OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 5

[matthewk]

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

So?

He didn't lie about anything. Although the way certain media outlets have been reporting this you'd think the guy had been caught denying he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

His middle name is Joseph. He works for a company that does plumbing work. He doesn't need a license for the work he does. He is interested in buying the company. If the company does well, it would reach that magical $250,000 mark and be taxed harder under Obamas plan.

Instead Obama and his minons in the media are trying their best to deflect away from the real issues that he and Obamas response brought up.

[RobVarak]

Somebody astutely pointed out that Joe has gotten more and more detailed media scrutiny than Obama LOL

[JRod]

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 have you honestly read Obama's tax plan. Or at least read a site where they try their best to be neutral and evaluate the tax plan?

The other reason people got bent out of shape was this report the McCain camp latched onto was two things. The mention that some of this country were getting back dollars even though they didn't pay much or any tax dollars. The truth is that we do that now under the Bush tax plan. Did you not receive your stimulus check? In some instances people got money back and did not pay as much as they received. If 1/3 of American's don't pay taxes surely then they things Rob and you are complaining about happened under the current tax program.

Now what we don't know is of the 1/3 who exactly aren't paying taxes. I didn't see any percentages in the quintiles. So the report created a link because Obama's tax plan, people getting money back and this group of people that don't pay taxes. What it leaves out is who receives money back, is it just those in the lower brackets, spread out among all brackets or in the upper brackets. I would like to see numbers on that.

On you last point, if you make money you will PAY more in taxes. It doesn't matter if it's a progressive tax or flat tax. If you earn 50,000 or 500,000 -- the person making 500,000 will pay more in taxes.

Finally, Obama's tax plan simply does not give money to the poor. It is erroneous to say that the middle brackets will pay for the lower brackets tax cut. Obama's tax cuts are between the Bush cuts and what federal law is. Some will just be paying more. Not all in the middle class will be paying more. Under some circumstances your marginal rates may increase.

As to who will pay for it. Well it seems that no one is paying for it. Under Bush's current tax we are spending more than we take it. There was some discussion as to whether congress should adopt a policy like Pay-Go. Pay as you go. Meaning you can only spend what you take in. This is a policy I believe in.

[wco81]

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.

So name some then.

And we'll see if they're clear of any oil industry entanglements.

[XXXIV]

Somebody astutely pointed out that Joe has gotten more and more detailed media scrutiny than Obama LOL

The media is pretty disgusting...

[bdunn13]

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

Now we are getting some where. That;s all they are in Washington too. They take our money, waste some, steal some, let other steal some and give us some back while acting like they are doing us a favor.

I would less worry about taxes and more worry about cutting out the gov programs. Once we do that, the taxes will go away. If we just cut taxes without dropping social programs and pork then we will do nothing but increase the deficit.

[Teal]

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

So?

He didn't lie about anything. Although the way certain media outlets have been reporting this you'd think the guy had been caught denying he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

His middle name is Joseph. He works for a company that does plumbing work. He doesn't need a license for the work he does. He is interested in buying the company. If the company does well, it would reach that magical $250,000 mark and be taxed harder under Obamas plan.

Instead Obama and his minons in the media are trying their best to deflect away from the real issues that he and Obamas response brought up.

The only thing that's really important is what Obama said to him. Joe whatever's credibility, which they seek to impugn solely to create a credibility gap, is not germane. At all. What is, is Obama clearly and unmistakeably saying he wants to 'spread the wealth around', which is...


...you know it's coming...


REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!

Unmistakable, irrefutable, non negotiable. Although they do try...

[JRod]

Somebody astutely pointed out that Joe has gotten more and more detailed media scrutiny than Obama LOL

I've figured out what this is. It's the same thing that happens in sports when the fans think the ref are against their team.

It's the same freaking thing here. Obama had over a year, his criticism wasn't confined to one day or a few months in Palin's case.

Blame the election on the media but McCain has run a piss-poor campaign. A better campaign and he might be closer.

[GTHobbes]

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.

I've never understood how anyone who is "poor" could vote Republican. Do you think Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or any other fat cat Republican has your interests in mind? Of course not...they're interested in paying less taxes themselves. I admire someone like Obama who makes a pile of money yet is willing to step up and pay more in taxes so that 95% of the less fortunate in this country can get a break.

If all or most of the rich consisted of people who came from humble beginnings and worked their way up in life, I might feel differently. But my observation has been that many of the wealthy (such as Bush and McCain) came from money and have had many things handed to them in life, just because of their last name. Those fu$%ers should be the ones paying more in taxes, IMO, not less.

[Jackdog]

McCain and Obama roast each other at the Alfred E Smith dinner. Funny stuff. These guys deserve a break like this. Both were very funny.

McCain first.
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Goaj5V4tZoc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mrqoSyKsAPw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed><


Obama.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NXKaAQ-6BiU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QkBQf4FJi-o&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[webdanzer]

You lost some of McCain there, Jack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Goaj5V4tZoc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrqoSyKsAPw

Oops, and Obama was cut off too:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXKaAQ-6BiU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkBQf4FJi-o



And yes, this was great to see and hear.

[Jackdog]

I've never understood how anyone who is "poor" could vote Republican. Do you think Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or any other fat cat Republican has your interests in mind? Of course not...they're interested in paying less taxes themselves. I admire someone like Obama who makes a pile of money yet is willing to step up and pay more in taxes so that 95% of the less fortunate in this country can get a break.

If all or most of the rich consisted of people who came from humble beginnings and worked their way up in life, I might feel differently. But my observation has been that many of the wealthy (such as Bush and McCain) came from money and have had many things handed to them in life, just because of their last name. Those fu$%ers should be the ones paying more in taxes, IMO, not less.

You know this is the last response you will get from me in this thread. Your blantant railing on the Republicans is tired and very old. You speak as if their are no rich Democrates. You know the kind that never worked a hard day in their life. The John Edwards type. Hyocritical as hell. Preaching for the poor yet living in this.
I don't know how he does it. What a fu*king shack huh?

I doubt you'll read this but it shows that the folks you hate pay their share in taxes.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no ... -the-taxes

Yes, income in America is skewed toward the rich. But taxes are skewed far, far more. The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes. STEPHEN MOORE has the numbers.

1. Are income taxes fair?

That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that they themselves pay are fair, compared with 37 percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

3. But didn’t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?

The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.

But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

4. But haven’t the tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor?

No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 percent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.

Millionaires populate U.S. Senate. Over half have a D behind their name. If you truly hate the rich then you truly hate both sides of the asle.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overvie ... 7&filter=S

1 John Kerry (D-Mass) $284,157,594 $336,224,883 $388,292,172
2 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $190,443,029 $241,545,513 $292,647,997
3 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $43,821,041 $103,560,020 $163,298,999
4 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $59,897,019 $93,715,011 $127,533,003
5 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $53,326,179 $89,509,099 $125,692,020
6 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $52,344,301 $84,171,162 $115,998,023
7 Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore) $28,358,029 $46,127,014 $63,895,999
8 Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) $15,018,074 $33,308,537 $51,599,001
9 Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) $20,419,173 $32,428,089 $44,437,005
10 Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) $14,624,035 $31,421,472 $48,218,910
11 Hillary Clinton (D-NY) $10,359,018 $30,788,008 $51,216,999
12 John McCain (R) $20,411,154 $28,452,080 $36,493,006
13 Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) $11,811,688 $26,174,168 $40,536,648
14 Johnny Isakson (R-Ga) $8,342,077 $16,313,538 $24,284,999
15 Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) $10,499,111 $16,218,556 $21,938,002
16 Ben Nelson (D-Neb) $6,007,056 $10,948,028 $15,889,000
17 Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) $5,675,187 $9,969,094 $14,263,001
18 Evan Bayh (D-Ind) $3,726,026 $8,834,013 $13,942,000
19 Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) $2,858,033 $7,789,516 $12,720,999
20 Arlen Specter (R-Pa) $2,834,011 $7,298,005 $11,762,000
21 Judd Gregg (R-NH) $3,129,082 $6,825,041 $10,521,000
22 Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) $2,376,013 $6,646,006 $10,916,000
23 Sam Brownback (R-Kan) $3,231,069 $6,571,034 $9,911,000
24 John A. Barrasso (R-Wyo) $3,252,012 $6,486,005 $9,719,999
25 Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) $2,103,014 $6,237,007 $10,371,000

[JRod]

That graph either shows that there certainly isn't a redistribution of wealth because we are talking low percentage numbers between the bottom 50% (the last 3-4 quintiles). Three percent, how can that be called a redistribution of wealth. 3 freaking percent? And it's not like 3% is just going to bottom bracket.

Something is off here.

[Teal]

That graph either shows that there certainly isn't a redistribution of wealth because we are talking low percentage numbers between the bottom 50% (the last 3-4 quintiles). Three percent, how can that be called a redistribution of wealth. 3 freaking percent? And it's not like 3% is just going to bottom bracket.

Something is off here.

Yeah, something is off. Obama hasn't been elected yet.

[Teal]

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.

I've never understood how anyone who is "poor" could vote Republican. Do you think Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or any other fat cat Republican has your interests in mind? Of course not...they're interested in paying less taxes themselves. I admire someone like Obama who makes a pile of money yet is willing to step up and pay more in taxes so that 95% of the less fortunate in this country can get a break.

If all or most of the rich consisted of people who came from humble beginnings and worked their way up in life, I might feel differently. But my observation has been that many of the wealthy (such as Bush and McCain) came from money and have had many things handed to them in life, just because of their last name. Those fu$%ers should be the ones paying more in taxes, IMO, not less.

And you're an undecided voter...yeah, sure. I'm with Jackdiggity, GT. No point in talking with you about this stuff.

[JRod]

That graph either shows that there certainly isn't a redistribution of wealth because we are talking low percentage numbers between the bottom 50% (the last 3-4 quintiles). Three percent, how can that be called a redistribution of wealth. 3 freaking percent? And it's not like 3% is just going to bottom bracket.

Something is off here.

Yeah, something is off. Obama hasn't been elected yet.

Wow you got me.

[Teal]

That graph either shows that there certainly isn't a redistribution of wealth because we are talking low percentage numbers between the bottom 50% (the last 3-4 quintiles). Three percent, how can that be called a redistribution of wealth. 3 freaking percent? And it's not like 3% is just going to bottom bracket.

Something is off here.

Yeah, something is off. Obama hasn't been elected yet.

Wow you got me.

Well, otherwise...whatever point you were trying to make is lost. The point is that 13% of the lowest income pay almost no taxes already. That is, they keep nearly all their money. The taxes are shouldered by everyone else. All those government social programs are funded by everyone else. So what's your confusion?

Oh and thanks for the classy retort.

[lexbur]

Gotta love those minor league hockey promotions:

http://www.lakeeriemonsters.com/

[Naples39]

I've never understood how anyone who is "poor" could vote Republican. Do you think Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or any other fat cat Republican has your interests in mind? Of course not...they're interested in paying less taxes themselves. I admire someone like Obama who makes a pile of money yet is willing to step up and pay more in taxes so that 95% of the less fortunate in this country can get a break.

If all or most of the rich consisted of people who came from humble beginnings and worked their way up in life, I might feel differently. But my observation has been that many of the wealthy (such as Bush and McCain) came from money and have had many things handed to them in life, just because of their last name. Those fu$%ers should be the ones paying more in taxes, IMO, not less.

