[clue-talk] Wow, Card's a little political...

[Angelo Bertolli]

Collins Richey wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Angelo Bertolli <angelo at freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Why?  If you're not making as much as Joe the plumber (250k) and you don't
>> have any capital gains (do any of have any now?) you really have nothing to
>> worry about from Obama.  I can buy arguments that you just don't think
>> people should be taxed that much in general, but otherwise I would think
>> you'd be in Obama's camp on this issue.
>>     
>
> Like many Americans and Obama, you don't appear to understand how the
> economy works.
Yes, you're so much smarter, and everyone who doesn't agree with you 
just doesn't understand and deserves to be talked down to.  That last 
sentence of mine pretty much qualified my point to Nate pretty well, I 
thought.  Based on his comment he implied voting for his personal tax 
relief.  My last sentence was a qualifier that what I was saying didn't 
apply to the ideology of reducing taxes.

>  It you drain off the profits from the most productive
> group in our society (the small businesses that generate most new
> jobs) and give them to those less fortunate, the process of generating
> new jobs will contract (or cease to exist) and those who got the
> proceeds may well be out of work. Also, the old adage of tax cuts for
> the rich just doesn't jibe; it's tax cuts for taxpayers.. When taxes
> are cut, those who actually PAY taxes get a benefit. The very large
> group of people who pay no taxes do not get the benefit. Also, when
> you raise corporate taxes and reduce other benefits to corporations
> (who employ most of us), you make it less likely that the corporations
> will create new jobs and more likely that said corporations will
> choose to move offshore (the opposite of what Obama SAYS he wants top
> do).
>   

I lost a heck of a lot more money in the stock market than I would have 
had to pay on capital gains taxes.  So I think people should get their 
priorities straight, and stop acting like taxes are the only thing that 
makes any difference in company finances.  I'd much rather have a 
government taking slightly more taxes but is responsible enough to 
regulate the market so I don't lose my shirt in the financials.

And whatever taxes I do pay, I don't want going to interest, so  I don't 
want us to keep going into more and more debt.  It would be great if the 
government was able to take less taxes, but only if it's willing to 
spend less money.  You seem to think that you don't actually have a 
share in the government's debt or finances.  You won't if you move and 
change citizenship, but as long as you're here, the government's debt is 
your debt  too.  (And that's really frustrating to those of us who are 
financially responsible.)

I will agree,  that in the current economic situation, collecting more 
taxes is probably not the way to go to spur business and wealth.  But 
that's just me not following one ideology.

On the other hand, I'm not sure we have much of a choice anymore.  I 
doubt even McCain can hold off on raising someone's taxes, especially if 
he's looking forward to strengthening our military presence.


>> Yeah, but to be fair, both candidates suck on the health care issue.  For me
>> that puts the issue off the table
>
> It certainly doesn't put the issue off the table for Obama +
> fillibuster-proof senate. Crawl under a rock if you like, but you and
> I won't have any choice about health care (or much else) when these
> rascals get to work implementing every socialist pipe dream of the
> past century. You think the Republicans were fiscally imprudent, you
> ain't seen nothing yet. The minuscule amount of funds that will come
> in from soaking the rich won't even cover a tenth of the new
> entitlement programs that will be unleashed. The current deficit will
> look like a credit before they have finished. Remember the
> (unpublished but effective) Democratic motto:  Equal poverty for all.
>   

Well I don't just think the Republicans are fiscally imprudent, they've 
proved it over the past 20 years.  I'll be fair:  it's not all 
Republicans, it's been the executive administrations.  I'm in favor of 
Republican Congress, and Democrat President mix (which is where we're 
headed).  I appreciate the House Republicans knocking down Bush's $700 
billion bail-out plan the first time, for example.  It wasn't good for 
my stocks, but I'm glad they didn't just give away a blank check (with 
all of our names on it).

You really don't have much of a leg to stand on for accusing the 
Democrats of being worse.  Clinton gutted social programs just to 
balance the budget, but because he's called a Democrat, no one ever 
gives him credit for that.  We will never, ever, ever achieve lower 
taxes without first fixing the budget and finances of the government.  
You can't "bleed the beast" because the beast will keep borrowing.  The 
order cannot be 1) lower taxes then 2) spend less.  Spend less must come 
first, just like it does in our individual lives if we ever want to pay 
off that credit card.

And yes, you and everyone else, does have a fair point about not wanting 
the same party in multiple branches of government.  That's partially why 
we're in this mess to begin with.  But like with the Republicans, I 
don't think there's a strong enough majority in Congress to really be 
afraid of that.

Angelo