If I would ever use the term incorrectly, criticism is valid. As it is, well, it’s not.

Also note that I did not utter the word “socialism” but rahter “progressivism.” As you often comment yourself, don’t ascribe things to authors they didn’t say

Seriously: I’m not using any code words or words that are meant to rile up anyone. I’m noting, what I see, as the facts.

Jason, when Obama himself says “I want to spread the wealth around,” it’s 100% honest to call his goal “redistributing wealth.” That’s because “spreading wealth around” is another term for “redistributing wealth.” Two different phrases meaning the exact same thing.

Perhaps.  But perhaps also if that term had not been so grossly overused to describe EVERY tax policy to the left of Tom DeLay for the last 15 years, it might have more credibility.

That used to be a pretty good fit for the GOP and I hope it will be one day again soon- by default I still have to go with them since I see the alternatives as farther from my positions in almost all cases.

I think a Balanced Budget Amendment would help enormously.

John, with all due respect this is where I think you are fundamentally wrong (though I think you’ve got it wrong because of the information we’re fed through a biased media.)

The best debt hawks right now are in the conservative caucuses of the House, bar none, IMO. I could name at least a dozen of them, and can’t think of a single person from the Democratic party that I trust to work on debt reduction.

The Democrats pay lip service to the idea when they say they’re for PAYGO, but even when they pass such measures they immediately go about finding ways to get around them. Instead of being a serious measure to provide accountability for spending, PAYGO ends up as political cover and the Dems then go on merrily proposing tax hikes on the rich while they claim that they’ll help the middle class.

I do appreciate the discussion though- it’s nice to be able to discuss ideas instead of talking points.

I have found that not only are policy proposals presented in disingenuous ways, but then are also often criticized in equally disingenuous ways.  The constant refrain from the right about “socialism” as a reason to reject all government response the the financial crisis is an example of this — the term is a “scare word” that serves to invoke a negative emotional response about the policy without actually discussing any practical dimensions of the problem of or available solutions.

Tax policy proposals are infested equally with pejorative, emotional terminology and misrepresentation on both sides.  Tax cuts that are across the board are always presented as a “handout to the rich” even though the only reason that they are so in absolute dollar terms is because “the rich” pay the vast majority of all tax dollars and thus will by definition always benefit the most from a tax cut.  On the other side, tax credits targeted towards the poor like the earned-income tax credit and tax increases targeted on the wealthy are opposed as “redistribution” and “socialism” even though by definition revenue can only be raised in substantial amounts by taxing those who actually have money and stimulus can only be put into the economy by giving money to people who will, you know, actually spend it on products.

Disingenuousness knowns no single party.

I’m in a politically weird position these days.  I’ve voted Republican in every election since college, and was a 2000 McCain supporter and fundraiser.  But this will be the first time that I’ve been truly won over by a Democratic candidate for President.  No, I don’t think he’s “The One”, but the Republican economic policies practiced by Bush, and endorsed by McCain, are simply failures.  By almost any objective measure, Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility, and Republicans are the ones who don’t seem to care about National Debt expansion.  You can have tax cuts if coupled with spending cuts, but that’s not how Republicans govern anymore.  If, therefore, expensive government programs seem to be inevitable, and neither party cares at all to reign in spending, then it at least makes more sense to elect the party who has a plan to pay for the spending. 

Side note — the reason I don’t pay Federal income taxes now is because I went from making 90k or so a year to about 15k or so the last two years.  The reason is because I’ve started a business.  It is now growing quite nicely, I have many wonderful clients, and am hiring my first additional employees at my new location within the next month or so.  There may indeed be a time in which my business grows to a point where McCain-style tax policy would be more beneficial to me.  But I’ve gone over this with my accountant many times, and we’re quite confident that, in these early stages, Obama’s policies would be rather dramatically financially better for me and my business.  And really, in recent years struggling to get by, though I’ve still refused government assistance for food or anything of that nature, I certainly have come to respect the Democratic perspective that using government funds to help lift people up is something that benefits everyone.  And on some issues, especially health care, I’ve completely come around to the Democratic position.  It will be years before I have enough capital to be able to offer quality health care to upcoming employees.  This dramatically hurts the growth of my business, because it limits the quality of personnel I can attract.  Imagine how much more competitive the auto industry would be if they weren’t spending thousands of dollars per vehicle on health care.  Private insurance companies can stay in business, but as someone paying for their own health care now, I frankly have lost faith that a fully private system can ever be cost effective or well run.

As much as I admire the Ayn Randian philosophy of noble self-dependence, someone did, at one point, change Roark’s diapers, teach him to read, buy him medicine, etc.  Perhaps if someone were to come along committed to libertarian principles, I might indeed listen.  But really, right now we have a Democratic “tax-and-spend” party, and a Republican “just-spend” party.  The former may be a shade closer to socialist/Marxist ideas, which I still loathe, but at least it’s mathematically sustainable.  We’re not going to be able to eliminate deficits and pay down the debt (let alone afford these huge promised entitlement programs) by giving more tax cuts.  We either have to stop promising the programs, or raise taxes in order to pay for them.  Since no one is willing to talk about reducing the programs, taxes are the only answer.  Republican “principles” — racking up massive debt to our children and essentially selling our nation to China — is near-treasonous in its selfish incompetence, and is leading this country into complete financial ruin.  After the last eight years, I’m more than willing to let the other side have a shot.

And wouldn’t it be logical, if Obama’s plan for tax credits was presented as another round of the Bush stimulus checks, for people to examine whether or not those had the intended effects and whether or not there were any unintended consequences, as well as whether or not the same policy would be likely to produce a good effect the second time around? That’s the kind of healthy debate that should surround such policies- but when they’re presented in disingenuous ways, then people don’t even realize what they’re approving.

Let’s say Obama gets what he wants, and families making under $20k/year get the full $567 “tax credit”.  How exactly is this plan somehow a slippery slope to Marxist philosophy, and Bush’s $600 “stimulus check” (which I did indeed receive) not?

You give a rationale for getting a check from the federal govt, saying that it’s to offset the state and local taxes that you pay. If that’s his intent, he should say so and then people could have an honest debate about it. That’s not what he’s doing though.