Joe the Plumber

[Bloodcinder]

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."Source (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/). (If you object to that one, search google for "obama spread the wealth.")

Can somebody tell me for what reason this does not adequately demonstrate that Obama is a socialist? I'm having a hard time with it. I mean, it's pretty explicit.

[Killer_Man_]

I knew that from the start, it was obvious from his ads on TV that he said he was going to do that. "Help the lower and middle class."

Though it might be 'unwise' to tax business and kinda 'unfair' to be taxed for your success but really who esle are you going to tax? The lower class? The middle class?

Regardless, my views have always been that those who ship jobs over seas and all that should have to pay higher taxes or even high tariffs(sp?).

[Z]

Side note: Joe The Plumber is considering running for congress in the next election cycle, hehe.

Back to topic: Obama's economic policies have been very heavily criticized and recently Biden got uber grilled on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

^ I would highly recommend checking it out. Biden gets pissed, lawl. The reporter specifically hits the Socialist and Marxist points and Biden gets thrown off guard to such an extent that he ends up saying "Obama never said 'Spread the Wealth'" when clearly he did.

In fact, Obama got so pissed that the campaign "Punished" the station by cutting them off completely after the interview, saying that they would do nothing for the station after such a grilling:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/obama-campaign.html


WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it's some of the best entertainment he's seen recently. What do you think?

West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.
"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said.
West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.
Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."

[Arainach]

First, let me address the title of your thread before getting to the content:

"Joe the Plumber" is not a licensed plumber (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418). His income would not be in the range whose taxes are increased under Obama's plan (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp). He is a registered Republican (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418/-1/NEWS) and it's entirely possible he was a plant. Oh, and his name is misspelled on his voter registration (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp), which means that Ohio Republicans want to . To top it all off, he [url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/?hp]doesn't even pay his current taxes in full (]remove him from the voting rolls[/url).

On to the content, I point out: Socialism is a purely economic model endoring state ownership of businesses. Buying out and subsidizing large banks is socialist. What Obama is endorsing is, if anything, communism. But even then, I don't think that it is. He's merely stressing the importance of a progressive tax system, since flat or regressive tax systems destroy the lower and middle classes.

Side note: I distinctly remember a debate thread with BC back when he was called LH at some forum or other where he pushed a flat tax and I agreed that the concept of it sounded fair. On the odd chance that someone else remembers calls me out on rank hypocrisy, I'd point out two things: (1) that was long ago when I was more idealistic and (2) while it DOES sound like a nice fair way to do things, when you run the numbers and realize that it just can't work without increasing the "flat" tax to a level where the poor and middle classes just can't survive while the upper classes prosper, that rather turns me off to the idea.

[Z]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%28economics%29) and creates an unequal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality) society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#cite_note-SocialismAVeryShortIntroduction-0)

^ I think this is the definition people are referring to.

[Bloodcinder]

Yes, Z, that clip with West is what I saw to first have learned about it.

First, let me address the title of your thread before getting to the content:

:bravo:
The title of the thread is irrelevant. I had two choices, and I picked the one I've heard bandied about the most.

On to the content, I point out: Socialism is a purely economic model endoring state ownership of businesses. ... What Obama is endorsing is, if anything, communism.
Well, that sure makes me feel better.

[Arainach]

There are few things I am more sick of in American political discourse than people describing things as 'socialism' or 'communism', going no further, and using such terms as derogatory. Explain why Obama's ideas are bad without using either of those words. We're in the middle of one of the biggest proofs the world has ever seen that rampant capitalism just fucks over regular people in the end, so I'm quite open to alternatives, thanks.

[SpaceProg]

I remember the flat tax discussion over at NHF(RIP) for what it's worth.

[Z]

Dear Barack Obama,

Welcome to Pittsburgh. This morning you're visiting Carnegie Mellon University, hosting what your campaign is billing as a summit to discuss economic competitiveness.

Funny, but many of your economic proposals actually are anathema to competitiveness.

