Patterico's Pontifications

10/12/2008

Obama’s Tax Plan and the Plumber (Updated)

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 6:50 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Barack Obama campaigned today door-to-door in a middle class Ohio neighborhood where he ran into a plumber who questioned Obama about the impact of his tax plan on a business the plumber planned to buy. Obama explained that the plumber should vote for Obama even though he would raise his taxes because:

I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts,” Obama said.

It’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

Compulsory redistribution of income from a plumber to other working people. What’s fair about that?

UPDATE 10/13/2008: Gateway Pundit has the video.

— DRJ

57 Responses to “Obama’s Tax Plan and the Plumber (Updated)”

  1. “It’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

    And isn’t that exactly what McCain is doing by having taxpayers take on the burden of folks who bought too much house and now can’t afford their mortgage?

    “Gotcha” doesn’t work when your candidate is doing the same thing, but isn’t as honest about it.

    Phil (3b1633)

  2. Forced redistribution. SHOCKA.

    Racist

    JD (f7900a)

  3. Phil,

    So because McCain’s policies aren’t perfect, we conservatives should throw out all our values and vote for the socialist? That doesn’t make much sense.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  4. Comment by DRJ — 10/12/2008 @ 8:36 pm

    That’s because you’re not a Socialist.

    Another Drew (912e22)

  5. Socialist-ists.

    For whatever reason, that one made me laugh. Almost as much as when someone typed looks-ist.

    JD (f7900a)

  6. I have never understood the idea, usually pushed by Mobys, that because McCain is not an ideal candidate, that somehow makes Baracky palatable.

    JD (f7900a)

  7. DRJ, you are wrong. He won’t redistribute income to other working people. The working people will have their incomes redistributed to non-working people. I thought you knew that. At least he admits it so those who vote for him have no excuse.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  8. JD…Such reasoning seems to be an article of faith among large-L libertarians.
    They constantly argue for the perfect v the good.
    Since most of them are brain-addled druggies, it doesn’t seem to be a far jump for them to support a self-admitted coke-sniffer too.

    Another Drew (912e22)

  9. Was the plumber’s response unprintable or is he have a long talk with the Secret Service.

    EDP (c0cf47)

  10. What makes anyone think that the announced plan (#3 or 4) will be the one the rubber-stamp Congress gets? His earlier income tax plans were much harder on the upper middle class.

    Same with Social Security taxes, capital gains, gun control, NAFTA, etc. Election conversions all.

    And remember that Obama said “unequivocally” that he would not run for President in 2008, and after he ran he promised that he would use public funding.

    Seem s like Obama says what we want to hear, and many of us are still believing it. I gess this is the “all of the people some of the time” part.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  11. Is it too late to switch to Romney-Palin?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  12. How is it that CNN could talk about him going door to door, but forgot to mention the guy that asked him a question that actually affects people?

    Allen (defdde)

  13. We’ve gone through this already, but you seem unwilling to understand: giving more benefits to those with less money than you does not increase your tax bill.

    Nanker Phelge (f26fef)

  14. Fudge Wanker once again displays his obtuseness.

    Another Drew (912e22)

  15. “We’ve gone through this already”

    Nanker – Exactly. Feel free to stop inventing ways to distort the positions of people on this blog any time you are ready.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  16. this post is here kids.
    And both of you know that, because both of you -Drew, Daley- posted comments.
    It’s from friday, remember?

    Nanker Phelge (f26fef)

  17. I can tell you why socialists prefer to raise taxes on those who earn the most in annual income than lower them.

    It works this way: The money gained through higher taxes can then be distributed by the government to those who are not working. This perpetuates dependency. People are kept reliant on government for their needs and self-reliance and self-initiative are discouraged.

    Letting some people use their money to create or encourage the creation of jobs, or to otherwise promote enterpreneurship means that the socialist loses not only control over the money they would otherwise get from the ultra-rich, but control over the lives of the poor. Even though gainfully employed poor people would very likely be paying taxes of their own. Very likely more tax than the ultra-rich would’ve payed had their taxes remained high.

    Really it’s not about taxes but control. The socialist has to be in control. He can’t let things be, as we’ve seen in the ongoing credit kerfuffle, he has to do something about it. The question of positive impact has nothing to do with it. By this we can see that McCain is as much a socialist on this subject as Obama.

    Once roomed with a girl. Leukemia survivor, and the treatment they used had the effect of screwing with the nerves in her legs. We got a cat through an ad, and decided we would ‘foster’ her and her kittens when they were born.

    So she set up a box for the kittens to be born in. I told here the cat would be having the kittens under her bed. She didn’t believe me.

    The cat had the kittens under the bed.

    When my roommate asked me how I knew the cat would have the kittens under the bed I replied, “Because it’s safe and dark under your bed.”

    My roommate thought she needed to control where a cat gave birth. Obama thinks he needs to control how the poor get the money they need to live on. She learned she was wrong. Can Obama learn the same lesson?

    Alan Kellogg (e4d258)

  18. “By this we can see that McCain is as much a socialist on this subject as Obama.”

    Alan – You made a very compelling argument in support of this point. Thanks.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  19. Smooth talker that he is, I nonetheless give Obama credit for at least being upfront enough to have told the plumber that his taxes will be raised under a leftwing White House. Then again, the idea of raising taxes isn’t exactly a difficult concept for a person of his ilk to be espousing.

    If the US starts to take on glimmers of a Banana Republic, with Obama as President and the liberal-dominated legislature at his beck and call — and I imagine Democrats will be bowing before Obama’s shrine, if only to protect his uniqueness and legacy (eg, America’s first black president!) — the people who’ll come out ahead will be government workers and their unions.

    Expect to see more and more variations of the following throughout the country — on the local, state and federal levels — as demonstrated by a big backer of Obama who’s no less oriented to the political left:


    Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa offered a bleak financial forecast for city government over the next two years on Saturday, warning that deep cuts to services and other belt-tightening measures would be unavoidable because of the worsening economic downturn.

    Villaraigosa said the city’s budget shortfall could exceed $400 million next year, far worse than expected. That could lead to workforce reductions and have a significant effect when the city negotiates new labor contracts with police and firefighters.

    Along with eliminating hundreds of jobs — some filled, some not — for which money had been set aside, the city has tripled the trash collection fee and preserved its $243-million telephone tax. Villaraigosa said he eliminated the fiscal sleights-of-hand used in previous administrations, including the practice of dipping into the city’s emergency fund.

    Villaraigosa’s critics, however, say the mayor’s spending priorities and concessions to the city’s powerful labor unions have erased many of the added revenues and budget reforms and exacerbated the city’s financial troubles.

    Along with Villaraigosa’s program to hire more police officers, the mayor and the City Council in December approved a package of employee pay increases that will cost $255 million by 2012 — doing so despite warnings of a recession. Villaraigosa said that, at the time, the city expected its overall revenues to increase and that he never would have agreed to the package had he known what was to come.

    The mayor’s proposed job cuts led to the elimination of fewer than 600 funded job positions this year. Although those cuts saved millions of dollars, most of those slots were vacant. Ultimately, officials now confirm, only a single employee was laid off

    .

    Mark (cfa800)

  20. Back in April, Michelle told us that “someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” Give up, take away…either way, somebody’s gettin’ screwed, pie-wise….

    jana (a8071c)

  21. Ya know making $600 dollars an hour is real cool, until you find out your plumber makes $850 an hour!

    Oh and you will be calling him/her some day, even if it’s a plunger job! Minimum one hour charge ya know, plus fixed trip charge.

    TC (0b9ca4)

  22. We’ve gone through this already, but you seem unwilling to understand: giving more benefits to those with less money than you does not increase your tax bill.

    Comment by Nanker Phelge — 10/12/2008 @ 9:28 pm

    Even Seantor Obama says, “95% of people will get a tax cut.”

    What if you’re one of the “5%?”

    Wouldn’t that increase your tax bill?

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  23. giving more benefits to those with less money than you does not increase your tax bill.

    Unless, you know, you expect government to stay within a budget.

    (I know, I know. Never will happen.)

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  24. “giving more benefits to those with less money than you does not increase your tax bill.”

    Are these benefits free? If not, where does the money come from?

    Does Home Depot sell benefit saplings?

    Ghost of Ted Gold (af6fdb)

  25. It seems hundreds of “racist” economists have a problem with Obama’s tax plan.

    We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

    After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  26. Obama is perfectly free to voluntarily give his five million dollars in assets to those in need. So is miserly Joe Biden. But we should not allow him to burden those who create jobs now in even greater need than before, with higher taxes. The people Obama wants to tax more already pay nearly seventy percent of all income taxes. How is it fair that 10 percent of the people pay seventy percent of the taxes, Obama and his socialist allies never answer.

    eaglewingz08 (98291e)

  27. You left out the last comment captured in this exchange… Obama said He thought spreading the wealth around was a good thing for everybody.

    You should report all the truth… This speaks directly to his Socialistic agenda.

    Deborah (b41bac)

  28. “I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut,” Obama explained.

    These people are so poor they get some of my money?! Oh, right, their unions back Obama.

    I bet that’s the last personal canvassing Obama does.

    Patricia (ee5c9d)

  29. We’ve gone through this already, but you seem unwilling to understand: giving more benefits to those with less money than you does not increase your tax bill.

    Comment by Nanker Phelge — 10/12/2008 @ 9:28 pm
    Yes it does increase the individual’s overall tax bill – either in the form of an increase in rates to cover the additional benefits, or an increase in inflation, printing more money to cover the costs) or borrowing money to pay for the benefits and increasing overall borrowing costs. And lastly perpeutating the non-productive/dependency class creating the lasting need.

    Joe - Dallas (d7c430)

  30. I think Obama did not go far enough with his plan but he is on the right track..

    I was happy to get my check from the Bush Admin (Stimulus Rebate!!!- rich people got 0 then also… yes!!!)
    I will be more happy if Obama gives me some more money from someone else that earned too much (they don’t need that much money anyway)—but I think more than 200k or even 100k may be more appropriate maybe he can do that in a couple years, hopefully.
    I wonder if obama could redistribute cars also I only have one (and its not mine b/c I am still making payments) and some rich people have bunches of cars, I think they do not need more than two cars( maybe a “third car tax” that equals the value of the car that is then given out as a “car credit”).
    Hopefully, obamas penalty taxes to those rich jerks (making more than me) will be enough to get us all closer in income levels.

    Above is a good start but next….
    I hope obama can set std salary ranges for all occupations and have the government regulate that so that life will be more “fair”.

    Bryan (8a16ee)

  31. Bryan,

    Do you have goals where you can see yourself earning more than $100,000 a year at some point in your life, or have you resigned yourself to the fact that the only way that will happen is if someone gives it to you?

    DRJ (c953ab)

  32. Getting these remarks on tape was a good thing. McCain should hit two ideas very hard on Wed; (1) easy to understand primer on how this will cost jobs & (2) inheritance tax on the boomers massive wealth may be too tempting for Dems to ignore

    Focusing on the first gets employees of small to medium businesses to be concerned, which of course means they share that concern with their circle.
    Mentioning the second will be offensive to those who have spent their life working hard for their money and dreaming of helping their children and grandchildren in the way they wish to irt inheritance

    He can use this “share the wealth” quote as the opening.

    voiceofreason2 (a03c76)

  33. Obama’s “95% of folks will get a tax cut” is a cruel joke or an outright deception. You decide.

    Over 40% of those filing tax returns pay NO tax, but in his plan they will still get a “tax cut”. That means they will be receiving a welfare check (AKA: tax credit check). Those paying taxes now will get to pay more taxes to cover the welfare checks. If you want Washington to decide how to redistribute your earnings, vote for Obama/Biden. If you want to keep more of your earnings and you want to decide to whom and when to give some of it away, vote for McCain/Palin.
    Also, if you are one of those who have your hand out, you may have a long wait. The democrats didn’t deliver on the same “tax cut” promise under Clinton, but of course this time will be different. Dream on!

    Paul (71c030)

  34. So, if Barack Obama and Michelle Obama really believe that everything over $250k should be taken away and “redistributed” to the poor, why haven’t they been practicing it with their OWN multimillion-dollar book revenues and Michelle’s $300k-plus salary?

    For the same reason that John Edwards whined about the “rich” while living in a mansion, and why Nancy Pelosi shrieks about “affordable housing” from her Wine Country vineyard.

    Let the Obama people here practice what they preach first. Obamabots, if you own your own business, from this day forward, you will give every dollar you make in revenue over $250k to the Federal government to be “redistributed” to people who pay no taxes.

    If you don’t support that and aren’t willing to do it yourself, stop trying to impose it on others.

    North Dallas Thirty (efe6ff)

  35. Bryan,

    You’re pulling all of our legs…right??? If not, my friend, you scare the crack out of me and the future of this society. You need to pick up a great book by M. Scott Peck…”The Road Less Traveled” and read the first line. “Life is difficult”, plain and simple. However, hard work, perserverance and commitment makes the difference…not looking for a hand out. Stop drinking the Obama Kool-Aid and get out there and work for what you get.

    JRD (6afa35)

  36. Yes I am “pulling legs” but this is the attitude of many people that support Obamas Socialistic Nightmare Policies

    Bryan (ba9d26)

  37. An interesting explanation at the WSJ.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  38. Are the Obamas going to set an example by forfeiting all of there own income in excess of $250k? How about the Hollywood shitehead elites? Instead Hollywood is getting tax breaks. Does Brad Pitt really deserve millions in tax subsidies from the poor state of Louisiana for his film efforts?

    madmax333 (0c6cfc)

  39. Ah, yes, somehow The Great Obama will wave his magic wand and “cut” taxes for people who currently pay none. There was a time they called that “welfare” but it’s much harder to sell that way.

    “I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.”

    I’m sure confiscating money from one person and giving it to another will provide LOTS of incentive for them to become more successful.

    the wolf (3cd7f8)

  40. I’m glad to see more people picking up on Hussein’s socialist agenda. And when he says he might consider postponing his tax increases, keep in mind he also said he would not run for president in 2008, and he vowed to only fund his campaign from public money. B.O. has a history of saying one thing and doing another. Classic politician, not the “Change we need”.

    It just too bad we have McCain on the opposite poll. If it had been Ron Paul at this point instead of McCain, there would be no contest. I would like to see a Paul-Palin or Palin-Paul ticket in 2012, assuming the Mayans were wrong and there will actually be a 2013.

    Troy (2130a2)

  41. Comment by Troy — 10/14/2008 @ 7:50 am

    Ron Paul couldn’t carry three counties in TX, let alone 270 Electoral Votes.
    Grow Up!

    Another Drew (767298)

  42. Do not say the words Nor Laup.

    JD (f7900a)

  43. It will be the “poor” people that actually get hurt in this, but for some reason it isn’t realized. The upper class that owns the small business will cut jobs to keep more of there money. The lower class will be the one’s with out a job. Of course Obama-Biden want this..it only gives the government more control just another step toward communism. I just hate that people are so blind…do some research. Not on there website…wording is everything.

    JG (d45e26)

  44. My answer to BHO’s Socialist income redistribution plan is this: You raise my taxes and I fire employees. PERIOD.
    I create jobs and I can take them away so don’t count on my either contributing one more penny in taxes to your pie, Barry, or to create a single new job.
    Capitalists believe that only by increasing the pie does EVERYONE get a bigger slice. Socialists believe that the pie can never be increased so everyone has to go on a diet!

    Denise (da1103)

  45. You guys are worried about socialism under Obama? That your tax money will be redistributed to others?

    Too late. We’re already there. President Bush and Secretary Paulson are buying direct stakes in banks. They’re handing over tax payer, no strings attached money to multi-national banks.

    So let me get this straight: giving tax money to poor people= bad. Giving tax money to rich bankers=awesome!

    Just like the saying, a chicken in every pot, we need ‘a yacht in every dock’.

    Jim (7612c2)

  46. So let me get this straight: giving tax money to poor people= bad. Giving tax money to rich bankers=awesome!

    Just like the saying, a chicken in every pot, we need ‘a yacht in every dock’.

    Comment by Jim — 10/14/2008 @ 3:18 pm

    Bailout=bad.

    Not having banks because they all go out of business=bad.

    Everyone being poor=bad.

    Your “argument”=bad.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  47. Here we go folks, SSI, TANK, EBT, CalWorks, MediCal, MediCaid, IHSS, Low-Income Heating and Air Conditioning Assistance, Section 8 Homeownership & Housing Choice Vouchers, to re-distribute the inner-city people into Middle to Upper Middle Class neighborhoods. It’s already been done on July 14th, 2007 with HR-1851 by Maxine Waters-D-CA & Pelosi’s 1st Bailout HR-3221 on October 1st, 2008, they got more allright, and now the 2nd Stimulus Package MORE again, and he’s going to add MORE, and 2-Trillion More Re-Distribution, and my neighbors are becoming Morbidly Obese off of Food Stamps.

