Democrats & Liberals Archives

Dueling Tax Plans

My local rag did a comparison of Obama’s and McCain’s tax plans today. It’s interesting to note that the middle class will do much better under a President Obama.

The [Tax Policy Center] also calculated that the wealthiest would see their incomes rise by 3 percent if McCain's broad tax cut plan became law.

The middle class would see income gains of about 2 percent under Obama but somewhat less if Congress were to accept the ideas of McCain, according to the tax center's estimates.

There we go. the middle-class -- and therefore America -- will be better off under a President Obama. Also from the Tax Policy Center's report,

McCain’s reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama’s proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior.

Basically, they're repeating something I've been saying for a long time: You can't raise revenue by cutting taxes -- that's laughable on the face of it. McCain is never going to balance the budget.

I trust Barak Obama to drive the US economy back into the black, just like Clinton did. McCain's ideas will never work. He's just peddling more of the same failed economic policies that we've seen for the last eight years.

Posted by American Pundit at August 5, 2008 12:39 AM
Comments
Comment #257678

AP

I agree. It is amazing to me that I still hear people going on about a fear of democrats increasing their taxes and spending their tax dollars on social programs. None of these same people seem to mind all the tax dollars that go to subsidize major corporations and this inane war in Iraq.

If the general population could pull themselves away from American Idol, dancing with the stars and so forth long enough to research all the information out there I think it would become obvious who’s plan better meets the needs of middle america.

Posted by: Carolina at August 5, 2008 8:21 AM
Comment #257685

AP

Pretty incredible isn’t it. The GOP is relying on age old campaign falsehoods to sell their agenda of the status quo. This really is so ridiculous as to render it as shaking ones head in amazement laughable. I guess it is what a desperate party does when they really do not have any credible positions to campaign on. That is, positions that can provide repair without painting them as being the purveyors of gloom and doom policies. For the GOP this campaign is all about denial and avoiding accountability while at the same time hopefully retaining power.

Talk about a sad situation. What would be even more sad is if they are somehow successful. Such an event would be telling as to just how gullible and out of touch the American voter really is.

Posted by: RickIL at August 5, 2008 10:37 AM
Comment #257686

“It is amazing to me that…”

What is amazing to me is that some people refuse to understand that others don’t want the govt intrusion in their lives that an Obama administration will give us.

“I still hear people going on about a fear of democrats increasing their taxes and spending their tax dollars on social programs”

So, the Democrats will not raise taxes AND will stop wasting our money on they’re social programs?
Somebody needs to relay that info to Obama, he hasn’t gotten that message yet.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2008 10:47 AM
Comment #257687

“Such an event would be telling as to just how gullible and out of touch the American voter really is”

Or as to just how far out of touch with the American voter the left really is, and maybe then they will finally quit putting up far-left candidates?

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2008 10:53 AM
Comment #257689

kctim,
Just out of curiousity-
Do you condemn the surveillance society which the Bush admimistration has created, because it violates the 4th amendment and represents gross intrusion?

Do you support a woman’s right to choose?

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 11:14 AM
Comment #257695

John,
McCain’s economic plan is nearly identical to the Bush agenda we’ve experienced for the past seven years. Seriously- why would you want to continue along this path? Do you really think it’s working out well?

I don’t think Obama or McCain will be able to implement their agendas. I do think events will force their hands. The question will be, who is better able to deal with change, and make changes?

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #257700

John,
This isn’t brain surgery, it’s politics.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 11:56 AM
Comment #257701

Phx8
I do not agree with warrantless wiretapping. But, I am willing to acknowledge that we have not become a “surveillance society” where every Americans communications are always monitored by the govt.
Yes, it can lead to that, but, neither the Dems or the Reps will be the ones who will stop it from happening.

Yes, I do support a womans right to choose, as long as its not paid for by taxpayers in any way.

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2008 11:57 AM
Comment #257703

kctim

I hope you and no one in your family ever needs to use any of the social programs you so distain.

