Comments on: Well, hell, I can’t vote for McCain now

By: saintseester

saintseester — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:41:14 +0000

People were crying in the 90′s (probably not using the S word), but does anyone remember Hillary-Care and the uproar?

By: Uncle Wiggily

Uncle Wiggily — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:35:17 +0000

ALL taxation is “confiscatory” and therefore socialistic. It’s money that goes into a common pool for common purposes. The question is not socialism vs. not socialism. The question is how much is appropriate, as Bo notes. It goes both ways though. For people who always want lower taxes, how much is just enough? I’m guessing it’s always “less than right now”, no matter where we stand at any given time. Obama plans to bring us back to the levels we were at in the 90s, which is not a tax hike, but an on-schedule expiration of tax cuts enacted in the early 00s. NOBODY was crying “socialism” in the 90s. And the economy did just fine.

By: Mrs. Chili

Mrs. Chili — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:44:05 +0000

I was going to leave another comment, but it took on a life of its own and became a post. It’s here; I welcome polite, constructive feedback.

http://theinnerdoor.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/the-post-thats-disguised-as-a-comment/

Warmly,

Chili

By: The Post That’s Disguised as a Comment « The Blue Door

The Post That’s Disguised as a Comment « The Blue Door — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:52:45 +0000

[...] 23, 2008 by mrschili Bo wrote this post on his blog back on the 19th. I commented on that post, and was both thoughtfully engaged and [...]

By: Lee Boutwell

Lee Boutwell — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:47:46 +0000

I believe a person can make a rational argument for graduated tax rates on the basis that wealthier folks benefit more from government provided infrastucture (e.g. interstate highways, fair trade enforcement, etc…) than poorer folks. I’d even concede (although not necessarily agree) that wealthier folks should pay a higher percentage amount as well as a higher dollar amount for those services. However, when you start advocating the use of confiscatory tax policy to redistribute wealth on the basis of “spreading it around”, that is full blown SOCIALISM. No semantics involved!

By: Bo

Bo — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:29:01 +0000

Melanie: I know–it’s amazing to hear, but it’s true.

The source I used was a 2005 document from the U.S. Treasury:

http://treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf

By: Melanie

Melanie — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:23:05 +0000

I would really like to understand the source of these tax revenue figures. I spent some time on irs.gov today and I found lots of 2005/2006 figures, but I didn’t find this breakdown. BUT there are hundreds of different ways to look at the data, and I wasn’t convinced that even if I put in the time, I would draw the correct conclusions. Do you have any links where it’s summarized? I don’t see how this can possibly be correct, just really doesn’t seem to add up.

By: Bo

Bo — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:21:01 +0000

Pearl: I don’t have a strong opinion on Powell’s endorsement of Obama per se, though I’m not surprised he made it. Perhaps if Republicans had kept a little more closely to what they say they believe in (particularly fiscally) over the past decade, he’d have felt a little more loyalty.

Gerry: I have presented a breakdown by income level of federal taxes paid that shows that not only do “the wealthy” pay “their fair share,” they are the only ones paying anything. Obama wants more.

Greg has offered a link to Federalist No. 41. You and Mrs. Chili both have offered “promote the general welfare” in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution as allowing for this further redistribution of wealth.

Begging your pardon, but dismissing these points as “largely semantic,” particularly in the absence of any counter more substantive than “that’s just me,” is of rather limited persuasive value.

By: gerry rosser

gerry rosser — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:37:08 +0000

Yes, I have the temerity to come back after a bit of trollery.

I think the day is pretty far in the past when fretting about “isms” has much value. Hey, that’s just me.

Judging whether an idea has merit is not easy, but it certainly cannot be done by setting up largely semantic filters.

I’m with mrschili.

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:11:53 +0000

Mrs. Chili, please read Federalist No. 41 — written by no less authority than the man called the "Father of the Constitution" — concerning the meaning and function of the phrase "general welfare" in that instrument.