U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Ice]

So I take it you make over 250k. Well if you are paying more taxes is not going to change your life style.

I'm 20 years old. You think I make over 250k?

102k is a very good living. Not what I would call working class.

What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

I also never said it wasn't a bad living. It is damn good. I wouldn't consider it extremely rich however.

Because privatized Health care has worked so well. Do you want to work until your 70.

Health Care is a complex issue and isn't really comparable to privatizing social security.

I'm not sure the age I want to retire at, but when I do, I'm going to rely of the government to tell me when. I'm planning to have my own fund set up so I won't have to rely on big daddy giving me my monthly check.

Nothing is forcing you to retire at the age you start collecting social security. It's up to you to mention your retirement funds appropriately.

Better than nothing, or privatization.

Not it isn't. Social security is ticking time bomb. The USA will continue to grow for a very long time until it reaches its carrying point which is a long way off. The problem will get worse not better.

I dont, my wife and my self both work 40 hours a week and together brought home just over 60k. That is working class. So you are tell ME that someone who make more than 40% more then we do is still working class?

Yup, if they work for a living.

I will apologize because I got two issues rolled into one.
90% of the tax cuts went to the top two brackets. http://www.factcheck.org/here_we_go_...rates_tax.html
If you look at the first chart and add up all the average tax change and then add up just the top two bracket you find that the top two had 88% of the cut. Sorry off be 2%.

Yes, the top two brackets received 90% of the tax income from the cuts. So?

a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
* the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
* the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
* the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
* the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
* the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001[url]

The lowest bracket was cut 5% and the highest bracket was cut 4.6%. The rest of the brackets were cut by 3%. It seems decent enough to me.

The other was Bush's corporate tax cuts. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/

What's your problem with this?

Well we had the addition of the office of home land security. We also had a steep increase in Government spending. The size of the government is not just rules but how much money it uses. http://mises.org/story/2116

You didn't answer my question. Where does Obama want move oversite in the private world and how will this help us?


By the way, you won't see me defending George Bush's spending habits.

Crashed under Clinton? So let me get this straight the economy was doing very well when Bush took office, then four or five years later the economy slowed partly because of the housing market and it was Clinton's fault?

Yeah that's exactly what I said. How about the Tech Bubble? The early recession under Bush?

He is still a Democrat,

There's that blind partisanship we all love.

and other than his health care reform his economic plan shares major point with Clinton's plan.

Bill or Hillary?

[CountArach]

It's relative, CA.

http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf

Also, CA, how much information in that report you posted can attributed to the actual tax cuts? It really is hard to isolate the cuts to see their exact value on the economy, as your report shows it claims that somehow housing investment went up when, historically, it was suppose to go down with tax cuts. Other factors were acting on the economy.

However, the USA did pretty damn good in comparison to many industrialized countries as the report shows. How much is attributed to the tax cuts? I really don't know.

Those two articles aren't remotely comparable. My one was non-partisan and yours was written by a Republican House. Not that I am denying that statistics aren't entirely relative - its just that I would prefer two non partisan sources.

I have no idea how much can be attributed to the tax cuts - it is just that I think that the claim that they have spurred economic growth is utter BS. Also I am not saying you don't still kick other industrialised country's collective asses - just that the tax cuts didn't do it.

[Strike For The South]

Obama does want to raise taxes......on people who make over $250,000 dollars a year. No exactly normal working class folks. He also wants to make sure the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, again 90% of those cuts were to large corporations.

Plus, over the last 8 year the conservatives have expanded the size of government to its largest size ever. Obama wants more over site in the corporate world, not the private.

Look at the simple fact.....

Clinton's 8 years the country had an economic boom.

Bush's 8 years the country has just about gone bust.

Why should there be more oversite in the corporate world those guys busted hump to get where they are. Why should a president tell them what to do. Saying Dem=good for the economy and GOP=bad is a simplistic veiw that is false (as Kush ponted out)

Tell me Strike, are you and your family better off now in Bush's last year, then you were in Clinton's

Grocers stay pretty much the same no matter what. Everyones got to eat!

[m52nickerson]

I'm 20 years old. You think I make over 250k?

It sounded like that from the way you were arguing. So what types of jobs do you think make 250k a year?

What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

I also never said it wasn't a bad living. It is damn good. I wouldn't consider it extremely rich however.

No it is not extremely rich, but those that make the much can afford to pay more taxes and not see a significant change in there way of life.

Health Care is a complex issue and isn't really comparable to privatizing social security.

Yes it is, but it is a perfect example of a privatized service that is failing.

I'm not sure the age I want to retire at, but when I do, I'm going to rely of the government to tell me when. I'm planning to have my own fund set up so I won't have to rely on big daddy giving me my monthly check. Nothing is forcing you to retire at the age you start collecting social security. It's up to you to mention your retirement funds appropriately.

While that is good for you, it may not work for other people. So what happens to the person that never could afford to put anything away for retirement, then suddenly finds he can't work anymore?

Not it isn't. Social security is ticking time bomb. The USA will continue to grow for a very long time until it reaches its carrying point which is a long way off. The problem will get worse not better.

I can agree with this, just not the solution you offered.

Yup, if they work for a living.

So a CEO of a company you would call working class because he works? If not what working class job pays 250k a year.

Yes, the top two brackets received 90% of the tax income from the cuts. So?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...on_Act_of_2001

The lowest bracket was cut 5% and the highest bracket was cut 4.6%. The rest of the brackets were cut by 3%. It seems decent enough to me. What's your problem with this?

Those in the top two brackets did not need a tax cut. They were not struggling.

You didn't answer my question. Where does Obama want move oversite in the private world and how will this help us?

It would help provide health care to many more Americans. It would prevent health care companies from telling you and your doctor what medication you can use.

For example - My wife suffers from very bad migraines. She had a prescription that worked fairly well for her. Then the insurance company told us that she could only get 4 pills per month instead of the 12 sh was getting. We can't afford to pay for the extra pills out of pocket, so because of the health care company I now have to watch my wife suffer through her migraines.

Yeah that's exactly what I said. How about the Tech Bubble? The early recession under Bush?

The .com crash did not affect the whole country, only a few individuals that that were in that industry. There was not small recession.

You are going to blame Clinton for the fall of the housing market when if happened 4 year after he left office? No, that lies with Bush and the sub-prime mortgage lenders. Bush and his administration was warned, but because of a lack in government over site we are in the situation we are currently dealing with.

There's that blind partisanship we all love.

It is only blind if you don't think true that parties position, or continuing to support plans that have not worked. Like the conservatives are doing.

Bill or Hillary?

Bill, Hillary and Obama share the same core beliefs when it comes to the economy. Like a balanced budget.

Why should there be more oversite in the corporate world those guys busted hump to get where they are. Why should a president tell them what to do. Saying Dem=good for the economy and GOP=bad is a simplistic veiw that is false (as Kush ponted out)

Grocers stay pretty much the same no matter what. Everyones got to eat!

The goverment should have over site in businesses that provide needed services to the US people. Again millions of people do not have health care. Why, because the health care companies are simple out to make money. If they can cover 1 million people and make 10 million in profits, or cover 250k and make 10.1 million in profit. They will cover less people. It is the same for the insurance companies. That is why over site is needed.

So....12 year with Reagan and Bush Sr. we get a recession, 8 years with Clinton a huge economic boom, then 8 years with Bush Jr. and we have another recession. I can see were that would be coincidence.

....and Strike, food costs have gone up. So food is the only way you measure your standard of living, or are you side stepping the question?

One other thing, could one of your explain how McCain would fix health care and justify how it would work?

[Odin]

Flush crap with crap. Brilliant.

I didnt say I liked the choice or that it wasnt crap. I just find it a rather silly excersise to not acknowledge the reason we are at this point./

The dems dont have anything new to offer (except a black man who had a muslim father and a white grandmother), Obama is a cookie cutter democrat. The reason he is going to win isnt because the democrats have a wonderful plan, its because the conservatives failed.

The quicker the right recognizes this and starts getting their own house in order, the quicker they will retake the majority.

You know that whole schtict, lower taxes, smaller government less intrusion. Remember those were solid republican tenets and (keeping with crap) they flushed it down the toilet.

So thats more my point, picking apart obama dosent get to the root of why it happened or why he is better then McCain, because he isnt. What he is, is he isnt conservative/republican and thats the problem.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What is working class? Blue collar? I'd say anyone making 102,000 is usually working for their living.

Yup, if they work for a living.

You can say that all you want, but it's silly. Bill gates worked for his living, therefore he is working class! That's not the definition of working class.

[Ice]

Those two articles aren't remotely comparable. My one was non-partisan and yours was written by a Republican House. Not that I am denying that statistics aren't entirely relative - its just that I would prefer two non partisan sources.

It seemed reasonable enough to me. No real party gimmicks on the surface. Your's wasn't exactly unbiased yourself. The author tore the tax cuts apart until he got the residential investment section where he couldn't why home prices were rising where taxes were cut. He concluded that outside forces must have been acting. This was my point the entire time.

I have no idea how much can be attributed to the tax cuts - it is just that I think that the claim that they have spurred economic growth is utter BS. Also I am not saying you don't still kick other industrialised country's collective asses - just that the tax cuts didn't do it.

What did then? Comparing the US market with similar markets is a good indicator. Comparing the US market with old markets isn't really.

[Ice]

It sounded like that from the way you were arguing. So what types of jobs do you think make 250k a year?

Doctors, Lawyers, Senior Management to name a few

All of these jobs require that you go to school for an ungodly amount of time, pay an ungodly amount of money, do a crap ton of work, and work for a living.

