All Talked Out - Debates Over - Who Won?

[Mrs.Underhill]

How about this. McCain tried to make a point about taxes and how they'll affect certain businesses. Nobody is talking about that. Instead, we're talking about Joe the Plumber. Which is more important, the affect of Obama's taxes on businesses or some guy called Joe? Why has the latter gotten such an enormous amount of attention but the former has gotten so little??

I agree.
McCain is using Joe the Plumber to hide the real problem with his tax cuts - and the problem is that the persons who would really feel Bush's tax cuts revoked are Wall Street CEOs and big business CEOs, not the average Joe. Average Joe would overwhelmingly benefit from Obama's tax plans, as was shown with this real guy as well.

See, McCain can't really go around and seek sympathy for those CEOs, not after the financial collapse and the bailout - and that's why he tries to portray Joe the Plumber as a "victim" of tax cuts revoke. And of course it backfired, because small business owners overwhelmingly don't write themselves 250000$ paychecks - those would the average or bigger businesses. And even for those guys, who make less than 1mln in personal income, the Bush tax cut revoke wouldn't be reall felt much.
Big business CEOs with 6-7-8 figure paychecks are the ones who'll be squeezed, and that's what McCain is really fighting against.

And those CEOs are hated by the public, and anyway they used Bush's tax cuts to invest in China in India - China and India workers got their real wages increased 4-5 times during Bush years, while American middle class incomes stayed the same and people had to borrow on a national scale to keep up with consuming of all that new huge China/India output. And that's why we have this collapse now.

So why let those guys keep those tax cuts, and even give them more - as McCain wants to do? They'll just invest in Latin America, Vietnam and other places where work force is still dirt cheep, and the average Joe in US will again be left out to dry, and will have to borrow instead of earning more - or fall back to the income levels of China/India.
In that sense, I absolutely agree - McCain = Bush and even worse, as he wants to continue this failed policy - plus he wants even less restriction on trade.
And he's been throwing dust into American people's eyes with this poor Joe the Plumber, trying to goad them into voting against their interest and for the interest of big business CEOs - again. See, the poster child for tax cut revoke victim is an average CEO, but he tries to convince everyone it's an average Joe the Plumber.

What amazes me in all this is how quickly people forget their own outrage about big business and big money receiving 700bln $ bailout. But for McCain giving them even more in extra tax cuts is OK?!
At least Obama would tax them more so that those 700bln dollars will be paid in large part from ther pockets. I think it's fair.

[Cerin]

Why has the latter gotten such an enormous amount of attention but the former has gotten so little??

I find this puzzlement about why Joe has gotten so much attention very puzzling. Let's review:

John McCain mentioned 'Joe the Plumber' 24 times in a televised Presidential debate. The media was naturally buzzing about Joe. Joe was the star of the debate, the big story coming out of the evening. Everyone (except Holby) wanted to hear from Joe. So they talked to him. If they'd found that he really was a successful plumber poised to buy a business and concerned about how the Obama tax plan would affect him, there probably wouldn't have been much of a fuss. However, he turned out to be a disgruntled right wing voter without a plumbing license and in no position to buy a company, who was complaining about a policy that would never touch him personally. In short, he'd misrepresented himself, and that then understandably became part of the story. I honestly don't understand what is the least bit puzzling about it.

As to the tax part of the story not getting attention, that isn't accurate. The tax question has been looked at and reported on in detail as well, including various hypothetical scenarios about what mythical business-owner Joe would have to pay under Obama and McCain, depending on how good of an accountant he had.

There's really no issue here, except one manufactured by Rush Limbaugh ('the left is attacking poor Joe') to deflect attention from the embarrassment of McCain having made an example of a person who turned out not to exist. I'm sure they're a bit disappointed, because they were all set to make Joe the centerpiece of their campaign for the next three weeks, and I imagine Joe seems a little less of a bonanza now than he did on debate night.

[yovargas]

Why has the latter gotten such an enormous amount of attention but the former has gotten so little??

I find this puzzlement about why Joe has gotten so much attention very puzzling. Let's review:

John McCain mentioned 'Joe the Plumber' 24 times in a televised Presidential debate. The media was naturally buzzing about Joe.

My question was directed towards the people on this board. There's been very little discussion here about the tax plan McCain was referring to, especially relative to Joe. Are you all actually more interested in Joe than the merits of the tax plans??

[Cerin]

There's been very little discussion here about the tax plan McCain was referring to, especially relative to Joe. Are you all actually more interested in Joe than the merits of the tax plans??

Personally, I'm generally familiar with the candidates' tax policies and know which philosophy I agree with, so I don't feel a need to discuss that issue, certainly not just because Sen. McCain tried to make it a focus with what he thought was a sympathetic example. I think taxes are one of the clearest ways the candidates differ from one another, and I wouldn't be surprised if most everyone here was already acquainted with those differences and had reached decisions about which approach they preferred (which might be a reason no one felt a burning need to discuss it).

[sauronsfinger]

Are you all actually more interested in Joe than the merits of the tax plans??

Merits of what tax plan? As far as I can tell, neither man has come up with a comprehensive tax plan to pay for current government spending or even projected government spending. The Democrats are afraid that they will be accused of the standard "tax and spend" accusation. The Republicans have shown that their philosophy seems to be "borrow and spend". It would be refreshing if either party came out and said

"we are going to have to raise taxes on everybody by X% or risk our childrens and our grandchildrens future. "
But neither party will do this because the vast majority of Aemricans live in denial about taxes and what they provide.

For Obama to even say he will raise taxes on the top 5% is a giant step. Its not enough of a step, but it is a step. McCain talks about freezing government spending, but when you add up his untouchable sacred cow departments it adds up to 85% of the budget. Even if he cuts the remaining 15% by a full third - which would seem very difficult given the realities of government spending, that represents only a decrease of 5% which hardly gets us where we need to be.

We badly need to reeducate all Americans about tax and tax policy. And sadly, the middle of a presidential election campaign is no time to do it.

So forgive me if I do not get excited about examining either candidates tax policies.

[Padme]

Why are Americans so afraid of having to sacrafice for the betterment of the country? i.e. having taxes raised to fix this mess. The reality of this whole thing is who ever wins, there is going to be a need to cut the budget, raise taxes, and regulations put in place. The whole screaming don't raise my taxes seems a bit like a parent watching their kid bleed to death but isn't willing to donate blood becuase of some idealogical belief that better dead than red. Raising taxes on those who can afford it really isn't going to make the US a communistic country.

[Holbytla]

Partly because some people feel there is an overbloated budget and programs should be cut before new revenue is enacted. Partly because having less money to spend certainly doesn't help the economy.
Partly because people are sick of watching Wall St reap profits when times are good and expect the people to bail them out when times are bad. Private profit and public bailout? No.
Million dollar golden parachutes to CEOs who have run companies into the ground? No. Bailing out institutions that go on expensive junkets? No.

People aren't afraid of sacrificing for the betterment of the country. People are sick of being ripped off.

[Mrs.Underhill]

My question was directed towards the people on this board. There's been very little discussion here about the tax plan McCain was referring to, especially relative to Joe. Are you all actually more interested in Joe than the merits of the tax plans??

Yov - I was with you in wacking Joe over the head, he didn't interest me in a little bit. I don't get why he became such a star, and I don't care.

But the diffs between McCain and Obama plans are very simple:

Bush gave big tax cuts to the richest people, and small tax cuts to the average Joe. Those tax cuts are temporary and are about to expire.
McCain wants to make them permanent. Obama wants them to expire, and replace them with a new tax cut package skewed towards average Joe.
Overall, Obama's new tax cuts woud cost about 200bln less than preserving Bush tax cuts. But about 75% of working people would benefit from the new plan much more.

Both plans in regard to population/income are illustrated the best on the chart here:
http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/

And what I don't get is why Obama's people don't explain this clearly and use annoying generic "more of the same" mantra instead.

McCain wants to preserve the same tax policy as Bush. This policy has failed - we are seeing it failing all over the place, as we speak.
Obama wants a new policy of stimulating middle class rather than the richest people. Will it work better than Bush policy? We don't know, but it is hard for anything to work worse than Bush policy.
In this fundamental sense, McCain is more of the same, continuing after Bush, on a tax policy which is proven to fail. And Obama is the one who wants to change it, to return to the tax schema of Reagan years. Reagan years! And now they call it socialism.

Ugh. Why Obama and Co don't put it in simple terms, and say exactly why McCain is more of the same - is beyond my understanding.

[Inanna]

People aren't afraid of sacrificing for the betterment of the country. People are sick of being ripped off.

I agree. I do not think its truthful to say that taxes = sacrifice for betterment = patriotism etc.

Taxes were used to pay for the Iraq war. People who oppose the war are unhappy about that, right? And the same people detest it when pro-war call them unpatriotic.

Taxes are a reality of life. They are not patriotic or anti-patriotic. What is required is transparency and oversight of where the tax money goes.

[Primula Baggins]

I was talking to my brother the other night, and taxes came up (we're both self-employed). He mentioned that if the new president ends up spending money on infrastructure to stimulate the economy, it will seem extremely weird for the government to spend billions of dollars over a course of years at the end of which we will actually have something new that's worth billions of dollars—improved roads, high-speed trains, alternative energy grids, whatever. What a disconnect we've come to accept that we should run huge deficits, struggle (many of us) to pay our own bills, and benefit less and less every year from whatever it is the government is doing; as far as Americans at home are concerned, the money just evaporates.

[vison]

I was talking to my brother the other night, and taxes came up (we're both self-employed). He mentioned that if the new president ends up spending money on infrastructure to stimulate the economy, it will seem extremely weird for the government to spend billions of dollars over a course of years at the end of which we will actually have something new that's worth billions of dollars—improved roads, high-speed trains, alternative energy grids, whatever. What a disconnect we've come to accept that we should run huge deficits, struggle (many of us) to pay our own bills, and benefit less and less every year from whatever it is the government is doing; as far as Americans at home are concerned, the money just evaporates.

Absolutely spot on!!!!

[Holbytla]

Try to stop and visualize the enormity of the US budget for a minute.
I find it hard to wrap my brain around something so huge and unwieldy. It makes my head asplode. Something that huge has to take on a life of its own and it must be impossible to keep the waste under control and actually track where all of that money goes.

So many hands in that pot and so many pet projects to fund.

You want money on infrastructure? Go research the nightmare that was The Big Dig and see how money on infrastructure comes with its own baggage. Huge baggage.

[Primula Baggins]

Of course it does, Holby, when mishandled. But I think people have forgotten that the interstate highway system didn't exist until a few decades ago and was built with government money—and try to imagine modern life without it. There are plenty of other examples—dams, airports, major work on harbors, rail systems, the levee system along the Mississippi. Lots of it is crumbling. Look up how much the shoddy state of the interstate highways now is costing the U.S. economy because the trucking industry has to spend so much money repairing damage to their vehicles. Not to mention what it costs the rest of us.

Paul Krugman is not the only economist who says that now is not, believe it or not, the time for strict fiscal responsibility; it's time to borrow and spend, short term, on items that shore up state and local governments (collapsing because property taxes are falling) and help employ more people. The alternative would stop the economy dead. How does it help to have a smaller deficit on paper if entire states are going bankrupt?

[Inanna]

Government spending is considered the antidote to a recession by almost all economists. It is, usually, the only way to stimulate the economy.

[Holbytla]

What I am trying to say, is that it is far easier to say "spend money on infrastructure", than actually do it and do it wisely.

Government needs to learn how to become efficient.

The Big Dig was a 20 year nightmare that is still in the courts. The amoun of money spent is way out of proportion to what was actually accomplished. The amount of graft and sweetheart deals that came back and bit us is astounding.

Sure we need to spend money on things like roads and alternative energy, but unless we learn to spend it wisely it too vanishes into thin air.

[River]

We've done a good job in the past though. The CCC-built dams out west still stand, as do some of their other projects (Red Rocks amphitheater, the stone climber's hut at Camp Muir - these things are trivial but they do come to mind) and we put in the interstates. It doesn't have to be like the Big Dig. In fact, I'd daresay the Big Dig was the worst of the worst.

But corruption is a big problem whenever anyone is tossing large sums of money around, be it public or private. This is as true for infrastructure as it is for what just happened on Wall Street.

[Primula Baggins]

But corruption has already been a problem for the evaporating money, big time.

I think we should go ahead and risk it for expenditures that might net average Americans something they can use.

Here's a bridge about 100 miles from my town:



It was built in the 1930s, a CCC project like Red Rocks (which I've also seen).

Taxpayer dollars, yes, but 75 years later it's still safely carrying traffic. And still drawing tourists to the small coastal town where it was built.

[Maria]

My question was directed towards the people on this board. There's been very little discussion here about the tax plan McCain was referring to, especially relative to Joe. Are you all actually more interested in Joe than the merits of the tax plans??

The problem with "Joe the Plumber" example is that a small business has to be doing VERY well to make over $250,000 profit in a year. I work for a small business, and we usually have income of about $700,000 to a million per year. But after the accountant gets done deducting every avaiable business expense we have- we show a profit of around $80,000 per year.

The idea that Joe the Plumber would have a profit of $250,000 per year is ridiculous. He'd either be a very large firm, or be a very dishonest plumber. Or have a very incompentant accountant!

Either way, if he has a profit of over $250,000 per year, he can afford higher taxes!

[sauronsfinger]

Some of the posters here have been critical of those of us who have been critical of Joe the Plumber.

Why?

And I am all in favor of government spending to fix, repair and create needed infrastructure.

[Padme]

I agree with Maria. Plus the profit the business makes and what the paycheck of the owner is, are two different things entirely.