I just saw this ad running on TV - in Wisconsin - and it’s laughably stupid to anyone who’s been paying attention, and probably baffling to the low-information voters who missed out on this meme.

All the people between $50K and $250K would do better even in the short run with Obama (and we’ll all do better in the long run, even the zillionaires), but 40 years and tens of billions of dollars of anti-government propaganda have bought the GOP a mindset they can exploit.

Dear Dana:

I make less than $40,000 a year and I work like a dog. “Working people” recognized? You mean well-off people who don’t wanna pay their share. Seriously, fuck you.  Signed, Everyone who Grew Up With Reagan’s Piss Trickles Down Economics

Well Ethically Challenged Dana:

but you miss the larger point.  You benefitted from the government.  Whether it was infrastructure to get you to your job, R&D;that made your telecommunications work, or even farm subsidies that kept your food cheap, you benefitted.  More than others.  So quit bitching and pay up. 

Then go troll somewhere else.

“Joe the Plumber” is a punchline. Sure, the McCain crew really thought he’d be the meme that changed the campaign, but he has very rapidly become just a big late-night-talk-show joke. It’s a bit amazing that the GOP is so tone-deaf that they still think he’s the cornerstone of a winning strategy.

Republicans screaming “Joe the Plumber! JOE THE PLUMBER!” over and over and expecting that alone to convince voters is the equivalent of Pauly Shore releasing a film of nothing but “Buuuuuuddy” and expecting an Oscar.

Barack Obama made a comment about spreading the wealth around, and working people recognized that it really meant taking money from people who worked to give to those who do not.

Are you against progressive taxation?

Hey, it’s a strategy - parody the hell out of yourself.  Who is developing these ads, Democrats?
Thanks for the laugh!

Did anyone else watch this and say to themselves, “I am Spartacus!”?

I saw this commercial four times this morning as I got ready for work (in fake Virginia).  Blech.

Oh Dana.  Dana Dana Dana.  Fuck you for insinuating (or, really, stating outright) that those of us who don’t make over $250,000 don’t work for a living.  Many of us work a hell of a lot harder than some who do make a quarter mil a year.  But I guess if we don’t earn high incomes, our work isn’t valuable, or even real.

And I paid more than 7000 dollars more to the IRS under bush.  Add that to the real estate market that I’m a part of, I lost even more than that in the past two years because of Bush.  So you know, fuck off.  ANd as for the supposed majority who don’t believe in Obama’s thing, just look at the poll numbers, I know you can do it.  And I really won’t mind paying slightly more under Obama, because at least I know I’ll probably get something back, and I’ll also know that all the people who don’t make the money I do, will get even more, and that makes me happy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation

There!  That oughta help.

Anyone else find it hysterically funny that Dana has been simultaneously complaining that his tax cut might be taken away and that there are no government grants to help his kids go to college?

You’d think that a rational person would realize that maybe the reason his taxes are so low is that other services—like grants so he can more easily afford college for his kids—have been taken away.  But, no, not Dana.  He wants tax cuts for himself AND he wants everyone else’s tax money to pay for his kids to go to college.

You’ve got to make up your mind, Dana.  Do you want to pay for services from the government that will benefit you and your family, or do you want to get a tax cut that means you have to pay for the services you expected out of your own pocket?  There’s no free lunch, you know.

If you’d like some actual information about what could happen in the future instead of living in the past, you can look at ObamaTaxCut.com and get a rough estimate of what you would save.

Why is everyone assuming that Dana has a point?

He doesn’t. (Sorry Dana).

It’s well documented that Obama’s tax plan WILL NOT INCREASE TAXES for anyone making less than 250 K. Dana makes less than 250 K. Therefore, Obama WILL NOT INCREASE HIS TAXES.

The only way you can reach another conclusion is to assume that Obama is a) lying b) sorely misrepresenting his plan or c) will be compelled to implement a different plan than the one he’s laid out. Any of those could be true, but I don’t believe that they are.

So to answer your question, Dana, that is: “[Do] you actually believe that I will pay less under Barack Obama than I have paid under President Bush?” If you’ve represented your finances accurately, and aren’t deeply invested in the stock market, then yes. Yes you will. Specifically, under President Obama, you will pay 2.1% less than you do now, or thereabouts. Under President McCain, you would pay 2.5% less tax. In other words, it makes $400 more sense for you to vote for McCain (again, or thereabouts). If you’re not interested in infrastructure, paying off the debt, stopping the war, or realistically reversing the recession, that is.

I appreciate your cite, and I’ll respond in kind. I’ve based the assertions above entirely on this chart: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html)

I’d also note that while you did accurately represent the opinions of people on different ends of the economic spectrum, you neglected to mention that the polls found that a plurality of voters AGREED with Obama. So to return to your actual argument, hitting Obama with this ad is unlikely to be effective. But, that’s true of anything the Republicans might do at this point.

