NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Michael Haley
Joe the Plumber
Monday, October 27, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By MICHALE HALEY
Napablogger
June 29th, 2009
Road budgets explained
June 15th, 2009
Making history in Iran
June 5th, 2009
There's more to land use than grape growing
Lake Luciana vote was a mistake
May 26th, 2009
What is the Ag Preserve and how do you preserve it ?
more
The real reason this story has resonance is due to the fact that Obama used the phrase "spread the wealth around.” In doing so, he portrayed a view of economics that conservatives are roundly against,  wealth redistribution to make things "fairer.”

In fairness to Obama, he did not say that directly after Joe the Plumber asked him the question, he said it much later and it was in reference to business in general. However, the idea remains the same. Obama previously has put forward the idea that due to middle class wage stagnation or even shrinkage compared to those higher up the wage scale, he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and give it to the middle class.
This is nothing new from Obama but it really hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention. What gave it so much attention is that the phrase "spread the wealth around,” especially to your "Joe six-pack," kind of average American, really brought the point home as to what the intention of Obama's plan is.

There are other reasons that Obama has given for this particular tax plan. One is to stimulate the economy, and from an economic stand point Obama is correct, tax money to those in the middle gets more bang for your buck than those at the top who would not immediately go out and spend all of it. Some kinds of tax cuts  stimulate the economy more than others, and this one is more stimulative than  cutting wealthier people's income taxes, all else being equal. 
What 84 percent of Americans would object to in this, at least according to one survey, is to take money from wealthy people and give it to those lower down the scale for fairness, this from a Gallup poll last June:

"When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly — by an 84 to 13 percent margin — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans."
 

(Hat tip to James Pothokoukis, see the full item here)

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/16/did-barack-spread-the-wealth-obama-just-blow-the-election.html

Joe the Plumber and other average Americans want to make their own way and wealth distribution like this amounts to a hand out that they don't want. Something that seems hard for some Democrats to understand is that even though you may be a low  wage earner, it doesn't mean you think others should have to pay your way. 

What they want is opportunity, which is a classic Republican position, increase opportunity, not hand outs. Those Democrats believe that average Joe is voting against his own interests by voting Republican, but they do not understand Joe's interests, at least in his own mind. He doesn't want someone to give him money, he wants to earn it himself. He should have the opportunity to work hard and get ahead.

If the Democrats can make the argument that somehow the system is flawed, and that average Joe plumbers do not have that opportunity and that no matter how hard he works he still won't make it, then at least the Obama position is more justified. 

Although we have some ideas, no one knows for certain why middle class wages are decreasing. If it is true that the system itself is flawed or regulated in a way as to prevent upward mobility then the Democrats have a point. At present that is debatable.

But even if it is true, transferring money from the wealthy to the poor will not fix that problem. Hand outs may be morally justified, they may be economically  justified as a stimulus, but they will not increase opportunities for upward mobility. Only education and business development can do that. No matter how you slice it, Obama's strategy of transferring money, "spreading the wealth around" is at best a one time fix that will not change the root problem.
115 comment(s)

misfit wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:08 PM:

" And I imagine Joe wouldn't want his money taken by corporate fascists either as we have seen done recently. I don't want money given to me by the wealthy unless it's through my business of course but, I DO want the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes and they do not. Talk all you want about 39% tax rate, it is rarely paid after the loopholes and the write offs that only the wealthy seem to enjoy...like those "Business" lunches up at the Auberge. "

ADark1 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:19 PM:

" Sorry, its been proven Joe donated to the McCain ticket ( before media exposure)so I guess he wasn't the independent he claimed he was... "

napablogger wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:01 AM:

" dark1, I dont think the issue is Joe here, really, it is what he brought to light about Obama.

msifit, there are a lot of loopholes in corporate taxes but not so much in personal income taxes. One thing Clinton did was eliminate a lot of the loopholes. Everyone I know who makes high money is payng a lot of taxes.

On the other hand, 40% of corporations paid no taxes at all last year. If as an individual you are netting over 200K you are paying a lot of taxes, at least 20% of your income in Federal income taxes. "

ADark1 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 4:16 AM:

" I'd be safe in assuming then that you fell the uber wealthy should contunue the status quo? Seems to me that type of thinking is what got us into a LARGE part of this mess in the first place. And yes NB, by using JTP as a headline when it was an after the fact deal is kinda throwing some spin don't ya think? "

napablogger wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:18 AM:

" Dark1 I am not sure what you mean about the headline, I just meant the headline to describe the topic I was going to bring up. I think Obama does want to 'spread the wealth around" with his tax policy, it is a perhaps impolitic way to put it, but it is the truth.

I agree with raising taxes if we use it to decrease the deficit. And I don't think capital gains taxes should be increased across the board, if the increase could be targeted to people who are using them to avoid income taxes and on large cap gains only, say over $5 million in a year, that would be a better plan I think.

Across the board cap gains tax increases to people who say sell a home who are not wealthy is not a good idea.

On social security and Medicare, we need a whole plan to save them, and in that if some tax increases happened I would be ok with it. But I think taxes should increase on those in the middle class too who are benefitting from it. "

freeport56 wrote on Oct 22, 2008 12:42 PM:

" Amazing how an average guy asks a Presidential candidate a question, a good question and is vilified for it.

he isa smearded in the press by false stories written about him. He appeared on mike Huckabee's show and layed out who and what he was. Is that what we can expect from the "New Left", Gestapo tactics to quiet the dissenters? Smearing your name because you have questions?

Like I said earlier, where can I get my Obama Brown Shirt and my Biden Boots! "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 22, 2008 1:39 PM:

" The Dems are starting to do it to themselves. First Obama accidently gets Joe the Plumber and then Biden opens his pie hole about how Obama will be tested within six months.

The left is now frantically spinning and smearing anyone involved in wanting to discuss these issues.

freeport56, let me know where we can get the brown shirt and boots . . . if Obama is elected it will be good camouflage and if McCain is elected they will be good Halloween costumes in 2009, to frighten people about what could have happened to them and their country. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 22, 2008 2:03 PM:

" NB. Listening to you guys on the right, I get the image of Obama holding rich guys by their feet, dangling them over a ledge off Wall St and shaking the change from their pockets to the impoverished crowds below.

I don't think so.

Changing the tax bill a few percentage points in either direction won't make much of a difference to mine or anyone I know's paycheck. The problems of economic disparity are real in this country. Over the past 30 or so years, wealth in this country has moved upwards. People on the bottom lost, people in the middle stayed the same and people on the top gained. Our economy grew, but only the wealthy seem to have benefitted.

Overall, I think that is troubling. Less money at the bottm means people aren't buying things. Consumer goods are what drive our economy. Unhappy people cause trouble. The politics of fear and envy leads to bad policy.

I would like to believe that Obama could start a new direction in this country to a more equitable society. Maybe it's taxes, maybe something else, but I think we have to start somewhere or we're in trouble. "

kevin wrote on Oct 22, 2008 7:45 PM:

" ateacher, I am NOT willing to have my taxes increased! I already pay over 50% of my income in taxes. How much are we supposed to bleed? The government does NOT have a shortage of funds! They have a problem with SPENDING! I will NOT support a candidate that supports increasing taxes... "

napablogger wrote on Oct 22, 2008 9:55 PM:

" teacher, I am still not satisfied that we know for sure what has happened and why. We know that most salaries have stagnated or dropped for at least eight years. Beyond that, not so clear.

Supposedly the top one tenth of one percent of wage earners have risen a lot, and the top few percent have risen as well. Are those all the same people from year to year?

Why we don't know, and how tax policy can change that is dubious.

I am not against some tax increases, I just want to know why we are doing it and what good it will do. Just handing money to the middle classes will not solve whatever economic problem it is that is causing wages to depress. It is not a long term solution.

We have bigger economic problems to address, government spending out of control, medicare and social security going bankrupt, and now the financial industry belly up. All the debt has piled up.

Tax policy ought to be used, indeed it is going to have to be used to address that, even if the American people come kicking and screaming to it like they have the mortgage and resulting credit crisis. "

Raven wrote on Oct 22, 2008 10:03 PM:

" so you wont support McCain because he is advocating taxing health benefits for the first time...you mean that kind of raisnig taxes? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 23, 2008 7:54 AM:

" kevin - you will be a very happy 'conservative' when Barack Obama and the Democrats CUT your taxes.

Your past posts tell us that you are mid-level bureaucrat in government service, so unless you have a HUGE investment portfolio in some asset that is going up in spite of the Bushite-Republican economic flameout...

Barack Obama will lower your taxes if you family makes less than $250,000 per year!!!

As a proud LIBRUL commie and America-hater, it is rarely that I am able to give such good news to you, kevin!

~Ruff "

a teacher wrote on Oct 23, 2008 12:12 PM:

" "" teacher, I am still not satisfied that we know for sure what has happened and why. We know that most salaries have stagnated or dropped for at least eight years. Beyond that, not so clear.

Supposedly the top one tenth of one percent of wage earners have risen a lot, and the top few percent have risen as well. Are those all the same people from year to year? "

NB: But we do know. For 30 years, we have been working with an economic model that says: cut taxes on the people who make jobs and remove regulations that hinder business. The idea is that the economic growth would result in increased wealth for all.

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Well, the economy has boomed, but many (I'd say most) aren't reaping many benefits. It seems that the top forgot the trickle down part of the equation. Management basically gave itself a raise and told the rest of us to sod off.

The basic flaw in the plan is the assumption that business will regulate it's self. Not gonna happen. "

steph wrote on Oct 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

" I don't believe the poll that says 84% of Americans don't want wealth redistribution.

Asked a different way--"Do you favor a rebate check" or, "Do you favor higher taxes on 'the rich'" you'll get a WAY different answer, one that indicates a good majority of Americans don't understand economics.

How many working Americans say things like, "I didn't have to pay any taxes" around April 15th or say, "The government should pay for that."

Obama is going to lower taxes for people who don't pay taxes by giving them tax credit checks, and I bet a good many of these people will approve heartily of this move.

What I don't understand is the leftist idea that "trickle down" economics doesn't work. The standard of living for people in this country is quite excellent compared to most of the rest of the world. Average people, even poor people enjoy televisions, cell phones, clean water, enough food, shelter, etc., free education, plenty of opportunity to earn wages that often come with health insurance, etc.

I do believe we need to cut entitlement programs that keep the poor tethered to poverty (and crime, and disinterest in education, and poor health). Likewise, we need a serious look into sleazy corporate favoritism. But the problem is, we have foxes in charge of the henhouse. If anyone here really thinks the Democrats or Republicans are interested in working for fairness, well, I believe most of you here are reasonably intelligent folks who've read of enough government scandals to know otherwise.

Why AmCan is currently embroiled in one of its own! "

steph wrote on Oct 23, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Another problem is the motivation vs. the intelligence/experience of those imposing regulations.

Not all regulation is smart. Some regulation leads to the development of a regulation industry that itself can be corrupted, and is very costly and inefficient. Some regulation attempts to legislate economic "equality" and we see where this leads, with the housing crisis, for example. (Though I believe the credit card industry is as much to blame and will be the other shoe to drop, soon.)

I just don't trust those who are making the rules. I believe a grand jury of educated American workers would do a better job of laying out rules that would reduce risk to both corporations, workers, shareholders, and independents. I also don't believe in indebting taxpayers (and soon-to-be taxpayers) hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue mishandled financial institutions--I say let them fail, and then they'll learn to regulate themselves, won't they?

You know, I think that what is wrong with our economic model is the fact that it is based WAY too much on the production and consumption of tangible goods that have little real value--more clothes, more toys, more disposable electronics, more wasteful building. Just look at our landfills. We don't emphasize enough education, travel, craftsmanship, infrastructure repair, health. Out come the credit cards for that trip to the mall, then both mom and dad have to spend all their time at work--for what?

It's all crashing down around us now. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 23, 2008 4:45 PM:

" Steph.

The observation that "Trickle Down" economics isn't working isn't a leftist idea, it's an observation of the facts. If the goal is to raise all levels of wealth and the result is that only the wealth of the top tiers of society has risen, how can that be termed a success?

Your contention that the poor in America aren't really poor because they can afford TV's shows a lack of understanding of poverty. Stop reading the Cato Institute's web page and broaden your horizens. Poverty is relative to where you live. You are basically stating that the poor should just be happy that they don't live in Kenya.

Poverty is not just about what your money can buy, it's about your chances of moving on to a better life. If you are poor in the USA, the chances are that your schools are worse, your health care is worse or non-existant, you have less access to emergency services (police and fire). You experience more insecurity in your job, food supply, safety and oppurtunities. You will live a shorter life, experience less joy, be more frustrated and angy. But at least you can get cable, right?

Finally, "entitlement prigras" don't tie people to poverty. That is how the right justifies it's assault on such programs. For the most part all welfare does is make life s*ck less. Plus, while the poorest of the poor can get welfare, most of the poor are working and get little in terms of assistance. Read a book or two on Poverty. I suggest "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. "

kevin wrote on Oct 23, 2008 5:49 PM:

" So poverty is "relative" now? I can claim to be "poor" as long as I compare myself to someone living in Beverly Hills? According to ateacher that would be true.

Liberals are a fascinating species... "

a teacher wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:15 PM:

" I guess Kevin could argue that he's rich because he doesn't live in a grass hut with an outhouse.

Conservatives, ignorance is bliss... "

steph wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:24 PM:

" I'm reading "Class Matters". Does that count? "

steph wrote on Oct 23, 2008 6:27 PM:

" Teach, what is your solution to poverty? More handouts? Less responsibility? More entitlements?

They don't reduce nor remove poverty.

Better education can do that, but one must avail onesself of it.

And, yes, I am saying that people should be happy they don't live in Kenya. Our economy is a big reason why. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:02 PM:

" Steph, if I knew the answer to poverty I'd be collecting my Nobel Prize in a couple of months.

I would think to banish poverty you have to invest in people and infrastructure. I don't think that amounts to handouts, less responsibility or entitlements. I think it's investment.

It's convienient for the right to portray Obama's tax plan as making the rich pay more so that the government can mail checks to poor people. That's a distortion. It's more about how to pay for things that make our country a better place for everyone.

BTW. Would you tell someone who hasn't got enough money to buy groceries that they should be grateful we don't live in Kenya? "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 23, 2008 10:16 PM:

" ruff, there you go again . . .

The Obama tax cut will backfire when companies raise prices to cover the increased tax rate. This puts the tax right back on the lower and middle income groups. What part of this is so hard to understand?

The alternative is that business will lay off people and close down unprofitable operations, leaving more and more people out of work, creating a huge deficit. Tax revenues will drop, making it impossible to fund Obama's pie in the sky huge spending programs. Or he could get them passed with a compliant lefty Congress, leading us into further huge deficits.

Obama is proving that he is not a financial genius by promoting these failed socialist schemes. He gets his support by pandering to people who just want government handouts, straight from my paycheck into their pockets. As more people realize this, more are returning to McCain/Palin.

Obama now is trying to get people to vote early as he sees his lead starting to drop. Vote Early and Vote Often! That's what he learned as a community organizer in Chicago, where they specialize in that sort of thing.

NObama - keep the change. "

Raven wrote on Oct 24, 2008 3:05 AM:

" business will lay off people and close down unprofitable operations, leaving more and more people out of work, creating a huge deficit. Tax revenues will drop......

so a pretty nice description of what is happening right now PPF under the policies that Bush started and McCain wants to continue....

as for the lead starting to drop....latest polls show him pulling even further ahead....the average of the polls from realclearpolitics shows him 7.3 points ahead "

Lee wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:28 AM:

" Some of you economic experts would do well to learn a little more. One thing, maybe even watch a combination of programs and read a combination of books. If you had watched CSpan yesterday you would have heard Allen Greenspan say, I was wrong. I expected the banks to make reasonable loans and reasonable decisions to protect their business and their share holders but I was wrong. With regulations removed, greed took over and greedy decisions were made over the years that have gotten us into this problem. And yes, Teacher, I totally agree with you when you say that "Trickle down economics" obviously hasn't worked. It isn't conceivable that if trickle down had been working that the disparity between the wealthy and the middleclass would have increased so much. We wouldn't be facing a possible global economic melt down now except for all the wrong economic controls. And Kevin, I'm sorry but I'd like to see how you figure your taxes are 50% of your income. Was that figured before or after you subtracted your dependants and your itemized deductions or standard exemption and did you dream up a total of every possible tax you pay? I still don't buy that your taxes are 50% of your income but if they really are than you are quite poor and you would get a large cut in your taxes with Obama's plan. Remember, Warren Buffet said that he paid a "smaller" percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary did and I doubt if he pays his secretary just minimum wage. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:01 AM:

" It would seem plastic lawn ornaments know as much about economics as one would expect.

You just have to laugh at the sight of Bushite-Republican enablers who used to babble "It's YOUR MONEY!" now telling us that letting the middle class keep THEIR MONEY is such a bad idea!

When Bush cut taxes for the rich - that was the BESTEST IDEA EVER!

When Obama wants to reset taxes on the rich to the level they were before Bush and let working people keep MORE OF THEIR MONEY instead of sending it to bail out billionaires... OH THAT IS SOCIALISM!

So is it OUR MONEY or not?

And if it is OUR MONEY... can we vote to elect people that will lower taxes on working folks and make the rich pay their fair share.

YES! We Can!

~Ruff "

mominapa wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Joe the Plumber is a fraud. First, he's not a plumber, he's an unlicensed contractor. A group of people took up a collection and paid his taxes. He's just "joe six-pack" to that idiot running for VP with McCain. I wonder if he realizes he is just an election tool drug out by McCain. I feel sorry for the poor dumb slob. Every time this election is mentioned in the future, so will "Joe the Plumber " be mentioned. What a legacy for his kids someday. "My dad was Joe the Plumber" who was used as a pawn in a presidential election by the candidate who didn't win". Whoop de do, what a joke. Get over yourself. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:43 AM:

" ruff, you don't seem to get it, do you?

The lower and middle class will pay for the socialist share the wealth tax increases, regardless of your blah blah blah lawn ornaments blah blah blah bushite enablers blah blah blah. Also note that you once tried to ding me for using CAPITAL LETTERS to make a point. Unfortunately you show your double standard. Or is it the typical lefty mirage of reality? Just do whatever you want and blame/smear everyone else for the problems.

See ya on the unemployment line!

And raven, as far as today's economic panic, I invite you to take a look at Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and other members of Congress who led us into this mess. The reality is that presidents have very little to do with how the economy works other than to belch hot air all over the place. "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:44 AM:

" ruff - please also note that Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire - thereby RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.

Obama - what a fraud. "

NVGal wrote on Oct 24, 2008 8:45 AM:

" I agree with PPF, and it is about finance and not economics when you are dealing with rate of return that when you invest your dollar you expect a certain return. If you can't raise prices, you cut costs. If that doesn't work you pull your money out and go somewhere else.

I would support Obama more if he made better decisions regarding how to invest the american tax payers money. Giving tax credits to the middle class or poor is a short term solution. I won't help us in the long run, spending is not investing. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:05 AM:

" ppf - I am sorry but you are the one who doesn't get it, even when it is spelled out for you.

Letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire will reset taxes on the rich to the level they were during the balanced budget Clinton era.

Cutting taxes for the middle class will result in the working people of American paying LESS than they do now. That is why it is called a Tax Cut FOR the Middle Class!

As hard as it may be for Republican-enablers to understand, more money in the wallets and purses of working class Americans means more customers with money to spend in the businesses here in Napa County.

The Wall Street Weasels are very adept at 'framing' their predatory nature as doing Main Street a favor, but robbing taxpayers and giving the money in no-bid contracts to the very people who stole our money in the first place is not the answer.

I recently asked a guy working in a local hardware store if they would prefer another $50,000 credit line at the bank -OR- if they would like another $50,000 dollars worth of customers shopping in their stores.

Guess their answer!

The reply was that they would rather have the customers buying from them than bailing out billionaire bankers.

No progressive expects the Wall Street Weasels to be grateful for excising the cancerous excesses of the lost Bushite years. So we are going to have to do a Republican Root-Canal and set American back to rights without their "help".

But then, during the 1929 debacle, Republicans were no help either.

~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 24, 2008 12:25 PM:

" NVGal -

What part of Demand-Side economics do you not understand?

More customers - more business.

More money in working class hands - more customers - more business.

More money in customers hands - more business - more business investment.

The alternative - giving a thousand billion bucks to Wall Street Weasels to 'recapitalize' banks that have no businesses needing to borrow money for investment because they have no customers because the middle class is broke ---- is what we have right now!

There's a balance to be struck between the rich and the working class to keep money flowing and it is past time to start watering the garden again.

~Ruff "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:54 PM:

" Wrong again ruff. I'll spell it out for you, again. When the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is calculated against what Obama fraudulently says is a 'tax cut', taxes on the middle class will increase. That means less money for customers to spend on higher priced goods and services to pay for the huge tax increases. I agree with your store owner, I would much rather have more customers with more money, not a bigger credit line and fewer customers - sounds like the store owner is a conservative. Go back and ask him how he will deal with increased taxes and fewer customers. Lay off some employees and raise prices are the most likely scenarios. Obama is going to take his income and "make it available" to Dem-enablers who sit around all day, but vote the party line without question.

And for the 1,011th time - Bill Clinton was the benefactor of the dot com boom, which provided huge revenues to state and federal governments. It certainly wasn't anything Bill did. Clinton didn't have a clue, he just bumbled his way along for eight years and left a huge mess behind (after removing most of the White House computer system, probably so no one would ever find out what sort of flim flam was really going on).

Bill Clinton is not someone I would point out as a shining example of economic policy. He didn't do anything to create the boom, unless you count letting Al Gore invent the internet. But in the shimmering mirage of lefty reality, you probably would. "

post-it wrote on Oct 24, 2008 2:54 PM:

" Obama says he wants to repeal Bush tax cuts. He says he wants to lower 95% of taxpayer's taxes. Are his tax cuts from the current Bush tax rates or from the higher pre-Bush tax rates? Is it really a tax cut or will it really be just a different version of the Bush tax cuts?

There is clearly unfairness in wages. I don't see how income tax policy addresses this. why not a corporate tax penalty to companies that pay exorbitant wages/benefits on the top at the expense of the bottom ranks of their payroll ladder. Both candidates should be calling on companies to look at their pay plans or threaten to enforce consequences for not providing equitable pay policies. Determin pay equity by comparing the spread of the highest paid to the lowest paid. Is an executive worth 80 million a year when the guy who cleans his office gets min wage? The same should hold for Movie stars and Athletes. Nobody does it on their own. (and if you did - there would be no difference between the top and bottom pay!)

Currently there are plenty of salary loopholes:
1. Health insurance is not taxed, those with better plans get an income advantage
2.frequent flier miles are not taxed so some get free vacations
3. Executive life insurance is not taxed
4. executive pay in stocks so they get taxed as capital gains rate rather than income tax rate

If the income tax rate is raised, the system will get worked so that exec pay is higher to compensate and they get the same net pay. we will just pay more for goods to compensate "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 24, 2008 5:03 PM:

" post-it --

Obama has been pretty specific and so have the folks who have examined his plan.

If a couple makes $250,000 a year their taxes will NOT go up.

If a couple makes more than $250,000 a year then their taxes on the amount OVER $250,000 will go up.

So Joe-the-Plumber, Bob-the-Builder, Tracey-the-Teller, Wendy-the-Waitress and Gary-the-Government-Worker have nothing to worry about if they don't have a taxable income over $250,000 a year.

And if Lance-the-Lucky-Ducky makes more than $250,000 a year then he will have to pay the same tax rate paid in 1999 when the US budget was balanced and regular unleaded gas cost 99.9 cents a gallon.

Most Americans would prefer the Clinton-era economy over the Bushite-enhanced "self-regulating", crony-infested toxic-waste landfill Bushite-Republican looters have given America.

~Ruff "

kevin wrote on Oct 24, 2008 7:25 PM:

" All of which avoids the fact that DEMOCRATS DON'T CUT TAXES.

They talk about cutting taxes.

They promise to cut taxes.

But just like Clinton.

They don't REALLY cut taxes. "

Raven wrote on Oct 24, 2008 9:51 PM:

" well dont forget the republican leadership of both houses when you are casting your net, PPF....the Repubs ran the joint for the first six years and Gram was instrumental if getting what regulation there was removed .... "

steph wrote on Oct 25, 2008 1:36 AM:

" There's that word that liberals like: "lucky".

Not "hard-working" not "made good choices" but "lucky" like the money just landed in the "lucky" guy's lap for no reason.

Or, he's "greedy". Probably a Republican.

That tax increase may drive more primary care doctors out of business--early retirement sounds good, or cutting hours back, even if there's a shortage. It's not worth the long days and liability if Uncle Sam just takes a bigger cut.

That's one example of a "lucky" guy I can think of. A greedy, lucky guy who deserves to pay more. "

steph wrote on Oct 25, 2008 1:43 AM:

" The presumptuousness of the liberals, too--now two members accusing the right of ignorance, of not reading or watching the right combination of liberal programs/books.

Y'all are reading and listening to your share of conservative media, right?

NPR had Alan Greenspan, as well, and a nice discussion. Also, some of us work.


Lee--are all of us who are opposed to tax increases and wealth redistribution--are we all just livin' large like Warren Buffett? Oh, and Warren Buffett's secretary probably makes what you and I and everyone here makes combined.

That's trickle-down economics. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 25, 2008 9:53 AM:

" As a matter of fact, steph, LIBRULZ read rightwing stuff all the time.

