Practically Speaking

It's too bad that Obama doesn't understand that he can create wealth, not spread it around, by encouraging small businesses.  Higher and higher taxes are driving jobs to other countries.  He encourages the productive citizens to not bother anymore.  Why should someone work harder if part of his income will be distributed to someone else?  We might as well retire as early as possible and get on the dole.  Socialism never works.

Joe the plumber sure knows about taxes.

www.bloomberg.com/.../news.

"Joe the plumber" is not a businssman. He does not have the resources to buy his bosses company. He made a little over $42,000 last year which by the way would save him about $500 under Obama's plan. Also the company made a little over $100,000 last year. No where near the $250,000 break point in Obama's plan.  It has also come out he hasn't always paid his taxes. There have liens put on him by the state.

McCain can't catch a break can he?  Now his 'Joe plumber' that he based the whole final debate on, turns bad.

He is Not a plumber (no license or apprenticeship which is required to do plumbing work in Ohio), he is a registered Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries (showing that he is not impartial), he has no immediate plans to buy this plumbing business he is associated with, and that business is closer to $100K in annual worth, not the $250-$270 he just happened to choose when angrily confronting Senator Obama. Even if the business did make $260, under Obama's plan, small businesses would only pay the higher rate for that $10K amount over $250, at that small to mid-size probably ending up still in better shape tax-wise than they are today.  At that rate he would be well off, not some 'average' Joe.

Oh, and he owes back taxes! I hear a big "DOH!" from the GOP and McCain camp.  It seems we are not taking money from Joe at all, not even in his own personally created hypothetical life of him owning a business that instantly more than doubles in prosperity And then he finally, actually, pays his taxes.

Kyle's reply: Who knew? Obviously, McCain did not or he wouldn't have used him as an example. There are plenty of small businessmen who are in a $250,000+ situation. Their scenarios are real. Regardless of if Joe's specific situation was genuine, the facts still remain the same: Obama wants to spread the wealth, which is pure socialism. 

Yep, who knew?

Looks like McCain vetted him about as thoroughly as others with whom he is associated. :)

I see Obama's tax plan as being the much better one for a large majority of the population, the ones that are really worried and struggling. McCain doesn't consider someone well off until they hit the $5 million mark, while Obama considers anyone making over $250K to be well off. I agree more with Obama on that one for sure.

Let's face it, we can't just keep things going as is, we are running deeper and deeper in debt, entering a recession and paying for 1.5 ongoing wars all at the same time. Somehow we have to pay it down and reverse the trend. That is how economics work, for the country and for all of us balancing our own household bills. No new taxes, and no expiring tax cuts mostly for the well off were the product of a the great economy that Bush and the GOP inherited. It is disheartening and almost unbelievable to think how strong our economy was 8 years ago, and how far we have fallen.

How are small to mid size businesses going to grow if these economic trends continue and no one can afford to buy whatever they are selling? I guess if by 'spread the wealth' you mean taxing those that make more at a slightly higher rate, well, that is our tax system and has been for a long time, despite the breaks the Republicans have given out in the past 7 years. Those making more than $250,000 CAN afford to pay higher tax rates on that extra above $250K. No one said anything about taking away their wealth, they will still be nicely wealthy even if they pay a few percent higher in taxes. I call it fair despite the misplayed radical terms being thrown around by one side.

In the past couple of decades, the economic plans of the democratic party of investing in the middle class has demonstrated that it is a healthy one based on the later years of the Clinton administration. You end up with a confident population, a strong economy, and people investing and able to start up the small business of their dreams. Now 7+ years of Bush rule and pushing 'trickle down' economics through tax breaks and incentives to the larger corporations, mostly accompanied by untamed Republican power and look where we are...  It is clearly time for a large change in policy.

Here is a bit of solace to all, that these candidate can actually still have fun and see humor in what the campaign has turned into lately...

McCain, Obama trade jokes, not jabs at dinner

www.msnbc.msn.com/.../27234647

Kyle's reply: Obama said earlier in the year, when he was going to just end the war in Iraq and not send troops to Afghanistan, that he would use that money to fund his programs. That is not how budget's should work. If there is no war expense, then that money should no longer be taken from the taxpayers.

Bottom line is, if someone does not pay Federal taxes, they should not get a check for free money. If someone pays a little Federal tax, they should not get a check for a larger than their tax liability. Socialism takes away all incentive to work. 

Bush was not a fiscal conservative. That is why many true conservatives are not happy with how the last 8 years have gone. But I find it ironic that liberals criticize him for that, yet when he did not want to expand the SCHIP program to include more people, some of who made a larger salary than my household, the Democrats squawked that he was unfeeling to the downtrodden.

I did see the "jokes." However, I did not find Obama's quip about not being born in a manger at all funny. Some of their other comments were entertaining.

"If there is no war expense, then that money should no longer be taken from the taxpayers."  HUH?

The Bush administration has run massive deficits, the war isn't being paid for, it is being borrowed.  The cupboard is bare.  There is no money to give back.  If Obama wants to campaign on a shift from guns to butter, Americans should weigh that argument.  They should not be misled to believe that big bucks could flow back to taxpayers once hostilities end.

Kyle's reply: I did not say that the money saved from stopping the war should flow back to taxpayers. It was Obama that inferred that he would finance his new programs from the war budget money that was no longer needed to finance the war.

Any and all government spending is on the taxpayers' dime. Taxpayers either pay directly for it or for the interest on the borrowing.

Of course the war spending has pushed us into deficit spending. All the more reason not to continue spending that amount once the need is passed. Deficits mortgage our children's children's futures.

Taxpayers do pay the interest on the national debt. In fact it is the 3rd largest expense in the federal budget.

I was simply trying to make the point that just because we are spending approx. $10 billion in Iraq/month, that if we pull out of Iraq--as Obama originally said he would do--we cannot then say, Oh, we can spend that $10 billion per month instead on new domestic programs such as pre-school for all, college for all, health care for all, tax rebates for little or none Federal income tax payers etc. Obama said that is how he would finance some of his programs early in his campaign. (That would be what I call Lucy Ricardo math).

We can't divert the gun money to butter money because if we stop needing it for guns, then we should just stop spending it--beyond our means. Deficit spending is really like spending money we don't have by using a credit card. We just keep adding to the balance. After a year, it goes on the National Debt Credit Card.

(A Deficit is the amount we are over budget in the current budget year. National Debt is the accumulation of deficits.) 

Hi Kyle,

I agree completely that ending a war that has helped bring down our economy should not equate to switching the funding, which has more than stretched our budget, to other programs. I'm pretty sure that Congress and the Senate get a stab at the budget before the president signs off. I would also say it is too bad all that money has been sent overseas to fund that war and not invested in our country, and we will be paying it off plus interest for decades. I am fiscally conservative personally, but believe that taxes exist for good reason and that they are unfortunately necessary.

Bush may or may not have been a 'fiscal conservative', but if he is not, then all those Republicans in charge of Congress and the Senate is his early years and until recently certainly were. I believe he is a fiscal conservative but just got a bit greedy with the power and desire to push the Bush Doctrine (heard of that?).

Socialism, the current GOP talking head tagline. There are countries that are considered socialist, and though I don't agree entirely with their systems, I am quite sure there are Alot of people still working in those countries. If socialism 'takes away ALL incentive to work', then why would anyone in a socialist country work?  Many (at least myself) actually enjoy our work and feel a sense of purpose in work, helping others, and contributing to society, while supporting our own pocketbooks. I believe many in socialist countries actually do work, and feel the way I do about work in general. You are saying that more money is the only incentive to work.

Kyle's reply: I should have qualified the work with work hard. Generally, people will work harder if they know they will directly benefit. The exception would be when people work for a cause greater than themselves. I have worked for free, volunteering, knowing my labor would help a cause I believed in. Would I have worked as hard for that cause if other causes that I did not agree with benefited from my labors? NO.