Reeder? Is that you?
I think Obama needs to solidify what he meant by that interview in terms much of the American proletariat, er, public can easily understand. This shit freaks people out, even though it’s happening already and has been for decades.
Come on Dio. The part that causes people to call Marxism is that much of what you and Obama are calling a tax cut is really cash payments to people. It’s classic redistribution of wealth, which is a tenet of Marxism (not that this alone makes Obama a Marxist). Also, there’s a feeling that this is only what Obama is floating now but the tax increase on the over 250 crowd would be worse once he’s in office (especially with a dem majority). Also, that 4 percent doesn’t include payroll tax increases Obama has proposed.
Also, Liberal, I’ll respond to your post when I get home tonight.
That’s factually incorrect. John McCain, however, would pay off the mortgages of deadbeats, using money taken from people who scrimped and saved to pay their mortgages faithfully. Why is that not “Marxism”?
This “tax cut” that is “cash payments” already exists in our tax system, and has been enthusiastically supported by Republican presidents including Ronald Reagan.
This disingenuous, hypocritical attempt to tar Obama with “Marxism” completely ignores the fact that our tax code has been engaging in “classic redistribution of wealth” in exactly the way you complain about since Obama was in grade school. At this point, you’re just making yourself look stupid by acting all upset about it.
Duh. McCain is a Fascist, not a Communist.
Try to keep up, huh?
Well, shoot! If “there’s a feeling” then I had better change my vote right away!
Are you saying that it is factually incorrect that Obama’s tax plan would cause or increase cash payments to many Americans in the form of tax refunds because of refundable tax credits? If so, please support that statement.
On your second point, it is factually incorrect and disingrnuous to say that McCainaks plan would “pay off” the mortgages of “deadbeats.”. The plan would purchase the mortgage from the current lender and then renegotiate it, so the homeowner would still make (lower) payments. The plan would only purchase mortgages where a creditworthy borrower originally made a downpayment. (Also, as I’ve said before, I don’t like the plan, but let’s get the facts straight.)
The McCain plan would buy overpriced mortgages at face value then renegotiate them down, and the taxpayer eats the difference. It amounts to subsidizing mortgages for deadbeat homeowners.
And if the owners were “creditworthy,” they wouldn’t be in default.
Kimstu, we’ve been over this before. The EITC is a redistribution of wealth, which I don’t like. I understand that it has been around a long time. Obama would increase the EITC and add new tax credits, which INCREASES the redistribution. Because I dob’t like redistribution in the first place, I certainly don’t like a policy that would cause it to increase. Just because there is redistribution now doesnlt mean it is illegitimate or hypocritical or disingenuous to not favor an increase in it. You can (and apparently do) disagree with this position, but it is perfectly legitimate and not disingenuous or hypocritical in any way.
Reagan ALSO “increased the redistribution.” Was Reagan a socialist, yes or no?
On the first part, I of course agree with you. Liberal said the mortgages would be paid off, which is not factually accurate.
On the second part, creditworthy borrowers absolutely can and do default on loans. But I’m not interested in pursuing this tangent, I just wanted to point out Liberal’s inaccuracies.
I never called Obama a socialist or Marxist, I just said that his tax plan has features that are in line with tenets of Marxism. And Reagan’s increase in the EITC was also in line with tenets of Marxism. If there were an SDMB then, I would have started a thread on it (not really because I was a kid then but you get my drift).
Rand Rover, do you support the federal income tax?
But you like John McCain’s brand new tax on health benefits? Sorry, but there’s no way you can ingenuously argue that one of them is a Marxist while the other is not. Why not argue that McCain is a card carrying socialist since he has a Medicare card?
McCain has a platinum Medicare card. Totally different, entirely capitalist.
Yes. Given that I chose to think about the US FIT every day for a living, I’d say I rather like it and support it a lot.
I also think progressive marginal rates are fine in principle. I also think that provision of job training and food stamps and other targeted services to the poor are fine in principle. What I don’t like is an increase in tax on the wealthy for the purpose of funding cash payments to the not-so-wealthy.
Not only that, but Reagan was once a union boss. As far as I know, he never resigned his membership either.
Then — again — why does that mean you support McCain over Obama? Have you actually looked at McCain’s proposals?
And why the single issue? Let’s say that McCain was a purist libertarian and eliminated the IRS. Do you honestly believe he has the calm temperament and deliberative judgment to lead America into a 21st century world? He won’t be able to tell the world “Stop! I want to get off!” when a crisis occurs. He won’t be able to suspend his presidency and go hide in a hole. He won’t be able to shuffle around on a stage and spew insults while the world moves on without him. Use your fucking head, man. Think.
Well then I guess it’s a good thing I never argued that Obama is a Marxist, then, right?
Also, Liberal, it’s very odd that in this thread you keep accusing me of being factually inaccurate and disingenuous while yourself being factually inaccurate and perhaps disingenuous in every post. In this one, you didn’t mention the tax credit part of McCain’s health plan.
Given that consumption is headed straight for the toilet it would seem giving cheques to poor people would be rather beneficial at the moment. Or do you think there’s actually a supply problem?