We make comparisons between the two points of view all the time.

There is a projection amongst Republican-enablers that those traitorous dangerous scarey commie fascist LIBRULZ don't read what is passed off as rightwing thought.

It's not true, we do read it and find it lacking in any solutions to the problems of the middle class in America.

Most of what is repeated here on the NVR is uniformed, wrong, or both. And even worse, rightwing slogans that give people an excuse NOT TO THINK for themselves.

What is really entertaining is the triple half-Gainer backflips that come flying around from self-styled 'tax cut' enthusiasts when !!horrors!! a Democract suggests actually cutting taxes for people that make less than $250,000 per year.

Republcans have done tax cuts alright, mainly for rich people, not for the middle working class folks.

As I heard it put... the rich got a taxcut to buy them another Mercedes and the middle class got enough to buy a Pinto muffler.

If you are looking to turn around a Demand-Side economy the working class is where the purchasing power has to go.

It's notable that NOTHING done so far has even started turning the economy around - NOR WILL IT - until the taxcut money goes to consumers.

Obama is a center-left Democrat, not a member of communist party.

You can always say that Obama might not do what he says he will, but he's a very determined man.

Socialism for the rich has failed, Americans are ready for CHANGE!

~Ruff "

anticommie wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:02 AM:

" This is the agenda of the American left. Norman Thomas, An American Socialist that ran for President six times on the American Socialist ticket:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

I couldn't say it any better. All those on the left are the ones that are ruining this country. Their socialist ideas under the disguise of "liberalism," are brainwashing the younger generations through the EDUCATION system.

I once said that whether McCain or Obama get elected the New Left wins. Obama is a straight up socialist, we all know it. The right knows, and the left either is oblivious, or they are too. McCain is a moderate Republican, NOT a conservative. That is why soooo many Republicans are having a difficult time voting for him.

I am sad for this country, and the path that the reluctance to see that socialism and even communism has infiltrated our capitalist system and is slowly destroying it. And the sad part? The American left doesn't even care. If Obama wins, welcome to the new American era: No longer America the brave, but America the socialist "

anticommie wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:06 AM:

" Ruff:

Give me a break. Only the money PAST the $250k mark will be taxed? That is just ridiculous. It is obvious what Obama is doing, and you welcome it with open arms don't you? SOCIALISM. Well just know that there are men out here that will fight to the bitter end to expose the socialist plans of the left.

-ANTICOMMIE "

anticommie wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Wow Ruff!! Try taking the blindfold off for a few minutes. Obama a center-left Democrat? Bama makes Hillary look like Ronald Reagan. On what grounds is Bama a center-left democrat? Where is the record that shows this? As for the tax cuts, I received one under Bush, and I was making 30,000 a year at the time. The only reason the rich got more is because they make more and pay more. A simple concept if you think about it. The agendas of the socialists in this country are quite simple, just read their websites for yourself. Not to mention the 60's movenment.

In the 60's the American socialist party split into three separate groups: leftist, centrist, rightist. The latter two, if you do some research, went on to infiltrate and support the American Democratic Party. So I guess you might be able to say that Bama is a center-left Democrat, because a center-left Democrat is a center-left Socialist. Funny how that works out. "

wyngyrl wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:06 AM:

" When a household runs up large credit card bills, the income provider needs to take a 2nd job and cut household spending. When a business's income statement goes to red ink because of mismanagement, the company needs to increase revenue and cut expenditures. When a country has an exploding federal deficit, the government must raise taxes and cut programs. All those actions are called fiscal responsibility.

The other option is to declare bankruptcy and walk away. That is how people lose their homes, lose their jobs, and lose control of their country.

I doubt that anyone wants to see USA declare bankruptcy. So we will all have to contribute our fair share, and work together to repair what is essentially a bankrupt nation. Unless we want to hand over the assets to China, India, and Saudia Arabia. I'm voting to remove a Republican Administration which has told us for 8 years, "everything is fine, go shopping and don't worry." Well it's not fine, and unless we agree to work together it may never be fine again. Vote for Change on '08. "

steph wrote on Oct 25, 2008 12:51 PM:

" What about the so-called stimulus checks?
"Rich" people didn't get those.
That's a tax cut for the middle class and poor--income redistribution from higher tax brackets to low/no tax brackets.

Ruff, how about some solutions from you? All I ever hear from you are attacks on "Republican enablers". I know you're WAY smarter than that. One thing you and I agree on is that the federal "bailout" of the rich on Wall Street is disgusting. I hold members of BOTH parties liable. No Democrat, and NO Republican stood up for the American people in imposing even minimal, intelligent regulation of the financial industry. The failing corporations need to fail. Then the shareholders will start paying attention to outrageous corporate salaries that result NOT in attracting the best minds, but in attracting greedy self-centered individuals who run companies into bankruptcy, including the loss of good jobs and drying up of investors' funds. Let them fail! So far the bailout hasn't saved us and the rest of the world from what is inevitable.

All you folks who are pointing fingers at the other party's players ought to read about the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It will make you sick.

These same idiots in charge of Congress want to have us believe that they're going to save us with just 700 billion taxpayer dollars.

And we're in this financial mess because taxes aren't high enough? I say there are no good stewards looking out for you and me.

I voted against Mike Thompson, like shouting into the wind. I also voted against Obama and McCain--they're on opposite sides playing the same game. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 25, 2008 5:54 PM:

" AntiCommie is practically foaming at the mouth here. IT'S US TEACHERS! I guess I missed the memo. The next thing he'll be ranting about is fluoride in the water.

Steph: Redistribution of wealth is the basic goal of an economy. The problem, in my opinion, is that we have been working with a philosophy that if we direct wealth towards the top, the top will redirect it towards the rest of us. It's a flawed assumption in that business has come to set the rules that control controls the flow. As a result, they keep more of the wealth generated and the rest get less. I think it's time we change the rules to make it more equitable.

You also make a number of presumptions. Among them is the presumption that people are poor by choice, that is that they lack the initiative to rise above their circumstances (another way of saying that the poor are lazy). Another is that the system is fair, that is anyone with enough "pluck" can rise above their station in life. I think that facts show that to be a myth, that the system is stacked against the poorer end and favors the wealthier end.

I read from a variety of sources, but I try to avoid the obvious partisans ho are mostly hot air. "

anticommie wrote on Oct 25, 2008 9:18 PM:

" Make no mistake, It's not the fluoride, its the liberalism. "

anticommie wrote on Oct 25, 2008 9:31 PM:

" A teacher wrote:

"Steph: Redistribution of wealth is the basic goal of an economy."

WHAT? Maybe of a socialist economy. Even in your treasured socialist concept of "trickle up economics" the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. The Difference? At least in a free capitalist society, if you are smarter and more willing than the competition, than you can become wealthy. We see it everyday in this country. At least I do.

With socialism, the people that start out poor will remain poor with no chance of success that is possible under capitalism. The middle class shrinks to about nothing, creating only two classes, Lower and Higher. The higher class then has more control over the lower because they are the ones that are doing the redistributing. Giving us little people our food stamps, our land that they have divided "fairly," and our income that is "fair" to everyone. If you dont think it will come to this, you are gravely mislead. The left began this attack on the people the moment they started with the gun control movement. They dont want an armed society when they take it over.

Think I'm a conspiracy whack? I'll reiterate the agenda of the American Socialist Party:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."- Norman Thomas "

a teacher wrote on Oct 25, 2008 10:05 PM:

" AntiCommie: Then perhaps YOU can explain the purpose of economic activity? I thought it was about the flow of money goods and services. I would imagine that in a good economy, wealth spread around, otherwise there is no economic activity.

If you have another explanation of economic activity, let's hear it. Try to leave fluoride out of it. "

napablogger wrote on Oct 25, 2008 11:07 PM:

" the goal of an economy is to create wealth, plain and simple. Redistribution is about fairness. One man's social justice is another man's oppression.

What I think is that things are not so simple. Economic freedom is the best way to create wealth, but in that freedom some people will figure out ways to dominate and control everyone else and horde all the benefits and wealth to themselves.

Once the dominators get control they can s*ck all the wealth into themselves and have to be regulated. Once you regulate, you lose freedom and it hurts the economy. There is no one size fits all anwser, even though most people would prefer it.

It's simpler, and you don't have to think. The answer is always, market forces, or raise taxes, impose controls.

anticommie, you just make assertions without the evidence to back them up. that way leads to delusions. "

Todd Adams wrote on Oct 26, 2008 7:00 AM:

" NB: That's a very good explanation of the economy. It's all about balance. I think the idealogs should move to utopia and tell us what it's like when they get there. "

anticommie wrote on Oct 26, 2008 7:03 AM:

" teacher:

you brought the fluoride into it first!