And you're an undecided voter...yeah, sure. I'm with Jackdiggity, GT. No point in talking with you about this stuff.

LOL Teal. Someone just got busted, assuming anyone believed his 'undecided' claims in the first place.

I understand why some people believe that morally it is a good thing to heavily tax the rich and give to the poor. I just find it very disappointing when those people can't understand, act indignant or belittle those with a different viewpoint. It's not like there's a 'right' answer to the question.

[Naples39]

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.

So name some then.

And we'll see if they're clear of any oil industry entanglements.

I did provide links, and a simple google search will get you dozens more.

Also, I'm sure no global warming alarmist (for lack of a better term) has ever had any kind of conflict of interest.



Also, as an aside, I have to say that posting in these threads in soul-sucking enterprise. Most days I find myself thinking 'why am I even bothering', yet I keep coming back.

[Brando70]

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.

Among the legitimate scientists (i.e. ones who specialize in fields related to climate) taking a contrary position on global warming, I believe nearly all of them don't dispute that global warming is happening. They disagree on the causes, severity, and the effects of it.

[matthewk]

I've never understood how anyone who is "poor" could vote Republican. Do you think Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or any other fat cat Republican has your interests in mind? Of course not...they're interested in paying less taxes themselves. I admire someone like Obama who makes a pile of money yet is willing to step up and pay more in taxes so that 95% of the less fortunate in this country can get a break.

If all or most of the rich consisted of people who came from humble beginnings and worked their way up in life, I might feel differently. But my observation has been that many of the wealthy (such as Bush and McCain) came from money and have had many things handed to them in life, just because of their last name. Those fu$%ers should be the ones paying more in taxes, IMO, not less.

I can't understand your argument. How do people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry etc... have our best interests in mind? Tell me where they got their money from.

[Slumberland]

I think the line of attack that someone who inherited their money is a more justifiable candidate for increased taxation is total bullcrap. While some trust-fund babies/inheritees might be prone to character deficits, someone up the genetic line did what had to be done to ensure their family's future, and that's A-OK. I only bring it up because I've seen it mentioned twice in the last couple weeks.

[pk500]

I've never understood how anyone who is "poor" could vote Republican. Do you think Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or any other fat cat Republican has your interests in mind? Of course not...they're interested in paying less taxes themselves. I admire someone like Obama who makes a pile of money yet is willing to step up and pay more in taxes so that 95% of the less fortunate in this country can get a break.

So, is everyone in rural, red, Republican America rich? That's news to me.

And who isn't interested in paying less taxes? You want to pay MORE taxes? If so, you certainly are a different breed of cat.

Democrats increase taxes so they can increase spending on social programs, which in turn decrease personal responsibility in this nation. The equation really is that simple.

It is not my responsibility to give the less fortunate a "break," which must be liberal Ovaltine secret decoder ring speak for a "biweekly check." I help the less fortunate through contributions to charity, through my church and through local community work. I do NOT trust a bloated government bureaucracy to do that for me when it has shown ZERO ability to do it with any effectiveness or efficiency.

There's also one simple fact that many Democrats fail to acknowledge: It is NOT a crime in America to be wealthy, especially since the vast majority of those who are wealthy have WORKED to EARN that money. Yes, there are members of the lucky sperm club just like there are working poor.

But to deny that many of the rich have actually earned their money is about as silly as denying that there are many poor who abuse the welfare and social systems to their benefit. I used to work in an inner-city youth center; I've seen it. People using food stamps to buy cigarettes and beer; people filling public transportation to head to the mall on every second Friday to spend some of that check on new clothes, people who barely had a pot to piss in buying Air Jordans in the mid-1980s, etc., etc.

God, I've never seen an election in which "work" has been such a dirty word.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

And yes, this was great to see and hear.

Agreed. I stumbled across this last night on MSNBC and actually was laughing out loud at some of the jokes. Never thought a politician could do that to me!

Take care,
PK