Kevin's Watch

Cail,

Spreading the wealth around: you mean, his tax plan? That's all over the media. Nobody calls it "unAmerican" because that's an opinion for radical conservatives to rant about. I don't know what you mean about "throwing away live aborted children" (I guess that's just proof that I've been indoctrinated by the media). Gun control is an issue that's in the media as it pertains to this election. And you can't seriously dismiss Wright and Ayers. As that has been formulated by many in the media, that is certainly inconsistent with Obama's message and did great harm to him. That completely undermines Card's and your argument.

Also here's someting on your "live aborted fetuses." Looks like somebody has been reading too much National Review (even though there's no conservative media).

There's nothing radical about calling wholesale wealth redistribution un-American. That philosophy is completely counter to our economy and way of life.

Likewise, McCain should be getting all kinds of shit for suggesting that homeowners were innocent bystanders in the current mortgage mess and that it's the government's job to buy up those mortgages and adjust the money owed.

I want to scream every time I hear McCain talk about how important it is to keep home values high.

Cail wrote:I want to scream every time I hear McCain talk about how important it is to keep home values high.

I think I know the answer, but specifically, why does this steam your stitches?
I recognize that home prices are wildly inflated in many areas - in fact, I think we discussed this in another thread, where I mentioned the book 'The Two Income Trap' that among other things mentions high real estate prices as a large part of why people are stuck in dual-income financially troubled situations with little or no safety net.
But, does this mean that you disagree with using your home as a primary investment vehicle over the course of your life? Obviously, with home prices deflating like mad, it makes the idea seem a lot more foolish.
I'm not talking about the flippers, and speculators - but people that get a traditional mortgage, live beneath their means, make extra mortgage payments and own their home far ahead of their amortization schedule - saving on mortgage interest, and then pay themselves the money they no longer have to spend on a mortgage? I know that sounds old fashioned, but I know several people that are doing just that.
I don't know if it is luck or some other factor, but most of these folks also live in areas with real estate that seem very resistant to bubbles and pops in value... luck, or do they have a secret?

dw

Home values are artificially high. When a 15 year old, 1800 square foot split foyer sitting on a 50'x100' lot in a so-so area is selling for nearly $300,000 there's a problem.

I completely agree that the home should be an investment vehicle (maybe not primary though). But like any investment, there's no guarantee of return, and the 20-50% yearly return rate that we've been seeing is totally unsustainable.

House values need to plummet. A couple making $60-$70,000 a year should be able to afford a home, not through relaxed lending practices or insane loans.

Did you hear that sound yesterday?
That rumbling sound?

Obama was asked some casual questions on a morning TV show yesterday.
It was a remote shot, he was on a stage outside somewhere.
He was relaxed, funny and wearing a shirt with his sleeves rolled up.
One of the questions was "what are your kids dressing up as for Halloween?"
He answer was something like "a zombie and an evil fairy but it doesn't really work for them because they're so cute."

The rumbling was the sound of all the undecided soccer moms moving to the Obama camp.

I thought I heard thunder.



dw

Cail wrote:Home values are artificially high. When a 15 year old, 1800 square foot split foyer sitting on a 50'x100' lot in a so-so area is selling for nearly $300,000 there's a problem.

I completely agree that the home should be an investment vehicle (maybe not primary though). But like any investment, there's no guarantee of return, and the 20-50% yearly return rate that we've been seeing is totally unsustainable.

House values need to plummet. A couple making $60-$70,000 a year should be able to afford a home, not through relaxed lending practices or insane loans.

Good post Cail.

--A

Cail,

We've been over this before. If wealth redistribution is "unAmerican," then all taxes are "unAmerican." All subsidies are "unAmerican."

And I think you were wrong before as well.

All taxes are not wealth redistribution in the sense that (you're aware) I'm talking about or in the sense that (you're also aware) Obama's talking about.

I've always wondered about the money in Obama's campaign given the usual limits on personal giving. Well here's food for thought, complete with screen shots of one of the ways it's being done. Credit card fraud. As usual, the MSM is so far in the bag for Obama, they won't bother to investigate. Have you checked your statements lately?

LINK

Given that we've seen articles about duplicate names, nonexistent names, etc., on the Obama donor rolls, there's fire where we're seeing the smoke.

Yikes!

Cail,

Just because I think you're wrong (you are), doesn't mean you can accuse me of being disingenuous. I wouldn't presume that you are being disingenuous just because you don't happen to agree with me. It's rather arrogant of you.

I'm not presuming that you're being disingenuous. I am presuming that you're being a bit argumentative.

Edit- To be clear, using tax money to fund national defense is not wealth redistribution. Using tax money to reduce people's mortgage principal is.

It would seem a difference b/w the 2 is that defense is for everyone, but only some would get a mortgage benefit? The idea that "fair" would be everybody getting something, regardless of standing?

And national defense is one of the spelled-out responsibilities of the federal government.

Cail,

The notion that because defense is mentioned in the Constitution means that defense subsidies are not wealth redistribution has zero validity. If the Constitution provided for "the distribution of Wealth by the Government" that would not mean that it is not wealth redistribution. And the Constitution says nothing about subsidies. Funny, I don't hear libertarians and constructivists talking about that very often. In any event, when money is taken from a citizen in the form of a tax and then sent via check to a corporation, I don't see how that is not wealth redistribution, no matter what its intended (not necessarily actual) purpose may be.

Well, if you look at it that way... any taxation is a form of wealth re-distribution. Even road-building using tax dollars counts, since both the contractor with the winning bids, and all its employees benefit. Of course, the public also benefits, assuming that it is a public road.

A tax subsidy to influence a business to locate in one state versus another - the business profits from that, but so do the local people that can now apply for a job there.

Don't get me wrong, I see that these are different catagories of re-distribution than say, an unemployment program. However, the public tends to benefit from that as well, since in theory, we are helping the unemployed make ends meet long enough for them to rejoin the work force.

I think this contrasts with a new tax plan that, on the surface, is looking to finance 'tax cuts' for the lowest and middle income levels by returning tax rates for the over $250K to Clinton levels and closing additional loopholes to make sure more rich fish are caught in that net. It seems awfully clear that the primary intent of this raise/lower tax scheme is to "give money back" to the lower and middle classes by taking more from the wealthy.

This is clearly not a reduction in spending. If we want that, we have to reduce or remove spending programs and/or earmarks, not play with relative tax levels.

Having said all that, it still sounds better than giving everyone a tax cut (including what amounts to a disproportionately large one for the wealthy) and then ham-stringing federal programs to decrease spending.

I'm not saying there aren't federal programs that can't be pared back or cut entirely - I'm just saying that a freeze on spending seems pretty lame when we've just guaranteed $800 Billion to Wall Street, whether it ends up being a loan or not... I sure don't expect to see that money come back from Wall Street. Do you?

dw

"Early voting 'boosts Democrats'", BBC News

A huge surge in early voting across key states appears to be helping the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.

In one swing state, North Carolina, Democratic early voting is up 400% in the first week, with similar patterns in Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico.

Funny:

view.break.com/592648