The purpose of the economy is the flow of goods and services, and if you want to say, money. But the discussion here is: who is best fit to spend our money? Should the government redistribute wealth? The individual, or the government. I personally say the individual knows how to spend their money that best suits them. Maybe I'm wrong though,people would rather take vacations, go out to nice dinners, maybe indulge in not so legal substances, and then go and complain they dont have healthcare. I know plenty of people like this. On top of that, they want you and me to pay for their healthcare for them!! Does that seem fair to you? I work hard for my money and healthcare, and have cut certain luxeries out of my life to accomidate the nessecities. Priorities people, priorities.

Blogger:

I love hearing the word "fair" being thrown around. A flat tax would be the most "fair," but I doubt any liberal would tolerate that. "Fairness," "equality," "social justice," "tolerance," "multiculturism," "individualism," all terms the lefty of the lefts use as a way to "sugar coat" the true agenda of socialism.

Reagan said, "It's very easy to disquise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care to people that can't possibly afford it."

Reagan knew the threat of socialism and communism in this country, and that is the reason those of the left always opposed him. "

anticommie wrote on Oct 26, 2008 7:10 AM:

" Blogger:

Delusional, you say? Take a look at contries that use major aspects of the socialist agenda that the left in this country are embracing so much. France, Canada, etc. Several Canadian friends of mine, never have one good thing to say about the socialized medical system that they have in that country. In fact, two of them have said they came to the US a couple times to receive our healthcare, and would rather pay for it that way. Then take a look at the taxes these countries pay. Thanks, but no thanks.

Norman Thomas said it for me about liberalism. The left in this country are either oblivious to the true agenda of the liberal Democratic Party, or support it. Either way, socialism is alive and well in this country and will destroy what this country is: all out of "fairness." "

a teacher wrote on Oct 26, 2008 8:44 AM:

" NB: As you say, it's not that simple. Wealth doesn't spring from a vacuum, money doesn't grow on trees. Wealth is created by labor. When money changes hands, wealth is transferred.

Economics is not simply about creating wealth, it's about how money (or wealth) flows through an economy. "

anticommie wrote on Oct 26, 2008 10:35 AM:

" Economics Defined:

1. (used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.

Economics is about product and services. Buying, selling, importing, exporting, distrtibuting in the sense of making available to purchase or trade. Wealth redistribution is the socialist form of economics: TAKING from one and GIVING to another. "

a teacher wrote on Oct 26, 2008 10:58 AM:

" anticommie:It's a false choice between government and the individual. You leave out the other players, corporations and "special interests". Governments proper role should be to balance the power between the individual and the vastly more powerful business interests.

You also portray it as an all or nothing situation. Why can't there be some government intervention for the benefit of everyone? "

steph wrote on Oct 26, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Wealth is not only created by labor. You make it sound like we have an economy of poor little factory workers and their rich evil bosses. Not so. Our economy is much more robust than that.

But, yes, teacher, I agree that "redistribution of wealth is the basic goal of an economy". In fact, I'll say that wealth isn't wealth until it's exercised, either through purchasing or investing. It can be donated, and used to influence (a form of purchasing, really.) In a conservative's point of view, wealth is transferred for goods and services that people want, that other people provide, and NOT to people who bring nothing to the economic table--save for a miniscule minority of people who truly cannot provide for themselves in any way. This provides the most robust economy, fosters the most innovation and efficiency.

But it also needs to be regulated, ideally minimally, because greedy (and financially irresponsible) people can be very destructive, as we are seeing in the banking industry and home buying arena today. "

steph wrote on Oct 26, 2008 11:34 AM:

" I also like to remind folks that there are many, many very poor people in socialist countries all over Europe. Socialism does not protect people from poverty. I'm not sure it s#cks that much less to be poor in England or France than it does here in the US. I'm not sure how long these socialist countries can continue their economic policies, either. There have been protests in Germany over inadequate healthcare funding, for example. "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2008 1:26 PM:

" Norman Thiomas has been irrelevant for decades except to a few die hards who see communism and socialism behind every tree...even when he was alive he was irrelevant...the communist party in the US has nt never been more than a blip on the political radar for more than 50 years, anti.... "

Joe wrote on Oct 26, 2008 2:01 PM:

" Wealthy people shouldn't have to give to middle class. Most wealthy people worked really hard for their money or took extremly high risks in starting business's that could have left them broke if they failed. They weren't sitting around doing nothing with there time. They already contribute much more than the average person in taxes. More than there share. "

anticommie wrote on Oct 26, 2008 4:07 PM:

" denial is a powerful thing "

anticommie wrote on Oct 26, 2008 4:23 PM:

" I beg to differ raven. When I first started writing in these discussions, I made the argument that communism and socialism have evolved into liberalism. Norman Thomas helped with this. Many people on the left, have no idea who Norman Thomas was, or what he stood for. But his views definately pursuaded many to follow in different forms of communism i.e: marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc. These days they dont use the term socialism or communist, they use the word liberalism, and this has been planned at least since the 1920's and 1930's (remember the "New Deal?"). Some people might want to remain unwilling to accept this, but it is quite obvious to me that liberalism and socialism are interchangable these days.

What are you opinions on Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky? On Peter Collier and David Horowitz? "

Raven wrote on Oct 26, 2008 6:41 PM:

" Howard Zinn has produced a powerful history of the US that I think should be a part of every students' education.....the rest I have very little use for...but you dont care what I think about them anti, because you have made up your mind where I stand on the issues... "

misfit wrote on Oct 26, 2008 6:58 PM:

" You know...you are right.
I do believe that Joe the plumber would love to have a job.
Would love to be able to afford healtcare and if he has it, to afford the co-pays and the deductables.
I think Joe would love to be able to feed his family something other than Taco Bell's 2 for one Burritto deal.
Joe would love to be able to fill up his gas tank instead of leaving it only half full because that's all he can afford to do as gas prices are artificially raised to fatten the oil companie's profit margin. Problem is, our country with it's wonderful value system, values the corportations that send jobs overseas so that they can make a bigger profit for their wealthy investors.
We value the HMO executives, who worked their way up from the mail room to make the billion dollar a year salary while denying coverage...after all, isn't that what the American dream is all about?
I think Joe would love to have his hernia operated on but, he can't afford the 5,000.00 deductable that he has to pay before his insurance kicks in.
Joe used to shop at Costco, but now, he can no longer afford the membership and, who can afford to put out 400.00 all up front for a 36pack of toilet paper and paper towels and a few other "necessities". He'll shop at Trader Joe's and Target...after his next paycheck.
But...Joe will vote for McCain and Palin because, they share his real life experience and his values. A value system that causes him to deny himself as sort of a noble, self sacrifice, in order to support the view of the American Dream or of what it should be. "

amigo wrote on Oct 26, 2008 7:38 PM:

" Ruff said; Obama is a center-left Democrat, not a member of communist party.


Wasnt obama considered the most liberal senator? I think so "

Todd Adams wrote on Oct 26, 2008 8:39 PM:

" With the exception of the one idealog on this thread, it seems that everyone agrees that the government should have some role in helping out those who are in need, but there should also be incentives for people to at least try to pull their own weight. The major difference is that the liberals are more vocal about the former and conservatives are more vocal about not the latter. Essentially I think that most of you agree with each other on this basic priciple and the arguing just comes from our strongest viewpoint on the subject of social programs.

We certainly aren't going to make any progress with this sort of arguing so I would like the liberals to kindly acknowledge that social programs should include mechanisms or incentives to minimize parasites who feed off the taxpayers and I would also like for the conservatives to acknowledge that many people need temporary or permanent assitance in order to contribute to our society. As part of this therapy you might even give some examples of the opposing viewpoint you've been espousing. Try giving some real examples from your own experiences. "

jt wrote on Oct 26, 2008 9:11 PM:

" i've always said, a note from a dead pigeon is worth less then a pigeon's dumplings on the side of a building in chinatown that hasn't been cleaned since 1927. where is my stimulus check?

if plumber joe doesn't understand it who really cares cause most people don't. i don't think the two politicians did either, and probably still don't. if joe can keep making under a certain amount he can get a check for $600 bucks. joe had a couple seconds of fame, and a $600 check. good for joe. he can't get a loan cause he defaulted on a payment. who cares!!! to add to his problems he lives in amarillo texas, which he doesn't see as a problem because he probably hasn't been far out of amarillo for very long. big deal... i doubt that joe would go surfing in wheat elevator, or push cows over, or burn fire flies on the burn barrel. who cares... i don't. "

steph wrote on Oct 26, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Todd--
Agreed.