Consider your proposal to slap a "windfall profits tax" on Big Oil. Never mind that the oil industry profit margins are far lower than many other U.S. corporations -- financial services and computer software, to name two -- the evidence is clear that the last time this intemperate tax was employed, domestic oil production dropped and our dependence on foreign oil rose.

How does such a policy increase U.S. "competitiveness," Senator?

Then there's your plan to save Social Security by, in typical "progressive" fashion, soaking "the rich." You'd assess the payroll tax on household incomes above $250,000. (Actually, the way you have it set up means households can be taxed twice.)

How does government confiscation of 0.4 percent of the gross domestic product annually make this nation "more competitive"?

Let's get real here, fella -- your investment-draining "economics plan" will make this country far less competitive. It's more smoke and mirrors. It's yet another shade of new lipstick on the same old liberal pig. It's tax-and-spend politics dressed up in the tutu of "reform."

It's not a "plan," Sen. Obama. It's a disaster. Here’s an unusual campaign promise: I pledge to take action as president to drive down stock prices, discourage investment, and deepen the recession. Who has promised this? Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, albeit not in so many words.

With the stock market in crisis mode and the economy in a pronounced slump, would any economist — even the most extreme liberal Keynesian — advocate increasing taxes? Of course not. But contrary to economic commonsense, Obama is proposing to do exactly that by raising tax rates on America’s small businesses and investors.

Specifically, Obama wants to raise taxes on income, capital gains, and dividends for families earning more than $250,000 annually. Under his plan, the top two marginal tax rates will increase from 33 to 36 percent and from 35 to 39.6 percent, while both the capital-gains tax and dividend tax will rise from 15 to 20 percent. According to the plan, the extra revenues generated by these tax increases will be redistributed to lower- and middle-income people through a hodge-podge of refundable tax credits. In the meantime, these “soak the rich” tax rates will do widespread economic harm.

First, Obama’s tax-rate increases on income will fall heavily on small businesses, which create the majority of net new jobs. Here’s why: According to Internal Revenue Service data, half of all business income is taxed at individual rather than corporate tax rates, and about two-thirds of all flow-through business income is earned by small-business owners with annual incomes exceeding $200,000. The bottom line: Up to one-third of all business income is taxed at the two marginal rates Obama wants to raise.

Second, history demonstrates the economic folly of raising capital-gains taxes at any time, and the economic benefit of keeping them permanently low. By influencing the incentives for people to invest, the capital-gains tax directly impacts the demand for — and value of — equities. Similarly, it influences the rate of investment, particularly in new, high-risk ventures.

Between 1969 and 1978 capital-gains tax rates rose from 25 percent to 35 percent. Across the same period stock prices and venture-capital investment declined. A 1978 economic study by economist Michael Evans of Chase Econometrics Associates found that “the sharp declines in the stock market in 1969-1970, and 1977-1978 are due in large part to the Tax Reform Acts of 1968 and 1976.” Initial public stock offerings (IPOs) — an important measure of new venture-capital investment — also declined in this period, from an annual average rate of nearly $2 billion between 1969 and 1972 to an average of $225 million between 1975 and 1978.

When capital-gains tax rates were cut in 1979 and 1982, the results were just as predictable: Equity values rose along with investment commitments to new ventures. Conversely, when capital-gains tax rates were increased from 20 to 28 percent in 1986, the rate of IPOs stagnated.

About a decade later President Bill Clinton signed legislation that chopped the capital-gains tax rate back down to 20 percent. And once again economic growth, investment, jobs, and federal tax receipts all increased. (David Wyss of Standard & Poor’s DRI, an economic consulting firm, has produced a study documenting these incentive effects.)

Yet despite this progress, the current capital-gains tax rate — 15 percent for individuals — is still too high. Many foreign countries tax capital gains at much lower rates, putting the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. According to the American Council of Capital Formation, the U.S. is currently in the middle of the 30-member OECD pack in terms of taxing capital gains. Fourteen OECD countries do not tax capital gains at all.

Third, Obama’s plan to raise taxes on dividends will negatively impact business investment, the retirement income of seniors, and finally economic growth.

When a corporation issues common stock to finance new job-creating investment, the returns on that investment are taxed twice, once at the corporate level and then again at the individual level when dividends are received by shareholders. This double tax on dividends encourages businesses to rely on debt rather than equity to finance new investment, a strategy that can weaken their financial condition.

The 2003 dividend tax cut from 35 to 15 percent reduced these economic distortions and provided incentives for companies to pay out dividends rather than retain their earnings. As a result, dividend payments were estimated to have increased by 20 percent.

But Obama’s proposed increase in the dividend tax would reverse this healthy trend. It also would disproportionately impact America’s seniors by taking a bigger bite out of their taxable dividends while reducing both the quality of dividend payments and the value of the stocks that produce them.

According to the American Association of Retired Persons, “Of the nearly $150 billion in dividends that were reported on tax returns in 2000, people aged 65 and older received a highly disproportionate share (48 percent).” Near-retirees also received a big share of dividend income (29 percent), as did those so-called “rich” families that make more than $250,000 a year. According to the AARP study, more than one-third (37.3 percent) of dividend income went to retirees with incomes in excess of $200,000.

Simply put, raising taxes on investment is never a good idea. A 2008 study by the Center for Data Analysis found that fully repealing the 2003 capital-gain and dividend tax-rate reductions would reduce employment by 270,000 jobs, cut real GDP by $44 billion, and decrease after-tax personal income by $113 billion in a single year.

On the other hand, by maintaining low tax rates and cutting certain tax rates that remain too high, as John McCain proposes to do, the economy will remain poised for growth. Looking long-term, McCain proposes to lock in the Bush tax rates of 2003 and slash corporate tax rates. For the short-term, he proposes to cut the capital-gains tax in half for a two-year period, from 15 to 7.5 percent, a stimulus measure that would spark an immediate boost in equity values.

To be fair, Obama is not calling for a full repeal of the 2003 tax cuts on income and investment, but the tax hikes he has in mind are toxic enough. His tax plan has even drawn a rebuke from the editors of the New York Times, who wrote that with “the economy tanking … it’s hard to imagine how [Obama] could prudently [raise taxes on the wealthy].” And while Obama has hinted that he would consider delaying his proposed tax increases if the economy is in recession, who really thinks a President Obama and a Democratic Congress will prioritize lower taxes over new spending?

The Times is right and Barack Obama is wrong. Now is precisely the wrong time to hike taxes — especially on entrepreneurs and investors.Neither one of those uses the buzz words but I can gather more if they are insufficient. I only offer because you requested. In other words, my citing of criticism toward Obama's economic plan is not my support for McCain's. As I said before, I will likely be voting for the Obama-Biden ticket (though that is mostly due to a 'lesser of two evils' sort of situation. I feel like we're in the South Park episode where we have to decide between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche, lawl).

http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/6520/giantdouchevsturdsandwich7om.jpg

[Bloodcinder]

There are few things I am more sick of in American political discourse than people describing things as 'socialism' or 'communism', going no further, and using such terms as derogatory.
I'm not concerned with whether socialism is good or bad right now. If you want to take the term as derogatory, that's your own inference. There must be some reason the Democrats will stop at nothing to avoid being seen as socialists.

I'm concerned with whether or not liberals will agree that Obama is a socialist. Do you agree that Obama is a socialist? Because the recent "spread the wealth around" incident simply confirms what I've been picking up in bits and pieces over the course of this year. He's more socialist than Hillary Clinton!

Explain why Obama's ideas are bad without using either of those words. We're in the middle of one of the biggest proofs the world has ever seen that rampant capitalism just fucks over regular people in the end, so I'm quite open to alternatives, thanks.
"Redistribution of wealth has proven ineffective in all serious applications."

[Arainach]

I don't believe that he is socialist, no. "Socialist" and "Capitalist" are extreme labels that carry heavy connotations, and anyone who believe purely in one or the other scares me. A mix of both is what's needed, and that's what I believe Obama (and most policians who aren't insane libertarians) advocate in one mix or the other.

