OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:43 pm

To whit:

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:47 pm

Heh. I loved this movie:

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:25 pm

" What is everyone so afraid of? "

He wants to change the form of government in this country. If we get something like socialized medicine and wealth redistribution, we will be stuck with it forever just like we are with Social Security.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:28 pm

Teal wrote: Nope. His rare honesty slip about 'spreading the wealth around' led this to be an issue. It's not a non issue in the slightest...it's at the core of the man's principles and ideologies.

What I love is when they redistribute the wealth up, no one has any problems. When the redistribute it down, every one gets up in arms over it.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:50 pm

Good news for the Obama camp.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/50_8_and_ ... storic.php

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:50 pm

Teal wrote:Dude...even Bush pales in comparison to Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover.

Hoover, yes. Carter, not a chance.

The economy was sh*tty during Carter's term, but that also was a carryover from Gerry Ford. Remember Ford's WIN -- Whip Inflation Now -- buttons?

The Iran crisis also was a blot against Carter. But he also made the world a much safer place without bloodshed through the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel. Bush hasn't increased world safety without plenty of bloodshed, and his economic record is just as abysmal as Carter's.

History will look more kindly on Carter as time passes. I'm not so sure about Bush. Time will tell.

Take care,
PK

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:57 pm

JRod wrote:
Teal wrote: Nope. His rare honesty slip about 'spreading the wealth around' led this to be an issue. It's not a non issue in the slightest...it's at the core of the man's principles and ideologies.
What I love is when they redistribute the wealth up, no one has any problems. When the redistribute it down, every one gets up in arms over it.

What's so funny about this is that it takes a fantasy to make it useful. The redistribution of wealth UP doesn't happen. At all. That's a bunch of hooey.

I'm nowhere approaching rich. In fact, I've spent most of my life flirting with the poverty line. I'm about to be out of work, with no new prospects on the immediate horizon. You'd think I'd fit the description of someone who'd LOVE Obama's redistribution plan.

But I'm not. If someone makes their dream a reality, I am not so spoiled rotten and full of liberal talking points that I think they, who have made their fortunes, owe me a damned thing. They don't. If someone who is wealthy chooses to help me, that should be THEIR CHOICE-and not some government mandate. And it's also my choice to accept it or not. Usually, I won't. I won't because there are others who are in far greater need than me.

There is no scenario whatsoever that gives the US, or any other government, the right to tax the rich and give it to the poor (or the 'middle class', whatever that is).

If I decided tomorrow that dammit all, I'm going to work my ass off and become somebody, work my way up, and acheive a certain financial security, the feds don't have any right to demand more than half of it from me in order to give it away to someone else. If I want to do that, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. It's a precious rarity for the government to have a social program that's worth much. They are there to provide national security, not financial security. If I want financial security, that's on me. Not them. And once achieved, it is not to be the pawn of a bunch of socialists masking themselves as 'progressives' or even 'liberals' to do with what they wish.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:04 pm

If Obama's so confident, why this?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/1 ... big-house/

Next thing you know, they'll be going into mausoleums-oh wait, they already have...

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:25 pm

bdunn13 wrote:"over $250,000 simply pay more so that those who don't can feed their kids"

Uhhhh if you can't feed your kids, then don't have them. Its not my job to feed someone else's kids. It's MY job as a father to feed my kid(s).

Otherwise you reward failure and punish success.

Bingo. It's called the welfare state and way too many people live on the goverment plantation as it is. If the handouts get bigger so will the birthrate of fatherless children. It is what it is. I have family that abuse the hell out of the system while we all of us that work pay for it. Children are a check too them.

bdunn13 wrote:" and expect a proper education."

Money does not educate. You can't use money to make kids that don't want to learn to learn. Our schools are not failing our kids, our kids are failing our schools.

This is a very valid point. My son is in a school now where 80 percent of the kids don't want to be there. Their parents or parent aren't the lest bit involved. No one in America is being denied a decent education. It's what you make of it.

We have two Somali kids named Taban and Dalmar living with us now.

They didn't even have a school to go to growing up. They learned to read and write with help from friends and neighbors. They learned english from UN volunteers.

They worked their asses off while civil wars between rival warloards raged around them. They both have lost their parents to war. They have made their way to America to go to college. We are helping them with a place to stay and food. I gotta be honest. I love these kids to death.

They can't believe how badly American children squander the educations they are offered. They look at elementary schools like they are palaces. I could go on about these two knuckleheads but you get my point. I agree.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:42 pm

Teal wrote:What's so funny about this is that it takes a fantasy to make it useful. The redistribution of wealth UP doesn't happen. At all. That's a bunch of hooey.

I'm nowhere approaching rich. In fact, I've spent most of my life flirting with the poverty line. I'm about to be out of work, with no new prospects on the immediate horizon. You'd think I'd fit the description of someone who'd LOVE Obama's redistribution plan.

But I'm not. If someone makes their dream a reality, I am not so spoiled rotten and full of liberal talking points that I think they, who have made their fortunes, owe me a damned thing. They don't. If someone who is wealthy chooses to help me, that should be THEIR CHOICE-and not some government mandate. And it's also my choice to accept it or not. Usually, I won't. I won't because there are others who are in far greater need than me.

There is no scenario whatsoever that gives the US, or any other government, the right to tax the rich and give it to the poor (or the 'middle class', whatever that is).

If I decided tomorrow that dammit all, I'm going to work my ass off and become somebody, work my way up, and acheive a certain financial security, the feds don't have any right to demand more than half of it from me in order to give it away to someone else. If I want to do that, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. It's a precious rarity for the government to have a social program that's worth much. They are there to provide national security, not financial security. If I want financial security, that's on me. Not them. And once achieved, it is not to be the pawn of a bunch of socialists masking themselves as 'progressives' or even 'liberals' to do with what they wish.

Extremely well said, Jason.

(It's not often I use your real name, dude!)

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:45 pm

Damn, Jack-diggity, your life moves at the speed of light. You move to Minneapolis, and now you have two Somali kids living with you? That's righteous, brother!

I need to call you soon. Maybe after The Ghost hopefully pulls the electric chair switch on The Executioner's career this Saturday night!

Take care,
PK

bdunn13 · Post by **bdunn13** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:21 pm

"We have two Somali kids named Taban and Dalmar living with us now. "

Thats freaking awesome JD.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:22 pm

Teal wrote:If I decided tomorrow that dammit all, I'm going to work my ass off and become somebody, work my way up, and acheive a certain financial security, the feds don't have any right to demand more than half of it from me in order to give it away to someone else. If I want to do that, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. It's a precious rarity for the government to have a social program that's worth much. They are there to provide national security, not financial security. If I want financial security, that's on me. Not them. And once achieved, it is not to be the pawn of a bunch of socialists masking themselves as 'progressives' or even 'liberals' to do with what they wish.

Even for the richest 0.01% of income earners in America, effective federal tax rates haven't been above 50% since the early 80s. So you don't need to worry about that.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-29-07tax.htm

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:35 pm

pk500 wrote:
Teal wrote:What's so funny about this is that it takes a fantasy to make it useful. The redistribution of wealth UP doesn't happen. At all. That's a bunch of hooey.

I'm nowhere approaching rich. In fact, I've spent most of my life flirting with the poverty line. I'm about to be out of work, with no new prospects on the immediate horizon. You'd think I'd fit the description of someone who'd LOVE Obama's redistribution plan.

But I'm not. If someone makes their dream a reality, I am not so spoiled rotten and full of liberal talking points that I think they, who have made their fortunes, owe me a damned thing. They don't. If someone who is wealthy chooses to help me, that should be THEIR CHOICE-and not some government mandate. And it's also my choice to accept it or not. Usually, I won't. I won't because there are others who are in far greater need than me.

There is no scenario whatsoever that gives the US, or any other government, the right to tax the rich and give it to the poor (or the 'middle class', whatever that is).

If I decided tomorrow that dammit all, I'm going to work my ass off and become somebody, work my way up, and acheive a certain financial security, the feds don't have any right to demand more than half of it from me in order to give it away to someone else. If I want to do that, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. It's a precious rarity for the government to have a social program that's worth much. They are there to provide national security, not financial security. If I want financial security, that's on me. Not them. And once achieved, it is not to be the pawn of a bunch of socialists masking themselves as 'progressives' or even 'liberals' to do with what they wish.
Extremely well said, Jason.

(It's not often I use your real name, dude!)

Take care,
PK

Yeah, usually when you start out with "Teal", I have reason to conclude that it ain't gonna be good...

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:40 pm

Feanor wrote:
Teal wrote:If I decided tomorrow that dammit all, I'm going to work my ass off and become somebody, work my way up, and acheive a certain financial security, the feds don't have any right to demand more than half of it from me in order to give it away to someone else. If I want to do that, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. It's a precious rarity for the government to have a social program that's worth much. They are there to provide national security, not financial security. If I want financial security, that's on me. Not them. And once achieved, it is not to be the pawn of a bunch of socialists masking themselves as 'progressives' or even 'liberals' to do with what they wish.
Even for the richest 0.01% of income earners in America, effective federal tax rates haven't been above 50% since the early 80s. So you don't need to worry about that.

http://www.cbpp.org/3-29-07tax.htm

That's just it-the tax rates, at the very least, should be a flat percentage, across the board. Anything else is the 'Robin Hood' approach, and I will always oppose it, whether in need or in wealth.

Flat tax across the board naturally gets more money from the wealthy, without attacking them as if they're evil, and requiring a larger percentage. THAT'S what's unfair.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:41 pm

Damn straight. Every country with a flat tax is doing great right now.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:45 pm

Feanor wrote:Damn straight. Every country with a flat tax is doing great right now.

Compared to what? The one we're IN right now??? Your sarcasm is completely lost, considering what we're facing. So what was your point again?

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:56 pm

The point is that a flat tax would not be a solution to the credit crisis her, even if it's a good idea in general. Iceland has a flat tax.

Turns out "Joe The Plumber" isn't a plumber, and his first name isn't Joe.

I feel sorry for the guy, though.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tr ... id=topnews

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4730510a12.html

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:57 pm

Feanor wrote:Damn straight. Every country with a flat tax is doing great right now.

More like ever, as in NEVER.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:58 pm

Feanor wrote:The point is that a flat tax would not be a solution to the credit crisis her, even if it's a good idea in general. Iceland has a flat tax.

Maybe not. But it wouldn't be worse. Couldn't be.

Which is why I'm still a rock-ribbed proponent of the Fair Tax.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:59 pm

Feanor wrote:The point is that a flat tax would not be a solution to the credit crisis here. Iceland has a flat tax.

Agreed...Lower lower taxes and cut cut cut the f*** out of government waste.
Only way...

Political and social ideology can go straight to f***in hell.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:00 pm

XXXIV wrote:
Feanor wrote:The point is that a flat tax would not be a solution to the credit crisis here. Iceland has a flat tax.
Agreed...Lower lower taxes and cut cut cut the f*** out of government waste.
Only way...

Political and social ideology can go straight to f***in hell.

Well...yeah.

I was more eloquent, though...

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:05 pm

Teal wrote:
XXXIV wrote:
Feanor wrote:The point is that a flat tax would not be a solution to the credit crisis here. Iceland has a flat tax.
Agreed...Lower lower taxes and cut cut cut the f*** out of government waste.
Only way...

Political and social ideology can go straight to f***in hell.

Well...yeah. I was more eloquent, though...

I think eggshell walking bullshit tap dancing appeasing John McCain/Neville Chamberlain style is a joke.

I think the brain damaged corrupt blood suckers in DC have enough f***in cash.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:25 pm

JackDog wrote:
wco81 wrote: It shouldn't be surprising. The ideological right in this country favors faith-based, rather than fact-based reality.

Scientists are scorned or suppressed if they try to report findings which don't conform to their orthodoxy, such as global climate change.
I don't want to step on the "Ripping Christians" part of the thread,but what Scientist was suppressed?

If he wants to talk about scientists being suppressed, how about the ones that refute global warming? The ones that don't conform to the cult of Gore are the ones really being suppressed and scorned.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:31 pm

matthewk wrote:
If he wants to talk about scientists being suppressed, how about the ones that refute global warming? The ones that don't conform to the cult of Gore are the ones really being suppressed and scorned.

Looks that way to me too.

Havent seen this one on the news either.

http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glacie ... e13215.htm