made money off of the american people for...uh, being poor. The middle class and rich didn't qualify for that, just the poor. Profit sharing is what they ought to call it.

 

Now, these credits are certainly thoughtful in their aim (which helps to swindle the people into going along with it) but they are an expansion of a nasty system of transfering wealth. Not solely within the context of services, but just straight up cash profit.

 

That's bullshit. And you'll agree once they decide that your wage is upper class and it's time to take more of what you earn. I repeat, taking more of what you EARN. Not what was handed to you. Not free money. But property that you worked for using skills you busted your ass to learn.

 

What did the poor do to earn it? What were they doing while I was struggling to raise two kids, support my wife, working a full-time job, taking classes after work 4 nights a week for 7 freaking years? Oh, that's right, they were sitting on their asses - I know because we lived right next to them. We were poor, so we lived in their trashy ass neighborhoods. I've had too much experience amongst the losers of our country. Their broken down cars were there almost 24/7 - not doing a damn thing to get ahead in life.

 

I don't take it lightly when my property is taken from me by a brow beating lawyer in washington that thinks he has the authority to decide what I should live on. How much experience does he have with these losers he's giving my money to?

 

This is the problem with coercive entitlement systems, they have no respect nor appreciation to those that give to them, no sense of honor or that they owe us their effort to make good decisions and learn how to hunt and gather. Make them have to ask for help, really ASK for help, and that will change.

 

The only case I can see in Obama's tax plan where they would receive a refundable tax credit without being able to qualify for welfare is because they have too much income. Those people aren't the dead beats who are mooching off the government. These are people who are working and paying more into the system than they're getting back from it.

 

As far as I can tell' date=' the moochers won't qualify for Obama's tax credit.

 

Tax refunds aren't necessarily a bad thing. If I sign up for withholding and pay more into the system than I'm supposed to, I should get a tax refund back from the government.

 

How is Obama's plan any different from that?[/quote']

 

Not sure how you're defining moochers. People that don't owe any income tax for the year, and are getting a refund of what they paid in is exactly what should be happening. But getting even more money than what they paid in, is only slightly better than the government keeping it. Plenty of people will do just that, for being just poor enough to qualify, yet work enough not to be a leech.

 

Obama's plan isn't revolutionary, but it's an expansion of refundable tax credits that I believe are going to be the democrat party's new thing. Although, I'm not even sure how new it is as earned income credit has been around a long time. The refundable Tax credit mentallity is the bridge to socialism - it's redistribution that can be infinitely exploited. The tax code can be complicated to whole new levels - job security for minimum wage H&R Block employees and more investment into the authority of the IRS.

 

This country can be transformed with tax credits alone. Just play along with the game and incrementally they will add to these credits - energy, education, smoking, eating - take your pick, anything goes. Societal engineering is a snap once you condition the republic to play the tax game, saving a nickle here, and dime there.

 

And, lastly, but not leastly, this is a bold statement by Obama. We've crossed a threshold here. No one could have sold this tax plan during the Reagan years, nor in the 90's - but this straight forward class battle reaches the psyche I was afraid of. More and more it is becoming apparent to the people, that there is really nothing stopping them from pushing the tax burden on to a minority of people. The majority siege is not checked from property distribution.

 

It doesn't invalidate their fears, that is correct. It makes such fears misplaced, or potentially the subject of said fears very poorly described and inaccurately represented.

 

The issue is not what it's being called. Have I done a piss poor job of communicating, or what?

 

We apparently disagree. Surprise. I think it's accurate to call more wealth redistribution, wealth redistribution even though we already have wealth redistribution. I also think it's accurate to characterize Obama's tax credits as socialist, even though we already have some socialism.

 

Your argument to invalidate those accusations is akin to me saying there's no such thing as facts since everything humans experience is subjective. We all rely on faith, second by second, so everyone who ever claims anything as fact is misrepresenting reality.

 

That's disingenuous, because we all accept the foundation that everything we experience is through our senses and "facts" exist within that framework. The same is true here with redistribution. Sure, at the end of the day, it's all redistribution of the people's property, but our framework is a capitalist-republic and within that framework it is only wealth redistribution when we actually dole out cash to the poor for being poor. My opinion, anyway.

 

I think you're being too harsh on Obama as well, P. I realize he comes from that background and has a generally-liberal bent, but he also talks night and day about the importance of self-motivation, personal responsibility, and the need for a strong, conservative hand at the regulatory wheel.

 

It's the fascinating phenomenon where people think that they can do it, but others can't, or shouldn't. I can do without, sacrifice, but I can't expect him to do that.

 

It just all goes back to clinical governing. You know my spill, so it should be no surprise that McCain and Obama are way out of my tolerance range.

Edited by ParanoiA
multiple post merged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ParanoiA, what do you think about the $5,000 refundable tax credit that McCain wants to give every American?

 

I don't know much about it, honestly, and I haven't done much digging. From what little I've read, it amounts to more socialist nickle and dime antics. Worse, it doesn't sound like it would even be effective in its ends.

 

At least Obama's ideas would actually work. Again though, I haven't read too much on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good article for the pro-McCain camp.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news/economy/tully_healthcare.fortune/

 

Cool, thanks for the link. I actually love the idea of separating healthcare from my employer. So I like that part of his plan, and the $5000 dollar tax credit makes more sense, but it requires a rosey picture to work. The $5,000 credit is supposed to pay for the new taxes on the benefits. That's the part that has been confused, I think, since I've read people complaining that it won't cover their premiums - it's not supposed to, it's supposed to cover the taxes.

