The Debate
I was in the book quarry, digging up words to stick on the page, so I taped the debate but have yet to watch. Give me your take on it:
Who won? Why? Did the debate change your mind about anything? If so, what and why?
The Debate
I was in the book quarry, digging up words to stick on the page, so I taped the debate but have yet to watch. Give me your take on it:
Who won? Why? Did the debate change your mind about anything? If so, what and why?
McCain won.
Because this.
But if Obama ends up winning, I'll be glad to finally stop worrying about money. If times get tough, there'll always be some rich plumber who doesn't deserve the money he's making, and he'll have to give me my fair share of it.
Jim Treacher at October 16, 2008 1:32 AM
Did not watch it. Did not record it. Did not intend to do either one. I was worrying about the election, just a little, but then it dawned on me that the sun would come up on November 5th just the same. That's a Wednesday I'm looking forward to.
By the way, Mr. Treacher, you should give me some of your money. My house is too small, and I'm sure it's someone else's fault.
old rpm daddy at October 16, 2008 4:47 AM
I watched it with my wife. We both are going to vote for McCain. I thought Obama won because, to the uninformed voter, he seemed like a moderate. Unless you are aware that he is the most liberal senator in the senate, his association with radicals like Ayers and Wright, his voting record, etc., you think he sounded pretty good. I know he's lying and just saying what he needs to say to seal the deal. Many people don't know his record.
McCain had his best debate. However, I am always frustrated that he doesn't really flesh out what he's talking about. He should have pummmeled Obama on Ayers. How he bombed the Pentagon, NYC police headquarters and the private home of a federal judge. He should have asked Obama why he launched his political career at the home of a man most Americans would refuse to even shake his hand. Obama gave over 800k of his campaign money to ACORN...to do just what they are doing...commit voting fraud to help get him elected. Obama sat on ACORN's board. McCain should have just pounded him on that.
That being said, I understand McCain's unwillingness to do the media's job. All of this stuff should be out there already. However, if the media had delved into Obama's past he wouldn't be the Democratic nominee for POTUS.
However, the fact that Obama isn't up by 20 points proves what a weak candidate he is. We are in a financial crisis like no other in my lifetime. Bush is very unpopular. McCain is the candidate of the incumbent party. However, people don't trust Obama. In large part because the media has refused to ask questions about him.
I think Obama won because he seemed like a moderate. That's all he has to do. The media will do the rest.
Tom at October 16, 2008 5:33 AM
I thought McCain did. But, at the start of the debate, I wanted to crawl in a hole, he was doing so poorly. He really stepped up, and FINALLY started asking Obama directly all the things that the media should but don't, like why he's flat-out lied on X,Y, and Z, and why he consistently befriends people who don't like America.
I loved him hammering Joe the Plumber, who should have to give his money to help others below him with less drive. Apparently, the fact that Joe the Plumber and many many others made it just fine without Obama handouts doesn't register with Obama. They should be made to pay to "help" others anyway.
I wish this McCain had been at the first 2 debates. I still have hope though.
momof3 at October 16, 2008 8:03 AM
Obama did because of this:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Presidential-Debate-Democratic-presidential-candidate-Sen-Barack-Obama/ss/events/pl/092608presdebatemiss/s:/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/joe_the_plumber#photoViewer=/081016/ids_photos_ts/r1772410910.jpg
kg at October 16, 2008 8:46 AM
Obama did because of this:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Presidential-Debate-Democratic-presidential-candidate-Sen-Barack-Obama/ss/events/pl/092608presdebatemiss/s:/ap/20081016/ap_on_el_pr/joe_the_plumber#photoViewer=/081016/ids_photos_ts/r1772410910.jpg
kg at October 16, 2008 8:46 AM
Obama did because he didn't further alienate his base.
What McCain? you want MORE government interventionalism in the markets? you want to continue pandering to those bat-sh!t insane social conservatives, and yet failing to do so (on the question of Roe)...?
McCain had, again, tons of opportunity to trounce on Obama and took only one shot at him (you could have run against bush 4 years ago comment...but then, so could have McCain i guess).
McCain needed to be phenomenal last night, and all I heard was "let's use the government more and more and more".
At least with Obama's socialism, the money will be circulated within the Us. McCain's redistribution of wealth via tax extortion will be sent to foreigners in Iraq, Georgia, and elsewhere. And we dont' even get a scintilla of benefit from that so far as I can tell.
farker at October 16, 2008 8:51 AM
I'm pretty sure there was no winner but one loser.
That loser is the American public.
No one wins with either of these 'candidates'. We'll look back in 4 years and wonder how we could be so stupid, like voting to go into Iraq (or not voting that way). The same will occur for the 'bailout'.
As someone who is still undecided, only because I can't tell who I like least, I'm probably going to sit on the sidelines this election as I don't feel like again voting for the candidate I dislike least.
CJ at October 16, 2008 8:57 AM
It's so close, but I think Obama won by a hair simply b/c he seemed more specific about his plans. I also liked how he remained calm and focused when McCain went on the offensive regarding Ayers/Acron etc.. To me, McCain's aggression made him come across as angry and a little out of control - I can understand why he would be angry, but the way his body physically translated his frustration was a little too reminiscent of G.W.B (angry little man ready to lash out at all those kids who made fun of him growing up).
McCain made some good points about taxes and the economy - some that I don't agree with, but well spoken. Obama had this habit of smiling and laughing whenever McCain made a statement that he felt was false - this started to come across as flippant and condescending (not good if he's trying to seem less arrogant).
I knew who I was voting for before the debate and this did not change my mind. Also, the whole "Joe the Plumber" thing felt like such a canned gimmick I literally groaned out-loud each time they mentioned him.
DB at October 16, 2008 9:17 AM
I don't care who won. I didn't watch it, because it won't change my mind.
Obama owes me about $1500. Because that's what he and his friends in the Democrat party have caused my IRA to lose in the past 3 weeks. The only thing that's saved my meager account is the fact that I was too lazy to put the bulk of the money anywhere, so it sat in a savings account at 2-3%.
Because of Dodd and Frank and Obama and Reid and Schumer and the rest of the Democrats who pushed the sub-prime mortgage industry in the first place, everyone is sitting by watching their retirement funds evaporate.
And Dodd, et. al. are trying to (and succeeding at) convince the American people that this is all the fault of Republicans, deregulation, and Bush. The media is deliberately and knowingly pushing this lie while Dodd et. al. walk away with our money in their pockets.
Think of that when you make your choice.
brian at October 16, 2008 9:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/10/16/the_debate.html#comment-1597891">comment from brianHere's a disturbing blog item from USNews & World Report about Barack The Marxist:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/16/did-barack-spread-the-wealth-obama-just-blow-the-election.html%23read_more
Amy Alkon at October 16, 2008 9:37 AM
DB, McCain had that same habit of smiling and laughing, plus he interrupted Obama all the damn time. I thought he came off as far more condescending. Both of them needed to stop whining about negative campaigning (McCain brought it up, but Obama didn't rise above it) and I don't have any idea why Bill Ayers is still a relevant issue. I thought Obama made a good point that screeching about Ayers has pretty much been the entirety of McCain's campaign for the past two weeks.
The Joe-the-plumber gimmick was really stupid and I'm annoyed they both kept referencing him. Also, it's pretty odd that John McCain can't distinguish between autism and down syndrome; makes me doubt the sincerity of his claim that he'll help families with special needs children.
Sam at October 16, 2008 9:39 AM
hey Brian, why not bill half to McCain: your golden boy supported and voted for it, too.
You want Obama? fine, enjoy your socialism
You want McCain? fine, enjoy your socialism by calling it 'conservatism'.
Man, a vote for McCain is a perpetuation of the idea that conservatism is big-government no-check-on-spending principles. Well, if that's what you want in the next several elections...then by all means...
farker at October 16, 2008 9:52 AM
You got any evidence for that? Didn't think so.
Chris mother fucking Dodd had his fat fucking voice coming out of my radio today announcing that Republicans refused to enforce regulations on financial institutions, and therefore are responsible for the meltdown.
CHRIS MOTHER FUCKING DODD IS THE MAN WHO PREVENTED ANY REGULATIONS FROM SEEING THE LIGHT OF DAY, INCLUDING THE ONES THAT WERE PROPOSED BY MIKE OXLEY AND CO-SPONSORED BY JOHN MCCAIN!
That clear enough for you yet?
You vote for Obama, you are voting to have your wallet emptied on the whims of a communist. Who will then lie to you and tell you that your brother-in-law did it.
brian at October 16, 2008 10:52 AM
Obama won! Why? Well:
* McCain campaign is stuck on Bill Ayers. That looks dumb. John should have steered clear of that. He decided to steer into it. Lots of respected republicans are just as associated with Ayers.
* McCain supporters include people who like to yell "Kill Him" at the rallies. None of Obama supporters go that far (at rallies at least). That doesn't even need to be pointed out. McCain steered into that when he brought up Rep. John Lewis.
* John McCain said he's not Bush. Maybe not, but he is clearly much closer to Bush than Obama, certainly the same brand, and the same backers, and so, John left himself wide open and got slapped.
* Both avoided answering certain questions, but McCain did so much more.
* Obama shows how he holds his cool. McCain shows how he does not, and therefore, he resembles Bush. I know that John can't change this aspect of himself. This has many wondering which one we want (in the decision making seat) when things get hot.
* McCain said he was going to beat Obama's butt. Umm, I saw that he wanted to, but John was unable to connect with said butt.
As far as changing my mind, well, clearly, I've been an Obama supporter for over a year. But last night, I switched from being a hopeful pessimist, so now, I'm a cautious optimist.
I'm Still worried that too many whites are simply scared of a half-black man. They should be more scared of another useless, costly Iraq war.
laser plumb bob at October 16, 2008 11:02 AM
Obama is a Marxist like McCain is a conservative.
the wandering jew at October 16, 2008 11:20 AM
LPB -
Name one Republican with "close ties" to Ayers. Name one that sat on the board of any of his leftist commissions.
As far as the "Kill Him" comment - NEVER HAPPENED. The reporter MADE IT UP. And you bought it.
I'm not scared of a man based on his color. I am scared of him based upon the harm he wishes to inflict upon me.
Obama and his followers represent everything that drove Orwell to suicide.
At this point, I'm terrified of an Obama presidency. Not because he's a raging leftist, but because he will be an enabler for Pelosi and Reid's madness.
Say good-bye to political radio and blogs, folks. Under an Obama presidency, the "fairness doctrine" won't be just an FCC rulemaking, it'll be the law of the land.
brian at October 16, 2008 11:23 AM
the wandering jew:Obama is a moderate like McCain is a conservative.
Fixed your post.
Because if you think McCain is a conservative, you're so far to the left you're about to fall off the world.
brian at October 16, 2008 11:27 AM
No, I meant what I said.
McCain is no conservative. I'd put him as a centrist, maybe a little moderate left.
But Obama is no Marxist. He's further left than McCain, but that doesn't make him a Marxist.
Even the spread-the-wealth comment is just boilerplate Democratic principles when you look in context:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/obama_the_friendly_socialist.php
I oppose Obama's tax plan, but calling raising taxes Marxism is like calling eating salad veganism.
the wandering jew at October 16, 2008 11:50 AM
> Even the spread-the-wealth comment
> is just boilerplate Democratic
> principles
You say that as if it were exonerative.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 16, 2008 12:08 PM
No, I say it like it's not Marxism.
It's actually possible to oppose something without believing it to be a murderous regime that's going to destroy us all.
the wandering jew at October 16, 2008 12:12 PM
> without believing it to be a
> murderous regime that's going
> to destroy us all.
Maybe, but we needn't bother. While it might be a stretch to call the (my) Democratic party 'murderous', I certainly believe it's twitchiest and most vocal members could destroy what's good about living in the United States.
I think you're missing the math: The Democratic party is disliked in many quarters because the world it promises to deliver is indistinguishable from the most 'successful' implementations of Marxist socialism.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 16, 2008 12:31 PM
Really? The complaints of citizens living under Marxist regimes were usually about high taxes? I would have thought it was all the gulags and executions. Or did I miss that part of Obama's platform?
the wandering jew at October 16, 2008 12:34 PM
Wordplay. Gulags are taxing indeed
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 16, 2008 1:14 PM
Trying to put myself into the mind of the average undecided American voter, I think that Obama came off as calmer and more collected. McCain sounded a little snippy at times. McCain did his best to throw the most significant charge (ie. William Ayers) at Obama but the latter offered a reasonable sounding response.
Where the truth in any of the back & forth tete-a-tete actually lies, who knows. Obama is a superb and convincing speaker. He could say that 2 + 2 = 5 and the U.S. has 57 states and his legion of supporters would believe every single word.
What has me smirking today is the great irony that my country of Canada has just voted in a Conservative government for the second time in a row, yet the United States of America is entertaining the idea of a Great Socialist Experiment. Strange times in this New Millennium! Strange times indeed.
I'm convinced that your upcoming presidential election is going to come down to one issue: How many voters share Joe Wurzelbacher's view of America and how many share Barack Obama's? Make no mistake, they are diametrically opposed.
Lisa Schiffren shares some great insight on this here: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTllMTA4ZDMyNjBiMjNkMjdlMjQwMTEwMDM0Yjg1YzI=
Robert W. at October 16, 2008 1:28 PM
Do you liberals really have no issue with Obama wanting to take money from driven and successful people and give it to slackers? It blows my mind that anyone could be ok with that. It's the first step in nothing that's yours actually being yours but everything being co-opted for the "greater good". You think you own your house? Think again if Obama gets started down his path. You think that 5 acres you have tucked away waiting for retirement is actually yours? Not after he gets through making you use it or lose it. Or did you think that'll only apply to oil companies? No he'll need to take that land and redistribute it to give others a leg up. Be prepared and hide your silver. That's all I've got to say.
momof3 at October 16, 2008 2:11 PM
Just a question from the bleachers here: there seems to be a strong appetite in the US for further, deeper tax cuts. Given the large fiscal deficit and the current economic challenges facing the country, along with some fairly big ongoing expense items in the form of Iraq, etc, it doesn't seem like a particularly good time to cut govt revenues.
So I'm wondering, is the desire for tax cuts driven mainly by a) a desire to limit the govt's ability to spend? b) personal gain? c) habit?
If a), how can you be sure the activities that get cut will be the ones that you want cut? Or have I totally misread this and its more about redistributing the burden? If so, redistribute to where?
Anyway, just curious. Thanks.
scott at October 16, 2008 2:17 PM
who the hell honestly thinks mccain wont raise taxes? how the hell does anyone expect to keep funding this war and perhaps more?
obama isn't going to take away your house. it's impossible. nice fearmongering though. I guess one should go with what one 'thinks' one knows.
farker at October 16, 2008 2:28 PM
Let the double standards prevail... Can you imagine what the Obama supporters would be saying if McCain attended an all-white Church headed by a white supremacist for 20 years, and took campaign contributions and owed his political beginnings to a domestic terrorist?
How about what the McCain people would be saying if Obama's daughter were seventeen, dropped out of high-school to have an out-of-wedlock baby and marry her high-school dropout boyfriend?
Some choices. We can have the racist or the lecherous hothead with the clueless woman for a running mate.
Patrick at October 16, 2008 2:37 PM
Scott - My desire is to see the federal budget cut by 50 to 90 percent. I want the 16th amendment repealed. The government needs to get out of the entitlement business. I want an end to ALL subsidies.
Just ending agricultural and industrial subsidies ought to be good for a trillion alone.
The fiscal deficit you so deplore is a direct result of leftists (regardless of party) spending money to buy votes. Hard term limits ought to solve that problem. And if the politicians won't do it voluntarily, then the people need to come to their senses and swap them out every couple of election cycles.
Taxes should always be cut. There is no justification for the government at all levels to take nearly sixty percent of my income. I'm not even among Obama's definition of rich (far from it) and he's going to raise MY taxes if his plan goes through as he has presented it.
When the fuck did I get to Sweden?
brian at October 16, 2008 3:12 PM
I'm just waiting for the time when the oil companies go crawling to Washington for a hand-out, since they ran out of cash. "We need more money to find alternative fuels". Who's gonna be the prez?
Tha Mad Hungarian at October 16, 2008 3:26 PM
Brian, et al,
Bill Ayers apparently has republican friends>
A few examples>>
* Arnold Weber-- Republican. Donated to John McCain. Worked with William Ayers
* The Annenbergs-- Republicans. Bankrolled William Ayers with $50 million
There seem to be a lot more>>
* http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3027
BTW:
* Did you know that the individuals in families and small communities interact in a largely socialistic manner? (i.e. they care about each other, instead of just themselves)
* Apparently the 'experts' has weighed in today > Obama's plan will NOT raise the taxes of this Joe the plumber.
** Even so, if Joe is making almost $250K/year, I think he can afford to help with this nation's costs of health, education, infrastructure, and, if necessary, massive attacks on foreigners (i.e. war). Whining about his tax increases does not evoke mountains of sympathy from me, and I'm usually sympathetic (and, therefore, a ripe target for you, I'd guess).
** Are you seriously worried about his well being?? Are you making anything near his income? I don't personally know too many people that are nearly that well off.
* Your comment about blogs disappearing under Obama reminds me of those Orthodox who went around telling me all about American Nazis who are building concentration camps for Jews as we speak.
** Do you seriously worry about that stuff as well?
** I'd guess you may want to double check some of your sources.
** As has been pointed out many times, Obama, and the Democratic Party are only the slightest bit left of the Republicans.
*** It's that little bit, factored over the incredible size of the world, that could represent a large improvement in the world's future condition, if Obama wins. That's an improvement that I don't want to miss any longer.
laser plumb bob at October 16, 2008 3:46 PM
> When the fuck did I get to Sweden?
The day you learned you were going to get health care services whether you were insured or not.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 16, 2008 6:14 PM
So I'm wondering, is the desire for tax cuts driven mainly by a) a desire to limit the govt's ability to spend? b) personal gain? c) habit?
a
If a), how can you be sure the activities that get cut will be the ones that you want cut?
It would be extremely hard to find any that I don't want cut.
Rex Little at October 16, 2008 6:22 PM
Walter Annanberg is dead. His Foundation operates without his knowledge. He's probably twirling in his grave, but so what?
Poor Joe the Plumber! He's got Diane Sawyer suggesting that he should pay more taxes. You go first, honey.
""Well if people making $250,000 should not be taxed additionally — by the way, it's 3% from 36% to 39% under Senator Obama's plan. If those people should not be taxed additionally, even though they're in the top 5% of America, what about people who make $1 million? Or $5 million?"'
She's got a contract worth $12 mil.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/53/AU0O.html
Kate at October 16, 2008 8:17 PM
Kate, I like you. Are you the blogger Coe, or a different one?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at October 16, 2008 11:02 PM
Name one improvement that raising my taxes will cause to come about.
Hell, name one improvement that allowing Obama and his idiot leftists access to the levers of power will bring.
Here's a small list of all the things that will get worse under an Obama presidency:
1) Perpetual unemployment over 10% (just like France)
2) low availability of health-care services regardless of ability to pay.
3) Reduced availability of consumer goods due to trade restrictions.
And these are just the known results from past implementations of the very things he proposes as that which makes him "better" than the Republicans.
Now, maybe that's your idea of a dream world. It'll be just like Cuba. Nobody's starving outright, but everyone's too hungry to fight.
brian at October 17, 2008 4:59 AM
Thanks to Brian and Rex for the responses. One minor quibble with Brian's point though:
"The fiscal deficit you so deplore is a direct result of leftists (regardless of party) spending money to buy votes."
I do deplore fiscal deficits, it's true. Because it is a falacy to believe that you can get something for nothing (deficit spending is IMO asking your grandkids to pay for your tax cuts), and because I live in a country where we felt in very real ways the pain of trying to tame a large deficit. Which takes me to my point, I think most observers would agree that Canada's Conservative govt is to the left of either the Dems or Reps, and the previous Liberal govt even more so, and yet we've had a decade of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility here, so I'm not sure I accept that deficit spending is solely a left-right issue.
I'm with you on killing the subsidies though.
scott at October 17, 2008 8:45 AM
Jim Treacher -
Your little braindead, content free rant reminds me of similar braindead rants claiming Obama won. Good job Bob, you sound just as ignorant and stupid as your leftwing counterparts.
DuWayne at October 17, 2008 11:17 AM
Well, you'll get a kick out of this...
I watched about the first 10 minutes or so because T asked to. Yes, it surprised me too to have a five year old asking to watch the debate with me.
I hadn't planned to watch at all. I pretty much consider the debates a waste of time used mostly to spread more b.s. around especially because they don't allow any third party candidates to participate.
But this was so amusing that I had to humor him and when his mother started to protest because it wasn't on 'til 9 whispered they'll put him to sleep in 10 minutes.
And indeed they did but I've got to say, he was interested until they started going on and on full of hot air. He asked questions about the process. We discussed what it was about, how they were both trying to convince us to select them to rule the country and our selection was called a vote (he knew the word, apparently they'd touched on it in his kindergarten class). I even explained the moderator's function. He found all that interesting but not the two candidates.
My reaction: McCain pissed me off big time. First all that Joe the Plumber stuff was just plain silly and I kept thinking get off it already. Also, with the you just want to spread the wealth comments. I was have some balls and call him socialist, c'mon I dare you. And what the fuck was with the constant blinking of his eyes?
But the big thing that pissed me off was the bald-faced lie that he won't increase anyone's taxes. He plans to increase mine! And I can't fucking afford it. I can barely afford (by not putting it in my retirement nest egg) to get physical therapy I need. I can't fucking afford to be taxed on cash I don't even get.
Maybe T will be President some day. God, I hope not.
T's Grammy at October 17, 2008 11:28 AM
If that was supposed to anger me, please rest assured that it has quite the opposite effect. ;)
Thanks for reading, and for further confirming my thesis: The frontrunners sure aren't behaving like frontrunners.
Jim Treacher at October 17, 2008 1:29 PM
I am so fucking sick of hearing about Joe the Plumber. Fuck Joe the Plumber. Why am I supposed to give a shit about him? He doesn't give a shit about me.
Yes, I get all the socialist points but tend to agree with Farker here -- they're both fucking socialist and they both want to dictate here.
The biggest difference is that McCain wants to put the biggest tax burden on the poor and Obama wants to put it on those who actually have some money. One wants to raise taxes for 5% and the other on the rest of us.
That said there are other things about Obama -- including his socialistic leanings -- that I dislike/distrust. I'm very wary about his ties with people like that minister of his and his Muslim roots, PC or not. I'd like not to care about a President's religious views but we've had too many in recent decades who want to legislate their religious views on the rest of us. And Islam is too damned scary not to care about. Neither wants to do away with the faith-based bullshit but at least Obama wants to put back into place restrictions such as not discriminating when accepting my money. Not enough. I should not be forced to support any religion with my tax dollars. I have been and will be but I shouldn't be. McCain won't even go that far and Palin definitely wants to make her religion the law. We don't even know if Obama is Islam or not (yes, I know he says he's Christian; I also know he knows he has to say that).
Brian, your arguments seem always to be about money. Very happy for you that you make over $250,000 a year. More power to you. You go, boy! I'm a bit envious but don't begrudge you it but the majority of us, the majority of two-income families even don't. Even those who work their ass off.
If I were to base this election on only that, I should be backing Obama all the way. He will save me tons of money. McCain will put me in the fucking poorhouse. Fuck McCain. I'll drop my health insurance, grow too disabled to work since I can't get the proper care to prevent the cane turning into a wheelchair and then you can really support my ass when I go out on disability retirement. With Obama, I at least have some damned incentive to continue plugging and continue my current attitude of I'll be damned if I go out on disability this close to retirement.
Third party, people. Third party. Both these assholes are way too fucking extreme and both will do untold damage in their own fucked up way. What we really need to do is break the fucking two-party system that is breaking our fucking country!
T's Grammy at October 18, 2008 12:00 PM
A lie. Obama intends to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which will put a few million people at the lower end of the income scale back on the federal income tax rolls. Of course, he doesn't consider this to be a tax increase, because in his world the Bush tax cuts shouldn't have happened.
I don't know which Brian you're talking about, but I just broke 65k last year. And I kept about 2 grand more than I would have absent the Bush tax cuts.
My arguments are about money because, at base, that's where government gets its power to control us. In case you hadn't noticed, tax policy isn't just about revenue, it's about control. Starve the beast and it loses control.
Obama has admitted in interviews that even if tax increases will case less money to flow into government coffers that they should still be done "to promote fairness".
Do you really want someone in power who is going to use the tax codes to punish the most productive?
brian at October 18, 2008 8:45 PM
Oh, and T's G?
I am Joe the Plumber.
I have the same desires he does. I look forward to the day when I grow this little business of mine into a million dollar enterprise.
But if assholes like Obama are going to take it all away from me, what incentive do I have to put in the 80 hour weeks to make it happen? I'll just keep coasting along making enough to pay the bills, feed the dog, and buy beer.
brian at October 18, 2008 8:48 PM
My point, brian, was that if you're arguing we should just vote with who nets us the most cash then I'd be crazy not to vote Obama. He nets me the most cash.
Spare me Joe the Plumber. I have absolutely zero sympathy with him and am sick to death of hearing about him already. Who gives a fuck about Joe and why the fuck should I? He doesn't give a fuck about me. And I don't really care if he -- or you -- can grow your little business to a million dollar business.
If either of you are business savy, you will make that happen whatever tax bracket you're in. If you're not willing to sacrifice to make that happen, (i.e., living a lifestyle closer to mine than the one I suspect you do live so that you can put money back into the business), why should I give a flying fuck that you don't reach that goal? Want a million dollar business, make that happen. Stop blaming failure to do so on the government.
Seriously, I'm starting to hope Obama wins again. Well, I'd really like to see a third party win but know I won't since there's no movie stars or wrestlers who don't have clue one running.
Sigh, Brian, I guess I'm just damned sick and tired of being on the side of working my ass off and getting nowhere and then being mugged to pay off assholes who didn't.
Screw it. Time I stopped giving and start taking. I mean since money's so fucking all fire important and the first priority and all.
T's Grammy at October 20, 2008 10:27 AM
So, really, why is our tax code open for political maneuvering anyway? That's a heck of a lot of power to give someone, especially come "promise the masses free circus's and bread for their vote" election time. Another reason to support the fair (nationwide sales) tax. Wish I could see a pol running on that playform make it to the finals.
momof3 at October 20, 2008 10:46 AM
It's not about net cash. It's not about business savvy. It's not about lifestyle and business reinvestment.
It's about perverse incentives.
And an Obama victory incentivizes sloth, as you very keenly observed in your closing sentence.
It's not that I can't grow my business, or that I can't let go of my lifestyle. It's more a case of why should I work twice as hard for a pittance? If I can't at least double my income with twice the work, what's the point?
So-called "progressive" income taxation enforces diminishing returns by government fiat. One should not be surprised by the fact that productivity always increases following an income tax cut.
Like I said: perverse incentives.
brian at October 21, 2008 6:19 AM
OK. Fair enough, Brian, and that I get but I've yet to hear of someone netting less for working harder/earning more over the long run.
It's pretty darn rare anyone's gonna make just enough to be pushed into that higher tax bracket where they actually net less for paying the next higher tax then stay there for long. At most, it'd be a one-year thing -- unless they're loser enough to stagnate there.
My first pay raise when I worked for the State of Colorado actually did this to me. No, it was not incentive to go back to the temp jobs that sustained me when I first moved before getting that full-time job nor did it make me wish I hadn't got that raise. I knew the next year's raise would be more take-home and worked just as hard.
I'd think in business it'd be the same. If your profits push you into a higher tax bracket, you'd realize you were on your way up and keep working towards that goal. Not want to limit your business growth because of something so temporary.
Higher tax brackets or not, fair or not, more income's a good thing and no way in hell do the taxes outweigh the benefits. Probably for the reason you state. If they played it like that, no one would have incentive. Or least not those whose incentive is monetary gain and that's certainly the most popular motivator!
T's Grammy at October 22, 2008 10:41 AM
TG, you're completely missing the point.
There is a point of diminishing returns. If the top marginal rates go back to where they were during Carter (70+%) it remains a massive disincentive to perform.
Look at it this way. As it stands now, at $250,000 I get to keep 65 cents (actually 63 after the medicare tax of 2%) for every dollar I earn (excluding state and local taxes). Under Obama's plan as presently stated, that drops immediately to 58.4 cents, and if he pushes the rates to, say, 45% for the top marginal rate, it drops to 53 cents.
Also, he's stated that he intends to give people below a certain income level a "credit" to offset the "payroll tax" which is used to fund Social Security. He's also said that he won't diminish the funding for SS. Which means one thing - and he's said he supports it before - raising or eliminating the ceiling on the SS portion of FICA. Which means an additional 13.3% of gross being taken.
So now, for every dollar over $250,000 (and we'll go back to assuming that we only have the post Bush repeal TMR of 39.6%) I only get to keep 45.1 cents. When he decides to increase the TMR to 45%, now I'm down to 39.7 cents.
What incentive do I have to work 80 hours at 39.7 cents on the dollar? At some point my leisure time is going to be worth more than work, and I'll tell ya, at 39.7 cents on the dollar, I'm more likely to fuck off than work.
brian at October 22, 2008 11:49 AM
I think they should eliminate the tax cap on SS. Think it should have been done one hell of a long time ago.
Again, it's still about money. If that's the only incentive for you to work 80 hours (vs. the other benefits of being your own boss or nonmaterial things like enjoying or taking pride in your work), you're absolutely right. Stop working 80 hours and enjoy some free time.
But, frankly, farker's also right. They're both socialists. It's just that McCain wants to take it from the poor to give to the rich -- not the other way around.
Obama, from where I sit, is the lesser of two evils.
T's Grammy at October 23, 2008 9:36 AM
Also, brian, I don't know what your business is or if you have to hire anyone to work for you but what's their incentive the way Republicans keep sticking it to the working class.
Honestly, if I were younger/healthier I would consider resorting to a life of crime.
T's Grammy at October 23, 2008 9:38 AM
It's only about money. If they didn't have to pay you to do it, it wouldn't be called WORK. Sure, I might enjoy what I do, but I'd much rather be doing other things. However, I've got a mortgage to pay and a dog to feed, so I work.
First, it's a lie. Second, it's fucking stupid. How do you "take from the poor". THEY'RE FUCKING POOR, THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TAKE!
I'm a computer consultant. I have no employees because the government has made the process so difficult that I can't be bothered with the paperwork. Not to mention the legally mandated expenditures I need to make in order to have an employee. It works out to nearly a dollar in expenses for every dollar in salary.
And this is where your problem is. You've spent your entire life being spoon-fed concentrated horse-shit, and you actually believe that capitalism is to blame for your lot in life.
No, from what I know of you here, you've been a victim of nothing more than "shit happens". It's not some elaborate conspiracy for some rich guy to steal your lunch money.
brian at October 23, 2008 10:03 AM
Brian: "an Obama victory incentivizes sloth".
This is not really true. In fact, there is virtually no tax policy that incentivises sloth, as my first year econ prof made very clear, because the tax rate is always less than 100%. Since taxes are levied as a percentage of income, you will always be relatively better off if you earn more income, even if you have an adjustable tax system under which the percentage rate applied increases with your income.
Even if someone earning less than x amount pays zero in taxes, they would still be better off to earn more than x amount and to pay taxes at whatever rate on the difference.
scott at October 23, 2008 11:31 AM
Scott -
You understand neither marginal utility, nor diminishing returns, nor human nature.
Just because I CAN earn another dollar does not mean that it is either worth it, or in my interest to do so.
Humans do not do things for the benefit of others. They do them for their own benefit. Yes, even people who give to charity are doing so for their benefit.
Your typical entrepreneur is balancing competing interests - specifically how do I maximize my income and minimize what I pay the government.
And this is what leads to behavioral differences when marginal rates go up. It has happened every single time the tax rates are manipulated.
Another example - when the luxury tax was increased, yacht sales dropped. It wasn't because the uber-wealthy could no longer AFFORD the yacht, but the idea of giving so much money to the government made them bristle and put the money elsewhere. The government's plan to soak the rich (relying upon their belief that the rich would buy yachts because they need to conspicuously consume) failed miserably, and put the boat industry into a long down period.
If the tax rates were changed tomorrow such that the effective rate went to 90% for every dollar over $50,000 earned, I'd stop working tomorrow and slack off for the rest of the year. I see no reason why I ought to work for someone else's benefit.
brian at October 23, 2008 1:14 PM
And your first year econ prof is a moron, like most first-year econ profs.
Keynesians all.
They believe simultaneously that the tax code can be manipulated to encourage desirable behaviour while those same manipulations would never discourage desirable behaviour.
The complete lack of understanding of human desire is stunning.
brian at October 23, 2008 1:16 PM
Brian, just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean I don't understand. Here's the thing, if I choose to work less and earn less simply so I can send less money in absolute terms to the government, even though that means I will personally have less money in my pocket, then I am cutting off my nose to spite the government.
I'm not saying there aren't lots of people out there who make stupid decisions about their interests, but I am saying that the decision to choose to have less income isn't incented by tax policy itself since the tax policy would still yield you more money. If you have any incentive to elect to earn less in this instance, it's probably the desire to thumb your nose at the nasty feds.
Take your example above, most people earning $49k would still want to get to $50k and above even if they earned kept marginally less of the increase than they might otherwise have done. And NOBODY earning over $50k is going to choose to drop back to $45k simply to prove a point to the govt. I'm with T's G on this one.
"The complete lack of understanding of human desire is stunning." Gee, I don't know, maybe I should do what you do and completely generalize based on my own personal experience and opinions...
scott at October 23, 2008 2:05 PM
Scott -
Do you really expect me to believe that you would be willing to work additional hours at 40 cents on the dollar beyond what you need to live a decent lifestyle?
Seriously. I want you to think about this.
Let's say that at 49,000, and paying 40% in taxes (roughly) you can live decently. You can afford to eat out, buy flowers for the lady, a video game or five.
What's your incentive to work an additional 5 hours a week if you're going to only get 40 cents on the dollar? The higher tax rate lowers your effective pay for those additional hours. What would you rather be doing with your time - working for a greatly reduced hourly rate, or having dinner with that lady you just bought flowers for?
There are things that econ 101 doesn't cover. Among those things are diminishing returns, comparative advantage, and perverse incentive.
It's not a matter of spiting the government. It's a matter of deciding that there is a point at which it is no longer worth your effort for the small return you get.
More simply, it's about how much you're willing to work for someone else's benefit. In this case, the government.
Hell, by your logic, I could forgo all leisure time, and work 120 hours a week. Thing is, after about 80, I'd lose the bulk of it under the tax rates that Obama's ultimately going to have to enact to cover his ridiculous spending dreams.
brian at October 23, 2008 2:51 PM
I'm very glad T's grammy managed to let the registration date slide and can't vote. Hopefully, that will be the case with all the other poorly informed people out there, because they have no business deciding this election.
momof3 at October 25, 2008 12:46 PM
Leave a comment