I just heard John McCain say at a rally in Missouri that what Obama wants is "not a tax cut but another government give-away".
Can someone explain to me how the government having less of a hand in the pocket of all tax payers earning under $250,000 a year is a "give-away" or "hand-out"?
What it's doing is reducing the money that the government is already taking from us. By what logic is allowing 95% of Americans to keep their own money a "give-away"? How can we be "given" that which we already have?
The Republicans of course know the hypocrisy of their "give-away" claims, and the contempt they are showing for the American voter, the bet they are making on the lack of common sense of most Americans. I'm looking forward to Americans standing up and saying they're not going to fall for that kind of blatant misrepresentation and mangling of language, and voting the Republicans soundly out of office in record numbers in two weeks. That would be the true give away - giving Republicans a way to the door.
18 comments:
I'd give it a go but there is not enough context to make sense of the comment. I kind of hope people don't vote Obama in as it will be a disaster.
The truth, Jason, is that you're not responding to what McCain says, because there is no rational answer.
I'm disappointed that you're not willing to admit this.
Jason, why do you believe it will be a disaster? I suspect this is what you've been told to think by right-wing radio, as opposed to your own research and analysis.
I throw the gauntlet at your feet: provide your reasons and back them up with supporting facts that aren't copied and pasted from some conservative web site somewhere.
If you lack the mental faculties to do this, then in my opinion you do not deserve the voting franchise.
Poor mortals like us in the middle class do not deserve to have a break only those that send our jobs abroad deserves it..... so quit complaining they are about to complete the corporate socialist phase, just wait for the crumbs that will or maybe not trickle down to you.
I'm not actually an American and i'm not familiar with the comment that was made, which was why I asked for more context.
Arnold I believe it will be a disaster if Obama gets elected because you will have a party made up of big government leftists in control of all branches of government.
Given the "wonderful" track record of government meddling in things, this is unlikely to be a good thing. The Republicans are bad enough of late, why would you expect people who freely admit to being big government leftists, will do any better ?
I'm not so stupid as to trust the government to know how better to spend my money than I do.
BTW Paul, i'm a bit concerned that you are asking me to "admit the truth" when what I asked for was more context. You know I am an Australian and my interest in American politics is as an outsider.
How can you reasonably ask me to "admit the truth" that McCain is lying, when I admit to not quite knowing the context of the comment.
Although I would note, this "sticking it to the man" idea of raising taxes on those that already pay the largest amount in tax, is essentially a bribe to foolish enough to buy into such rhetoric.
Jason, unless you think I made up that quote from McCain, why do you need more context?
That's exactly what he said. How does that term - "give away" - square with the fact that 95% of tax payers will be keeping more of their own money?
Surely you can do better than spout generalities as an answer?
I'd be happy to try Paul. I need more context because you've presented a soundbite and made out that that is all that is needed.
I'm sure the quote is genuine enough, but I don't know what was being referred to and I don't know what the context of the reply was.
You complained that I SpoutedGeneralities(TM) in reply, but what else can I do without more context ? That is why I asked.
Based on what you have said, it is odd to claim that 95% of tax payers keeping more money is a give away, but that is why I am wondering what the context is. Obama seems to be long on the usual sort of santa claus nonsense that politicans are excellent at.
I don't trust McCain or Obama, or politicans in general. I trust them to look after themselves and do what they can to make sure they get elected. Anything else they say i'd take with a large grain of salt.
Jason, if I told you that you someone was seriously maintaining that 2 + 2 = 3, what more context would you need to know?
Jason...please forgive Paul because he has been blinded by the sweet and envious taste of the Obama Kool Aid... He spouts rhetoric about taxing the rich while failing to acknowledge that raising taxes on ANYONE in a slowing economy doesn't help ANYONE. Nevermind that to include increased government spending in the form of brand new government entitlement programs is about as wise as retarded monkey trying to play a harmonica but then again we are talking about liberals here but I digress. Let us use truth and reality to illustrate my point....when the rates of capital gains taxes were dropped, government revenues INCREASED. Simple. Give people the FREEDOM to spend their own money and they will do just that. What gives the government the right to take your hard earned money? Oh, yes. I forget.....spread the wealth, fairness and economic justice....all code words for socialism.......
Paul at the _very_ least if you told me 2 + 2 = 3, I would need to know what base you are counting in and whether we mean the same thing by the symbols represented. That is the context by which such a statement needs to be understood. so yes, more context is needed to understand your claim. I'm not saying you are wrong, i'm saying let me check to make sure you understood it correctly. Why can't I check the sources for myself ?
And I agree with anonymous, there is a word for the government taking my money by force and giving it to someone else. It isn't "justice" though, it is theft.
anon -
First, you obviously don't know what "socialism" is - it's the taking over of all private enterprise by government. Having most people pay less tax not only has nothing to do with socialism - it is actually the opposite of socialism.
Second, why do you feel it's necessary to put some of your words in CAPS? Does your keyboard have some sort of defect?
Third, I notice you refer to me as "Paul," which is fine - but do I know you? Just wondering, because for reasons best known to you, you don't reveal your name.
And, Fourth, people have had the freedom to spend their own money, from the day America was created, and they still do now. What on Earth gives you the idea that they do not?
Jason - No, I wouldn't have to give you the number base, since, as we and everyone who reads this well knows, I was using our standard number base. If I was using anything else, I would have mentioned it.
As for checking the context of McCain's statement, who said you couldn't do that? It's all over the web. Plus, I told you that was a statement he made at a rally. But, right, I also told you it was not necessary to know the context, since the (incorrect, lying, take your pick) statement stands on its own.
As for your definition of "theft," are you saying you're against all taxation? That would make you, what, an anarchist?
Fair enough, if that's what you really believe. But I've known few people who would truly want to see all government services - including our military as a defense against terrorism - end. I certainly would not, and agree with Obama that we need to be militarily strong, as well as wise.
And that requires money = taxation.
Anonymous, Jason: the ignorance you put on display is astounding.
Jason: all this crap about needing more context translates to "I'm too lazy to google it, so explain it to me."
The small government philosophy appeals to me as well. I believe that the government that governs least, governs best. So on the surface it seems I should side with the Republicans, who express the same philosophy.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric does not match the reality. It is now beyond doubt that Republicans do the very opposite of what they say - they are the ones who make government ever larger, more complex, and more bureaucratic. They also also the ones who fail to exhibit any fiscal responsibility. Everything they accuse the Democrats of - big government, tax and spend - they are themselves the worst perpetrators.
Check the facts, do the research. Most importantly, think for yourselves - if you have the mental equipment to do so. At the moment it doesn't look like you do.
Hi Paul,
I found something out about the give away comment. I can't be sure I understand it correctly so please correct me where I am mistaken.
The observation was made that 40% of Americans actually don't pay any tax. Which, if the "tax cut" is in the form of a credit of some kind, that means these people will be given money rather than having their tax burden reduced. How is that not a give away for that 40% ? Seems like a pretty fair characterization to me.
As for taxes, ideally a government wouldn't levy them on the population. That would be nice, but I do think the government serves some limited purpose (defense and civil order, maybe large infrastructure, water, sewage, things like that, but that is about it), and so can legitimately raise funds for such things via taxation of the populace.
However, I don't think governments should be allowed to levy income taxes (sales taxes are much fairer) and they shouldn't be allowed to levy "progressive taxes". Everybodies tax burden, if you are going to have something as unwise as an income tax, should be the same. Flat taxes are a good idea and reward those who actually produce the wealth in society instead of punishing them for their success.
I simply do not trust government to spend my money more wisely than I would, and frankly I think there would be something to the idea of making taxation semi-voluntary, so that the government is actually accountable for how it spends its money.
I think back to my uni days, when with mandatory student union fees being levied on students as a requirement for enrollment. The student union was corrupt and did as it pleased. If it actually had to make people think it was worth the money to be in the union they would do a better job of providing services.
"Jason: all this crap about needing more context translates to "I'm too lazy to google it, so explain it to me.""
Not really. I just was hoping for a link to the relevant parts or something.
"Unfortunately, the rhetoric does not match the reality. It is now beyond doubt that Republicans do the very opposite of what they say"
Of course I know this. I agree with it. I'm surprised the left hates bush so much as he is a big government liberal just like them.
But there is more at stake here than just a bunch of corrupt pseudo-conservatives.
Obama in power will be appointing surpreme court justices and the like (although republicans have a poor track record of selecting good ones, but still) and you'll have the entire government (at least legislative and executive branches) essentially in agreement that the insane big government liberal agenda is something they say they are for, not just are for in practice.
Obama is incredibly far to the left of social and econommic policies. It would be better to have a government that was sane on social and economic policies (classical liberals and conservatices in effect) but i'd take a party that was not to bad on 1 of 2 than a party that campaigns on being bad on both counts, any day.
BTW Paul, I googled the phrase "not a tax cut but another government give-away" in quotes like that, and the only hit that came back was a hit on your salon blog.
Jason - the "40% of Americans who don't pay any taxes" include children and others who are totally outside of any earning and tax system, and won't be receiving any reduction, obviously, in their taxes.
There are some Americans who earn so little income that they do not pay any income tax. But they pay tax the Federal government on gasoline (your petrol) and other Federal excise taxes. These people would indeed receive a "refundable tax credit" on their income tax - as repayment for the other Federal taxes they pay.
So my point still holds that nothing is being "given away" by the government - rather, people earning under $250,000 per year would be allowed under Obama's program to keep more of their hard-earned money.
Jason, I agree strongly with your points. I do believe the income tax is theft because it assumes the government owns you, and is somehow entitled to a portion of the fruits of your own labor. Basic economics tell us that when you tax something, you discourage it. Why then, do we tax income? Contrary to popular belief, an income tax is not needed to sustain a government. It is indeed needed to sustain a giant government filled with departments and programs, but not a constitutional sized one. It is important to note that without the income tax, we would have the same amount of revenue we did 10 years ago.
Post a Comment