    Entitlement EMPLOSION (1f07aa)

  48. Remember, these people on SSI, that has the Highest Growth, that the Illegals once Legalized will Qualify for pays $888 a month in California and that’s TAX FREE CASH. 45% NOW pay ZERO taxes and live off Entitlements like SSI, and the Illegals will be NO EXCEPTION. They are camping out behind buildings near the Social Security Administration Offices, it’s because the next day after Shamnesty, they plan to Apply and Qualify for SSI, that’s tax free Gratis Cash. Plus all their Relatives they can say their responsible for will get to LEGALLY come here from the South, & they too, will Apply and Qualify for SSI!
    DO you know that an SSI can own a property, home, of ANY VALUE WHATSOEVER, and collect FULL SSI Benefits. Did you know that SSI’s NEVER HAVE TO EVER WORKED A SINGLE DAY IN THEIR LIVES! It’s all true. All my neighbor’s are waiting for Obama to win, so they can get more on their Check-In-The-Box’s, and he’s going to do it! He’s already got plans for that in the NEW Pelosi Stimulus Package #2, MORE FOOD STAMP MONEY, in California they Trade their EBT-Dignity Food Stamp Debit Cards for Meth, they also buy a loaf of Bread and get $50 dollars back in CASH. Or, they go into a Gas Station buy a Donut and $30 worth of Gas with their EBT-Dignity Debit Card. Or, they go to an ATM, and the EBT-Dignity Debit Food Stamp Card spits out CASH.
    Listen people, Obama is only out for the POOR PEOPLE because HIS PEOPLE live off Section 8’s and Food Stamps, MediCaid, MediCal and all the plethora of Entitlements including THEIR FREE DENTAL. Ever notice their TEETH, DiVinci Porscylien Veeneers on those teeth, FREE PEOPLE FREE, I don’t have Dental Coverage, but Obama’s Entitlement Gravy Train Beneficiaries DO……
    Free School Lunches, I never got them, I was $300 over annually too much. Food Banks, they can go everyday and get free food, YOU TRY AND FILL OUT THE INTAKE FORM, YOU PROBABLY WILL NOT QUALIFY! I did not! $300 too much annual pay. Yes, My home was torched in a Forest Fire, Arson, by one of Obama’s Entitlement inner-city’s on Section 8, he burned my town down, and I went to the Food Bank for help 1 time and was turned away becasue I “made just a little too much”.

    Entitlement EMPLOSION (1f07aa)

  49. I don’t have a “yacht in every dock” or like what Bush has done with the so-called rescue plan, BUT, I also can vehemently disagree with BHO’s socialist utopia. People know how to spend their money better than governments after all, the money belongs to the people in the first place, NOT government.

    As far as helping those who are struggling, charity begins at home. Of course if you are Obama and Biden, you never learned that lesson when one looks at your charitable donations listed on your tax returns.

    Spread your own wealth, socialists, and leave that of Americans alone.

    Denise (da1103)

  50. All of your hard earned income are belong to us !!!!!!eleventy

    Submit to your progressive overlords.

    JD (f7900a)

  51. You guys ought to get used to him… maybe try to understand him. He is going to be our next president. You should embrace what you agree with. Actually read his policies. Doesnt matter who gets into office–taxes will be raised b/c of bush’s economic policies. Any thinking individual would have know that someone unimaginable would become the next president after bush. All of his policies are progressive instead of stagnant and maintainence-like governence. Politicians has been thriving on this division. Arent you sick of it? We, as a nation, will be better with a progressive leader… Consider embracing it.

    kat (1f84ae)

  52. kat, a “progressive” leader? So you are telling us that Obama has been lying about his policies … the very ones you urge us to read? Obama has not been campaigning as a progressive, but as a moderate Democrat.

    Oops, you spilled the beans, kat.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  53. A little more taxes paid by those of us that make more than 250,000 annually may save our nation from another depression! A teacher making 40,000 annually with children cannot afford that…

    kat (1f84ae)

  54. A teacher making 40,000 annually with children cannot afford that…

    That teacher making 40k will pay more in taxes under Obama… Why is this so hard to grasp??

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  55. That is a feature, not a bug, Scott.

    JD (f7900a)

  56. “Any thinking individual”

    kat – This excludes you, right?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  57. Any thinking individual would have know that someone unimaginable would become the next president after bush

    — Silliest sentence of the year.

    Icy Truth (1468e4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3971 secs.