So are you ok with corporate welfare? I’m not and don’t like my tax dollars going there. So I have a proposition. I will believe my tax dollars go to help other people and not corporations or to fund this war and you can believe that your tax dollars go to pay for things you like and then we will both be happy.

I am very tired of how the people on the right keep saying “my tax dollars” like what they want tax dollars to be spent on is more valuable than what I want my tax dollars spent on. I have as much right to complain about how my dollars are spent as you do and I want my dollars spent on social programs that help other people.

John vote for whomever you like. I will be voting for Obama. So I guess I get to cancel out your vote-bully for me. I’m not a poet but use your heart and vote for obama.

Posted by: Carolina at August 5, 2008 12:16 PM
Comment #257706

kctim,
Thanks for the reply. Well said, and consistent with what you’ve posted in the past.

John,
I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. McCain’s life experiences are limited to the Annapolis (where he graduated 894 out of 899), being a POW, and serving in the Senate. He is not a well educated person, and he does not know how to use a computer or send an e-mail. He has publicly stated that he doesn’t understand the economy. That’s not just me saying it. McCain said that. His worldview is very militaristic.

Obama, on the other hand, graduated from Harvard and was president of the Harvard Law Review. That is the most prestigious honor in education a person can achieve, and in addition, he graduated magnum cum laude. Not 894th. He worked as a community organizer, wrote two books, and served in the IL legislature and as a US Senator. Unlike McCain, Obama openly opposed invading Iraq, calling it a “dumb” war and a “rash” war. McCain thinks it was the right move, even after all the reasons for going in proved false.

So like I said, I have a hard time following your reasoning.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 12:35 PM
Comment #257712
I think it would become obvious who’s plan better meets the needs of middle america.

And that answer is ‘neither’.

Obviously.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 12:52 PM
Comment #257714

Carolina
I am not ok with corporate welfare, so I’m afraid your proposition will not work. But, I do have a proposition that is both, Constitutional and fair, and it does work.
My proposition is that govt taxes only enough to run govt, as outlined in the Constitution, and we both are free to choose where the rest of our money goes in order to help what we believe in.
You are pro-choice aren’t you?

Posted by: kctim at August 5, 2008 12:54 PM
Comment #257715
I trust Barak Obama to drive the US economy back into the black, just like Clinton did.

Except he didn’t. The lowering of the deficit (no elimination) was because of a Congress (you remember, the guys who do the spending?) who was at odds with a president.

Give Obama a Democratically controlled congress and will be recreating the insanity of the 2000-2006 years, just with a differnet party responsible.

In fact, he has already said so. I see people lament the money spent on the Iraq war, but Obama is *NOT* going to put that money towards the deficit. He has already stated several plans for that money, all of them taking up the entirety of them individually. How does one expect to balance anything like that?

The fact is, he isn’t. Neither is McCain. So much for change.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #257718

Carolina,

The problem is that we use the power of the goverment, the power of force, to take money from one person and give it to another against their will. That is immoral, no matter who is doing it or why. Even for the best intentions, it is still wrong.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 12:59 PM
Comment #257722

Rhinehold,
You’re making an argument against progressive taxation, and possibly all taxation. It would be immoral to NO redistribute wealth in a capitalist system, because without redistribution, wealth would become concentrated in a small number of individuals, and in business among a series of oligopolies and monopolies. This concentration would freeze the inequity in place, and result in a rigid class system for society.

It’s like a game of poker. Everyone starts with the same chips, but eventually the chips become concentrated with one holder. Perhaps the winner would be morally justified in holding onto their winnings, but it would also be the end of the game. With society, we cannot afford to let the game end.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #257726
It would be immoral to NO redistribute wealth in a capitalist system, because without redistribution, wealth would become concentrated in a small number of individuals, and in business among a series of oligopolies and monopolies.

