[OFB Cafe] JOE BIDEN: RIAA STOOGE

[Timothy Butler]

> \
> Find yourself on this chart:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
>
> Chances are your taxes will be lower under Obama than they will under
> McCain. Effectively, McCain will raise your taxes.

	No he won't. He just isn't offering as much of an additional decrease  
as Obama. But, see, I'm concerned with what I think is just, not what  
beneifts me the most. I would come out better under Obama's plan, but  
I don't think it is right to raid the wealthy to help everyone else. I  
didn't earn that money, they did. They should  keep it.

> Also, health care is the distractionary issue. Guess how many
> investment banks the Fed now has a controlling interest in after
> bailouts by "small government" republicans like McCain.

	Well, given that it is a Democratic congress and a Republican  
presidency, I'd say its bipartisan. The FDIC and friends came into  
existence under a Democratic president, and they are doing their job.  
What exactly do you want instead? Provide a better idea, one that  
actually is grounded in economics too, and not just "well, it'd be  
nice if it wasn't this way."

>
>
>> The way you
>> make it sound, Obama should be running for the LP nomination, but  
>> even
>> pro-Obama CNN suggested Obama's programs would cost billions of
>> dollars beyond the current budget.
>
> Obama's programs are small potatoes compared to the unnecessary cost
> of the Iraq war, which McCain intends to continue for at least 100
> years.

	You know as well as I do that that quote is out of context. I don't  
believe your so gullible as to really think that is what McCain's  
statement said. Let's debate intelligently by not taking either side  
out of context, shall we? Give McCain a whole sentence and the matter  
evaporates.

>
>
>> Some think wealth
>> redistribution is laudable, and while I'd be happy to debate it,  
>> first
>> we need to admit which party advocates wealth redistribution and  
>> which
>> one doesn't.
>
> The republican party advocates distributing wealth from the poor to
> the rich, by means of high taxes on the poor and corporate
> bailouts/gifts to the rich. The democratic party advocates staying out
> of wealth distribution by reducing taxes on the poor and allowing the
> rich to pay for their own corporate bailouts.

	Hardly. The Republicans advocate low taxes for everybody, but that  
everybody ought to pay their own weight. If you actually use standard  
definitions, and don't flip them around, you'll see.

	Now, some Republicans are not small government folks. I don't like  
those guys policies either.

>
>
> Republican voters, especially those in flyover states in the midwest,
> have this delusional idea of wealth distribution.  They think that the
> poor people in the cities are stealing all their tax dollars. The
> truth is that "red" states in the midwest receive the majority of
> handouts.  For every tax dollar that comes out of "blue" states like
> New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New Jersey, about $.70 comes
> back.  However, for every dollar in federal taxes that's paid in
> Mississippi, New Mexico, Alaska, Louisiana, North Dakota or Montana,
> about $2 comes back. Missouri gets $1.31 back for every dollar it
> pays.

	Well, that's interesting. I'm not concerned about the poor in the  
cities draining my money. I'm just not for the government saying,  
"you're too rich, so you should pay the taxes, while we give this  
other guy a free ride." Perhaps the guy getting the free ride would be  
me. I don't care. And, by the way, we have our own cities. I live in  
the 16th largest city in the country. So, the money could stay in  
Missouri and STILL be redistributed.

	Here are my assumptions:

	1.) The government wastes money, no matter who is in power.
	2.) The more money the government has, the more it wastes.
	3.) We should give the government less money, so that it wastes less.
	4.) Helping the poor is a worthy cause, but insuring they get enough  
money and that the rich do not get too rich are both goals beyond the  
bounds of government.
	5.) No one can provide an objective definition of what "too rich" is.
	6.) Politics is pragmatic. Utopian dreams get nothing done and are  
not tied to the way the political system really can work.

	Remember, I'm really libertarian in fiscal policy. That's why I liked  
Ron Paul in many ways.


>
>
>>       John McCain and Sarah Palin both have reputations, well  
>> earned, for
>> being fiscal conservatives.
>
> The same way that Bush was a fiscal conservative?

	He failed in that point, clearly. I don't see any reason to expect  
McCain to follow suit.

	-Tim


---
Timothy R. Butler | "The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window- 
panes,
Editor, OfB.biz   | The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the  
window-panes
tbutler at ofb.biz   | Licked  its  tongue  into the  corners  of  the   
evening,
timothybutler.us  | Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains."
                                                                 --  
T.S. Eliot