Question for the Obama Haters

Amused59 · November 1, 2008, 6:06pm

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Amused59 wrote:
FEMA dude. It’s what they were designed to do.

And according to the law, their hands were tied until a request for help was made.

Anyway, I’m the first one to tell you if you’re standing infront of a speeding bus get the fuck outta the way. But what happens to your aging parents in the nursing home as the levees break?

Well people asked one nursing home before the events, and they told the people they were prepared. (They weren’t.) Not sure why this is Bush’s fault though.

We have seemingly digressed from the original topic. But I for one welcome the change of the Obama Whitehouse, and will be sorely disappointed if McCain pulls a squeeker and pitches a massive coronary leaving Sarah Palin at the helm. And 'fess up, all of you will too.

I will not be happy if McCain is president. I do not want him to have a coronary, and doubt he will have one. (If he was going to have one it most likely would have happened by now.) But I would actually prefer a Palin presidency over McCain.

Every single problem I have with McCain is multiplied by Obama. I realize you are of the opinion that Republicans are evil, and that peppers your beliefs. I know that all the candidates actually believe that what they are doing is good for America.

But it only takes a little knowledge and understanding to see that if Obama does get his programs through, that will be bad for the economy. (I have posted links to research into this subject already. Some from Berkley no less.)

Unfortunately discussing the subject with some people who don’t seem to get it is like trying to discuss proper exercise with the guy curling in the squat rack. (Or the skinny kid I recently talked to who wanted to only train his upper body.)

People saying how cutting taxes for the rich somehow automatically raises them for the poor. Or being upset because somebody actually has more then you do. (If I can’t have it, nobody should.)

Nobody ever mentions that some of the people making over $200K in a year might only be able to do that once. (This is called a windfall.) There are people who spent years building up a business, and never made more then middle class income. But after 25 years they sell the business for half a mil. Hey, now they can pay that extra in tax for being rich. Even though it was 25 years to build up that value.

What is sad is how every time something is done right, and it benefits America, we praise the wrong people. Then when something goes wrong, we blame the wrong people.

Just like the guy who asked why the JFK tax increases caused the economy to improve. Oblivious to history. Did not know that JFK (and LBJ) cut the highest tax rate.

I really do not give a damn who people like or dislike. Just figure out what is really going on, and what will actually be of the most benefit to this country. Trying to base it only on who we like or hate is quite shallow. [/quote]

For the record, I don’t hate Republicans. I just marvel at the assumption I do. I’ve lived nearly a half century and more than ever I think it’s hysterical the GOP went from being about individual rights and paying less taxes, to jumping into bed with the religious right, demanding the populace develop into a more homogenous, judgemental set of racist,homophobic, xenophobes, and lip-stick wearing, moose-hunting, tax avoiding, ken and barbie doll suburbanites that demand everyone around them pray harder when they fuck up.

Journeyman · November 1, 2008, 7:43pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’[/quote]

Even Milton Freedman realized that the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money. So he reasoned that the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. This insight was the origin of his negative income tax proposal. A commonly proposed implementation is as follows, you give everyone a basic stipend that would be comparable to the poverty line. You would then tax every dollar earned by anyone at any income level at a fixed percentage.

With this plan, there is very little government overhead. We could eliminate programs like food stamps, unemployment and other entitlements. So this could lead to a wholesale reduction in government bureaucracy. There is the same incentive ( something like 70 cents on every dollar earned)

Is this a plausible solution? Is our society to pay everyone a stipend in exchange for a fixed tax rate of something like 30%? I find this quite appealing. There is a a great deal of personal liberty (no nanny state for the poor, just money), but with an element of egality (everyone is treated the same) and fraternity (no outcast has to live in a cardboard box).

Journeyman · November 1, 2008, 7:47pm

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
There is the same incentive ( something like 70 cents on every dollar earned)
[/quote]

Should have read:

There is the same incentive ( something like 70 cents on every dollar earned) for everyone at every income level.

rainjack · November 1, 2008, 9:28pm

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’

Even Milton Freedman realized that the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money. So he reasoned that the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. This insight was the origin of his negative income tax proposal. A commonly proposed implementation is as follows, you give everyone a basic stipend that would be comparable to the poverty line. You would then tax every dollar earned by anyone at any income level at a fixed percentage.

With this plan, there is very little government overhead. We could eliminate programs like food stamps, unemployment and other entitlements. So this could lead to a wholesale reduction in government bureaucracy. There is the same incentive ( something like 70 cents on every dollar earned)

Is this a plausible solution? Is our society to pay everyone a stipend in exchange for a fixed tax rate of something like 30%? I find this quite appealing. There is a a great deal of personal liberty (no nanny state for the poor, just money), but with an element of egality (everyone is treated the same) and fraternity (no outcast has to live in a cardboard box).
[/quote]

You can’t tax your way to prosperity - which is exactly what you are proposing.

I don’t want, or need a government stipend. I don’t want to pay for someone else to get one either.

It’s a pretty stupid plan.

The_Mage · November 1, 2008, 9:30pm

[quote]Amused59 wrote:

For the record, I don’t hate Republicans. I just marvel at the assumption I do. I’ve lived nearly a half century and more than ever I think it’s hysterical the GOP went from being about individual rights and paying less taxes, to jumping into bed with the religious right, demanding the populace develop into a more homogenous, judgemental set of racist,homophobic, xenophobes, and lip-stick wearing, moose-hunting, tax avoiding, ken and barbie doll suburbanites that demand everyone around them pray harder when they fuck up. [/quote]

And after that diatribe, I am expected to believe that?

I have problems with the Republican party also, but it is based on observation and logic, not this crap.

Sloth · November 1, 2008, 10:12pm

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’

Even Milton Freedman realized that the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money. So he reasoned that the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. This insight was the origin of his negative income tax proposal.[/quote] Which was to be a transitional step to a completely welfare free, and eventually even income tax free society, correct? As in the negative income tax would eventually go the way of the dodo, too. [quote]A commonly proposed implementation is as follows, you give everyone a basic stipend that would be comparable to the poverty line. You would then tax every dollar earned by anyone at any income level at a fixed percentage.

With this plan, there is very little government overhead. We could eliminate programs like food stamps, unemployment and other entitlements. So this could lead to a wholesale reduction in government bureaucracy. There is the same incentive ( something like 70 cents on every dollar earned)

Is this a plausible solution? Is our society to pay everyone a stipend in exchange for a fixed tax rate of something like 30%? I find this quite appealing. There is a a great deal of personal liberty (no nanny state for the poor, just money), but with an element of egality (everyone is treated the same) and fraternity (no outcast has to live in a cardboard box).
[/quote]

The plausible solution that respects free men, their labor, and their property, is that noone recieves subsidies.

Mikeyali · November 1, 2008, 10:30pm

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’

Even Milton Freedman realized that the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money. So he reasoned that the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. This insight was the origin of his negative income tax proposal.

[/quote]

Can you give me a citation for this? I’d like to go read it. I only have read Capitalism and Freedom. He does make some free market suggestions I disagree with in there though, such as privatitizing National Parks.

mike

Journeyman · November 1, 2008, 10:56pm

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’

Even Milton Freedman realized that the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money. So he reasoned that the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. This insight was the origin of his negative income tax proposal.

Can you give me a citation for this? I’d like to go read it. I only have read Capitalism and Freedom. He does make some free market suggestions I disagree with in there though, such as privatitizing National Parks.

mike[/quote]

References:

and, for lots of details,

http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/thornj/NegIncTax_JEP_p119.pdf

The later paper even examines some experiments that attempt to measure the elasticity of supply. There have been several trial programs that instituted this, and they show that people, even poor people, are quite willing to work. One possible benefit, which was observed, is that it becomes practical for one parent in lower income households to stay at home to care for children. So, we can even support ‘family values’.

Freedman did insist that this replace means tested programs, so we could use this to replace welfare, minimum wage and even social security.

Journeyman · November 1, 2008, 11:01pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’

Even Milton Freedman realized that the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money. So he reasoned that the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. This insight was the origin of his negative income tax proposal. Which was to be a transitional step to a completely welfare free, and eventually even income tax free society, correct?

[/quote]
Yes, right after the tooth fairy waves her magic wand and we get military, courts, etc. for free.

[quote]
As in the negative income tax would eventually go the way of the dodo, too. A commonly proposed implementation is as follows, you give everyone a basic stipend that would be comparable to the poverty line. You would then tax every dollar earned by anyone at any income level at a fixed percentage.

With this plan, there is very little government overhead. We could eliminate programs like food stamps, unemployment and other entitlements. So this could lead to a wholesale reduction in government bureaucracy. There is the same incentive ( something like 70 cents on every dollar earned)

Is this a plausible solution? Is our society to pay everyone a stipend in exchange for a fixed tax rate of something like 30%? I find this quite appealing. There is a a great deal of personal liberty (no nanny state for the poor, just money), but with an element of egality (everyone is treated the same) and fraternity (no outcast has to live in a cardboard box).

The plausible solution that respects free men, their labor, and their property, is that noone recieves subsidies.[/quote]

Sloth · November 1, 2008, 11:02pm

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html

Tells a different story.

Sloth · November 1, 2008, 11:19pm

[quote]Journeyman wrote:

Yes, right after the tooth fairy waves her magic wand and we get military, courts, etc. for free.

[/quote]

Journeyman · November 1, 2008, 11:52pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NegativeIncomeTax.html

Tells a different story.[/quote]

It tells the same story, just with more history and less economic theory than my referenced paper. Both references seem to ignore Juliet Rhys-Williams, a British politician who is credited with the idea of a negative income tax in the last years of WWII (papers are listed at http://library-2.lse.ac.uk/archives/handlists/RhysWilliamsJ/RhysWilliamsJ.html , but you can’t read the text without getting the referenced documents)

Sloth · November 2, 2008, 12:05am

Another thing. If you did away with welfare programs, had only a Negative income tax as “relief”, and kept the income tax, guess what would eventually happen? You’d have a negative income tax and reconstituted welfare programs.

Journeyman · November 2, 2008, 5:44am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Another thing. If you did away with welfare programs, had only a Negative income tax as “relief”, and kept the income tax, guess what would eventually happen? You’d have a negative income tax and reconstituted welfare programs.[/quote]

What? I don’t quite understand what you are saying.

Assuming that we keep the income tax as the primary way for the federal government to tax individuals and that we were to follow Freedman, the negative income tax could be a permanent replacement for programs like 1) welfare, 2) social security, 3) minimum wage, 4) unemployment, 5) FICA and 6) deductions for interest payments on home mortgages.

Why would welfare programs be reintroduced? I can only see an argument for extra assistance for disabled persons on the grounds that a disability adds expenses to the victim of the disability. (I thinking about disabilities like osteogenesis imperfecta, I had a friend who had more broken legs than birthdays).

I can see having a single payer system for health care because there is good empirical evidence works better - the French system is cheaper and more effective than is the American system. In France, you can even find doctors that make house calls. You can’t do that here because the doctor needs his team of clerks to deal with you in order to get the insurance companies to pay up.

If health care is universal, then the extra costs of a disability would largely disappear. This has other economic benefits, like getting rid of ambulance chasers; they sue for medical expenses plus lost wages and pain & suffering. But the lions share of this is the medical expenses (the only case I know first hand involved my father-in-law, who was hit by a snow plow and needed over half a million dollars of intensive care to get put together. The lawyer ended up with a lot more money than he did after all the bills were paid).

I want to have systems that have consistent rules. The negative income tax is simple and addresses the goal of providing a safety net. There is no nanny state, but there is certainly ‘wealth redistribution’ with a negative income tax.

Do you find the negative income tax appealing, or are you to the right of Milton Freedman?

Sloth · November 2, 2008, 6:28am

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Another thing. If you did away with welfare programs, had only a Negative income tax as “relief”, and kept the income tax, guess what would eventually happen? You’d have a negative income tax and reconstituted welfare programs.

What? I don’t quite understand what you are saying.

Assuming that we keep the income tax as the primary way for the federal government to tax individuals and that we were to follow Freedman, the negative income tax could be a permanent replacement for programs like 1) welfare, 2) social security, 3) minimum wage, 4) unemployment, 5) FICA and 6) deductions for interest payments on home mortgages.

Why would welfare programs be reintroduced? [/quote]

Friedman proposed it as a lesser of evils. Like I said, his preference was that eventually there wouldn’t even be income tax.

However, I believe that even if you discontinue all those programs, run a negative income tax program, while maintaining an income tax, you’ll just end up adding programs back ontop of the NIT.

If we’ve learned anything from our own experience, it’s that government is a ravenous leviathan. A spending addict, looking for it’s next fix. Fed by it’s dealers, our politicians. Promising this or that segment of the people what government can do FOR them, with other people’s money, they buy their way into office. I’d point to our Constitution, the limited powers enumerated within, and our present day fat sow of a federal government as evidence of how tempted politicians are to “help.”

[quote]
I can see having a single payer system for health care because there is good empirical evidence works better - the French system is cheaper and more effective than is the American system. In France, you can even find doctors that make house calls. You can’t do that here because the doctor needs his team of clerks to deal with you in order to get the insurance companies to pay up.

If health care is universal, then the extra costs of a disability would largely disappear. This has other economic benefits, like getting rid of ambulance chasers; they sue for medical expenses plus lost wages and pain & suffering. But the lions share of this is the medical expenses (the only case I know first hand involved my father-in-law, who was hit by a snow plow and needed over half a million dollars of intensive care to get put together. The lawyer ended up with a lot more money than he did after all the bills were paid).[/quote]

Please, no. I want less government in health-care.

dhickey · November 2, 2008, 3:55pm

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s with the assumption that taxing the ‘wealthy’ to give to the ‘poor,’ is actually good for the ‘poor.’

Even Milton Freedman realized that the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money. So he reasoned that the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more. This insight was the origin of his negative income tax proposal. A commonly proposed implementation is as follows, you give everyone a basic stipend that would be comparable to the poverty line. You would then tax every dollar earned by anyone at any income level at a fixed percentage.

With this plan, there is very little government overhead. We could eliminate programs like food stamps, unemployment and other entitlements. So this could lead to a wholesale reduction in government bureaucracy. There is the same incentive ( something like 70 cents on every dollar earned)

Is this a plausible solution? Is our society to pay everyone a stipend in exchange for a fixed tax rate of something like 30%? I find this quite appealing. There is a a great deal of personal liberty (no nanny state for the poor, just money), but with an element of egality (everyone is treated the same) and fraternity (no outcast has to live in a cardboard box).

[/quote]

I don’t think you quite understand Friedman’s intent. He admits that many of his suggestions are not the best solutions, but merely a compromise of what would work and what a large enough population would find acceptable. Most people don’t have the economic sense or vision to agree to cutting of welfare programs all together. He is offering solution that are better than what we have, not solutions that he believes are the best solutions.

I do like the reverse tax solution. It eliminates so many inefficient programs. It does not create winners and losers. It encourages families to stay together. It encourages pooling of resources. It fixes almost all the problems with our current social programs, but it is still a social program.

An even simpler solution is the one detailed in “In Our Hands” by Charles Murray. He started with Friedman’s program and simplified it even more.

katzenjammer · November 2, 2008, 6:11pm

Another masterful piece by Mr. Sowell…

November 02, 2008

EGO & MOUTH

By Thomas Sowell

After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.

The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama’s trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.

The signs of Barack Obama’s self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.

The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.

“This is our time!” he proclaimed. And “I will change the world.” But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.

For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of “spreading the wealth,” is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.

The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.

After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America’s future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.

Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein’s troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion.

People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn’t handle some “gotcha” questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats’ Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden.

Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal’s liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.

Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did.

Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, “I think I have a much higher IQ than you do.” He added, “I went to law school on a full academic scholarship” and “ended up in the top half” of the class.

But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: “He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn’t finish in the ‘top half’ of his class. He was 76th out of 85.”

Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/ego_and_mouth.html

phil_leotardo · November 2, 2008, 6:19pm

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Another masterful piece by Mr. Sowell…