 

And that's where the rosey dependence comes in...that employers are going to back out of health benefits and compensate with the equivalent cash difference. I don't see that happening. If your employer is paying $9,000 to your healthcare, I could see them eliminating it and giving you half that, if not less. I don't buy the competitive labor market argument made in the article. That would be cool, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Interesting, nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just all goes back to clinical governing. You know my spill, so it should be no surprise that McCain and Obama are way out of my tolerance range.

 

THAT sentiment I share. When it comes to trust that Obama will create more change than McCain, it's something like a 1% belief versus a 0% belief on my part. Ultimately what happens next Tuesday doesn't really matter -- what matters is that we wake the sleeping giant and get people to pay more attention. We had the luxury of not worrying about things because the deficit was trivial (or for a while nonexistent) and the debt was only a fraction of GDP. Not anymore -- we're in trouble, and we need to fix it.

 

BTW Joe the Plumber made his first appearance on the campaign trail today. Now the gloves can come off, IMO.

 

_45155851_palin_joe_getty466b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least they won't be wasting campaign contributions on fancy haircuts and hair product for him.

Look at him, you can see the thought in his eyes..."I'd like to go in and lay some pipe on Palin, you betcha."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to trust that Obama will create more change than McCain, it's something like a 1% belief versus a 0% belief on my part.

 

That's the kind of thinking I was hearing in 2000 when people said Gore vs. Bush was like paper vs. plastic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the kind of thinking I was hearing in 2000 when people said Gore vs. Bush was like paper vs. plastic

 

 

I don't know what else anyone would expect when the candidates all come from the same "business" party the only difference is do you want liberal businessmen or conservative businessmen running the country. Scientists don't have a chance. Your average scientist is more interested in making knowledge than making money and will never compete in an arena, where the main requirement for success is the accumulation of money, with businessmen who are basically professional money grubbers. As long as we have moneytics instead of politics, other voices will be shut out of the process. Why is it that nobody seems to know there are many third party candidates in this and every presidential election? If you would take the platform of every candidate running and show them randomly to people to rate from most agreed to least I wonder where Obama and McCain would actually fall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh my god, look at the smear! This guy is just a working stiff like the rest of us, he's not stumping for McCain! And yet here's the great and powerful NEW YORK TIMES hammering the guy for having a couple of liens or whatever. Hilarious!

 

This guy is becoming a celebrity - wouldn't be surprised if he gets a show on Fox and runs as Sarah's VP next time. "I'm the real Joe sixpack <wink>"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what else anyone would expect when the candidates all come from the same "business" party the only difference is do you want liberal businessmen or conservative businessmen running the country. Scientists don't have a chance. Your average scientist is more interested in making knowledge than making money and will never compete in an arena, where the main requirement for success is the accumulation of money, with businessmen who are basically professional money grubbers. As long as we have moneytics instead of politics, other voices will be shut out of the process.

 

Yeah, I guess I'm not from the Alex Jones school of thought that the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, two management teams competing for the CEO job of Slavery, Inc.

 

Why is it that nobody seems to know there are many third party candidates in this and every presidential election?

 

I voted for Nader in 2000, believing that there was no way Bush could win. Most tests I take say Nader's politics are closest to my own.

 

I now regret that decision, as do many others who voted for Nader in that election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess I'm not from the Alex Jones school of thought that the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, two management teams competing for the CEO job of Slavery, Inc.

 

The two are in fact very similar parties. They do have their differences, and definitely like to talk about them, but overall are very close to each others' positions. In each election, the positions of both candidates fall on the side of their party, but if you compare across time you can find a republican who is more democrat than that year's democratic candidate, or the other way around.

 

I voted for Nader in 2000, believing that there was no way Bush could win. Most tests I take say Nader's politics are closest to my own.

 

I now regret that decision, as do many others who voted for Nader in that election.

 

And that is one of the faults of our election system. Votes for candidates who don't win are completely wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Skeptic. The parties don't seem so ideologically close when your frame of reference is your own lifetime and you don't consider the extremes. Look at how far we've come from 1787 and you'll see two federalist parties haggling over details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised you all feel that way. Under Bush the Republicans have pursued the imperialistic ideas which are central to neoconservatism. I really see this as being something of a 19th century philosophy... it's manifest destiny to a certain degree, but rather than expanding America, they seek to expand democracy.

 

I don't many people expected to get a neoconservative when they voted for Bush, and I think that's a pretty severe departure from where the party was at beforehand. At least in my own experience, the result of a Presidency and Congress controlled by the Republicans was far worse than I ever expected.

 

I think compared to, say, Europe, the US Republican party comes off as extremely conservative, and the Democrats somewhat moderate. Perhaps some of our resident Europeans can chime in on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be blunt, I'm not sure Bush knew what a neoconservative was before he came to office and asked Dick Cheney to hire some people to run the country.

 

I guess I'm not from the Alex Jones school of thought that the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, two management teams competing for the CEO job of Slavery, Inc.

 

SFN Politics Quote of the Week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me the "opposition" parties have provided little opposition when it comes to spending our money. The one thing that neither have done is to define an ethics framework for business and by which they themselves are willing to be judged and pass it into law. Just one question, can anyone define a single concept that every single member of one party or the other agrees upon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but they both agree on that.

Exactly, didn't that address your question? You asked to name one concept they all agree on. I replied, "It's difficult to make things happen without funding." They all agree on that, both within and between groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.