Incorrect. Money would be distributed, it does NOT have to be forced. Where and how it went would be not up to policians to dictate. If that is the problem you have, then why are you not for the redistribution of healthcare, food, utilities, housing, cars, planes, computers, etc? Why can some people eat at The Melting Pot and others can only afford to eat at home? Why can some people only have a used mazda while others drive cadillacs? Surely, don’t you believe these to be immoral too?

Do you really believe that forcing money from one person to another is not immoral? Are you ready to have the government move you out of your home to put some homeless people in? After all, they are more needy than you, right?

Your poker analogy is also wrong, it pretends to believe that the person with all of the chips wouldn’t need to pay antes and blinds. That they wouldn’t need to spend those chips to get things like, oh, food and electricity and cars and gas and cable and…

Basically, its a flawed belief based on a flawed premise that allows you to interally accept your immoral behavior of taking something from one person and giving it to another by force.

How is that working out for you? Is the guilt going away each year when you fill out your income taxes?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 1:43 PM
Comment #257728

BTW, one small point, monopolies are immoral as well. But that is a different issue, one I noticed you trying to wedge into the argument as if not taxing income would lead to monopolies which is another ridiculous premise…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 1:44 PM
Comment #257729

John says “Its getty easier every day to turn Democrats into good republicans!”

Isnt “good republicans” and oxymoron in this day and age John? Their lack of principles and character has been displayed the past 7 years to the point where even the repubs loyal followers dont beleive their elected officials have principles or character. As we know thats the only issues the repubs have to run on. They have got us into deep debt with their economic policies, their inability to lead this Country in our response to the terrorist attacks has left us mired in a civil war. The tax plan offered by repubs is just more of the same, in fact all things offered by the repubs are just more of the same. Its just the same isnt working.
Yet you seem to think this is all good, so pass the kool aid but trying to find independants to buy into the repub plan will be hard, let alone dems and liberals IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2008 1:57 PM
Comment #257731

Rhinehold,
The theory here is that we have representation to determine taxation. We, the people, are the government. The government is not an abstract entity. We are the government. Individuals do not take money from one another. It is pooled through the government to “promote the general welfare”.

Very few people would advocate a complete leveling or a complete redistribution of wealth. We agree to vote, and as citizens we accept the outcome as binding in many ways, including how taxes will be targeted and distributed.

My wife and I pay tens of thousands in federal taxes alone, so as a percentage, I suppose I pay more than my share compared to most people. I’m fine with that. I’ve received a great deal in return… It’s not a question of how much is paid. It is a question of what is received in return, not only for myself, but for society as a whole.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #257732

And returning to the original point…
The Obama tax plan favors the middle class. It is geared towards wealth creation. The McCain plan is geared towards wealth capture. It favors the wealthiest 1%. The current concentration of wealth is more weighted towards that 1% than at any time since 1929. Wealth capture, like a poker game with only one winner, does not work out well at all. When the poker game ends, the winner’s pile of chips are worthless if they cannot be converted into goods. The destruction of the US dollar through debt and wealth capture and outsourcing and offshoring and inflation ultimately means no one wins.

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #257733

“Do you really believe that forcing money from one person to another is not immoral? Are you ready to have the government move you out of your home to put some homeless people in? After all, they are more needy than you, right?”

Rhinehold the whole “by the force of a gun” issue is a strawman but this statement is such a gross exxageration I felt the need to call you on it. Has the US government at any level actually forced someone from their home so a homeless person could live there? Is there a law that somehow gives them the right to do this if they choose?

Has the government ever taken money directly from you or someone you know, or for that matter someone you have heard of, to give directly to another person? So to answer your question then yes to do that would be immoral. The system of taxation we have does not do that despite your attempts to frame it as such.

According to AP’s article, with Obama as president we may have a chance to get our fiscal house in order, with McCains its 4 more of the same why would we want to subject ourselves to that?


Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2008 2:14 PM
Comment #257734

Hey, way to go McCain!

The big oil companies did SO well, with Exxon Mobil gaining 12 billion dollars in profit in just THREE months (we spend $12B per month in Iraq), that he says they should be REWARDED with a FOUR BILLION dollar tax break.

At some time in the nineties, Deng Xiao Peng made the national slogan of China “It is glorious to get rich.” McCain and the Republicans go by the same philosophy, it seems - reward those who make insanely huge profits, and the rest of the ones who didn’t make it rich…just don’t deserve it.

Posted by: Glenn Cessor at August 5, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #257748

“j2t2 In your mind G.W. and the republican party are responcible for all the worlds woes.”

John How simplistic but Im not a repub I actually think for myself every once in a while. In my mind the repubs are responsible for where we as a Country are at today not the world. They have been a majority in the House and Senate until 06 and of course the Bush Amdinistration, nuff said. The slight majority the dems hold today does little to countermand the failed policies of this administration.

“The new republican candidate,John McCain is old,” true at 72 he is in the twilight of his life. By advocating for more of the same is proof enough that his mental capabilities have been diminished, afterall he has did a fip flop on most issues over the past year hasnt he. Look at his tax plan, how can anyone that cares about this Country accept this?

“knows nothing about the American economy,”
Well that is what he said.

“Was wrong on the surge,”
The whole debacle in Iraq was wrong, he was wrong on it so therefore yes.

“is wrong about off shore drilling,” Of course he is what a foolish thing to think that by leasing the ANWR and offshore areas for more oil years from now while still exporting any of what we drill for today is the answer, short term, or long term is well pathetic unless your an oil company hack. All more drilling accomplishes is more of the same. It is the problem not hte solution.

“Abortion,Gay rights”

States rights issues to me, John, Why they would even be considered as important during this election cycle is beyond me. Its like the flag burning amendmant that was so important to the repubs of the 109th Congress as if there was a rash of flag burning in this country the past 20 years.

“and Iran.”
To think that anyone in this country would take a republican administration seriously on the “war on terror” after the past 7 years scares me. Really John how can you defend more of the same?

“You say the majority of Americans agree with you.” No. I havent said that.
“You would say the American economy is the worst in modern history.Even though the American economy is in better shape than any other economy on this planet.”
If not the worst certainly heading us in that direction. When is the last time we as taxpayers had to bail out so many failed scams in so little time John. Wouldnt you say that the repubs deregualtion schemes were responsible for the government bailing the free market out so the economy didnt tank? As far as the best in the world that is debatable. After watching the administration revise facts and figures for years on many issues I have no trust in anything that comes from them.


“How do you explain the fact that with all the miilions of dollars Obama has raised and all the new voters he has recruited,he is still tied with John McCain in the National polls.”

I would not expect to be anything but even as we head into November. Ive always said we need to have elections yearly as it seems to cause the price of gas to come down, much like we are starting to see now. The repubs/conservatives may have whined about McCain early on but if they are not anything else they are loyal to the party. They swill the kool aid daily and will vote party line every time. Sure they sounded like they would listen to Obama and decide but I didnt fall for that old line.

“This is after his God Like speach to 200,000 Germans in Gemany.He looks Presidentual he speaks with a magic tongue and has more money than G.M.But still his numbers have fallen 10 points since his return from his Glorious trip.The fact is he is like a snowball in hell Quickly melting away from the People of America’s Interest.I would say like a fart in the wind.Obama was no more than a fad.Allmost like a Slinky or a hoola hoop.”
Sounds like wishful thinking on your part John as this comment is all repub talking points and of little substance.


“It makes good Nastalga but not good politics in a time when Americas future is on the Line.”

John exactly how can Americas future be on the line if every thing is as rosy as you and other repubs paint it to be? Seems to me if everything was as good as you claim them to be after 7 yeras of repub rule McCain and more of the same would be a shoo in come election time.

“By the time November rolls around even you will cast your vote not for John McCain but against Barack Obama.”

Only in your dreams my friend. As I have previously said I will vote for the Democrat runnung for president I dont care who it is. The SCOTUS is why. As far as the other elections for the different offices rest assured I will vote for neither repub or democrat if given another candidate thats not to far right or left.

“VOTE WITH YOUR BRAIN VOTE McCAIN.”
Ive had enough Pain, Id have to be Insane to vote for more of the same McCain. ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2008 3:41 PM
Comment #257750

John

It makes good Nastalga but not good politics in a time when Americas future is on the Line.

Use your brain John , Americas future is on the line because GW and his lackey lockstep neocon led republican legislature led us to that line. Six years of unfettered control, two years of obstructionism. Top that off with four years of a republican led legislature under Clinton and you have the recipe for political disaster. Blend this all together and throw in a couple cups of denial, let it simmer for a few years and you have a pot full of republicans lacking the balls to accept any accountability. I suspect this all flies right by you because you still have those partisan blinders on and are incapable of seeing what is right in front of you.

Posted by: RickIL at August 5, 2008 3:53 PM
Comment #257751

j2t2

Ive had enough Pain, Id have to be Insane to vote for more of the same McCain

; ) Very clever. Thanks for the laugh!

Posted by: RickIL at August 5, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #257753

RickIL thanks that was about a minutes worth of effort, much like the ditty that spawned it.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #257754

J2t2,
Well, you covered the points pretty well.

John,
“John McCain is old.”
Well. Yes. He has said so himself, many times. It’s obvious.

“Knows nothing about the American economy…”
Well. Yes. He has said so himself.

“Was wrong on the surge…”
The tactic did nothing to change the political situation. As a strategy, it failed.

“Offshore drilling…”
Another Republican, Pickens, has some great ideas about a comprehensive approach. Offshore drilling can contribute 1% of anticipated use by 2030. Think comprehensive.

All right, let’s move to the lines that are really baffling:
“You would say the American economy is the worst in modern history. Even though the American economy is in better shape than any other economy on this planet.”

First, your pretending someone is saying something over the top, and responding to the made up statement. Why not address what people are actually saying in comments? If you have any questions, I would be glad to back up anything I say with a reputable source.

Is the economy the worst in modern history? No. Not yet. The Great Depression was worse. The Reagan recession in 1982 was worse. But we are definitely in trouble today, and the trends are very bad.

Why would anyone suggest the economy is in better shape than any other in the world? In case you haven’t noticed, the value of the dollar has dropped by half against the EU. Many countries have longer life expectancies, lower infant mortality, universal health care, and so on. No other first world country in the world incarcerates as large a portion of its population as America. We spend as much on “defense” as the rest of the world combined, and export as much weaponry as the next 14 countries combined. The national debt is eye-popping, and inflation is booming.

We have the largest economy. But if we don’t change…

Posted by: phx8 at August 5, 2008 4:06 PM
Comment #257760

Taxes are going to go up, most likely for everyone, no matter who is elected. The slogan this year should be “It’s the debt, stupid.” Any bills related to debt service should refer to this as The Bush Rpblcn Debt bill. Debt service is back as a large part of the Federal budget.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 5, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #257769

The article and the quote you use only projects a 2% gain in income for the middle class under Obama’s soak-the-rich scheme and “somewhat less” under McCain, whatever that means. Are we talking about a 1% difference here? A .5% difference? A .0001% difference? What?

Do the prognosticators really have the ability to slice the difference that finely when talking about something so vast as the American economy?

This is hardly a great boon for the middle class no matter how you cut it and is also very short on specifics. It doesn’t account at all for what damage could be done to the middle class if going after corporations and “the rich” results in a slower-growing economy and layoffs.

Perhaps the middle class enjoying its 2% bonanza will just be a lot smaller under Obama when his expansionist government moves more people out of the middle class and into poverty.

Frankly, the middle class doesn’t need meddling government interference in order to raise incomes—especially when the projected benefit is so paltry. What’s needed is a tax-system which does not punish hard work, saving, and innovation. And that means having healthy businesses and industries—not getting wrapped up in income-redistribution gimmicks that could hamstring the economy.

Like most Americans, I’m looking for a MUCH greater increase in my income than 2% anyway. And I know that it’s not the government that’s going to be giving it to me. Thanks but no thanks, Obama!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 5, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #257777
The theory here is that we have representation to determine taxation. We, the people, are the government. The government is not an abstract entity. We are the government. Individuals do not take money from one another. It is pooled through the government to “promote the general welfare”.

Having ‘representation’ doesn’t make it right. It especially doesn’t make income tax right. Income tax, a tax that one cannot avoid.

‘We are the government’, what does that mean? Individuals are the government as you say and when a law is made to take money from one individual and give it to another it is the majority forcing their views on the minority. There are definately cases where this must exist, in defending individual rights. But by your argument there is no limits then. We can make laws that do whatever we want to force the minority to do whatever we want them to do just because we get a majority of the citizens, that vote, to agree to do so.

So by your own argument, why are you upset about wire-tapping and preventing homosexuals from marrying? Those are clearly things the majority wants (or wanted) when it was voted on. The majority wanted the US to attack Iraq before the 2000 election for pete’s sake.

When does your argument fall down upon itself?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 7:05 PM
Comment #257778


The economic history of this nation is a reoccuring theme of booms followed by busts, from the depression of the Revolution to our current economic crisis. That is just the way capitalism works. The culprits are almost always the same, banks and private sector as well as government corruption. The victims are always the same, the workers.

Considering the amount of corruption and lawnessness that has occured within and without of the government during the current administration and Congresses, it’s a miracle that the economy isn’t in worse shape than it is.

Considering the fact that both the Democratic and Republican nominees are already guilty of violating their Constituntional oath’s to uphold and enforce the laws of this country, the future doesn’t look bright at all.

The Democratic party was supposed to be the protectors of the middle class. Instead, they helped the Republicans screw the middle class.

A large portion of the middle class is now working for McDonalds’s and Walmart, etc.

So, Obama wants to give what is left of the middle class a tax break, how nice of him.

It is a real shame that the middle class can’t outsource Obama and the rest of the Democrat and Republican politicians to China or send them to Mexico as illegal immigrants.

Posted by: jlw at August 5, 2008 7:11 PM
Comment #257779
Rhinehold the whole “by the force of a gun” issue is a strawman

When did stating facts become a ‘strawman’ exactly?

but this statement is such a gross exxageration I felt the need to call you on it.

OH please do.

Has the US government at any level actually forced someone from their home so a homeless person could live there?

Yes. What do you call using eminent domain to remove people from their homes in order to build low-income housing?

Is there a law that somehow gives them the right to do this if they choose?

There was a supreme court decision that allows the government to take your property for whatever whim they choose. Praise be to the government.

Has the government ever taken money directly from you or someone you know, or for that matter someone you have heard of, to give directly to another person?

Yes.

So to answer your question then yes to do that would be immoral.

Thank you for agreeing.

The system of taxation we have does not do that despite your attempts to frame it as such.

Wrong. Are you saying that people are not forced to pay taxes? Please, go ask Irwin Schiff or Wesley Snipes.

If you want it to not be taken by force, just make it a voluntary program. Since it had to be a law by a majority of voters, they should feel no problem paying their suggested part. In fact, they could pay more!

According to AP’s article, with Obama as president we may have a chance to get our fiscal house in order

And the article is full of crap. Because it ignores what Obama has already promised to spend, the entire Iraw war budget which is ALREADY borrowed, among other things.

Again, McCain isn’t going to do any better, but that doesn’t make Obama right, for pete’s sake…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 7:12 PM
Comment #257780
The culprits are almost always the same, banks and private sector as well as government corruption.

You leave out the biggest culprit of all, well-meaning but ill thought out intrusions by the government into areas they have no knowledge of or business being in just because they have the power of compulsion.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 7:16 PM
Comment #257781

On “using eminent domain to remove people from their homes in order to build low-income housing?”

Here, in the real world, the opposite happens more often, low and middle income housing and small businesses are forced to make way for developments that will increase the tax base of the community.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 5, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #257790

Rhinehold this is way off topic so why dont you post an article with some facts on this issue?

Posted by: j2t2 at August 5, 2008 8:13 PM
Comment #257797


Rhinehold: If that were true, I would have said so, but it isn’t true. If you had said Presidential cronyism, Congressional deregulation or government bought off to turn a blind eye, then you would be accurate. For the most part, it has been plain old greed, I got mine and yours to.
Capitalism works by promoting human vises, not virtues.

Posted by: jlw at August 5, 2008 8:53 PM
Comment #257804
Here, in the real world, the opposite happens more often, low and middle income housing and small businesses are forced to make way for developments that will increase the tax base of the community.

Oh, well that makes it all right then. *rolls eyes*

Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t be DOING that, either way. But I guess that just doesn’t gel with the aquisition of political power by the parties…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 9:53 PM
Comment #257806
Rhinehold: If that were true, I would have said so, but it isn’t true. If you had said Presidential cronyism, Congressional deregulation or government bought off to turn a blind eye, then you would be accurate. For the most part, it has been plain old greed, I got mine and yours to. Capitalism works by promoting human vises, not virtues.

What a ridiculous statement. I’ll be posting an article about a current example, but the myopic view that capitalism is nothing but greed is ignorant of what capitalism is. Capitalism is about exchange one’s object of value for with another for their object of value at an agreed to exchange of values. Greed is no more part of the system than it is in any other, it is a human emotion. Systems do not have emotions…

Some can use the system for emotional (greed) reasons, but that does not make the system bad or good. And for the vast majority of these exchanges of value there is no ‘I got mine and yours too’ entering into it.

In fact, you are inject envy into the system instead of greed with that view…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 5, 2008 9:58 PM
Comment #257826

AP,
Good article. I read the same piece of news in my own local rag. Very glad you posted this.

John,
People with brains won’t vote for McCain.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 5, 2008 11:45 PM
Comment #257888


Rhinehold: It is impossible to seperate virtually any system from it’s creator and user. Any system that humans create and use is going to be good bad and indifferent.

Capitalism thrives because government, another created system, enables it, protects it and gives it a conscience by protecting the public environ from it’s excesses. Without that government conscience, our rivers would be burning cesspools and we would need a machette to cut our way through the air and ward off the riff raff of no value as we step over or on them to get to our jobs.

Posted by: jlw at August 6, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #257931

John -

Since when did pointing out McCain’s rewarding of a $12B quarterly profit with a $4B tax cut (while we’re all paying $4 gas) become ‘liberal spin’?

But that’s what I’ve seen from Cons time and time again - when the Dems or Liberals do something wrong, they’re treasonous godless bas****s, but if they point out something that the Republicans or the Cons did wrong, then it’s ‘liberal spin’ or “you know all those politicians are corrupt anyway so why gripe about it”.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 6, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #258038


Glen: It is just liberal spin if liberals aren’t willing to vote out liberal politicians for doing the same thing.

Posted by: jlw at August 8, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #258047

jlw -

That’s the same line I’ve heard from conservatives for years - the Dems do the same thing, so what’s the big deal about Republicans?

How about the ‘tax and spend’ Democrat label?

* Only 5 of the past 40 budgets have been surpluses. All 5 were by Democratic presidents.

* The twenty years of budgets prepared by Republican presidents increased the national debt by $3,800,000,000,000. The average yearly deficit under Republican budgets was $190 billion.

* The twenty years of budgets prepared by Democratic presidents increased the national debt by $719,500,000,000. The average yearly deficit under Democratic budgets was $36 billion.

This is from http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Deficit

Please notice that the AVERAGE deficit during Republican administrations was nearly FIVE TIMES the average deficit during Democratic administrations.

Also be advised that the above covers 1961-2001, in which there were twenty years of each party in the White House. It DOES NOT take into account the W. years in which he - like his dad and Reagan - racked up a greater deficit than all presidents before him combined.

jlw, a certain lifetime Republican named Alan Greenspan praised Clinton for his economic acumen. THREE former heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission and another lifelong Republican named Paul Volcker (remember him?) have endorsed Obama.

In other words, Conservatives have shown IN DEED AND IN FACT to be worse for the economy, and the Dems have shown to be GOOD for the economy, time and time again.

Those are the facts - dispute them if you can.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 8, 2008 1:57 AM
Comment #258078


Glen: Until this upcoming election, I have voted a straight Democratic ticket for 40 years.

Are you saying that since statics prove that the Democrats have been more fiscally responsible, it is ok if liberal politicians did what you are condemning McCain for?

Pardon me if I am wrong, but isn’t it true that during those years when we had fiscally irresponsible Republican presidents, they often had Democratic Congresses to help them be fiscally irresponsible?

“jlw, a certain lifetime Republican named Alan Greenspan praised Clinton for his economic acumen.” Yes he did and blue collar Democrats loved Clinton, even though he signed
NAFTA, initiated the illegal immigrant invasion and began outsourcing their jobs to the NEW WORLD ORDER, because they were working and making good wages in the second half of the nineties. Why wouldn’t Greenspan praise Clinton, wasn’t he instramental in helping to continue the great migration of wealth in an upwardly direction?

Pardon me if I am mistaken but, isn’t it true that many liberals did not want Clinton to be the Democratic nominee? Didn’t many of them consider Clinton and the DNC Republican lite’s at worse and blue dogs at best? Weren’t they determined, in this election cycle, to put Clintonism behind them once and for all?

Isn’t it true that the oil companies and other multinational corporations got preferential treatment when Clinton was president?

Could it be that those Republicans have endorsed Obama because they anticipate or have been reassured by him that corporations will continue to get preferential treatment from Obama?

From this workers point of view, it really doesn’t matter if a liberal or a conservative is in the Whitehouse. Neither of them will represent the workers in any meaningful way. It’s low wage service jobs for most of them no matter what the outcome of the election is.

The workers keep switching their vote from liberals to conservatives and back hoping to get representation, but they are never heard except during an election cycle when suddenly politicians feel their pain. And after the election, the message becomes, we know what is best for you.

I guess cooperation will always take a back seat to competition because competition is what humans do best, there always has to be a winner and a loser. The assult on the blue collar middle class will continue until it is non-existent irreguardless of which group of elitists are in control of the government after this election.

Posted by: jlw at August 8, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #258107

jlw -

Y’know, if one just read your post without going a little deeper, you sound convincing.

But here’s a really good example: John McCain recently said how Obama voted FOR $2.8B worth of ‘corporate welfare’ for Big Oil, and crowed how he voted against it.

Sounds REALLY bad for Obama, doesn’t it? Makes him look like a real hypocrite, doesn’t it?

But if one looks a little closer, one sees that the REASON Obama supported the bill was because of the financial support it gave to alternative energy sources.

You see, that’s how it works in representative democracies, jlw - you make deals to get what you want. If you don’t deal, you’re not going to get what you want. If you personally don’t like the sound of that, then you can consider living somewhere that such deals are not considered…North Korea, for instance.

AND IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THIS: what are the chances that Republicans are as good or better than Dems economically even when one doesn’t count Bush’s financial mismanagement, Republican administrations have averaged FIVE TIMES greater budget deficits than the Dems…and that ALL FIVE surpluses since 1961 have come under Dems?

Giving single instances like NAFTA does NOT explain the obvious pattern for the past half-century, year after year, administration after administration. And you know what? Once Obama gets in, that pattern will be strengthened even more.

Posted by: jlw at August 8, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #258109

My apologies to all - I don’t know how I made the mistake of putting ‘jlw’ instead of my OWN name at the end of the post immediately previous to this one.

Sorry ‘bout that - GOT to be more careful….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 8, 2008 6:05 PM
Post a comment