Thursday, September 18, 2008

BIDEN: Rich Americans Should Pay

Here, check out this story:

WASHINGTON - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."

the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.

"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"

What they're failing to mention is this: If you raise taxes on the wealthy, rather than everyone paying the same percentage of their income, then any of those people that own businesses are going to charge more for their product -- which means that, while you're taxes may not go up, the money you have will buy much less.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Either you have less money in your pocket or the money in your pocket is worth less.

But with Obama's plan, we get into a very bad situation where successful people have their money taken from them to support people who aren't successful. So, why bother trying to be successful if you can get the same luxuries at someone else's expense?

Typical liberal garbage. The problem with America is that too many people skate by at the expense of others. If we embraced more of a "sink or swim" mentality, then maybe people would be more likely to do for themselves, rather than leech off the rest of the country.

But, the Dems know that if they appeal to the leeches and make sure that the leeches get what they want without having to actually work for it, then the leeches will vote Democrat.

That's all they really care about, getting the votes. Obama knows he'd be continuing a class of leeches, but because he's rich he won't have to live amongst them, so it's OK.

I wouldn't mind the left's stand on this so much if they at least made the leeches behave well, but they also refuse to let the country put conditions on handouts -- like drug testing for welfare recipients -- so instead of helping people better themselves, the left just allows people to prosper when they should really be sinking.


Karen Olson said...

So you say this:

successful people have their money taken from them to support people who aren't successful

So you'd rather pay more in taxes than someone who makes $300,000 a year? Because that person who makes that much is finding all sorts of tax loopholes anyway. So you, in effect, under the current plan, are supporting those who you call leeches. I'd rather have the rich people support them.

But who exactly are these leeches? Welfare really doesn't exist as it did even twenty years ago.

And as far as making government bigger, who did that better than George W. Bush? And now all us taxpapers OWN an insurance company and will be bailing out those who shouldn't have gotten mortgages in the first place.

Al said...

No, I support a flat tax. Fifteen percent of your income to the federal government, and 5 percent to the state.
You're right about tax loopholes -- A flat tax would be perfect because it would eliminate most of the corruption you speak of -- no deductions, exceptions or exemptions -- every human being from the time they are 16 years old, has to pay 15 percent of their income, and you build your life around that. Yeah - a couple with 3 kids would find it harder to live on the same salary as a couple with 1 -- that's called living within your means. People did it for a long, long time and somehow they managed to get along just fine.
I don't have to discuss economics, but you know, many of the rich are only rich because others spend. And the whole middle depends on that -- we exist due to that spending because essentially, we are the products they're buying. Autoworkers have jobs because people keep buying new cars, and a couple people get really rich in the proicess because we agree to buy the car at the price they ask. And now the government is going to give them up to $50 billion because we stopped buying so many fancy new trucks.
I don't like that, and I want to find a way to change that, but I'm not really certain that unequal taxation is really right, because it's only going to buy time with the same problems, not actually solve anything.
(Some people don't like the flat percentage idea, many of them the same folks who like percentages only when it comes to things like prison reform or educational achievement. As in, "The racial percentages in the prison system MUST match the racial percentages in the population, or else we're all cross-burning redneck racists," and "If the percentage of one racial group of students passing the Mastery Tests isn't the same as the percentage of another racial group of students who passed the same test after going to the same school with the same teachers at the same time, then it's because of a racist society that ignores the inner cities.)
Here's the thing -- you can't sit there and just blame Bush or the GOP for the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, or of GM or Ford or any of them, when Congress is passing this stuff. Nancy Pelosi and Congress last year set aside $25 billion for the Big 3 automakers. It's not just Bush.
When Democrats took Congress, it was supposed to be this enlightenment that would usher in drastic change -- the war would end, the air would be cleaner, the poor would rise up and prosper -- but then none of that stuff happened.
But some people continue to lay it all at the feet of Bush, the GOP and conservatives in general, like there's no way Democrats could possibly suck just as much as Republicans do.
These bailouts are the fault of the whole government.
I'm so sick of the whole thing.
And the leeches? They're the people that you have to watch out for when you're walking around too many parts of too many cities late at night. They're the people on government assistance that squander that money but make no effort to better themselves, or get it when they truly shouldn't be getting it.
And no, I'm not condemning all people on assistance -- I'm condemning the culture created by a corrupt, bloated system that fosters the idea that this behavior is not only normal, but celebrated.
If you say you don't see that then I truly do envy you, because it really stresses me out. I don't like where I see this all going, and I don't see electing one man over another for any seat in a corrupt government as making a difference.
We should all be outraged, because our "choices" are not really choices at all, just different angles of the same game.

Karen Olson said...

I know what you're saying about the Democrats. Yeah, they've fucked up, too, but there's a thing called a VETO and Bush is still holding that card. He vetoed the health insurance for children, for god's sake. When it's a plan that does work in many states.

I don't agree that the rich people are rich because we're buying their products. The CEOs making millions are making millions and then they leave their companies in the lurch. Like Merrill Lynch. The CEO left last year with $161 million after totally destroying the company, and now they've been swallowed up by what is now the biggest bank in the country and thousands will lose their jobs (my brother possibly one of them). That's the problem with rich folks: their greed. That's just as bad as the guy on the corner who's asking for spare change rather than trying to find a job. But who knows...did that guy have a job and get laid off?

Just look at the newspaper business. In the past month, I've had four friends facing layoffs or buyouts. The Newark Star Ledger is threatening to just close its doors if the drivers union won't agree to their proposal. There are people crying in that newsroom, fistfights are breaking out. The copy desk in Philadelphia at the Inquirer may be completely dissolved and people laid off because the owner thinks copy editors are "redundant" and unnecessary. And who's still making money? The owner. All those people laid off will now be on the unemployed list.

Don't tell me it's not greed. Greed at the top. And those people shouldn't have to pay more taxes than me?? Give me a break. We middle class folks are the ones who buy things. If my taxes go up, I'm buying less. Then the guy at the top has more money, but his employees don't and his company starts to falter.

Government should not bail out these companies, but let's find a way to fix this before it's totally systemic.