|
thecrazydreamer
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
Birthday: 12/15/1978
Gender: Male
Interests: art, justice, pink floyd, pacifism, physics, pulp fiction, splinter cell, detroit pistons, albert einstein, extras, nine inch nails, 12 oz mouse, michigan wolverines, the city of chicago, martin luther king jr, religion, primates, metaphysics, technology, roberto matta, entourage, peace...
Message: message me
Member Since:
11/28/2005
|
|
| this is what the mccain campaign, and the entire republican campaign has come down to. lie after lie after lie after lie. some start with the mccain campaign, some start with the drudge report, some start with fox news, but they all get hammered on for a couple days, then disappear before (or sometimes after) being proven false.
- Obama's relationship with Ayers. False.
- ACORN tearing the fabric of democracy. False.
- Obama raising taxes on families making $42,000. False.
- Obama supporters attacking a McCain supporter. False.
- Obama is a socialist. False.
- Obama's 2001 transcript claiming his support for redistribution of wealth. False.
Stay tuned to see what tomorrow's fox news talking point is going to be... I've got a feeling it'll be false.
In fact, can anyone think of a well-reported pro-McCain or anti-Obama story that isn't false from the last month? I doubt it.
Ps. Just for fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM
| | |
| This is a response to my friend's blog regarding Obama's tax cuts, where he parrots the popular republican talking points of the last two weeks which repeatedly hammer the idea that this is "marxism" or "a redistribution of wealth", that it is the individual or the church who is responsible to care for the poor and not the government, and even that it is "unbiblical".
The last point is the easiest to debunk, and so I'll start there. As I already commented on his blog, I believe designating a tax policy "biblical" or "unbiblical" is a misuse of the bible. The bible was never intended to inform government policy. Jesus' comments on tax policy can be summed up quite simply as "render unto caeser what is caeser's", and wasted no more time on the topic. But even if we're willing to pretend I've misquoted Jesus or misrepresented his opinion, the idea that tax cuts for the poor is unbiblical is even more absurd. The idea of expecting more from those who have more is directly mentioned in the bible. Further, I believe one could make a compelling argument that providing for the poor is one of Jesus' favorite topics.
Putting on my imagination hat, I simply cannot see Jesus standing before me and say "the government should not be providing for the poor, but instead let the wealthy keep their wealth". The entire concept is so anti-Christ-like, that I hope we can eternally bury this line of argument.
The next easiest one to answer is the claim that it is the individual or the church's responsibility to care for the poor. Simply stated: if individuals and the church were caring for the poor the way they should be, then nobody would be getting these payouts. The church and americans as a whole have entirely failed to care for the poor in this country. Look, if you don't want that homeless man getting a check from the government, then all you need to do is rehabilitate him so that he can get a job and earn his own check. I have no objection to a position of a community sharing the burden with no government intervention, and when a community achieves that level, the government will simply no longer intervene.
Then there is the trickier criticisms such as labeling it marxism or a redistribution of wealth. These aren't actually legitimate arguments, they're simply an attempt to label these as something with a preexisting negative connotation in order to scare people who are too dumb or lazy to learn what the program does. If you look at the wall street journal article it's written intentionally to deceive the readers. You would be better served going to the Tax Foundation's web site itself and reading their comparison of the plans, instead of trying to decipher your way through WSJ's spin.
The facts of the plan are that Obama's tax cut plan continues the Bush tax cut plans for everyone currently making under $250,000, while adding only a handful of new benefits, such as a $4,000 tax refund for college students, eliminating income tax on senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, a tax credit of up to $800 for those paying down a mortgage, and a few others. However, Obama's plan eliminates the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year. In other words, their taxes will go back to what they were under Clinton. So, unless we're going to start calling Bush and Clinton marxists, we can dispense of this silly idea.
Now, a big point Tafkas is trying to make is that people will actually get paid money from the federal government, and that is somehow inappropriate. Well, let's look at who that is... it'll be college students, those struggling to pay their mortgage, and the elderly. Obama even has stated many times that his college student tax refund requires community service (which republican pundits love to ignore).
While it'd be nice if everyone in the world could work their way through college, this economy is not so easy to get a job in, and college is very expensive. I think the college tax refund is a great way to furthur the education of our citizens, as well as encourage them to get involved.
This notion the government shouldn't pay people is just semantics. We already pay members of the armed services, social security, welfare, etc. An additional $4,000 to someone who dedicates his time serving in his community while going to college is not so egregious as they would have you believe.
Finally, the most important point I'd like to make is that this is truly the best for everyone involved. Trickle down economics simply does not work. It is a dumb idea that never had any chance of working, and has been proven to fail time and time again. Nobody can point to an example of its success. In reality, the opposite is true. You can look at the hard numbers, or just use a little common sense. If I give the guy sleeping behind the bar two blocks from my house $500, and half a thousand other unfortunate soles like him, how long do you think it will take before all of that money has been pushed back into the economy? It's a no-brainer... those who need money are going to spend the money when it comes it. They'll pay their mortgages, buy food, buy clothes, or whatever necessities. Even if they aren't so responsible, they may blow it all on liquor. Either way, the money trickles up.
Meanwhile, if you give someone like Cindy McCain her approximately $250,000 tax refund under John McCain's proposed tax plan, how likely is she to spend that all right away? When you rake in $6,000,000 a year (fyi, she didn't earn it, it's from her inheritance), there's probably not many big budget items that you have been saving up to purchase. That money most likely ends up invested in corporations (probably many of which are foreign or transnational) and never gets put into the economy.
Some rebuttals that'll probably come up:
- "A graduated tax rate discourages entreprenuers." uhh. no it doesn't. that's stupid. as an entreprenuer I can tell you flat out that I would love to be in a position where Obama's tax plan hurts more than McCain's, and the difference in actual take home from the two will be insignificant to me compared to the difference I'll receive today while I'm starting my own business and actually need the money.
- "The wealthy earned their money and have the right to keep it." um, we're not taking all their money, we're taking a percentage of their income. just like we're taking a percentage of my money. some (but far from all) millionaires are self-made, and great for them, and they deserve to reap the benefits of their work. We're talking about a minor percentage of their income, not a redistribution of their wealth. after all, they owe much of their success to being part of this great country that enabled them to achieve those high levels of financial success, so the least they can do is give back to those who haven't yet "made it".
- "People should not be encouraged to not work and just receive hadnouts". I agree, and that is why Obama's policy is so great in that it requires community service to receive things like the college refund. Obama has continually spoken against this mindset, and this mindset is extremely dangerous to the long-term viability of the nation. However, this tax cut policy, despite what the WSJ or Tafkas tells you, is not simply a handout. It's a refund for people doing things they should be doing. It encourages people to get an education, give back to their community, purchase clean cars, etc.
And finally a graph:
| | |
| ...but I just don't.
What can you do?
| | |
|
