McCain endorses Obama's tax plan.

[Ravenstorm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

[Gan]

Quit being stupid.

[Ravenstorm]

Physician heal thyself.

Let's see...

Cut taxes for the middle class. Give the wealthy a higher tax bracket. McCain was right on board with that plan before he sold his soul to the Republican base. You remember, back when he was a maverick?

[DeV]

Flippity. Floppity. Floop.

Obama should thank McCain.

[Moist Happenings]

Flippity. Floppity. Floop.

Obama should thank McCain.

Meh. He realized about halfway through that he was going to lose if he stayed the course. His only option was to start flip flopping or changing things altogether in the hopes of improving. Pretty much every candidate will do that in a race that isn't really close to improve their standings.

[Audriana]

http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/6520/giantdouchevsturdsandwich7om.jpg

[Sean]

Meh. He realized about halfway through that he was going to lose if he stayed the course. His only option was to start flip flopping or changing things altogether in the hopes of improving. Pretty much every candidate will do that in a race that isn't really close to improve their standings.

Eh Obama's flip flopped and moved himself more towards the middle too in order to jocky for votes. The real question with both McCain and Obama is what positions you think each will take if elected and what you're more comfortable with. At least that's how I look at it when I vote anyway.

[DeV]

Pretty much every candidate will do that in a race that isn't really close to improve their standings.Yeah, I actually have no problem with politicians changing their course partway through or whenever they feel it will best benefit their campaign. It's apart of a winner take all game. It also goes to show what didn't work for one candidate 8 years ago is working for another 8 years later. Ah, politics and it's plethora of "gotcha" moments.

My response was entirely facetious, by the way.

[Ravenstorm]

In this editorial (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll), the author quotes Adam Smith who also seems to have no problem with the basic idea.


The principle that Obama evinced, which most economists would regard as unexceptionable, can be traced to Adam Smith. In “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), his seminal treatise on capitalism, Smith wrote:


The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

I bet he'd be very surprised to now be called a socialist.

[Gan]

Eh Obama's flip flopped and moved himself more towards the middle too in order to jocky for votes. The real question with both McCain and Obama is what positions you think each will take if elected and what you're more comfortable with. At least that's how I look at it when I vote anyway.

Bingo

[Daniel]

In this editorial (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll), the author quotes Adam Smith who also seems to have no problem with the basic idea.



I bet he'd be very surprised to now be called a socialist.

<crickets>

I love it!

[crb]

In this editorial (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll), the author quotes Adam Smith who also seems to have no problem with the basic idea.



I bet he'd be very surprised to now be called a socialist.
To say something more, and to say have 5% of citizens pay for 80% of government are two very different things. Of course, your subjective beer goggles will vary.

[Gan]

In this editorial (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll), the author quotes Adam Smith who also seems to have no problem with the basic idea.
I bet he'd be very surprised to now be called a socialist.

Nice chop job on the quotes of Adam Smith. Clearly cutting and pasting succeeded in making the author's point. Its nice to see that some gullible ones fell for it.

Here's one from the very chapter (http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-4-ss2.htm) that deals with Adam Smith's concept of taxes.

Taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different Species of Revenue

Thats Smith's own abstract of the chapter. It speaks volumes for Smith's idea of taxation.

And I'm sure he'd be thrilled about Obama's social redistribution plans. I know I am.

[Daniel]

Nice chop job on the quotes of Adam Smith. Clearly cutting and pasting succeeded in making the author's point. Its nice to see that some gullible ones fell for it.




Here's one from the very chapter (http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-4-ss2.htm) that deals with Adam Smith's concept of taxes.


Thats Smith's own abstract of the chapter. It speaks volumes for Smith's idea of taxation.

And I'm sure he'd be thrilled about Obama's social redistribution plans. I know I am.


I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the rest of that chapter following that line. Or did you just utterly fail to understand the context of it?

[Gan]

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the rest of that chapter following that line. Or did you just utterly fail to understand the context of it?

I've read that chapter before, and I re-read it prior to quoting the abstract.

I still stand by my statement that the author of Ravenstorm's quote chopped his text. Furthermore its now how Smith represents taxation to the extent the author would like it to.

PS. Just because you might interpret it differently has no bearing on your correctness. Try remembering that before claiming someone else fails to understand the context.

[TheEschaton]

I haven't read the chapter, but that line seems to suggest that no matter where you get revenue from, it should be taxed, and nothing should be exempted.

Oh, and crb, 5% of the country owns more than half the wealth in this country, and if you don't include home-based wealth, own more than 70% of the wealth in this country. They pay less than that in taxes, even when you add in your state taxes, as the top federal rate is now, what, 36%?

-TheE-

[Gan]

In all truthfulness, Adam Smith advocates taxation proportionate to ones ability to pay. And while that idea currently is employed with our existing tax system. The variable to his ideology is in the interpretation of proportionate.



The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.
This is Adam Smith's first maxim regarding taxes.
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-pt-2.htm

Both candidates do not seek to restructure our current tax system to another source of revenue.

Obama's plan centers around eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts (JGTRRA), reinstating the AMT, and offering a tax rebate to 95% of working families. Where I find fault in this is twofold: firstly it is better called a redistribution of wealth considering that 40% of that 95% getting the tax rebate already do not pay taxes therefore it is a handout, and secondly it fails to be specifically contingent upon any reform on Congressional spending.

McCain's plan centers around phasing out the AMT, upholding the Bush Tax Cuts and seeking reform in Congressional spending. I find fault with this plan in that I do not thing the JGTRRA should be renewed. It provides loopholes for those who should pay their fair share. The AMT needs to either be revamped completely or left to die. My emphasis on reforming Congressional spending is thats where the burden felt by taxpayers starts.

Now with regards to Ravenstorm's article where the author conveniently chopped up some Smith quotes to fit his argument that Smith and Obama tax ideas are the same is very misleading. Yes Smith favors taxation in proportion to the ability to pay; however, nowhere has Smith espoused a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor that is similar in form to the tax cuts for the 95%.

[Daniel]

I've read that chapter before, and I re-read it prior to quoting the abstract.

I still stand by my statement that the author of Ravenstorm's quote chopped his text. Furthermore its now how Smith represents taxation to the extent the author would like it to.

PS. Just because you might interpret it differently has no bearing on your correctness. Try remembering that before claiming someone else fails to understand the context.

Save the sanctimonious bullshit. The chapter is about appropriate taxation on luxury goods. It says nothing about appropriate income tax distribution.

Although it does acknowledge that as income taxes rise on low income workers that wages must raise as well or you end up with an ineffective workforce.

Which is why he is arguing for increased taxation on luxury goods.

[Gan]

Save the sanctimonious bullshit. The chapter is about appropriate taxation on luxury goods. It says nothing about appropriate income tax distribution.

Although it does acknowledge that as income taxes rise on low income workers that wages must raise as well or you end up with an ineffective workforce.

Which is why he is arguing for increased taxation on luxury goods.

Did you even read the article that Ravenstorm quoted?

[Daniel]

Obama's plan is not wealth redistribution. You're being stupid. 100% of those 40% who don't pay income taxes still have some form of tax burden.

[Gan]

Obama's plan is not wealth redistribution. You're being stupid. 100% of those 40% who don't pay income taxes still have some form of tax burden.

Yea? What other federal tax burdens do they have?

[Daniel]

Did you even read the article that Ravenstorm quoted?

yes. Did you? What point are you hoping to make here?

[Gan]

yes. Did you? What point are you hoping to make here?
Now you're asking me to be repetitive. Go back and reread my posts and you'll see my point.

[Daniel]

Yea? What other federal tax burdens do they have?

Seriously? FICA. Medicare. Sales tax. Gasoline tax. Import tax. Etc.

[Gan]

Seriously? FICA. Medicare. Sales tax. Gasoline tax. Import tax. Etc.

FICA/Medicare = Thats given back with the tax refund at years end. FICA is. Medicare pays for healthcare that they use.

Sales Tax = not on necessity items. Unless you're saying they should have those 20" rims and that 50" plasma. Besides, this is not a federal tax.

Gas Tax = valid tax argument. Doubtful the exposure is significant.

Import Tax = not on necessity items.

[Daniel]

FICA/Medicare = Thats given back with the tax refund at years end. FICA is. Medicare pays for healthcare that they use.

Sales Tax = not on necessity items. Unless you're saying they should have those 20" rims and that 50" plasma. Besides, this is not a federal tax.

Gas Tax = valid tax argument. Doubtful the exposure is significant.

Import Tax = not on necessity items.


Wrong.

[Gan]

Wrong.
:facepalm:

[Daniel]

Now you're asking me to be repetitive. Go back and reread my posts and you'll see my point.


No. I'm asking you to defend your fallacious argument that this chapter has anything whatsoever to do with the current discussion.

[Gan]

No. I'm asking you to defend your fallacious argument that this chapter has anything whatsoever to do with the current discussion.

Considering its the chapter where the author of the article Ravenstorm quoted pulled one of Smith's quotes from. Its relevancy, or more appropriately its irrelevancy has everything to do with it.

I figured you were smart enough to see that.

Looks like I was wrong.

[Daniel]

Context is your friend gan. It's pretty ridiculous to say someone chopped up a quote and then to pull something wildly out of context to prove your point. Then again who am I talking to? My bad.

[Gan]

Context is your friend gan. It's pretty ridiculous to say someone chopped up a quote and then to pull something wildly out of context to prove your point. Then again who am I talking to? My bad.

Comprehension and following a point through a thread is your friend. Too bad you dont reach out to that friend more often.

[Daniel]

irony

[Gan]

LOL

Whatever dude.

[Warriorbird]

And there you have the response from Republicans on John McCain believing whatever's convenient. I hope it carries through the election.

[Gan]

And there you have the response from Republicans on John McCain believing whatever's convenient. I hope it carries through the election.
:facepalm2: