And that’s exactly my point. You pretend to be all upset about the “socialism” involved in particular refundable tax credits that are specific to Obama’s tax plan, but you are apparently indifferent to the similar “socialism” of refundable tax credits that already exist in our tax code and have been supported by Republican presidents (and would certainly be continued by a McCain administration too, if he were elected).
Obama’s proposed system of refundable credits differs only in degree (and not a very large degree), not in kind, from the refundable credits that already exist. So if you call Obama “socialist” over the issue of refundable credits, you have to call McCain, Bush, and every previous President for the last few decades “socialist” too.
And the reason you avoid doing that is because your anti-“socialist” opposition to refundable credits is either hypocritical, or else merely faked in order to use as a talking point against Obama.
Umm, you can only get a rebate on money you’ve already spent. Refund and rebate specifically refer to receiving money back that you’ve spent. That’s the stable definition of these terms. I’m going to need a cite that Obama is indeed using them in a non-normative way.
They DO pay taxes, and the “rebate” is earmarked for college tuitions. Something conservatives should have no problems with.
Funny how you people have no problem with spending billions of dollars a month in taxpayer money to slaughter brown people, but can’t abide the thought of spending one dime to buy a baby a bottle of formula or send a poor kid to college.
Yes, this use of “refundable” is at variance with our ordinary understanding of the meaning of “refund”, where you can’t make a net-negative payment.
However, that somewhat confusing ambiguity is not Obama’s fault. “Refundable tax credit” has been the standard name for this concept since Obama was in grade school.
I can see that the oil companies paying royalties on oil is different than higher tax rates for the well to do, and tax credits for the less well to do. It seems like it’s a difference in form only and both can be construed as a form of socialism.
I don’t know how it works in Alaska but if the if the oil companies are assuming all the risk and expense of drilling for oil then in a capitalist society they should reap all the rewards yes? They should play a flat lease rate of buy the land outright. If the percentage of profits they make affects the royalties they pay , while they assume all the risk of failure, and, that money is collected by the state and redistributed directly to the citizens, not just in schools and roads but in checks they can do with as they will, how is that not incredibly similar to socialism?
And Sarah says, “This is no time to experiment with socialism”
It’s total bullshit scare tactics for lack of a coherent substantive argument.
I’m concerned about some of Obama’s spending proposals as well but I’d certainly rather see billions going to try and improve our society than some bullshit war. I also believe , from the tone of his campaign, that what he now proposes and what he does in office will vary as the responds to changes and events as they occur.
Note, please, that it was not intended as an insult, or to lump you in with the loonies. I did post that I considered you a particularly and peculiarly reasonable example. All I meant was that I’d cobbled together, from filtering your posting history through my own left-of-center/leaning more leftward political brain, an impression that you stood athwart the right-of-center, rightward leaning line. I’m not one who instantly associates right-wingism with bigotry or hate…I consider danceswithcats, Airman Doors, USAF, and catsix to be shining examples of sane conservatism (meaning they have a classical conservative approach to economics and personal responsibility). I had you tucked into that pigeonhole, also. It was not a derogatory characterization.
The Lockean theory of how property rights originate in the first place is that by converting a bit of raw nature into useful goods, one acquires a property right to them. There are other theories, but this is the one that underlies free-market concepts (in much the same way that, for example, the Labor Theory of Value underlies Marxist concepts).
Obviously, government seizure of raw resources, either by exacting a toll before the conversion of nature to resources may begin (e.g. Alaska) or by seizing the results of that conversion (e.g. the various oil-company nationalizations mentioned on this thread) is socialist rather than capitalist. A limited admixture of socialism in this regard is probably preferable to totally untrammeled capitalism, but the fact that it is socialism should be addressed honestly. Simply admitting that all American politicians (other than the more extreme libertarian and anarchist ones) accept a certain degree of socialism makes it possible to replace playground name-calling with rational discussion.
When asked by Gibson in the debates about the relationship between capital gains tax and revenue Obama said he would raise the tax as a matter of fairness despite the fact that it would reduce revenue.
**GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for** purposes of fairness.
Ok, yes, I remember this exchange, and unfortunately, Obama didn’t correct Gibson’s blatant misinformation.
It’s true when you cut capital gains rates, there’s an initial surge of tax revenue just after the cut takes effect. This is because people know the rate cut is coming, so they hold off on capital gains transactions until after the cut goes into effect. But over the long term, a cut in the capital gains rate decreases revenue over what it would have been if there had been no cut.
You can debate the point separately regarding tax revenue and tax rates but that doesn’t affect what Obama said. He has repeatedly talked about income redistribution in the context of “fairness” and Joe the Plummer was the latest example. If you follow his life from childhood on up he has associated his views with socialism and continues to do so today. He’s a Marxist in every sense of the word.
Only in the sense that George Bush is a fascist, which is an equally ridiculous exaggeration, distortion, and abuse of a technical term that has a specific meaning. Bush is not a fascist, and Obama is not a Marxist.
It is fair to say that Obama, if elected, will move our mixed market/government economy slightly more towards the socialism end of the spectrum than it currently lies. (But not necessarily more than McCain would; some of McCain’s economic proposals are quite strongly interventionist.)
There is no way on this green earth that that prospect can rationally be described as even remotely equivalent to Marxism in any sense of the word, much less in every sense of the word.