A close relative needed assistance after her husband left her with two kids and no child support. She put herself through school to become a teacher, and with short-term assistance, was able to put food on the table for two hungry teens. She needed help. She recalls standing in line in the government office, and she chatted with an immigrant (not Hispanic, btw) who chided her for going to school, because everyone knows that you lose your benefits if you go to work! My relative was appalled. She went on to provide education for dozens upon dozens of special ed kids, pays taxes, and finished raising two responsible, tax-paying citizens. She has much to be proud of.

Her neighbor is a disabled firefighter who collects a huge salary. He is not disabled. He may not be able to lift 200-pound men out of burning buildings, but he certainly could be working at a clerical job for the State.

I received a student loan to help pay for my graduate degree. Yes, I payed it off, but the interest rate was low (for that time, not by today's standards) due to government financing. I am grateful for the assistance.

How'd I do, Todd?

Another thing we conservatives and liberals probably agree on is the need for finance of public infrastructure and education. We disagree about whether the government collects enough taxes already to accomplish this. Conservatives believe politicians waste a heckuva lotta money on things like pork, bailouts for rich executives, unnecessary wars, entitlement programs, fraud, bad contracting, and other forms of mismanagement. That needs to be cleaned up before I'm ready for a tax increase. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:11 PM:

" amigo - Every election cycle the Republican-enablers hang 'the most liberal senator in the Senate' label on the Democratic candidate -- no matter who they are.

No surprise there. No rational reason for the label, but that's just Republican-enabling for you.

John Kerry is still in the Senate but somehow... Barack Obama is now supposed to be 'the most liberal senator in the Senate', even though his voting record is rather moderate as compared to John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and even Joe Lieberman.

amigo, you are welcome to your delusions.

However, Barack Obama is far from 'the most liberal senator in the Senate'. And I should know being as I am the head bull-goose LIBRUL commie fascist around here.

But 'most liberal' or not, Barack Obama is still beating your 'I voted with Bush 90% of the time, but I am such a Maverick' candidate.

Both sides have their favorite labels for the other side, but the Republican-enablers are still grappling with the fact that the majority of Americans don't care about Republican labels much anymore -- they want a change from EIGHT LONG YEARS of Republican bungling, lying and corruption.

~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 27, 2008 4:12 PM:

" steph - you must be very excited then because Barack Obama wants to cut your taxes if you make less than $250,000 a year.

~Ruff "

steph wrote on Oct 27, 2008 6:20 PM:

" If I only cared about my own tax rate, and not the general impact of high taxes on our economy, I might be excited, Ruff.

If I only cared about taxation, and not about revenue management, I might be excited.

Economics is a much more complicated subject than that, though. "

NVGal wrote on Oct 27, 2008 6:24 PM:

" Ruff- for me to have a conversation with you about “demand-side economics”, I would have to believe that the “tax cut for the middle class” actually would hit their pocket books. I don’t! A typical tax cut for a family of 4 making $75K under Obama (per his calculator) is roughly $1610, so $134 per month or $33 per person per month. That’s it, and I bet that the first to take a large chunk of the $134 per month will be the banks with higher interest rate on everything from car loans to credit cards. That $134 will just be recycled some way, and the “Middle Class” will be bought and sold for $134 a month.

Middle class demand side economics is “hey, when the price of gas is low, I can demand a SUV!”. Then we get to bail out the auto manufactures when the price of gas rises. I think the middle class has spent enough, and your demand side economic plan of middle class spending is way behind the times.

I say take the $134 a month and invest it in the long run, industries that create jobs that will help us survive through a globalized economy, or a better educational system.

Oh, according to Obama’s tax calculator, I am tax neutral, no “middle class tax cut” for me, and I make far less than $250K per year… "

NVGal wrote on Oct 27, 2008 6:31 PM:

" Just to be clear, I would like the $134 per month to be invested by the capitalists who earned it instead of the government that doesn't get how to protect our money in the first place. "

Todd Adams wrote on Oct 27, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Well done Steph! Thanks for the examples.

I'll share a couple examples as well. I benefitted from grants and subsidized loans to help me through college. It's hard to imagine how I could have made it through college without this support, so I would like to thank the taxpayers for their assistance. I also received aid through the National School Lunch Program when I was in elementary school because my mom was struggling to raise 3 kids as a single mother.

Each of my grandparents benefitted from Social Security and Medicare and my parents are soon to be beneficiaries of these social programs, provided of course that my generation will continue to support these programs.

I've also known a few free-loaders in my life. One of my friends was very much capable of working, but he chose to live on the streets and off the generosity of others rather than earning his own pay. I somewhat understood his decision because he wasn't qualified for many jobs that would pay a living wage, but it was a drag on our friendship for sure. Fortunately, this sort of lifestyle isn't as glamorous as you read in the papers and he now has a job and is self-sufficient.

I also know of a person who gets disability through Social Security for being a drug addict. I wouldn't choose this route either, but I'm also not sure what to do with people like this. It's not cheap to lock them up in jail either.

I doubt that we will ever eradicate all the parasites and free-loaders. The best that we can do is to create incentives and disincentives to minimize their impact on the rest of us. "

steph wrote on Oct 27, 2008 7:28 PM:

" Todd--
I maintain that your drug addict friend would grow tired of being a drug addict much faster if he didn't have a choice in the matter. But his lifestyle is being financed by taxpayers, and he can hang on to his choice a little (long?) while longer.

I'd rather take his SSI and invest it in a community mental health system with plenty of inpatient beds and outpatient services, like psychological help and job training. He should have to work for his aid, as well.

I'm all for WIC and school lunches for children, and free daycare with a phase-out as income increases, but no Section 8 and no discretionary spending aid. I'd like to see more well-run public boarding schools that would rescue children from unfit parents. When you give people a choice to be parasitic, you get more parasites. It shouldn't be so easy.

We also need to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act that Republican congressmen were payed to repeal, and the repeal of which President Clinton signed. We need to demand that all credit default swaps be collateralized. There should be no speculation in this market. Predatory lending should be outlawed and in my opinion, loan interest rates should be regulated. Credit card companies should not be allowed to charge interest rates in the 20's percentages. I like Obama's plan of simplifying loan applications and mandating easy-to-read loan term disclosures. (No-brainer, really, but corruption prevails for now.)

I KNOW an assembly of the American people could fix the country's problems, grand jury-style. That's what our congress is supposed to do, but they're too busy looking out for themselves. They're not as smart as they should be, either. "

Raven wrote on Oct 27, 2008 8:02 PM:

" "I'd like to see more well-run public boarding schools that would rescue children from unfit parents".....why not bring back the poorhouse and the workhouse, steph.....

you want to limit the interest companies can charge....isnt that somewhat socialist?

and without speculation, would you even have a market? "

steph wrote on Oct 27, 2008 10:09 PM:

" Fixing interest rates would be socialism, but I don't think that capping interest rates is socialism, unless all regulation is capitalism. (I got the idea at Obama's website today.)

I'm opposed to the bailout of banks that made and sold bad loans. I think banks should be vulnerable to the repercussions of poor management--greedy management. Were we to remove safety nets, banks would not have allowed people with risky credit to extend themselves. But we don't live in a Libertarian society. That leaves us with regulation. Allow banks to compete with different services and rates, but I don't believe it hurts banks to cap the interest rates they can charge--you and I as taxpayers have to pay for their artificially high losses when people can't keep up with ridiculously high payments, and they default. Right? So, let's protect the taxpayers, and cap interest rates. Let's also tell banks that if they authorize enormous credit limits to people who couldn't possibly pay it back--or small credit limits layered on top of layers of small credit limits, the BANK takes the risk--not the taxpayer! No deduction of losses. Better note credit worthiness next time!

I don't understand your concern about boarding schools. Rich people send their children to boarding schools. Why not poor children who have abusive, mentally ill, or neglectful parents? Check out research: The Impact of Orphanages on the Alumni’s Lives
and Assessments of Their Childhoods by Richard B. McKenzie.

Oh, I looked up "Poorhouse" on Wikipedia, and this is what I found: "Often the poorhouse was situated on the grounds of a poor farm on which able-bodied residents were required to work; such farms were common in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries". Awesome! Are drug-infested "projects" better? "

anticommie wrote on Oct 28, 2008 7:17 AM:

" " Howard Zinn has produced a powerful history of the US that I think should be a part of every students' education"

Well, then it should be balanced with some conservative writer's then, cause Howard Zinn a left wing radical. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:34 AM:

" What I find sad is all the people who don't understand how the US economy works.

Right now, the 'business community' is in a downturn because there are not enough CUSTOMERS with money to buy.

There is not enough money in the hands of customers/consumers/people because the 'growth' in the Bush economy was fueled with debt, not wages. Millions of homeowners were refinancing their homes to get out 'equity' that disappeared and are left upside-down in their finances.

There are two ways to put spending power in the hands of customers, one is a tax cut for the 'customer class' letting them keep more of their wages to spend on their priorities, and, two, giving the unemployed JOBS which give them wages to spend on on their priorities.

The Middle Class Tax Cut is a great idea and should be even larger!

Also, the same economists who ACCURATELY PREDICTED this financial flameout have started asking for a $400+ billion stimulus package to go into infrastructure spending to create jobs to get money into the hands of the 'customer class'.

The downward spiral has begun. I strongly encourage those who are crying for the Republican phoney 'Joe the Plumber' who gets a tax cut under the Obama plan, to start thinking about what would happen to them if their jobs disappear as the economy contracts.

Recessions and depressions are not good for anybody, not Wall Street and not Main Street.

I'd like to see less attempts by the Republican-enablers to chop holes in the fire hoses as the economic firemen try to keep the entire US economy from burning to the ground.

~Ruff "

steph wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:38 AM:

" Typo: "unless all regulation is capitalism"

I meant to say "unless all regulation is socialism" "

misfit wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:44 AM:

" If we are going to limit anything, why not limit the mergers of banks and big companies that create less competition and create companies so large that they become "Too large to fail"? All that does is create the scenario where they need to be bailed out or else everything else crumbles. "

steph wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:47 AM:

" I don't think there should have been the type of market that there is for credit default swaps. These were unregulated "insurance" plans that were not collateralized. People without any real interest in the insured commodities should not have been speculating on their defaults. And the collapse of that shady industry is affecting all of us currently, with the collapse of our economy and the forced bailout of AIG. Well, if it's all going to blow up anyway, and maybe it should, why should we taxpayers have to hold the bag? That industry didn't want regulation, the banking industry was all too happy to do business this way, but now they want us regular dummies to prop them up. Individuals have made BILLIONS in the CDS industry without providing any goods or services or real investment in an actual economy. This isn't capitalism--it's pure greed. Warren Buffett calls CDS "financial weapons of mass destruction." "

Raven wrote on Oct 28, 2008 9:17 AM:

" keep looking at the poorhouse definition, they were also state run workhouses where the poor were kept in abject conditions....in what amounted to slave labor .....the classic example is Oliver Twist

and can you see the state being able to run such a boarding school.....look at the disarray in running a simple school district like Napa...
and there is a big difference between an orphanage and a boarding school.... "

napablogger wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Todd, I agree with your comments. I would add that one of the reasons for the arguments also is that people slap labels on things, like anti commie with his socialism label.

What I notice in that is conversation gets reduced to name calling, and is really not informative or interesting.

Liberals do it too, neoconservative used to be the label of choice but it is dying away.

It seems to me that if we are going to define socialism as any law or regulation by the government, then what capitalism and socialism are are two ends of the same spectrum.

That spectrum would be individual freedom vs government control in economics. The ultimate in government control is government ownership of everything, like in the old soviet.

What we are arguing about really is the amount of control the government should take away from individuals. Most agree right now that we need more regulation---even conservatives are arguing that Fannie May should have had more control from the goverment and not been allowed to make many of the loans they made. That' control by the government.

Like Steph, I think that the fear is that we will go overboard once again and then regulate too much. It is a critical balance and we have to work to get it right. "

kevin wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Why is B.O. "changing" his latest ad?

""To deal with our current emergency I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut."

What happened to the "$250,000"?

(Not like I believe ANY Democrat who says they are going to lower taxes. You have to go all the way back to Kennedy to find one.)

Besides, B.O. doesn't consider the expiration of President Bush's tax cuts in 2010 a tax increase.

The net effect is a tax increase regardless... "

anticommie wrote on Oct 28, 2008 11:43 AM:

" napablogger:

Our country is on its way to a socialist state, and I AM labeling liberals as the socialists that they are dating back to FDR. If you do some research, and disregard the denial from the democrats, and some republicans (the liberal ones), this country is on its way to the government controlling all forms of business. This has been the plans of Communists: Destroy Laissez faire econmics; replace with Communism/Socialism. Whether we see this in our lifetime or not only time will tell.

Raven disregards men like Norman Thomas, six time presidential candidate, as irrelevant. This is exactly what Norman Thomas wanted the American people to do, all summed up in one single quote which I have put in these posts several times and will do again:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." "

cmc wrote on Oct 28, 2008 5:10 PM:

" wyngirl cited several examples of "belt tightening" -- which involved both bringing in more income AND cutting expenses. All I'm hearing about is bringing in more income (tax increases for those over $250,000 or 200,000 or $150,000 or the upper 5% -- pick a group) -- but instead of cutting expenses, there's only talk of MORE government expenditures. What's the plan for reeling in expenses? For those who would cite the war expense that will undoubtedly be reduced in the coming years with the election of either candidate, that can only be a start. Where is the plan for trimming back expenses (with both scalpel and ax, as mentioned in the debates)? Why is the emphasis on the government giveaways? (Answering my own question -- because if you rob from Peter to pay Paul you'll always have the allegiance (or vote) of Paul.)

In addition, Mr. Obama has acknowleged on several occasions that increasing taxes on capital gains, for example, has historically resulted in a decrease of income to the government, but that he favors it in the interest of "fairness". So his interest is demonstrably not in increasing government income, but in taking one person's money and giving it to someone else, not based on achievement, hard work, or any other criteria except that one has more than the other. That's fair? "

Todd Adams wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:30 PM:

" Steph, just wanted to clarify that the drug addict on Social Security is not a friend, but a family member. Unfortunately we can't choose our family.

Cutting him off Social Security may get him off drugs, but I doubt it. This person is a scum bag and I doubt that he will ever be anything more than that. I have no good answer about how to deal with this person. We could cut him off Social Security, which he probably receives not much more than $15K, but he's not employable and will probably go back to stealing and end up in jail which costs $40K per year. I don't like the idea of this person receiving Social Security, but I really don't know what to do with this type of scum. "

Todd Adams wrote on Oct 28, 2008 8:57 PM:

" NB: Thanks for you input. I agree that the best way to think of capitalism and socialism is that they are part of a spectrum, although I would add that communism is part of that spectrum. At the one extreme we have capitalism where goods and services are provided solely by private industry and the free market without any interference from government. On the other extreme is communism where goods and services are provided soley by the government.

Most economies fall somewhere on a continuum between these two extremes which are often called "Socialist", but are more accurately described as "mixed economies". It all depends on how much of a role the government and private sector play in the economy.

I researched the meanings of capitalism, socialism, and communism online and learned that the economic definitions are much more complex than the everyday use of these terms. Our misconceptions of these terms largely explains why the "debates" about capitalism and socialism are more akin to name calling on the playground. I find these debates to be occassionally entertaining, but never interesting or productive.

At least there are a few bloggers on this site who are interested in debating real issues. I enjoy reading the comments because I often learn something that the news media tends to gloss over. I have my biases as everyone does, but I appreciate those who think for themselves and actually contribute to the discussion by bringing facts and/or original ideas to the table. "

Raven wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:24 PM:

" sorry to disappoint you but no change kevin...it has always been 200k for and individual and 250k for a couple..... "

Rocco wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:16 AM:

" Dear CMC...Thank you! In this one paragraph you have succinctly summed up what we’re up against. It almost reminds me Iran’s Pres. claiming that he would gladly sacrifice half of his own country’s population in the destruction of Israel. From an economic point of view, how is this mind-set really all that different? … “”” In addition, Mr. Obama has acknowledged on several occasions that increasing taxes on capital gains, for example, has historically resulted in a decrease of income to the government, but that he favors it in the interest of "fairness". So his interest is demonstrably not in increasing government income, but in taking one person's money and giving it to someone else, not based on achievement, hard work, or any other criteria except that one has more than the other. That's fair? "’’’ "

Rocco wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:29 AM:

" Kevin, Raven...You're both wrong. Biden just came out yesterday and put the new and improved figure at $150,000. The rich used to be millionaires…then it was those making $250,000…Now it is YOU! "

Raven wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:42 AM:

" he misspoke and said so, rocco.....it is the 200k and 250k "

steph wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:24 AM:

" Guess if the figures are 200k and 250k, it would make sense for a whole lotta dissolved marriages.

Let's let go of the economic labels and look at economics from a common sense point of view.

I believe in the power of the private sector to be profit-minded and therefore efficient and innovative. I believe that this is the best form of economics for the largest percentage of people. I do believe that a good, strong economy floats all boats. I believe we in the US are so lucky to live here and enjoy the wealth of our economy. Ask a poor Mexican immigrant, for example, where it's better to be considered "poor"? I'd ask, "Why did you come here?"

However, I also know that economic opportunity often breeds opportunists, and therefore we must abide by principles that I ask my own children to abide by: no lying, cheating, or stealing. I'm good with any regulatory laws that prevent, for example, oh, AIG from selling insurance claims that they can't back up. Because that results in lying, cheating, and stealing, from the last guy to sit in the musical chairs game, and then ultimately from American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, our politicians are not economically savvy. They are in the business of getting elected, and they often lie, cheat, and steal to obtain and maintain their power. My conservative brain strenuously objects to the stealing from working taxpayers to fund the habits of individuals or corporations who do not provide any goods or services to obtain that money, while I do recognize the need to support modestly, at least for a time, the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. "

steph wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:32 AM:

" Todd--

Thanks for the reasonable and thoughtful contributions to the NVR message boards.

Regarding your relative (I have at least one in the same boat), do you believe ssi completely satiates him? Or can we reasonably expect him to be engaged in criminal activity as drug use escalates? Buying drugs from violent gang-member drug dealers is criminal. I really think we should not be financing his bad habits, and in turn, his drug dealer(s). I think that $15,000 would be better spent on children's services, better education, better mental health services, and even, yes, a specialized "jail" for him. I absolutely do not agree that he should receive financial support without asking anything in return from him. This is societal laziness--on OUR part, and it does him no good. In fact, one might say it is cruel to continue to feed his habit. He never wanted to grow up to be a drug addict, you're right, so why are we allowing it--and paying for it? "

steph wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:41 AM:

" A couple nights ago, on my way home from work, I was flipping through radio stations. NPR was boring that night, and I was moving through the am stations. I actually like Dennis Miller, but he must have been on an advertisement or something. I landed on another station, where a caller, an immigrant from Cuba, was taking other callers to task for calling each other names, like "Communist" or "Marxist" or "Nazi". The host whom I will not name (pretty obscure) REALLY wanted this Cuban exile to affirm his narrow-minded opinion and draw similarities between Obama and Castro. After all, a Cuban would know a communist when he saw one. It was clear the talk show host hadn't heard a WORD the caller had said in his appeal for reason and sensible dialog. No, the host was determined to use the caller for his agenda, and so he asked something like, "Well, don't you think Obama is a communi-- I mean a Marxist?" The caller emphatically answered, "NO!" So the host backed down a little and said, "Well, he's a socialist, don't you agree? You can see that, can't you?" And the caller was flabbergasted, and said "No," and before he could get another word in, the host hung up on him and called him all sorts of ugly names and I was reminded of why I never listen to that bore. I was so ashamed for the Republican party and what it has become. Can't have a dialog, can't be reasonable, must pull sharply to the right no matter what. Ugh! I turned the dial again and was relieved to be home soon. "

Raven wrote on Oct 29, 2008 12:51 PM:

" it seems to me that taking money from corporations and then spreading it among the residents of a place would smack of socialism....wouldn't it?...but wait, it cant be...that is what Palin did with taxes on oil companies in Alaska "

steph wrote on Oct 29, 2008 4:03 PM:

" I agree, Raven. The oil-producing land is owned by the State of Alaska and leased by the oil companies. Then each resident of Alaska receives a modest yearly payout and also pays no sales nor income tax. The oil companies write off their state taxes against their federal tax bill. One might say that Alaska residents are profiting handsomely.

Seems a bit socialistic to me. Who owns Alaskan land? If it's the Alaskan people, are they landlords and should share in the profits?

Interesting point. Not sure how I feel about it. "

kevin wrote on Oct 29, 2008 7:07 PM:

" Actually it is a tax on the oil companies. The oil companies just pass it along to the consumers as higher prices.

It is impressive that the Alaska government refunds the excess revenue to the citizens.

In B.O.'s world the government would keep it to spend because they know better how to spend the money... "

John Richards wrote on Oct 30, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Raven wrote "business will lay off people and close down unprofitable operations, leaving more and more people out of work, creating a huge deficit. Tax revenues will drop......
so a pretty nice description of what is happening right now PPF under the policies that Bush started and McCain wants to continue...."

It seems convenient to blame the current economic slump on Bush, when in actuality the seeds for that slump were sown during the Clinton era when Dems pushed for easing mortgage credit criteria. "

Raven wrote on Oct 30, 2008 1:13 PM:

" JR....you mean the Demos and the Repubs....and yeah, since the Repubs controlled both the white house and the congress for 6 of the last 8 years, Bush does get a fair share of the blame....but dont worry there is plenty to go around..

if Bush was taking credit for it when it was good, he gets the blame when it is bad... "

steph wrote on Oct 30, 2008 3:04 PM:

" Republican congressmen brought about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, which removed important regulation of banking activities. Would've been a good one to pin on Repubs, but Clinton signed off.

Powerful men from BOTH parties are working in a bubble to damage the American economy. It's only going to get worse. We still have credit card defaults on the way, and more layoffs. And the not-accidental lack of regulation of credit default swaps will become legendary.

Nice work, public "servants"! "

Raven wrote on Nov 1, 2008 10:46 AM:

" so...Joe has an agent now....guess he wont be starting that plumbing business for a while... "

steph wrote on Nov 1, 2008 1:19 PM:

" Hope Joe gets a good accountant. He'll need one. "

Raven wrote on Nov 1, 2008 8:46 PM:

" not in this economy...I have a hunch his star will fade after Nov 4. "

misfit wrote on Nov 2, 2008 1:54 PM:

" Funny how Joe doesn't mind giving money to a publicist/agent. Joe was nowhere near being able to buy a plumbing company. He didn't have the money to do it in the first place and he didn't have the license to even call himself a plumbing contractor which means...he was a handyman at best.
Anyway, I have nothing against handymen but, the entire premise of Joe's question to Obama was false. Joe doesn't even pay his taxes and he's worried that Obama is going to take money from him that he will never have. I mean...is this who you guys want representing you? Is he some kind of icon of the RepubliCON base? How embarrassing for you. Funny how you always need find someone to identify with ...Palin...Joe...who next? "

cab e-girl wrote on Nov 2, 2008 2:55 PM:

" So what misfit, he asked a question that our very poor performing media has not been able to formulate. Obama will raise my taxes as soon as the Bush tax cuts expire. I am not a big evil corporation, nor do I make more than $250K a year. Or is that $200K or year, according to Biden $150K a year? And riddle me this misfit, how can Obama lower taxes on 95% of the people when 35% of the people do not even pay taxes? "

anticommie wrote on Nov 2, 2008 3:28 PM:

" I believe that when President Hoover raised the capital gains tax, like Obama proposes, this country fell into a greater depression. If you want people to invest in the stock market, why would you want to raise the tax on those earnings? "

Raven wrote on Nov 2, 2008 9:45 PM:

" now, anticommie...you dont think the crash in 29 had just a bit to do with it....? "

anticommie wrote on Nov 3, 2008 12:23 PM:

" now, raven, never said it didnt. "

cab e-girl wrote on Nov 3, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Raven: Do you think that when Hoover raised taxes, it helped the economy? "

Raven wrote on Nov 3, 2008 1:19 PM:

" you just said it was the capital gains tax hike that forced the country into a greater depression....

Maybe these had a little bit to do with it

1350 banks suspended operations during 1930

1931 Committee for Unemployment Relief releases a report on unemployment showing that 4 to 5 million Americans were out of work. 2,293 banks suspend operations "

glenroy wrote on Nov 3, 2008 4:30 PM:

" Anticommie……couldn’t agree more….and of course they can’t answer why? Raising taxes equates to more for those who advocate raising taxes…..most 7th grade economists know there aren’t any economic benefits, most know that every significant tax hike over the last 100 years resulted in recession or depression….but what do they care most of them either don‘t pay taxes now or derive their income directly from our taxes.

We live in a country where the majority of the voters have no understanding their own parties policies….the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters still believe Republicans control both houses….and if that isn’t the consequence of partisan propaganda….then the only other explanation is ignorance….take your pick. "

Raven wrote on Nov 3, 2008 5:03 PM:

" glenroy.....the vast majority of demos think the repubs still control both houses....your source for this is what?


and you should keep reading your histories.....every single tax hike eh?...lol...


and cab-e-girl...what turned the economy around was the massive investments by the govt in the nation and the secodn world war "

misfit wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:33 AM:

" ahhhh....2 whole days without hearing about Joe the Plumber. Joe...where are you now? "

Raven wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:41 AM:

" maybe he is studying to get his license to actually be a plumber? "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Submit news, announcements: Virtual Newsroom
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy