Pelosi's absurd notion that a VAT will level the playing field and not impact the middle-class
Senator Pelosi has said a lot of dumb things in the past, but this one is really amazing.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10646#frame_top
Now, she wasn't advocating it, per se. Instead she said we should "put it on the table" and analyze it.
But her poor reasoning for having a VAT is just astounding. She thinks it will "level the playing field" and also wouldn't result in a tax increase on the middle-class. It might not be a direct income tax increase on the middle class, but it would most definitely result in middle-class American families feeling the additional tax burden in the price of everything they buy. We are not leveling the playing field by increasing the price of American goods versus foreign goods. It will kill whatever manufacturing is left in America.
OK I listened and I'm just not sure what you are wound up about. The fact that a VAT might be under discussion along with other tax and tax credit proposals?
You do know part of an effective decision making process is that all ideas get put on the table, not just the ones you or I happen to like.
October 7, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would she put it on the table when she says that anything which raises taxes on the middle class is out of the question?
October 7, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, you've said so many stupid things on the Cafe in the past, that I can't be bothered to see if you're right or not, though I sincerely doubt that you're right. Nice work, you've been enough of a bozo that I think of you akin to William F. Buckley, an inveterated gasbag who shopped for facts to support his view, rather than having the facts inform his view.
October 7, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
European free market democracies, which feature societies that are much less regressive than ours, use the VAT effectively to raise revenue needed for government functions. What makes the entire package progressive rather than regressive, however, is that that revenue then goes into ensuring that all citizens have a generous safety net to protect against homelessness, illness, malnutrition, or other deprivations some of our own citizens are subject to.
I didn't read what Pelosi said. However, a VAT tends to discourage consumption - i.e., consumer spending - and so while it might be worth contemplating for a time after recovery from the current recession, I believe it would be counterproductive if instituted during the recession.
October 7, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, Bill, she's not a Senator.
October 7, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwahhahahahah!!!
October 7, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct. I agree it would be counterproductive if instituted during a recession. Plus, in Europe, in goes towards functions like healthcare where in theory everyone benefits. If we were French I'd be in favor of a VAT because we all benefit via raising revenue that can pay for our universal healthcare. But a VAT in this country would be skewed towards people that are on the "public option" or some other government sponsored plan. It wouldn't help those of us with private insurance.
October 7, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB...or paying off the trillions spent on the wars that your hero and infallible leader, George W. Bush started, and left unfinished with terrorists running rampant from Iraq to Pakistan.
Republicans love wars, they just don't want to pay for them.
October 7, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the off-topic comment.
October 7, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please explain in detail what you mean by "off topic."
After you do I will ask you again in a slightly different way, or tell you that you haven't really answered me at all... and don't be rude answering, no matter how much of a dick I become.
October 8, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post was about Pelosi's comments on a potential VAT. I disagreed with her opinions that a VAT will level the playing field and not be a tax increase on the middle class.
NCD chose to make a comment about Republicans' supposed love for wars but not paying for them. I don't believe the wars we've been involved in are relevant to a discussion on the impact of a VAT in the US.
October 8, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do ya now? Have you heard of "the deficit"? So you wish to discredit a revenue-generating idea without discussing the reasons taxes are needed and used?
Whatever.
PS. How much is Charlie Rose paying you?
October 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I've heard of the deficit and the recession. I wish Charlie Rose was paying me something but unfortunately this is just my free opinion. I understand why taxes are needed and used. But like I said, that was not the point I was addressing. If Pelosi had said, "Hey, we have a really big deficit. It's growing out of control and I want to raise taxes to help offset it" - then we could debate the merits of a tax increase during a severe recession.
But my point is that she's either really stupid or thinks she can fool people by saying that 1) a VAT will just "level the playing field" and not put American manufacturing at a disadvantage; and 2) a VAT will not increase taxes on the middle class.
I heard nothing in Pelosi's comments that a VAT was to finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The VAT is interesting to Pelosi because it helps level the playing field of different countries' current competitive advantages in manufacturing. So to say that "Republicans love wars" is pretty off topic in my opinion as it pertains to the comments Pelosi made on the benefits of implementing a VAT in this country.
October 8, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - I am trying to answer your question honestly and objectively. But how does it help your cause to tell me not to be rude no matter how much of a dick you are? It doesn't exactly set a good tone. But I've tried to answer your question ignoring that hyperbole.
October 8, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you spend too much time watching "senators." I certainly wasn't exaggerating anything. You can always Google words you don't know the meaning of.
Satirizing, maybe.
BTW, I don't believe you actually watched this video. Can you please PROVE it for us?
October 8, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget VAT, we don't need it. Lets get rid of the FICA cap.
October 7, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saladin - finally something we agree on!!!
October 7, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! Wonders never cease. Can I interest you in harmonizing capital gains tax rates with income tax rates?
Seems only fair that Warren Buffet should pay the same rate on his income (capital gains) as his secretary (income), wouldn't you agree?
October 7, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Saladin. If Apologist for Mass Murder Bill supports lifting the FICA cap, I almost have to oppose it by virtue of that fact.
October 7, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very logical.
October 7, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Pelosi thinks so.
October 7, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's an idiot.
October 7, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead and crucify me for typing too quickly and using the term "Senator" instead of "Representative". I'm sure you've never made a typo before.
October 7, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Why are you so upset? Still trying to figure out if Nancy Pelosi's in the Senate or the House?
October 7, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not upset. If I was upset, I would be throwing around f-bombs like you were earlier.
October 7, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink