Jon, the sad truth is that probably very few in his audience will make that connection. People's basic knowledge of politics is limited enough as it is.

news.yahoo.com/.../americansflunksimple3questionpoliticalsurvey

It's worse than that, Jonathan.  Obama's tax cut only goes to workers subject to payroll taxes, so Obama is not "giving away" anything to people who do not pay taxes.  

I've also heard McCain surrogates -- if not McCain himself -- call Obama's plan "welfare," which it isn't, and which McCain is saying in order to get white people thinking that Obama wants to expand welfare.

McCain really is despicable.  I was one of the many who believed in the mythos surrounding him.  My sense is that, yes, McCain has changed for the worse, but there was an element of the unprincipled opportunist in him all along.

Obama  knows that  tnr bloggers Are Stupid

Obama  really is despicable,  there was an element of the unprincipled opportunist in him all along.

Who's stupid?  McCain's $5000 health credit would apply to every American family.  Obama's income tax plan is to take more from those who pay most of the tax and hand it out to people who don't pay income tax to begin with.  That's called income re-distribution and it's about time McCain woke up and explained it -- with or without Joe the Plumber.

Incidentally, Obama's plan to lay an additional social security tax on high income families is the greatest departure yet from FDR's original plan.  So much for defending one of the pillars of the new deal.

rozenson said:

"People's basic knowledge of politics is limited enough as it is."

This is the reason why so many of them are going to vote for Obama.

Jonathan Cohn said

"Presidential campaigns are full of hypocrisy, of course. But I can't remember the last time a candidate was this brazen about it."

Every single Obama's speach is a brazen lie. You just don't notice that.

He's been waiting soo long, and it is his turn - say anything, do anything.

And if you are wondering where civil liberties groups and the mainstream media are, you have to understand: the First Amendment ranks considerably lower than getting The One elected. On his way out the door, Attorney General Mukasey might perform one last bit of public service and give a series of lectures on the centrality of free speech, the sanctity of free and fair elections, and the utter inappropriateness of using the power of the state to silence your opponents.

And, as we start to bear an uncanny resemblance to a banana republic — complete with a cult of The Leader, roaming thugs in support of the same,  and fraud-tainted voting – you’ll know that we really are experiencing “change.” Whether this is a passing spasm of election exuberance or a frightful look at the future remains to be seen

www.commentarymagazine.com/.../39011

For you Jacob, it is a frightful look at the future.  And that future is coming not a minute too soon.

lsernoff, since you are against income redistribution, does that mean you are against any kind of progressive taxation? The tax rate that I pay without any hardship would keep a low-income family from affording food by the end of the month. Do you think that would be fairer, or make for a better and more stable society?

Or if progressive taxation is OK for you, what principle makes Obama's relatively small changes to the tax code inappropriate redistribution? Is McCain's proposal to allow investors to pax taxes at a 10% rate on their capital gains but write off 25%+ of their capital losses not also redistribution?

JEFF FREY said

progressive taxation is OK. Today the bottom half of Americans pay 1% of all federal taxes.  Under Obama plan overall federal,   state,  local,  SS, medicare taxes for people with income over 250K will be 65%.   You can't have a stable society where 5% of taxpayers provide for education, SS, healthcare, alternative energy, pensions for the rest of 95%

"jacobt1 said:

rozenson said:

"People's basic knowledge of politics is limited enough as it is."

This is the reason why so many of them are going to vote for Obama."

That's why jacobt1 stays with the Republicans - so that he can steal some more, like his kleptocratic masters who ruined the US economy.

"Who's stupid?  McCain's $5000 health credit would apply to every American family."

One might point out that universal health care would apply to every American family also (it's the meaning of the word "universal"), but the bigger question is why would people earning over, say, $250k need a $5000 health credit?  They don't earn enough to get reasonable insurance now?  And even if it did go to everyone, how will the $5000 help if the system is still gate-keepered (gate-kept?) by insurers who deny people coverage on grounds of pre-existing conditions?  The crucial question of access is not addressed in any way by McCain.

Jacobt1, show us where you get your numbers.  Exactly where you get them, from an unbiased source (ie Congressional Budget Office, IRS data, etc.).  I'd like to see your facts.  I got mine from digging this UN study:

www.wider.unu.edu/.../05-12-2006

As I read the graphs and other data I found (like at the US Census), 10% of the US population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.  If you've got a strata of society that controls damned near all the assets of society and they're only 5-10% of the population then it makes sense they'd pay the bulk of taxes.  They've got all the money.  

All I see you and your ilk fomenting class warfare.  You want to soak the poor and less fortunate and call the other side as being class warriors.  I've heard that canard from your side about "class warfare" since Reagan when it was obvious your side is the one waging it for the wealthy.  We've had 8 more years of that and look at what that brought us: fiscal ruin, massive deficits as far as the eye can see, and a wrecked country.  The last time we had a Dem in the White House the same charges were made against him that are being made against Obama, but he (Clinton) left the country in VASTLY better shape than he found it and left us with massive surpluses.  Leave it the pubes to wreck it all.

Unlike the rightwingers, I believe in data, real measurable facts and results.  All I see from the right are unverifiable claims and smears.  When we had a Dem in the White House, the country benefited.  When we put a pube in there, we suffer.  It's that simple.

sleepyavl said,

"who ruined the US economy"

We know who control the US economy as well as global economy. We know own the banks. We know who ruined the global economy. J-ws.

sleepyavl said,

"That's why jacobt1 stays with the Republicans - so that he can steal some more, like his kleptocratic masters who ruined the US economy."

You don't have to be a republican to steal.  Fannie/Fredy robbers are all democrats.

tnmats said:,

"10% of the US population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. "

Obama is not going to tax assets. He is going to tax  income (65% marginal rate) Therefore he will prevent people from getting rich. Only old wealth is allowed by Obama. this is why many very rich people support Obama. He is not going to tax them.

Can someone please ban this Anti-semitic jackass?  Marty?  Anyone?  

The $5k tax credit is a joke.  McCain's entire plan would finally destroy the employer-based medical insurance system in the US, and his wanting to drop state control of plans would be the ultimate shaft to the public.  It would be a race to the bottom EXACTLY like we saw with the credit card business when it was deregulated.

I just got my 2009 benefits sign-up package from my employer today.  I'm one of the lucky ones who works for a large company with a good medical plan.  Between my employer and me the plan costs over $13,000/year for my family.  I pay about $2,700 out of pocket for the premium, and that's not including the co-pays that I incur during the year.  Under McCain's plan, it would encourage my employer to dump the plan as we'd all loose the tax deduction for the premiums.  His $5k credit won't come close to replacing the big group plan I have.  I'd loose big time under his plan, in terms of money and quality of insurance.  There is no way I could get that plan for $13k under an individual plan.  Anyone who thinks so has  terminal case of cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.  I've helped my brother, a self-employed family man, search for a medical plan.  A plan similar to mine (but with higher co-pays) was nearly $20k/year, and all pre-existing conditions were exempted.   His wife recently got a job with the state so his medical costs have dropped dramatically as he's on her plan now. Again, a big group plan to the rescue.

For McCain to propose his plan as "better" than what we have now is a bald faced lie, as has been exceptionally well reported by Jonathan Cohn here in TNR for months now.  McCain's plan would be an unmitigated disaster for the country, and even he didn't bother to defend it in the debates, nor did his pit bull with lipstick try to defend it in her debate with Biden.

Where did you get the 65% marginal rate?  Even in the bad ol' 70s it wasn't that high.  What a lie.  Get your facts straight dumbass.  Directly from Obama's web site:

Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

www.barackobama.com/taxes

It's lying liars like you Jacobt1 that give pubes such a horrible reputation.  You guys wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.  Then again, facts are for liberals, right?  You might want to join us in the reality-based community for a change.

Don't worry Crock.  The likes of our 'friend' Jacobt1 just shows you the angry racists McCain has supporting him and the American public is seeing now what really the Republican Party has degenerated into.

tnmats said:

"Where did you get the 65% marginal rate? "

I've said "Under Obama plan overall federal,   state,  local,  SS, medicare taxes for people with income over 250K will be 65%"

You forgot about Obama's proposal to extend SS taxes .

campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post

So Joe would be earning 39.5 cents on the dollar for every dollar he made after $250,000.

It's tougher in other parts of the country. If you live in New York City, you pay a state income tax of 8.14 percent and a city income tax up to 4 percent. In those circumstances, you're keeping a little over thirty-five cents of every dollar you make after $250,000.

jacobt1 said:

"We know who control the US economy as well as global economy. We know own the banks. We know who ruined the global economy. J-ws."

Crock1701 said:

"Can someone please ban this Anti-semitic jackass?  Marty?  Anyone? "

Crok1, FYI,

en.wikipedia.org/.../Sarkasm

Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning especially in order to sneeringly, slyly, jest or mock a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound. Sarcasm can also be used in a humorous or jesting way depending on the intent of the person speaking.[

McCain thinks we're stupid?  Hell, he's counting on it!  Who but the stupid would vote for him?

And it looks like he's got jacobt1's votre.

JEFF FREY:  I am by no means opposed to progressive taxation. Nor am I opposed to the earned income credit.  FYI, as best I understand Obama's tax plans, they won't affect me at all, in my retirement.  I had the privilege of earning enough, for a few years, to pay Clinton's top tax rate.  No problemo.  Return to that doesn't bother me, and, as I remember, wouldn't unduly bother a lot of high earners tomorrow.  The social security change would, however, be punitive, and, I believe, non-productive economically.  Socially, it could threaten a social compact that has held for more than seventy years.  If Obama backed off that point, I'd have no problem with him.  But, I think he is  a re-distributionist; and I do not believe that is, over time, good for those among us who want to move forward.

ironyroad:  You don't like McCain's health plan. Vote against it!  We are moving slowly away from an employer-based system, post WW2, to a new world.  One party has a plan to try to preserve a private system, the other party wants to move to a european- Canadian system.  What will be will be.  As a retiree, in Florida, I have occasion to see how medicare works.  It becomes a social network as much as a health-care network.   Add the rest of the population, we'll spend 20% of GDP on heath care; and we'll all be poor.  

From his campaign website:  "Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee)."

It seems to me that using that rough guide, on the lines of 3% of $250,000, you get to an extra levy of $7,500.  That means that if you earn $500,000 the extra SS burden would be $15,000.  If you pay taxes in such as way as that you have, say, $325,000 in income after tax, then the extra SS payment burden would reduce your available income to $310,000.  Think you could live on that?

Maybe it would be good to try, as the moral effect of inflated earnings for some and then a vast gulf in wealth between the rich and everyone else has been bad for this country.  This isn't to say that we want a kind of "envy" society in which all wealth is condemned, but the conservative obsession -- and I don't think that's too strong a word -- with taxation and the goal of rolling back history to before 1929 is destroying the social fabric of this country -- which makes me think that modern American conservatism isn't so conservative after all.  It's Destructivism.

lsernoff says:  "It (medicare) becomes a social network as much as a health-care network."

Well, I'm inclined to think that the best health-care network has to be in some ways a social network too, as health is about much more than just the absence of diagnosable illness.

In any case, I have personally nothing ideological against private health insurance -- I merely note that private health insurance works best within a structure of public provision and regulation, and that analogies between consumers of hamburgers or cars and citizens needing health care are simplistic and largely meaningless, as there is no normal "market" for health insurance in the way there is for regular consumer products (or even other kinds of insurance).  I would note further that there is no reason to assume that universal provision will increase poverty, as the efficiencies of a broader-based system will help to keep costs under control.  Neither France, nor Canada, nor Germany, nor the UK, could be described as poor, and certainly not because of their health care systems.

ironyroad said:

"Maybe it would be good to try, as the moral effect of inflated earnings for some and then a vast gulf in wealth between the rich and everyone else has been bad for this country. "

So, can you explain what is a moral tax rate including all federal, state and local taxes  for a couple with two children making 250K. If they make 260K next year, how much more  ALL taxes should  they  pay? Do you think that  5K in  extra taxes would be moral enough?

lsernoff, I don't agree with you that minor changes to the Social Security tax, as Obama has proposed, would be punitive. Removing the cap on income completely would be a large change, but that's not what Obama has proposed. But I would strongly prefer that any changes in the Social Security tax be done as part of a comprehensive plan to improve the long-term solvency of Social Security. I would prefer that it be taken up separately from any changes to income taxes.

I also think that we are on the path toward spending 20% of GDP on health care with our present system. But I don't think we're getting nearly the value for our money as other countries are, and I think our present system is starting to break down already. I doubt my kids' employers will provide health care, so unless the government does in some form I predict very nasty consequences down the road.

Ignore. The. Troll. Sarcasm, right.

"So, can you explain what is a moral tax rate including all federal, state and local taxes  for a couple with two children making 250K?"

Sure, a morally legitimate federal tax rate (the business of the Congress and the president -- we're not talking about state or local) would be a taxation regime that didn't punish the couple for making a lot of bucks but substantial enough to make their contribution to the common needs of the country -- roads, defense, education, communication, and things we all need and use -- appropriate for people at the more prosperous end of the income chain who benefit more from the system that enables their higher income.  That's in normal times -- in times of war or major continuing national crisis they should pay a bit more (e.g. as in WW2).

ironyroad,

The business of the Congress and the president  is to make sure that there is something left for states and local communities to tax, so we have to talk about about state or local tax  rates. So what's your answer?  Do you think that  5K in  ALL extra taxes would be moral enough?  

I don't understand the premise of your question, jacob.  The business of the Congress is to set and administer a fair federal tax rate.  As I've explained, the basic moral issue -- I repeat, the *basic* moral issue -- is whether or not the tax rate is a reasonable levy on individual income and, as an extra condition, reflects the unequal benefit that individuals get from our system.  "Reasonable" varies from country to country, as what is ok in, say, Norway, would not be so here in the U.S.  

I don't earn anything like $250k myself, so I have no idea what individual or family finances look like up there, and it would be dumb to play around with numbers (perhaps you're more familiar with that milieu).  Should I ever get to those dizzy income heights myself, I like to think I would be satisfied -- not happy, but satisfied -- to pay a bit more.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., said, what you get for your taxes is civilization.

JEFF FREY:  Thank you for your thoughtful response to my comments above.  Here are my responses:  First, as to taxation of the "rich", the whole who-ha about the Bush tax cuts, when they were made, is that they cut the top rate from 39% under Clinton, back to 35%.  Would the world come to an end if the prosperous had to pay another 4%, again?  I think not.  They did fine under Clinton, did fine under Bush, and will keep on doing fine if they go back to 39% again.  But, if you change 70 years worth of social security taxation and don't just say we'll raise the taxable base--as usual--and instead say we won't tax everybody the same up to a point, but instead say we're cutting out everybody between $100,000 and $250,000 and then we'll tax the "rich" another 6%, you start to sound like Huey Long, not FDR.  The "rich" are not stupid; even rich liberals are not stupid.  They will get the picture that the system isn't "progressive", it's aimed at  them.  As it happens, the rich aren't rich for nothing; they will figure out a strategy to protect themselves.  The poor will end up paying, as usual, for misplaced generosity.  Obama's stated plan is not a return to "justice"; it is a radical and punitive change.  Most importantly, it sends the wrong message to the job-creators in our society.  Lest I sound, like a plutocrat, let me assert that my understanding of Obama's proposals would not cost me one thin dime.

As for health care, I retired to Florida five years ago and am on Medicare.  Fine for me.  Except that many of my friends and neighbors fill their senior citizen social schedules with incessant visits to the doctors; and the doctors are only too happy to oblige.  If people are covered for everything--PERIOD-- don't expect them or their caregivers to discipline themselves.  There must be a better way.  Help the needy, of course, but ask a little more of those able to pay (if only to every now and then suffer a routine ache or pain without demanding immediate surcease, like our forbears did, or else cough up a fee).  No society can afford 20% of its GDP spent on medicine without some means of rationing care.

"Where did you get the 65% marginal rate?  Even in the bad ol' 70s it wasn't that high. "

Actually in the 70's the top marginal rate for the federal income tax was 70%, which was lower than it had been for the 3 decades before that.  Hell, from 1951-1963 it was over 91%.  That historical perspective is something to keep in mind when you hear the dire predictions about the disasters of increasing it from 35% to 39%.

lsernoff, thanks for the compliment and let me return it. But I am pretty sure that we have adjusted social security taxation before. It's not like the tax system has been exactly like it is now for 70 years. Maybe I am wrong, but I think the upper limit (above which income is exempt from SS tax) has been adjusted upward over time. In fact, it ought to be simply because of inflation (just as SS benefits have to rise over time for inflation). So I don't think changes in the tax structure can be considered verboten. In any case, the Obama web site describes it as part of a bipartisan plan to be phased in over years (presumably that means they understand any bill to implement changes must be bipartisan), and the whole thing is described in about 3 sentences. So I might prefer a slightly different implementation, but I don't see adjusting the tax system as being radical and wrong.

And Obama's idea is a hell of a lot better than McCain's privatization. Privatization requires either cutting off present retirees and near-retirees and letting them work 'til they drop or starve to death if they did not save enough on their own, or borrowing (print) huge sums of money to pay present retirees while current workers' money goes nto private accounts. To even talk about privatization without leveling with people about what it means is utterly dishonest. Talk about breaking 70 years worth of promises!

You raise a good point about people making unnecessary use of health care and wasting resources. Right now it is in the financial interest of the doctor to milk the patient for all they can get (my late grandmother's doctor was a good example of this), and in some cases there is limited incentive on the patient to conserve care $$. But I find it hard to imagine how to solve that problem without bureaucratic rationing or without co-pays or similar financial penalties for using health care services that could easily bankrupt lower-income people who actually do need the care. Actually, I can see one way to limit it -- take the profit motive away from the doctors by making them salaried employees. But that is a truly radical change, not likely to be discussed. It is incompatible with our present national ideology that free markets are the best way to handle everything, including things that a financial market model does not handle well.

lsernoff,

I personally have never really understood why there is a cap at all on the social security tax.  The result is simply that it's a regressive tax (the more you make, the lower the percentage of your income you are taxed for social security).  Are there any other programs that we fund like this?  Why not just treat it like every other government service?

And all this talk about Dems wanting punitive rates seems paranoid to me.  You don't tax the rich because they're a bunch of greedy bastards that deserve it.  You tax the rich for the same reason that Jesse James robbed banks: that's where the money is.

I'd also like to expand on a point that I made very briefly above, that there is no normal "market" for health insurance in the way there is for regular consumer products (or even other kinds of insurance).  The problem is that the market model assumes that consumers go looking for an insurance product and that the market will inevitably provide that product, as it's a desired product and therefore it will be provided.  The problem is that while, in the case of car insurance, the models assess the likelihood of accidents on a number of factors and structure rates accordingly (and there are many people who never have an accident), the very different problem with health insurance is that people will inevitably get ill.  

As we're dealing with human existence here, It's almost impossible to imagine life happening without illness, while it's possible to imagine a zero-accident rate for a driver, and therefore the consumer doesn't confront a set of providers/companies saying, "you look like an ok driver so we'll take a chance on you," but rather a set of providers/companies saying "you will get sick, so I'm not really that interested in you, and if you're sick now, I don't want to see you at all."  Now, the health insurance "market" outside of regularly employed people in jobs with benefits operates as if you tried to get car insurance while trapped in a vehicle at the scene of an accident.

In sum, it's very difficult to get a reasonable market going because there aren't too many options:  people will get old, people will get sick, people will need treatment.  This doesn't mean that the solution has to be a complete public sector system, however, but what is probably most needed (if we want to keep private enterprise involved) is a complex of public and private insurance in which the private insurance companies are rewarded for eradicating bureaucracy and receive tax credits for accepting participants who are not good risks, and a public insurance facility is available for other cases (like the AOK in Germany, which is bound by law to accept all applications), and remains, most importantly, open to young, healthy "good risk" participants too.  Then you would have something like a real choice, and a market, but it requires that level of government structuring (it would not have to be the feds, but there would need to be some national standards that are clearly enforced).

ironyroad said

"I don't earn anything like $250k myself .Should I ever get to those dizzy income heights"

You probably got one of the useless majors such as communications, women studies or something like that so you have to work as a community organizer.  Therefore your only hope to make nice living is for Obama to spread money around.  A family of two engineers can easily make 200K . It's not being rich.

and Jacob that normal couple making $200 k is still better off with Obama's plan.

jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1acob1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1jacobt1

sigh

ironyroad, excellent posts on health insurance. I'll back you up by sharing something I learned from Joan Didion, writing in the current NY Rev of Books:

"The leading candidates duly presented their 'health care solutions,' not one of which addressed the core problem, which is the $350 billion a year it costs, according to a Harvard Medical School study, to cut in the commercial insurance industry."

To my mind the policy issue that health insurance most resembles is education. You can point to Medicare and say, "Look, when the government gets involved, the quality of care goes down," just as you can point to a failing school and say, "I'd rather send my kid to Andover." Bully for you, if you can pay for boutique education and boutique medical care, but a growing number of Americans can pay for neither.

Then, too, you can also point to triumphs of the public sector, such as our research universities, or an excellent public school (such as the one my son will be attending in two years). And both public education done right and health care reform done right would be investments that pay off in the long run--preventing illness and dumbness, infant mortality rates and bad, turd-eating puppy dogs like jacobt1.

And jacobt1, I hesitate to even sniff one of the turds you've dragged in, but your last post here indulges one of the canards I find most morally noxious--the equating of wealth and success.They correlate in some corners of a transparent marketplace, no doubt, but I think if we have learned anything this year it's that not all wealthy people in America are "successful," or even good, and not all people of modest means are "failures." If we take your own figure--$200,000 of taxable income a year--as the measure of wealth, then the best teachers are not wealthy, whether they teach at Andover or Stuyvesant High. The best nurses are not wealthy. The best artisits are often not wealthy in their lifetimes. The best police officers are not wealthy. Etc., etc. But maybe you and McCain have no use for such people.

Blech! That's one stinky turd. Eat it, or get it out of here.

Nippers said,

"If we take your own figure--$200,000 of taxable income a year"

Didn't you notice that I was talking about a family of two working parents.

Two best nurses or police officers  can make 200K. Don't forget that they are also get untaxable benefits.  

" we have learned anything this year it's that not all wealthy people in America are "successful," or even good,"

Yes,  most of them are very good,  they pay most of the taxes.

McCain:  "How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now?"

Answer: Progressive taxation for the wealthy

micjimenez:

FYI: zero /2 = zero.

jacobt1,

You're wrong, even with two working parents. For a police officer or nurse to incur a tax raise under Obama he or she would have to earn more than $125,000 a year in taxable income. Here, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are the earnings of nurses:

"Median annual earnings of registered nurses were $57,280 in May 2006. The middle 50 percent earned between $47,710 and $69,850. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $40,250, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $83,440."

And here are the earnings of police officers:

"Police and sheriff’s patrol officers had median annual earnings of $47,460 in May 2006. The middle 50 percent earned between $35,600 and $59,880. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $27,310, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $72,450. Median annual earnings were $43,510 in Federal Government, $52,540 in State government, and $47,190 in local government."

You do the math--if you can.

jacobtl spits:  "You probably got one of the useless majors such as communications, women studies or something like that so you have to work as a community organizer."

Not that job, but I'm generally very happy in my work.  There are rewards other than the purely financial.  But the most important thing, jacob, is that I'm not a bad-tempered and unpleasant human being.

Even people who pay zero Federal income tax pay payroll taxes to the Federal government. But hey, why demand consistency? After all, if you cut the capital gains tax in half and most people pay no capital gains taxes, why doesn't this same argument come up?

ironyroad said:

"Not that job, but I'm generally very happy in my work.  There are rewards other than the purely financial"

You are just being unpatriotic, refusing to find a job that reward you financially so that you can pay more taxes helping less fortunate than you.

JEFF FREY said,

"Federal income tax pay payroll taxes to the Federal government"

No, they are supposed to be. They are your contribution to your SS.

Nippers said,

"Median annual earnings of registered nurses "

Read your postings. You were talking about "best nurses or police officers"

Best  Head Nurse - Operating Room $122,904

swz.salary.com/.../swzl_salaryresults.asp

So, as you can see family of two good nurses are rich according to Obama and 65% of their salary increases will be taken  from them

jacob sallies:  "You are just being unpatriotic, refusing to find a job that reward you financially so that you can pay more taxes helping less fortunate than you."

No I'm not.  My job rewards me in other ways that satisfy me (as I said, not financial ways), so I'm ok with what I'm paying in taxes, and furthermore I have no problem supporting Obama's attempt to get richer folks to be a little more "patriotic."  I'm ok with my patriotism and ok with Obama's.  I'd say my general happiness is also patriotic, as I do the work I do well, and it increases the general level of education in the country.

ironyroad,

I see, you support Obama's attempt  to make other people to  pay more taxes, but you don't want to work harder and pay more taxes, instead you found a job that satisfies you but doesn't pay much. How unpatriotic. For you, it's not the country first, it's  your general happiness first.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Irony

Yes, but it's ok, as my general happiness *helps* the country, improves it, if you like, and nobody would enjoy it if I was miserable.  We'd all be much worse off, believe me.

Stop giving excuses and start paying more taxes.

jacob -- there's a rule:  when you're out of arguments, just pack it in.  Otherwise you become a bit of an irritation.

If Obama's plan is "welfare" or "redistribution" then the Republicans have just rejected their very own sainted Ronald Reagan, who oversaw the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and called it "the very best" anti-poverty measure ever created.