No it is not extremely rich, but those that make the much can afford to pay more taxes and not see a significant change in there way of life.

I'm sure you a more than qualified to make this assumption, but humor me, how do you know this? What entitles them to have their taxes raised?

Yes it is, but it is a perfect example of a privatized service that is failing.

No it isn't. Stop trying to make something simple when it really isn't.

We have a mixed system of health care in this country. Ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid (State/Federal level)? Public/Free Clinics?

Beirut/Redleg were arguing this in the thread "American Socialism" earlier last week, so feel free to look at the debate.

While that is good for you, it may not work for other people. So what happens to the person that never could afford to put anything away for retirement, then suddenly finds he can't work anymore?

I'm not seeing why this should be my problem.

I can agree with this, just not the solution you offered.

Than offer a solution other than the taxing the wealthy which besides have other immediate consequences only delays the problem.

So a CEO of a company you would call working class because he works? If not what working class job pays 250k a year.

CEO I wouldn't really consider working. They make in the millions. A doctor, a dentist, a vet, an orthopedic surgeon would be good examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...on_Act_of_2001

Those in the top two brackets did not need a tax cut. They were not struggling.

That wasn't the point of the tax cuts and besides the point. The cuts were there to give more money to the people and spur economic growth. Whether they did that is questionable though.

It would help provide health care to many more Americans. It would prevent health care companies from telling you and your doctor what medication you can use.

For example - My wife suffers from very bad migraines. She had a prescription that worked fairly well for her. Then the insurance company told us that she could only get 4 pills per month instead of the 12 sh was getting. We can't afford to pay for the extra pills out of pocket, so because of the health care company I now have to watch my wife suffer through her migraines.

I feel sorry for your wife, but I'd rather be able to shop around and negotiate with insurance companies that the government have a monopoly on what procedures I can get done.

The .com crash did not affect the whole country, only a few individuals that that were in that industry. There was not small recession.

[QUOTE]

The Dot-com bubble crash wiped out $5 trillion in market value of technology companies from March 2000 to October 2002.

Nevertheless, laid-off technology experts, such as computer programmers, found a glutted job market. In the U.S., International outsourcing and the recently allowed increase of skilled visa "guest workers" (e.g., those participating in the U.S. H-1B visa program) exacerbated the situation

University degree programs for computer-related careers saw a noticeable drop in new students. Anecdotes of unemployed programmers going back to school to become accountants or lawyers were common.

Doesn't sound like it. You also have to remember many people held those companies' stock in their retirement funds.

You are going to blame Clinton for the fall of the housing market when if happened 4 year after he left office? No, that lies with Bush and the sub-prime mortgage lenders. Bush and his administration was warned, but because of a lack in government over site we are in the situation we are currently dealing with.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm not blaming Clinton and I'm not blaming Bush. I'm mainly blaming the banks, but more importantly the Federal Reserve who kept rates at the low 1% rate for so long.

It is only blind if you don't think true that parties position, or continuing to support plans that have not worked. Like the conservatives are doing.

No, it's fairly blind if you simply support a democrat over republicans without knowing/discussing the issues.

Bill, Hillary and Obama share the same core beliefs when it comes to the economy. Like a balanced budget.

No they don't. Bill was pro NAFTA, while Hilary and Obama want to significantly change it.

Bill did have a balanced budget due to massive decreases in military spending, but tell me how Obama is going to balance the budget with an estimated 300 billion in new spending. If you could please tell me how without "getting rid of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy" it would be nice.

[Ice]

I didnt say I liked the choice or that it wasnt crap. I just find it a rather silly excersise to not acknowledge the reason we are at this point./

The dems dont have anything new to offer (except a black man who had a muslim father and a white grandmother), Obama is a cookie cutter democrat. The reason he is going to win isnt because the democrats have a wonderful plan, its because the conservatives failed.

The quicker the right recognizes this and starts getting their own house in order, the quicker they will retake the majority.

You know that whole schtict, lower taxes, smaller government less intrusion. Remember those were solid republican tenets and (keeping with crap) they flushed it down the toilet.

I'd rather they do it with a republican president and democratic congress than with a purely democratic leading federal government.

I do agree with your other points though.

So thats more my point, picking apart obama dosent get to the root of why it happened or why he is better then McCain, because he isnt. What he is, is he isnt conservative/republican and thats the problem.

I acknowledge this, however, I'd rather see McCain for pre mentioned reasons: he will veto all the junk the democrats send through.

[Ice]

You can say that all you want, but it's silly. Bill gates worked for his living, therefore he is working class! That's not the definition of working class.

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

The definition of working class is subjective.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

The definition of working class is subjective.

No it isn't. That's ridiculous.

[Ice]

No it isn't. That's ridiculous.

It appears like we'll agree to disagree here

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It appears like we'll agree to disagree here

Well that depends. Are you using the dictionary definition of "disagree" or your own, made up, definition?

Eh, just messin with ya. Let's drop the argument.

[Strike For The South]

The goverment should have over site in businesses that provide needed services to the US people. Again millions of people do not have health care. Why, because the health care companies are simple out to make money. If they can cover 1 million people and make 10 million in profits, or cover 250k and make 10.1 million in profit. They will cover less people. It is the same for the insurance companies. That is why over site is needed.

So....12 year with Reagan and Bush Sr. we get a recession, 8 years with Clinton a huge economic boom, then 8 years with Bush Jr. and we have another recession. I can see were that would be coincidence.

....and Strike, food costs have gone up. So food is the only way you measure your standard of living, or are you side stepping the question?

One other thing, could one of your explain how McCain would fix health care and justify how it would work?

You do realize pigeonholing the ebb and flow of the United States economy into neat little terms like the presidencey doesnt work right? You realize the economy is not simply dictated by the party in power or even there polices.

If the inscurance company wishses to do that so be it they are a private company out to make profit and that is ok becuase when companies make money the entire economy is in better shape. You can bring out all the sob stories you like about little johnny ands his incurable cancer but the fact is he is one child and we need to be concerend about 300 million not just one. Charity is best left to the churches.

You asked about my family and my family more specifiacly me and my father are groceres and as we all know the mighty grocery buisness is not affected by the goverment.

McCain will let the marketes work themsleves as it should be.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As to Reaganomics not working:

The USA experienced the longest period of sustained growth with low inflation in its entire history after Reagan's policies came on line in the early '80s. SO successful, that by the 2nd Clinton term there were some articles that were suggesting we were "past" business cycles (obviously, we are not). Reagan DID create a massive increase in the national debt because of the heavy military spending used to push the CCCP past its balance point in the then 30+ year-old Cold War. Moreover, he made these increases while prevented, by political realities, from making the sweeping reductions in the size of government that he'd have preferred.


As to taxing those who earn 100k+ at a higher level then currently. This will only dampen the economy slightly and will increase federal funding somewhat. Truth be told, most of those employed at a 400k+ level per annum are NOT going to say "_____ this, I'm off for Monaco!" just because their taxes go up by 15-20%. On the flip side, tax cuts do improve the economy, but are NOT the panacea of improvement most conservatives think. Of the two, I think tax cuts create a somewhat better combination of revenue and money in private economic hands.


NOTE: Kush made a point that deserves more play. An INCOME tax increase strikes me as the worst option. By taxing higher wage earners, you provide some disincentive for people to get ahead, to open a small business, etc. If your goal is to make the rich pay more since they have somehow benefited more from society, then you should be taxing WEALTH -- not taxing income and preventing the little guy from achieving a Horatio Alger story.


Yes, going after Mrs. Obama in this manner is tacky, even if she once used the phrasing of herself in a moment of exuberance. Good point that.

[LittleGrizzly]

Works for a living and makes under a 1 million. Happy?

So i guess middle class americans would be buying football teams and yachts....

[Lemur]

Yes, going after Mrs. Obama in this manner is tacky, even if she once used the phrasing of herself in a moment of exuberance.

Except that by all accounts, she did not use the "baby mama" phrase. She once introduced Senator Obama as "my baby's daddy," not as "my baby daddy." The two expressions have different implications and different baggage.

But as Scalzi said in his inspired rant:

Michelle “Fox News’ Ethnic Shield” Malkin defends Fox News’ use of the “Baby Mama” phrase by essentially making two arguments. First, Michelle Obama once called Barack Obama her “baby’s daddy,” and as we all know, a married woman factually and correctly calling her husband her child’s father is exactly the same as a major news organization calling a potential First Lady some chick what got knocked up on a fling. Second, the term “baby-daddy” has gone out into the common culture; heck, even Tom Cruise was called Katie Holmes’ baby-daddy, you know, when he impregnated her and she subsequently gave birth while the two were not married, which is exactly like what happened between Michelle and Barack Obama, who were married in 1992 and whose first child was born six years later.

So by Malkin’s reasoning it’s perfectly fine for Fox News to call Michelle Obama the unmarried mother of Barack Obama’s children because an entirely different phrase has to her mind entered the common culture, and there was this one time that Michelle Obama once uttered something that sounded like that entirely different phrase, which is not the phrase that Fox News used. But wait! Malkin also points to someone in her comment thread saying that one time, Michelle Obama actually used the phrase “baby daddy”! No apostrophe! It’s in a comment thread, so it must be true. Therefore, Michelle Obama apocryphally using a piece of urban slang makes it perfectly okay for Fox News to use an entirely different piece of urban slang. And that’s why, you see, it won’t be a problem for Bill O’Reilly to refer to Barack Obama as “my nigga” on the next O’Reilly Factor.

[m52nickerson]

Doctors, Lawyers, Senior Management to name a few

All of these jobs require that you go to school for an ungodly amount of time, pay an ungodly amount of money, do a crap ton of work, and work for a living.

They do a lot of work, but very few would think of them working class.

I'm sure you a more than qualified to make this assumption, but humor me, how do you know this? What entitles them to have their taxes raised?

They get there taxes raised because they can afford it.

No it isn't. Stop trying to make something simple when it really isn't.

We have a mixed system of health care in this country. Ever hear of Medicare/Medicaid (State/Federal level)? Public/Free Clinics?

Yes we have a mixed system. The parts you mentioned are the socialized parts, and while they have there problems are far from as bad off as the Privatized part.

I'm not seeing why this should be my problem.

Because you live in this country and not in a vacuum. If people with out health care are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment hospitals will be forced to recover those cost. That happens by raising prices, yes hospitals can do that. In turn it cost your health care company more to pay for treatments they cover. In turn you will see your rates and copays go up. So in the end you will pay that money one way or another.

Than offer a solution other than the taxing the wealthy which besides have other immediate consequences only delays the problem.

I see none. Taxing the wealth will help reduce the gap that exists. When we eliminate that gap the system is fixed.

CEO I wouldn't really consider working. They make in the millions. A doctor, a dentist, a vet, an orthopedic surgeon would be good examples.

Again you may think these fit the definition of working class, but are sadly mistaken.

I feel sorry for your wife, but I'd rather be able to shop around and negotiate with insurance companies that the government have a monopoly on what procedures I can get done.

What leverage would you have in negotiating with the insurance companies? You would tell them you want full coverage on all procedures and they would quote you a price, that you most likely could not afford, and you would have the option of taking it or leaving it.

Doesn't sound like it. You also have to remember many people held those companies' stock in their retirement funds.

Yes some people did lose everything, but it was still a small part of the country.

You are missing the point entirely. I'm not blaming Clinton and I'm not blaming Bush. I'm mainly blaming the banks, but more importantly the Federal Reserve who kept rates at the low 1% rate for so long.

Now your not blaming Clinton? perhaps you should re-read your post and see that when I asked if you were blaming Clinton for the housing crash four years into Bush's presidency you said.

Yeah that's exactly what I said.

So now it is the banks fault. So the government should not keep an eye on things like that?

No, it's fairly blind if you simply support a democrat over republicans without knowing/discussing the issues.

Like the issue of the economy which we have seen that the republican's plans have not worked.

No they don't. Bill was pro NAFTA, while Hilary and Obama want to significantly change it.

Bill did have a balanced budget due to massive decreases in military spending, but tell me how Obama is going to balance the budget with an estimated 300 billion in new spending. If you could please tell me how without "getting rid of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy" it would be nice.

He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?

Cutting federal taxes does not save people money in the end. If the feds cut taxes they also cut spending to make up for it. One the first things that goes is the funding to the states. The states in turn must raise taxes or also cut spending. So now state and local programs like Police, Fire, schools, and other state programs get cut. To many cuts and the states and local governments are forced to raise taxes or add service fees.

Prime example. Here in the State of Florida, which I'm an employee, a motion recently passed that lowered property taxes significantly. Florida has no income tax. It saved most tax payers around $250 dollars a year. So with less money in the state budget cuts were made.

Now I work for the Polk County Health Department, Environmentally Engineering Division, Drinking Water Program. Basically my department regulates all the water system in the county. I myself do the physical inspections of the water plants.

Now with the budget cuts the state Health department has been forced to raise fees, and will soon require all the water system to pay for a yearly permit. For small systems (like a mobile home park) it will only be a small amount, but for the bigger City and County owned system it will cost quite a bit. Were do you think they will make up for that. Customers water bills.

That is only water. Many cities and municipalities are now adding fees for Fire Department Service, increasing fees for construction permits, fees for any other service that has fees.

Schools are cutting after school programs which has caused an uproar because working parents now have to pay sitters or after school center.

I could go on.

...oh by the way, Florida state employees will not be getting a raise this next year. That makes two years in a row. It is expected that our health care, which we pay for as negotiated by the state and the health care companies, will go up.

...and we might lose dental.

So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!

[Ice]

They do a lot of work, but very few would think of them working class.

I guess I'm one of the few then.

They get there taxes raised because they can afford it.

Read Rabbit's post below mine for a summary of my views

Yes we have a mixed system. The parts you mentioned are the socialized parts, and while they have there problems are far from as bad off as the Privatized part.

How do you figure?

Because you live in this country and not in a vacuum. If people with out health care are forced to go to the emergency room for treatment hospitals will be forced to recover those cost. That happens by raising prices, yes hospitals can do that. In turn it cost your health care company more to pay for treatments they cover. In turn you will see your rates and copays go up. So in the end you will pay that money one way or another.

I was talking about Social Security not health care. Social security is meant to supplement one's income when they retire. It is not meant as a substitute for a pension or retirement fund.

I see none. Taxing the wealth will help reduce the gap that exists. When we eliminate that gap the system is fixed.

What Gap? Don't you get it? More people will collecting social security than will be funding it. Raising taxes or not, it's only a matter of time before the entire system collapses.

Again you may think these fit the definition of working class, but are sadly mistaken.

*Shrugs* Doesn't really mean much.

What leverage would you have in negotiating with the insurance companies? You would tell them you want full coverage on all procedures and they would quote you a price, that you most likely could not afford, and you would have the option of taking it or leaving it.

Or, you search around for other insurance companies, make a deal with the hospital (I'm assuming you haven't read their debate left), apply for medicare, or try a private clinic.

Yes some people did lose everything, but it was still a small part of the country.

Yes, but it still effected many.

Now your not blaming Clinton? perhaps you should re-read your post and see that when I asked if you were blaming Clinton for the housing crash four years into Bush's presidency you said.So now it is the banks fault. So the government should not keep an eye on things like that?

Ever hear of sarcasam?

Where did I say bank regulation wasn't a good thing?

Like the issue of the economy which we have seen that the republican's plans have not worked.

Subjective, but I tend to agree. The key is cutting taxes and spending. George Bush didn't do such a thing. John McCain will attempt to keep the tax cuts and cut spending.

He has to get ride of the tax cuts and tax the wealthy. How else do you get the government money?

You don't need more government money if you spend less.

Besides, letting the tax cuts for the "wealthy" (I still laugh when this term is used) expire will not fund all of Obama's endeavors and balance the budget. There simply isn't enough money there to do it. Now if he rolled back the entire tax cut program Bush enacted now that might be different.

Cutting federal taxes does not save people money in the end. If the feds cut taxes they also cut spending to make up for it. One the first things that goes is the funding to the states. The states in turn must raise taxes or also cut spending. So now state and local programs like Police, Fire, schools, and other state programs get cut. To many cuts and the states and local governments are forced to raise taxes or add service fees.

I see no problem with this. Have the states tax their residents more for the services they use if the people want them.

Prime example. Here in the State of Florida, which I'm an employee, a motion recently passed that lowered property taxes significantly. Florida has no income tax. It saved most tax payers around $250 dollars a year. So with less money in the state budget cuts were made.

Now I work for the Polk County Health Department, Environmentally Engineering Division, Drinking Water Program. Basically my department regulates all the water system in the county. I myself do the physical inspections of the water plants.

Now with the budget cuts the state Health department has been forced to raise fees, and will soon require all the water system to pay for a yearly permit. For small systems (like a mobile home park) it will only be a small amount, but for the bigger City and County owned system it will cost quite a bit. Were do you think they will make up for that. Customers water bills.

That is only water. Many cities and municipalities are now adding fees for Fire Department Service, increasing fees for construction permits, fees for any other service that has fees.

Schools are cutting after school programs which has caused an uproar because working parents now have to pay sitters or after school center.

I could go on.

...oh by the way, Florida state employees will not be getting a raise this next year. That makes two years in a row. It is expected that our health care, which we pay for as negotiated by the state and the health care companies, will go up.

...and we might lose dental.

Sounds like the state of Florida's problem and not the federal government. We have as many problems as you and possibly more up here in the great state of Michigan. Try paying an additional 5% in state income taxes along side federal.

So for the people making over 250k and feel that they are taxed unfairly, I don't care!

I'm not surprised you don't care. Taxing from those who have more is always easy for the takers.

[Crazed Rabbit]

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.

CR

[Ice]

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.

CR

Thanks crazed rabbit, I'll direct nickerson down to this post for one of my points.

[CountArach]

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

Saying 'the rich don't need it' is the height of stupidity. The thing is, they earned it. It is antithetical to the idea of individual rights that what a person earns can be taken merely because they can survive without it. The arguments behind that were old decades ago, and remain based on irrelevant ideas of society.

Indeed, tis a vile idea that the government has more claim to our property than we do if we don't absolutely need what they take. It is a concerning assumption that the government has first dibs on our income and wealth, that we must prove we 'need' it instead of the other way around.

As a class-warfarist myself, I can tell you that the biggest problem we have is inherited wealth or wealth that is earned in an unfair way, such as stock market manipulation. Definitions of unfair vary (For example Communists would claim that it is all wealth. I don't follow that line of thinking), but I personally don't have any problem with Doctors.

Also I see us as the Government, and hence through paying taxes I am indeed still pooling my own resources with that of other people who live in the society. But hey, I'm a nutty leftard, so my opinion doesn't matter anyway.

And there was a recent gov't study that showed tax cuts corresponded with economic increases.

Linky?

[Lemur]

To read Crazed Rabbit's take on taxation, any form of graduated tax is class warfare. A rather extreme viewpoint, frankly, and one which has zero chance of gaining traction anytime soon. Neither McCain nor Obama are talking about doing away with graduated taxation in the next Presidential cycle.

In fact, if you take both men at their word (a dangerous proposition with anyone, much less a politician) they both intend to increase deficit spending. McCain's proposals would increase the debt much faster. Fortunately for me, I don't believe a word of it.

Interesting article about Mike Huckabee as a VP contender.

-edit-

As for this very silly debate about what constitutes "working class," I'll just ask Kush where the "professional class" begins, since he seems to have squeezed everyone from a McDonald's fry cook to the majority of Fortune 500 CEOs into "working class."

[Odin]

To read Crazed Rabbit's take on taxation, any form of graduated tax is class warfare.

Well I agree with CR and in a sense it is class warfare. The issue can be viewed many ways, for arguments sake lets suppose I am one of the wealthy who makes in excess of 250k a year. Should the government be in the business of forcing me to pay more to fund programs to help others?

Essentially thats whats already happening, if I dont pay I go to jail and loose everything I have worked for to accumulate. Graduated taxes are penalties on people who have obtained more through their own efforts, skills and talents.

Now if the government wanted to ask me to give more, thats different isnt it, but thats not whats happening. The message strikes at the core of the american value of you can be whatever you want and achieve what ever you want with hard work (see barak obama), but once you get there you have to pay a penalty for the effort.

[Lemur]

Odin, two questions: (1) How, exactly, would a government go about "asking" for more, rather than demanding more? The law is a blunt instrument, and anything codified by law is backed up by force or the threat of force. That's how government works. If, for example, you refuse to obey the speed limit, and you refuse to pull over for the cop behind you with the flashing lights, things can get ugly. If this coercive aspect of government really bugs you, there are myriad ways in which you are oppressed, far and beyond income tax.

Secondly, both you and CR use the argument that wealth obtained by hard work, forethought and risk-taking should not be subject to graduated taxation. Okay, what about Paris Hilton? What about johhny trust fund? Is taxing their wealth also "class warfare," whatever that means? If not, how would you differentiate between unearned and earned wealth? Can such a distinction be made? Should it?

[LittleGrizzly]

One point the class warriors seem to be forgetting is that becoming rich isn't easy. To become a doctor takes a lot of time, money, and hard work, and many don't make it. The same is true for other very well paying careers. But people try because of the high payoff, which balances the high risk. If the class warfare populists decrease the payoff by increasing taxes, they decrease the economic incentive for people to go for those difficult jobs.

People are going to aim for high paying jobs whatever the tax rate is like, if the goverment increased taxes on wages over £250,000 over here that would not deter me in the slightest from going for a job with that wage.... would anyone intentionally go for a lower paid job just because of an increased tax burden at that level of pay..... you'll still end up richer than the factory worker so i don't see any potential doctors quitting and going for a factory job just because of a reversal of bush's tax cuts, infact im sure before the tax cuts there were plenty of doctors in training who felt it was worth it despite the extra tax burden.

[Odin]

two questions: (1) How, exactly, would a government go about "asking" for more, rather than demanding more?

Perhaps the same way in the 70's it encouraged conservation? Lester the lightbulb and woodsy owl? Seriously what were arguing here is should they be demanding more. I understand why they would want to and the mechanisms in place to do that, but at the heart of the demand is the notion that I should give over my income to assist the government to assist others they deem in need of my help. Thats the core of the problem and always has been, the government as a middle man for the dispensation of resources dosent have a stellar record.

Okay, what about Paris Hilton? What about johhny trust fund? Is taxing their wealth also "class warfare," whatever that means?

Yes it is. Someone earned the wealth, and penalizing people for inheretence is almost worse then the penalty on income. Johnny Trust fund is essentially vilianized in the current structure due to whom he is related too. Again, it comes down to the imposition of an ethical code enforced by a government entity. So he was gifted a million bucks, why should he have to pay a penalty? Because its the right thing to do? Because he is a spoiled rich kid? Who gets to make that determination? The government for the people by the people? Well isnt Johnny one of those people?

If not, how would you differentiate between unearned and earned wealth?

All wealth is earned at some point Lemur, Johnny trust fund may not have earned it but someone alont the line did. Imposing graduated taxes on wealth is an unequitable means to impose funding on entitlement programs. Its okay to believe someone should want to help others because they are prosperous, its another thing to enforce their participation via law.

Should it?

Sadly it can, but no it shouldnt. The 16th amendment alows the federal government to levy income tax, but it also is supposed to make it proportionate based on state populations and income. Graduated taxes based on individual income seems to fly in the face of this thus the no it shouldnt argument with the noted cavaet that the 16th amendment can be intrpreted in many ways.

In my personal view it dosent make it right and is not in sync with the intention of the constitution.

[Lemur]

[The] heart of the demand is the notion that I should give over my income to assist the government to assist others they deem in need of my help. Thats the core of the problem and always has been, the government as a middle man for the dispensation of resources dosent have a stellar record.

From the sound of it, you're opposed to the notion of government. 'Cause if you take away all taxation and coercion, you got no government, friend. The beast that taketh one of every ten sheep, as David lamented, is always going to be a middleman. If that's unacceptable to you, then you're not okay with anything that has come since homo habilis.

All wealth is earned at some point Lemur, Johnny trust fund may not have earned it but someone alont the line did.

So if I earn a thousand dollars and drop it on the street, and a kid picks it up, that counts as earned income for the kid who picked it up, because it was earned at some point? I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. When people (especially accountants) talked about "earned income" they're referring to income you earned yourself. Not the income your aunt Edna gifted to you. We all know that as far as aunt Edna is concerned, that is earned income. Once it is gifted to you, it is not earned income. This is not an arbitrary definition designed by liberal elitists; this is accounting 101.

So you're opposed to all graduated taxation, and you're opposed in principle to all redistribution of wealth, and you're opposed to government qua government. I think in your rhetorical voyage you have sailed off the map.

Note, Odin; I don't think you are an extremist, but I think your argument has taken you to a distant shore.

[Odin]

From the sound of it, you're opposed to the notion of government. 'Cause if you take away all taxation and coercion, you got no government, friend. The beast that taketh one of every ten sheep, as David lamented, is always going to be a middleman. If that's unacceptable to you, then you're not okay with anything that has come since homo habilis.

I am opposed to government enforcing ethics and morals via penalties through law and not allowing me the choice. Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want Lemur, its still a pig.

So if I earn a thousand dollars and drop it on the street, and a kid picks it up, that counts as earned income for the kid who picked it up, because it was earned at some point?

Of course it is, assuming from your example you earned it at some point. If you had then its likely already been taxed. Who is being obtuse? you've gone from inheritence to a kid finding money in the street.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. When people (especially accountants) talked about "earned income" they're referring to income you earned yourself. Not the income your aunt Edna gifted to you. We all know that as far as aunt Edna is concerned, that is earned income. Once it is gifted to you, it is not earned income. This is not an arbitrary definition designed by liberal elitists; this is accounting 101.

Thats pretty funny Lemur, please lecture me some more on "accounting 101" I nearly pissed myself. You left out one important fact though, you are taxed on the gift because its included in your gross income. So aunt edna and johnny take the same hit. That was accounting 102 though and its been nearly 20 years since I had it, my appologies for inproper citation

So you're opposed to all graduated taxation, and you're opposed in principle to all redistribution of wealth, and you're opposed to government qua government. I think in your rhetorical voyage you have sailed off the map.

In classic Lemur argument style you wrap up your posts with attempting to state someone elses position based on what will help make your argument. "You're opposed to government" is a classic example of the traditional leaps you make in your argument style. Of course you have no verifiable quote to affirm this statement, but it helps to make your ending sound good dosent it Lemur?

I am not opposed to painting opponnents a certain way in a debate, but you have danced around the core tenet of my argument. The government shouldnt impose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements to others, it should be voluntary not mandated by a law. Sadly it wasnt a clever dance for you Lemur, making absolute statements as to my position based on your assumption lends me to think you dont have a well thought out response.

[Lemur]

I am opposed to government enforcing ethics and morals via penalties through law and not allowing me the choice.

Odin, dude, that's what government does. We argue about what extent and in which areas government should do it, but nobody seriously argues that government should not enforce "ethics and morals via penalties." Punishing murderers, for instance, is an enforcement of an ethical and moral standard. Your rhetoric is way too sweeping.

Of course [found money is earned], assuming from your example you earned it at some point. If you had then its likely already been taxed. Who is being obtuse?

This is kinda wacky, Odin. So if money was earned at some point by someone, it's considered earned income no matter who holds it? And considered earned for that person, no matter how removed their relationship? Dude, maybe we should move this over to the "Marijuana: 0" thread ...

You left out one important fact though, you are taxed on the gift because its included in your gross income.

Oh for Pete's sake, so since some gift income is taxed (not all, don't be silly and pretend it is, and let's not even talk about faux-charity dodges you can use to move wealth without even saying "hi" to the taxman), then it's ... what, exactly? That makes it earned income for the receiver? This is getting kinda weird.

In classic Lemur argument style you wrap up your posts with attempting to state someone elses position based on what will help make your argument. "You're opposed to government" is a classic example of the traditional leaps you make in your argument style.

Dude, you sound as though you are opposed to government. I'm sorry it makes you mad when I point this out.

In not opposed to painting opponnents a certain way in a debate, but you have danced around the core tenet of my argument.

While I'll admit I'm a fantastic dancer, I haven't been deliberately trying to obscure your argument. When you denounce all government for being a "middleman," what is your humble reader supposed to think?

The government shouldnt oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements to others, it should be voluntary not mandated by a law.

I've read this sentence several times now, and I'm still not clear on what it means. The government shouldn't oppose taxes on individuals to fund entitlements ... no, I'm sorry. I'm not getting it. Could you please rephrase?