Also, Z, I stopped reading your big long article once it made the typical Republican mistake of confusing income and business taxes. To the author of that article: thanks for playing, but confusing that line again proves that you in fact don't know that much about economics after all and I've got better things to do than read hour-long diatribes. Second, the whole 'zomg the answer is always cutting taxes' trickle-down bullshit hasn't worked yet, and there's no reason to believe it'll start now.

[Z]

Also, Z, I stopped reading your big long article once it made the typical Republican mistake of confusing income and business taxes.
Is that to say that business income is not part of the tax plan as Obama has outlined it? (Honestly curious)

To the author of that article: thanks for playing, but confusing that line again proves that you in fact don't know that much about economics after all and I've got better things to do than read hour-long diatribes. The author was Cesar Conda (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGExY2UzNjQ5YjAyNWUzZmI2MDQyNmU4MmU2NGI3ZDg=).

Cesar Conda, a former economic and domestic policy advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and former Gov. Mitt Romney, is a principal of Navigators LLC, a Washington-based issues management firm.

Second, the whole 'zomg the answer is always cutting taxes' trickle-down bullshit hasn't worked yet, and there's no reason to believe it'll start now.As far as this part, I'll answer it with a section of the article itself:

About a decade later President Bill Clinton signed legislation that chopped the capital-gains tax rate back down to 20 percent. And once again economic growth, investment, jobs, and federal tax receipts all increased. (David Wyss of Standard & Poor’s DRI, an economic consulting firm, has produced a study documenting these incentive effects.)

[Arainach]

Is that to say that business income is not part of the tax plan as Obama has outlined it? (Honestly curious)Businesses and individual income taxes are managed separately. Among other things, Obama's Tax Plan (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf/) cuts taxes for 95% of the population and eliminates capital gains taxes for small businesses. That whole "raising marginal rates to..."? Those rates are what they were in the 90s before Bush's ill-advised tax cuts.Cesar Conda, a former economic and domestic policy advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney and former Gov. Mitt Romney, is a principal of Navigators LLC, a Washington-based issues management firm.Nothing there strikes out to me as 'competent'. An advisor to Dick Cheney? A principal of a conservative think tank? Yep, both things that scream 'competence' to me.

[Bloodcinder]

I don't believe that he is socialist, no. "Socialist" and "Capitalist" are extreme labels that carry heavy connotations, and anyone who believe purely in one or the other scares me. A mix of both is what's needed, and that's what I believe Obama (and most policians who aren't insane libertarians) advocate in one mix or the other.[
So would you describe Obama more as a capitalist or a socialist, given all of his espoused policies, if you had to pick?

[Arainach]

As I said before, both words are far too loaded for me to ever agree to associate him more with one than the other. Do I believe that he leans toward more liberal economic views? Yes. However, he's still an economic conservative by European standards, so he's far from a socialist.

[Bloodcinder]

I've reached my conclusion. This is not meant to be snarky: I'm being honest. If Ary's denial of Obama's supposed socialism is that lukewarm, it is not at all odd that I find the "spread the wealth around" comment to be ludiciously socialist, and it is not at all odd that others do as well.

It's just a huge bummer that he's going to win the election.

[Z]

Apparently Biden had to undergo another tough interview and the results were very similar. The station (CBS3) was also banned from further interviews by the campaign for what's being described as "Ambush Journalism"

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/206633.html

[Bloodcinder]

ITS HOKUM AND MALARKEY

Sucks they made up information to ask him about, but it also sucks that Biden's a little bitch.

[deathofcheese]

That's kind of a really shady way to cover up your faults and prevent them from happening again, but it's something all networks do.

Still, it's hardly surprising that a politician breaks under pressure and then snaps to do all and whatever is necessary to prevent the gaffe from coming up again. That is, to prevent other people from having the opportunity to send them a curveball like that.

[Arainach]

From The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith's defining work on capitalism:The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.