ParanoiA

Exactly. Why is that so hard? You laid it out just perfectly, and fairly. And putting it just like that doesn't seem that unreasonable to me - and this is coming from a libertarian-like dude. I would take issue with it, making a case for small business and against gigantua business, but it sure doesn't sound like a deal breaker or dirty little secret like Rush is making this out to be. It's a socialist concept. It's perpetrated by both parties, but disproportionately. Sure the republicans redistribute wealth as a matter of course, whereas the democrats redistribute wealth as a matter of principle and belief. Both are dangerous, yet to a certain extent unavoidable. We're always going to be "technically" redistributing wealth, no matter who's in office, no matter how saintly, it's inevitable that some poor guy's tax dollars are going to end up in some other guy's pocket, if no other reason than to buy paint for the white house. But to exercise the notion that the poor's income be supplemented by the rich is an entirely different approach that the democrats get sole responsibility for, for better or for worse. The republicans have an even nastier responsibility to answer for: supplementing the rich with proceeds from the tax payers. That one applies with or without rhetoric.

Exactly what I was talking about. What does Joe's opinion matter on anything? See, you're doing it too. You're redirecting the focus to irrelevant bullshit. You might as well point out the color of socks you're wearing. Again, why does Joe matter at all? The questions and answers are absolutely relevant for a presidential job position. Ok. And I find thinking outside of my self made box much better to false premises like Shitty Option A or Shitty Option B. We're not lab rats, there are other options besides redistribution and evaporation. But not when you're hooked by partisan competition.

There's a difference between ethics and morals that is typically ignored and both words are used interchangably. Loosely, I've always felt the government's job is to regulate ethics, the negotiation of inalienable rights between us, while morals are an ever changing cultural product. But morality is merging with ethics these days, so it doesn't surprise me that economics and capitalism are being affected by it. That said, I'm not sure there isn't more disagreement on moral issues than ethical ones. I would not be surprised for most people to believe that one person profiting millions of dollars is unethical.

Why is Joe getting trashed anyway? Why does it matter if his name is Dirk Diggler? Or if he's never paid a dime in taxes in his whole life? Or if he's even an american citizen? Or if he's a serial killer on vacation in the US? Why does a single speck of his personal information have to do with the validity of his questions and the revelation of Obama's answer: wealth redistribution. But then, there's the anwer. That's it. Because Obama accidentally told the philosophical truth of his position, his campaign and his disciples are defending him by mounting the pathetic offense against a small businessman. So weird. Why not just stand behind that truth? Why not say it everyday, to every camera, without shame? Not sure why Joe deserves to be trashed. (other than that he didn't "obey" like the Obama posters request) Is this the new democratic party? You're either with us or against us?

Nah, I'm just gonna' cancel his vote by voting on behalf of my dead neighbor...that is as long as I can get to it before ACORN does.

No, it's already a valid comparison no matter who I pick. It's simply applying a person's reputation to expectation. Maher has a reputation and it's a perfectly valid expectation. I used Rush Limbaugh as an example because he's a polarized figure and none of you would keep your proverbials mouths shut about it regardless if you ever watched his "movie". In other words, no, it's not out of the question to suspect a person's future actions based on their reputation.

I like Joe. An anybody else who thumbs his nose at the IRS and takes the wealth redistributionist pigs to task for their theft. I don't remember McCain "choosing" him for anything, that's funny. Also, who called him Joe? I don't remember hearing "Joe" call himself Joe. I thought that came from the ole "Joe Blow" generic naming convention for blue collar guys. Any other stupid shit we can trash him with? Hey, I heard his great grandfather gave a dollar to the KKK back in 1920, so surely he's a racist too right??

Ok, so if Rush Limbaugh comes out with a "movie" on Global Warming, you're not going to comment on its credibility or content based on his reputation right? You're going to patiently wait until you've seen it before even remotely suggesting it could be tainted with his previous outspoken tendencies? After all, it would be a movie on GW, not Rush...

I see why we're talking past each other and why this hasn't sunk in for me: I'm assuming the increase in overtime pay of 150% of the hourly wage. So, where I'm coming from, even taxed at a higher rate you still make more per than regular time. If the net overtime pay resulted in less hourly wage than normal hours, then I could see your point. That said, I guess I'm not sure about this overtime rule of time and a half, whether that's a law or just convention.

Philosophically, I actually don't have much of an issue with Healthcare being the government's jurisdiction; it wouldn't be too hard to make comparisons to police and fire control service. My objections come from freedom of choice becoming freedom from choice. I could only sign on to a system that somehow preserves competition between providers, and doesn't do things like Severian brought up, like witholding medications for whatever beaurocratic reasons. And what about the prescription drug racket? Any government run system is going to make these idiots richer than shit, inflating already over-inflated pricing, unless we take over that as well. Then you lose the advantage of capitalist driven research and development, talent and etc. There must be a way to preserve the advantageous components of capitalism.

Ooh, damn good point.

Really? How much time do you think we have before fossil fuels are depleted? Your points would seem more valid to me if we were already running short. But nuclear power plants are time consuming projects to build, on the scale of years I'm assuming for each one. Correct me if I'm wrong, sincerely. That in mind, it also doesn't seem too unreasonable to expect results from wind and solar in the next couple of decades, as long as we're still committed, despite the falling gas prices that will tempt us all to ignore energy independence and advancement. Just seems like we're talking about decades to roll out either one on a global scale. But I'm surely no expert.

Yeah, good point. For those of us who only get occassional overtime it wouldn't matter much, but for those who work overtime regularly it could cause alot of grief.

Certainly a valid point. But I like dreaming with the goal posts set high, so I'm personally on a path to symbolically disconnect from the grid and eliminate all credit. So, if Barack is actually pushing this self-sufficiency notion, I won't be quite as spiteful when you all vote for him.

Uh..what's the problem with that? I love that idea. That would seem the best of all solutions: self-sufficiency.

No kidding, it's not like the moderate conservative movement isn't strong. They're competing for leverage previously monopolized by the liberal agenda. Obviously, the republicans are in an identity crisis. While I understand Buckley's position, I also understand the need for republicans to stay philosophically polarized to the democrats. And no, I'm not talking about partisanship, I'm talking about ideology. If they're going to be hybrid democrat-republicans, then they should call themselves that and have their own party. I have a feeling this is about retaining the traditional right wing mantra while exorcising the hybrids. Ah, what the hell do I know... Maybe he could team up with Dr. Paul since he effectively shares the same predicament.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm not understanding the "discouragement". You always make more money, even if it's taxed at a higher rate. I don't know anyone that has turned down additional hours or a promotion or a raise because of the tax rate. Now, I can understand where it may be counterintuitive, but I'm not seeing how that causes a counterproductive consequence. I agree, but why is overtime withheld at a higher rate? If we're taxing total income at the end of the year then I would expect withholding to be constant, no matter the hours.

How are you getting on the internet to have this conversation? It would seem you have some level of resourcefulness to post in this thread without your brothers ratting you out. If you're at least 14 then I'm kind of with Skeptic, I would go see this girl whether they liked it or not. I would force them to physically stop me. You can love your parents and they can be wrong and still mean well. But you're not being respected and I doubt you will get it until you earn it.

Maybe he thinks that earning power is a more appropirate method to fairly distribute the demand for this revenue? Not paycheck to paycheck though. While it may not matter at the end of the year, it matters at the end of the day. How about the notion of taxing labor at all? I'm not sure, but I've always assumed the implication of our income tax structure was about establishing the difference between capital secured for living expenses and capital profit, or gain, thus only taxing one's gain. If so, a selective sales tax would seem a better barometer for that.

Oh yeah, that commercial grade one looks awesome. I think that first one, the one you have, is more in my price range. Not sure I can wait til christmas though...

Yes, that's been mentioned for decades which is why we have a mutli-hundred billion dollar entitlement system for them and laws that require emergency rooms to admit everyone regardless of any ability to pay anything at all. And is, in fact, significantly to blame for the high cost of healthcare here since the insured are soaked for the losses. And no, no one mentions the incivility of forcing people to give a service for free. I don't dispute that, it all sounds plausible to me, but is there an example of a monopoly that wasn't enabled by some kind of government regulation? I tossed this question out there because it was a bold statement made in a discerning atmosphere, and as I pondered it and I realized I really couldn't think of any monopolies that weren't empowered by some kind of legislation.

Sorry, I'm still mesmerized by the notion of an electric ice cream machine...20 mins...cool. Why haven't I heard about this before? Ice cream is my absolute favorite legal vice. I know what I'm asking for christmas now.

What about nuclear waste? Is there a responsible solution for that? Because it's less infrastructure to maintain? I don't know if that's a good enough reason to dismiss the consolidated power structure of energy supply. I like the idea of a saturated source of energy providers, at least for the safer energy solutions.

Pangloss is really going to think we're extremists now, we've both got McKinney in our top 3.

True enough, I'll concede that. And surely this doesn't make up for the total effective circumvention of individual shopping, which creates this socialist bubble I detest and was asked to elaborate on. And since we're on the subject, isn't it arbitrary and odd that we hold employers accountable for health benefits? I mean, I suppose they started it by offering it as a benefit, but the word "benefit" has lost its meaning and is now taken for granted. Why don't we expect them to pay for lettuce or car tags? I think it's high time we the people request our employers to turn our benefits into liquid, demand equal treatment from the feds and let us shop for our benefits. Imagine the competition created from a sudden pool of millions of individual shoppers as opposed to a fractional pool of business. Basically spreading the current consolidated consumer power.