Wow, I guess the McCain campaign still think a lot of people are like Joe the Plumber, worrying about how Obama’s tax proposal would impact their non-existent $250k a year earnings.

Dana is correct, though: the GOP, as always, is going to have to count on these sort of low-info undecided voters to make their margin. David Sedaris described their difficult choice nicely in <a href = “http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/10/27/081027sh_shouts_sedaris”>this week’s New Yorker</a>:

“To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

Of course, that still leaves us with Dana up in business class, worrying that his filet mignon will be underdone…

Now, assuming that Mr Obama is elected, and that my income in, say, 2010, is reasonably similar, do you believe that I would pay “not a single penny” more than I would if I ran my 2010 income through a tax year 2007 form?

Why don’t you tell us, based on Obama’s tax proposals and your own mad skillz, approx how much more you would pay. You’re the one trying to prove that people making less than $250k per annum will suffer, after all.

And however things turn out in your calculation (because I’m foolishly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), the others are quite correct about the long- and even medium-term costs of Bush tax cuts. One thing I never understand about libertarian types is that, despite claiming to be fans of Heinlein, they can’t figure out what TANSTAAFL means.

Anyone else find it hysterically funny that Dana has been simultaneously complaining that his tax cut might be taken away and that there are no government grants to help his kids go to college?

Oh, Dana, Dana, Dana ... please tell us you didn’t say that. Otherwise, my response to every complaint about taxes will have to end with “BTW, how are those college grants from the money fairies coming along for you?”

Oh, Dana, Dana, Dana ... please tell us you didn’t say that. Otherwise, my response to every complaint about taxes will have to end with “BTW, how are those college grants from the money fairies coming along for you?”

Yes.  Yes, he did.  That was the day I realized Dana is either completely delusional or so stupid he can’t tie his own shoes.

McCain’s insistence on attacking Obama on taxes proves how unserious he is.  We have a more than $10 trillion debt and we’re entering a recession.  Anyone desperately clinging to Bush’s tax cuts (and then some in McCain’s case) is out to destroy this country.  Seriously.

“I am Spartacus!!!”  What. The. Fuck?

Y’know, I was almost going to post a little defense of Dana, then I re-read his post and realized what a TOTAL crock of comparing-apples-to-oranges bullshit it was.

I’ve missed his whinging about gov’t grants (thanks, FSM!), but if it’s true, what a hypocritical little bitch he is.  You make ~$120K, pay for your own kids’ education, asshole.

Dana:

But phylosopher, your candidate has promised that I wouldn’t pay anything more in taxes, because I make far less than $250,000. I’m asking you (plural) if you actually believe that I will pay less under Barack Obama than I have paid under President Bush.

OK, so apparently you had the time of your life calculating your tax savings under Bush, but it’s apparently far too difficult for you to do the same for your potential taxes under a very well-publicized plan proposed by the Democratic candidate?

Shit like this is why I don’t for a second buy your little “I’m just a decent fellow who happens to disagree with you” schtick, Dana.

Barack Obama made a comment about spreading the wealth aroud, and working people recognized that it really meant taking money from people who worked to give to those who do not.

Barack Obama is going to take working people’s tax money and give it to the rich who live off investment income? Or did you meant that he was going to expect us to help pay for the needs of orphaned children, of the severely disabled, of the elderly and infirm, who cannot work for pay the way the rest of us can?

Oh, my bad. Dana apparently meant that Obama is going to spend tax money on things other than Dana’s children’s college education.

RecoveringLiberalholic,

That’s all you have to contribute? Some off-topic repetition of the same old guilt-by-association talking points about Ayers? It’s not like we can’t list McCain associates who are just as unpleasant as Ayers, or note McCain’s own association with and support for Annenberg.

At least tell us how Obama’s tax plan will impact your imaginary $250k a year income.

All part of the Republican “values” theme.

The Republican base does not care whether or not their policies actually work. They don’t care about whether or not their policies harm them. What they care about is whether or not the government’s policies reflect their moral beliefs. That is why stuff like flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, and public displays of religion are so important to them: They cannot comprehend of a government not supporting thier values.

“Trickle down economics” fits into this theme because it rewards the people at the top (who must have gotten there with god’s blessing) and punishes those at the bottom (who deserve their fates.)

Of course, the people who are really at the top are laughing their asses off at these people, since when the wealthy have problems, public assistance (i.e. a bailout) is mandatory to keep them going. The problem is that after 700 billion, the rubes may be catching on.

I am going to adjust my tinfoil hat and explain what I think is behind the recent trend of high profile Republicans turning against McCain. They are doing this for two reasons: First, the next President is going to inherit a shitty economy. They want a Democrat to get the fall for this. Second, they need to put the base back in their place. Privately, Wall Street Republicans hate their base as much, if not more than Democrats do. McCain is sinking and they want the base to go down with the ship. This puts them back in charge of the GOP for 2012.

they never change their viewpoint.

So David Horowitz is actually a secret leftist mole at the heart of the conservative movement?  After all, in 1974 he was a communist who was < a href=“http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000703/sherman/3”>working with the Black Panthers</a>.

That actually makes more sense to me than his supposed “conservative” views, which don’t exactly hold up to examination.

What’s up with links lately?  It seems like some of them work and some don’t, and I can’t figure out why.

David Horowitz and the Black Panthers

Oh, these poor motherfuckers—every dollar they make over $250,000 will be taxed at 39.6% rather than the current 36%. The sky is falling! Socialism!

More class, right, Dana?

Too bad it’s not more FACTS.

“BTW, how are those college grants from the money fairies coming along for you?”

I propose that this be the response to anything Dana ever says about taxation or finance from this day forth.

this is all you need to know about obama and his ilk:

http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/

they never change their viewpoint.

RecoveringLiberalholic on 10/23 at 12:01 PM

What absolute HORSESHIT (with my apologies to equine manure).
This asswipe quotes Malkin as a source!!!! who in turn manages to give the word neighbor a connotatively evil meaning by committing the logical fallacy of ambiguity.

Hey did anyone find my can of troll-B-Gon?

I am intrigued by the Rotisserie League Fantasy Villains. You could easily keep a running league of their successes based on whether they conquer the world, are driven off by heroes, summon a new clone from Earth Prime, etc.

At this juncture I believe I will call dibs on Galactus.

So, do people making $40k a year use roads more? Or city services? It seems to me that people making under $40k use the same roads I do. As for telecommunications systems, you pay for that the first time through your taxes and then pay again when you pay your bill to your telecommunications company who must also pay taxes.

This nonsense class envy bullshit that anyone making $40k a year needs to pay their “fair share” is complete crap. Stop thinking the government needs to hand you a trophy for coming in 18th place. Learn to take care of yourself and quit expecting somebody else’s money to come back to you because they obviously don’t need it since they have more. Do you realize how insane this line of argument is? WTF do you expect the government to go confiscate someone else’s money just because they made more and it pisses you off?

I don’t mind paying taxes for roads, the military, and infrastructure that only government can perform. But, frankly, it’s disgusting to hear people talking about why they need to stick their hands in somebody else’s pocket and rob them because it’s not “fair” and those people don’t work as hard. Says who?!? How many people do you employ when you are making $25,000 a year? How many companies do you work, who also have employees to be responsible to, when you are making $30,000?

I don’t begrudge rich people their money. They work for it, too. Griping that an executive isn’t working as hard as you because he doesn’t wear sweat-stained shirts is lame and unproductive. Instead of sticking you hand out for an Obama dollar, you should go bust your ass and find a way to make the money you think you deserve.

BTW, for the person who argued about paying for the deficit: Obama hasn’t said a word about paying down the deficit because he’s too busy thinking of new ways to spend more money he doesn’t even have yet. He’s been asked repeatedly what he’d cut if he can’t have it all and guess what? There isn’t anything he wants to cut. So, for everybody so concerned about the deficit, Obama flunks that test as well.

I used to drop acid.

Now I just read Sharon’s posts.

Same brain-cell death and hallucinatory imaginary world full of snotdemons and shitweasels, fewer ugly flashbacks.

So, do people making $40k a year use roads more? Or city services?

Funny how you took the argument from the original position of $250,000 to $40,000.  Do you really think that people who make $250,000—especially business owners who net that much income after expenses—aren’t using the roads more for their employees, their suppliers, etc.?

BTW, for the person who argued about paying for the deficit: Obama hasn’t said a word about paying down the deficit because he’s too busy thinking of new ways to spend more money he doesn’t even have yet.

No, it’s because anyone who knows anything about economics knows that the best way to turn a recession into a depression is to cut government spending.  Keynes is Econ 101 stuff.

fter doing my income taxes for 2009 and 2010 and 2011, I will run those numbers through a tax year 2008 Form 1040, and tell you exactly what the difference is between what our tax rates are in those years compared to the last year of the Bush Administration

Because the *only* thing that will change between now and 2011 is the tax rate set by Treasury Master Obama. No other tax law affecting you in any way with change, nor will your income, deductions or expenses change.

Why don’t you save the mental energy for figuring out how to get the government to subsidize your kids, Dana?