Barack the Plumber
By: Lisa On: Oct/16/08 - 17 Comments
Posts Related to this one:
- God love ‘em, Biden Says J-O-B-S Is A Three Letter Word
- Obama Will Spread Your Wealth, Not His: SPREAD WEALTH AROUND: OBAMA AUNT FOUND IN BOSTON SLUM…
- Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
- McCain’s New Joe the Plumber Ad Calls Obama’s “Tax Cuts” for Non-Taxpayers Welfare
- McCain ad: “Fight”
- Thanks For Taking Diplomacy To A Whole New Level Obama!
- Barack Obama’s Greatest Hits: Featuring His God Da*n Amerikkkan Whitey Hating Pastors
- Democrats Against Terrorist Data Mining But Are Fine With The DNC Doing It For Votes
- SHOCKER: Barack Obama’s campaign asked the U.S. Justice Department to expand a special prosecutor’s investigation to include possible improprieties surrounding reports the FBI is looking into voter fraud in the presidential race
- 100 DAYS, 100 MISTAKES FOR BARACK OBAMA – New York Post
Posted on: October 16, 2008 |
Posted in: Barack Obama, Economy, National News, Presidential Election '08, Taxes
October 17, 2008 - 06:55 AM on October 17th, 2008
Punishment for success!!
October 17, 2008 - 07:19 AM on October 17th, 2008
(Licensed) plumbers make about $47,000 a year; the top 1% make about $70,000. Plumbers will not have their taxes raised under Obama’s tax plan.
October 17, 2008 - 07:30 AM on October 17th, 2008
The question asked was about a business not a job as an employee to a business, but you knew that AKD.
October 17, 2008 - 09:53 AM on October 17th, 2008
Reminds me of when the THREE STOOGES pose as plumbers and make a mess out of some rich ladies house
October 17, 2008 - 08:33 PM on October 17th, 2008
Could it be that Lisa, the poster of this cartoon, is a republican?
October 17, 2008 - 08:57 PM on October 17th, 2008
Why do liberals ALWAYS think that a laborer has to remain a laborer for life? This isn’t a communist country like the former Soviet Union (at least not yet) wherein whatever the state tells you are going to do, you’re stuck doing for the entirety of your life. Even the trade unions advance people from one stage to the next as they gain skills. Personally, I wish they’d change the name from trade unions to what many of them really are trade guilds. They teach trades which is more in the historical context of guilds. As for unions having power in big cities, they have nothing on the guilds of medieval London. The guilds in London selected the Mayor and made the laws as to what could and couldn’t be imported into the city.
October 18, 2008 - 07:16 PM on October 18th, 2008
Ok, I’ve NEVER understood this.. and I never will… Why don’t Republican’s care about money borrowed in their name the way they care about taxes? I don’t expect a real answer… but I thought I would ask.
None of you care at all about the federal debt. Why can a Republican increase the federal debt by $100 billion and you don’t care. But if a Democrat increases Taxes by $100 billion you freak out. It makes no sense.
October 18, 2008 - 10:57 PM on October 18th, 2008
Because raising tax RATES actually REDUCES the amount of money coming into the treasury, ie revenues. While the national debt is a disgrace (too much spending is the problem, not too few taxes as is evidenced by the record high revenues the past few years. Spending has just been too high.) Raising tax rates prevents businesses from expanding and creating more jobs, and even causes some businesses to close their doors costing even more jobs. The more people who are employed, the more tax revenues flow into the government. The fewer people paying taxes, the fewer taxes are being paid. When the government takes money from a business at gun point, it’s called taxation. When the Mafia does it, it’s called extortion. Either way the business man then has less money to pay his employees, buy inventory, hire more people, etc etc etc. When tax rates are LOWERED, it allows businesses to expand and thereby create jobs, pay higher wages, and the result is that MORE money goes into the treasury to actually pay down the national debt.
Here’s a simple analogy for you, since I obviously need to make this simple. If a Farmer has 40 acres to plant and it takes a bushel of seeds to plant each acre, is the farmer more productive with 40 bushels of seeds, or only 36 bushels of seeds? Will that farmer be able to grow more crops if he plants all 40 acres or if he only is able to plant 36 of them? Taxation takes away the seeds the farmer needs to plant his crops. And with the taxation plans of the Liberal Democrats, you may very well find out what happens when the farmers are no longer able to plant their fields.
Another BIG reason to object to any tax RATE increases and to DEMAND tax rate reductions on people in all income levels is that higher taxes on businesses ALWAYS lead to higher prices. Do you think it benefits you to raise the taxes on a company when they are going to have to raise their PRICES even higher to pay those taxes?
There is only three outcomes to higher tax RATES:
Higher prices
Higher unemployment
Lower tax revenues to the government
That has always been and will always be the case. Don’t believe me? Research what has happened to unemployment and tax revenues in Michigan since Jennifer Granholm took office. She hasn’t seen a tax increase she hasn’t liked. And as a result businesses are leaving Michigan in droves costing the state thousands of jobs and millions in revenues. Those job losses are also a double whammy when it comes to the deficit because since they are no longer adding to the revenues, they are now receiving unemployment and welfare checks as well as food stamps and section 8 housing assistance thereby increasing the deficit instead of reducing it. Is history so poorly taught in today’s schools that liberals can’t look ar what the high taxation policies have caused in the past and realize that they will do the exact same thing in the future?
October 19, 2008 - 05:55 PM on October 19th, 2008
“Because raising tax RATES actually REDUCES the amount of money coming into the treasuryâ€
If this is true then why not reduce taxes to zero to increase the money coming into the treasury??? Seriously; why not?
Doesn’t raising the federal debt increase the cost of borrowing and therefore increase the costs of borrowing to businesses? Thereby forcing struggling businesses to close, and cutting jobs?
Aren’t you ignoring the increased borrowing costs caused by out Government increasing borrowing?
October 19, 2008 - 06:47 PM on October 19th, 2008
What does the government’s borrowing and businesses borrowing have to do with each other? Increasing the debt has nothing to do with a private business.
If your company needed to borrow money, chances are, you would be going to your bank and you would pay the going interest rate..You wouldn’t go to the government for the loan..
Businesses close for many reason’s, but raising the taxes is a sure way to see them cut costs and people are the easiest target of any cost saving measure..unless we are talking about the government, in which case they never lay people off.
October 19, 2008 - 07:02 PM on October 19th, 2008
I’ve always thought a VAT tax would be one solution. It makes the Dems happy by taxing the rich … and for those who cannot afford luxury items, they don’t pay tax at all.
VAT tax is a tax on luxury items – like cars. For those who can afford to buy a brand new car – a VAT tax is applied. For those who buy used cars – no tax is applied.
Buying a brand new TV? VAT tax.
Buying a used TV? No tax.
For those who are not in the income bracket to be able to afford luxury item – they don’t pay the tax.
For those are ARE in the income bracket to afford new luxury items – they pay the tax.
Would make those Hollywood folks think twice when buying that $100,000 bling, eh?
Personally – I putting the “rich” in a higher tax percentage ridiculous. Obama’s higher tax rate for those making $250,000 or more?? Makes no sense.
If I’m living in a small town in Wisconsin making $250,000 a year – I’m doing pretty darn good. I’m living in Manhattan making $250,000 a year – - not nearly as good. It’s all relative.
And Pam, you’re right – - last I checked, businesses don’t borrow from the government when taking out a small business loan….they go to the bank and get charged the going rate.
A tax hike, on the other hand, does nothing for small business – - except cause them to cut cost, freeze spending, layoff workings and stop creating new jobs. Higher taxes creates a real need for BIG spending on Government welfare programs because the folks in need have now become even MORE needier because they can’t get a job – - why? Because the business have stopped hiring because taxes are TOO HIGH. It’s a vicious circle.
October 19, 2008 - 08:20 PM on October 19th, 2008
“What does the government’s borrowing and businesses borrowing have to do with each other?â€
I think when the government wants to borrow a lot of money: it tends to drive interest rates up. So when the government wants to borrow a 100 billion dollars; it makes it more expensive for all the small businesses to borrow money.
No, these small businesses are not borrowing from the government, but government borrowing has at least 1 unintended consequence: higher interest rates on business loans from banks.
October 19, 2008 - 08:27 PM on October 19th, 2008
“If I’m living in a small town in Wisconsin making $250,000 a year – I’m doing pretty darn good. I’m living in Manhattan making $250,000 a year – - not nearly as good. It’s all relative.â€
Very very true.
“It’s all relativeâ€
I couldn’t agree more.
October 19, 2008 - 09:34 PM on October 19th, 2008
No Zelda, a corporation borrowing from a bank has nothing to do with the US “borrowing” money..When the government wants money, it sells bonds/notes that are purchased..China happens to be a country that buys them and you can do the same thing. Right now, the credit markets are tight, but the interest rates have not risen..
October 20, 2008 - 12:18 AM on October 20th, 2008
Actually Zelda, raising rates does lower revenues. It’s a historical fact. Because of other variables, noone knows exactly what rate is optimal, BUT having the second HIGHEST business tax rate in the world is probably NOT it. Look at Michigan. Granholm claimed that raising business tax rates would bring in all these increased revenues, the exact opposite has happened. A Nobel Laureate (that’s a Nobel Prize winner) economist once stated that if you lower tax rates and revenues increase, you haven’t lowered them enough. Obama in an interview was asked (by an Obama supporting reporter no less) that since raising the capital gains tax rate has historically caused revenues to drop, why did he support raising the rates when that would cause revenues to fall? His response shows his ideology over logic stance. His response was “It’s not about raising revenues, it’s about fairness.” Taxation has two outcomes. Raising revenue or discouraging behavior. Income tax is supposed to be about raising revenue, cigarette taxes are about controlling behavior. By raising capital gains tax rates, you are not raising revenues, you are modifying behavior by encouraging people NOT to invest in anything that might produce a taxable return. So instead of investing in companies that produce wealth, they invest in municipal bonds that pay a set percentage of mostly tax free interest. And the company that needed the money to expand, can’t. No jobs are created and some jobs are lost as under capitalized companies fail.
October 20, 2008 - 08:49 PM on October 20th, 2008
“noone knows exactly what rate is optimalâ€
Agreed. What’s more important to me and that I NEVER here any one on either side talk about is what kind of return on investment am I getting from the money the federal government is spending.
Well thank you for your response. I’m shamelessly using you guys to try to understand our government and nation better. (Best nation ever, but still screwed up)
October 20, 2008 - 08:53 PM on October 20th, 2008
Pam;
It’s the hard core Republican’s who have guaranteed Senator Obama’s victory. I hope the irony isn’t lost on you.