Poor Joe

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

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.

 

What's wrong with redistributing wealth. All societies in the history of humankind have done this in one form or another; it is not a socialist concept.

 

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.

 

So? I only care about where my money is being spent, not necessarily who takes it. Of course, the problem in this nation is that the people who have all the wealth, aren't the ones who actually pay any of their taxes.

 

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.

 

Yeah, that is a problem isn't it? Don't you think then that that's what might be bothering poor Joe right now?

 

That said, Joe the Plumber played a disappointingly large role in the debate. As I am a young voter, these three are the only presidential debates I have watched, and I must say that I expected better, and would have expected better from college or even high school debate competition.

 

The rules of logic need not apply to the political and presidential debates

Edited October 22, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

The rules of logic need not apply to the political and presidential debates

 

True. Unlike a regular debate, a political debate is not done to see who can better support their position. It is done to see who can win over more voters. Hence, lies, bad logic and appeals to emotion can be "better" tactics than rational debate. Sad but true.

[ParanoiA]

Okay ParanoiA. I'm confused. Can you answer some questions for me?

 

What answers from Obama are you referring to explicitly? It's hard to answer you when you're referring to something vague.

 

Well' date=' I let myself get side-tracked on disparaging the substance and lost focus on my larger, very simple point: Why are we pretending that the characteristics of the "questioner" matters?

 

I'm not referring to Obama's specific answers (although we can go there too, just not sure I care that much), I'm referring to why we are pretending that the guy who happened to ask the questions all of us would like to ask, has to pass some kind of integrity test before Obama's answers are relevant.

 

If some guy asked Bush why he thinks Iraq is a smart choice for war, is it relevant that the guy who asked him happens to be a former military guy, dishonorably discharged, a known coward, with illegitimate children and Nazi collectables in his basement? My answer is no. His credibility is absolutely, without a doubt or hesitation, irrelevant. Only Bush's answers are relevant, and very much so.

 

I'm just saying the same is true in this Joe the plummer mess. Disparaging Joe is intellectually dishonest; a blatant political ploy to avoid the obvious relevance of Obama's answers. It happens when folks are emotionally invested in their candidate and their logic circuits go on vacation.

 

What's wrong with redistributing wealth. All societies in the history of humankind have done this in one form or another; it is not a socialist concept.

 

It is a socialist feature, no doubt. It may be a feature rolled out in plenty of other government structures, but I don't believe the democrats are selling feudalism, I think they're drawn by socialism, so that's my focus. A philosophical imperative to redistribute wealth is wrong, in my opinion, and quite dangerous to individual liberty. It seems all rosey when they woo you into despising the rich, so we can all rationalize theft and make believe we're a collective Robin Hood setting things straight, but you sober up once you become their target.

Edited October 22, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

I don't believe the democrats are selling feudalism, I think they're drawn by socialism, so that's my focus. A philosophical imperative to redistribute wealth is wrong, in my opinion, and quite dangerous to individual liberty.

 

Again, Democrats and Republicans both redistribute wealth, they just redistribute it to different people/places. I'm not sure why Dems are taking the full hit on this.

 

 

Oh wait, yes I am... It's because of the biased liberal media like the NYTimes repeating the McCain talking points over and over again (how's that for capturing multiple stupidities of this campaign in one sentence). Too bad we don't have more small town newspapers telling us how it REALLY is.

[ParanoiA]

Again, Democrats and Republicans both redistribute wealth, they just redistribute it to different people/places. I'm not sure why Dems are taking the full hit on this.

 

 

Oh wait, yes I am... It's because of the biased liberal media like the NYTimes repeating the McCain talking points over and over again (how's that for capturing multiple stupidities of this campaign in one sentence). Too bad we don't have more small town newspapers telling us how it REALLY is.

 

I know I'm long winded when I write, but I answered why the democrats are taking the full hit on this in response to your previous post on this. If you didn't understand what I was saying, fine, but this puts a thoughtless spin on what I thought was a thoughtful answer.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

It is a socialist feature, no doubt. It may be a feature rolled out in plenty of other government structures, but I don't believe the democrats are selling feudalism, I think they're drawn by socialism, so that's my focus. A philosophical imperative to redistribute wealth is wrong, in my opinion, and quite dangerous to individual liberty. It seems all rosey when they woo you into despising the rich, so we can all rationalize theft and make believe we're a collective Robin Hood setting things straight, but you sober up once you become their target.

 

So you do admit, then, that this is a feature that is rolled out in every society that has ever existed. Which contradicts your statement in that it really isn't a socialist concept. Ok, yes, socialists have redistribution of wealth as part of their backbone, but it isn't restricted to the left wing.

 

But again, what exactly is wrong with redistribution of wealth? Or better yet, why should I let you keep everything to yourself and not contribute anything to society?

 

The bottom line is that they are going to take your money, even if they have to pry it out of your dead hands. The only choice you have is where you want it to go: you want it to go to rich people, or do you want it to pay you back in some way, such as for example, health care or less taxes for the masses.

 

Well, I let myself get side-tracked on disparaging the substance and lost focus on my larger, very simple point: Why are we pretending that the characteristics of the "questioner" matters?

 

I'm not referring to Obama's specific answers (although we can go there too, just not sure I care that much), I'm referring to why we are pretending that the guy who happened to ask the questions all of us would like to ask, has to pass some kind of integrity test before Obama's answers are relevant.

 

If some guy asked Bush why he thinks Iraq is a smart choice for war, is it relevant that the guy who asked him happens to be a former military guy, dishonorably discharged, a known coward, with illegitimate children and Nazi collectables in his basement? My answer is no. His credibility is absolutely, without a doubt or hesitation, irrelevant. Only Bush's answers are relevant, and very much so.

 

I'm just saying the same is true in this Joe the plummer mess. Disparaging Joe is intellectually dishonest; a blatant political ploy to avoid the obvious relevance of Obama's answers. It happens when folks are emotionally invested in their candidate and their logic circuits go on vacation.

 

Guilt by association is a very powerful tactic in politics. What matters is not the actual topics at hand, but how many voters and ideological sheep you can keep at your side. You hit it spot on, and I only wish that more people were much more rational.

Edited October 22, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots
multiple post merged

[iNow]

I know I'm long winded when I write, but I answered why the democrats are taking the full hit on this in response to your previous post on this. If you didn't understand what I was saying, fine, but this puts a thoughtless spin on what I thought was a thoughtful answer.

Let me check my understanding, then.

 

You said that Democrats redistribute wealth disproportionately. I'd like to see numbers on this, as simply asserting it does not make it fact.

 

You said that Republicans redistribute wealth "as a matter of course," whereas Democrats redistribute wealth "as a matter of principle and belief." I have a hard time accepting these broad generalizations, both across party and across motivations, so would like to see some evidence. Again, simply asserting it does not make it fact.

 

 

We do agree that wealth will be redistributed regardless who is in office. You raised a good point there.

 

However, you then equivocate this redistribution directly with attempts to supplement the income of the poor using the income of the rich, and that Democrats get "sole responsibility" for this. I think you were making an observation more than an assertion here regarding the Democrats, but I disagree with the premise itself on a number of fronts.

 

Redistribution, as I keep saying, is happening regardless of party of person, it's where things get redistributed to that is at the heart of this. Yet, when people lay the mantle of negative associations at the feet of Democrats for redistribution of wealth, they suddenly change the topic from "redistrubution" to "taking money from rich to give to the poor." That's not what is happening with our tax dollars. That is not a fair assessment of the reality of the situation. That is not the "end all be all" of projects enacted by our collected taxes. It's really just stupid rhetoric that misses the true nature of the redistribution... It's more than a rob the rich, feed the poor issue.

 

Redistribution which happens with BOTH parties, and goes to far more than social welfare, it also goes to infrastructure and other bits that benefit society as a whole.

 

I again don't know why the Republicans are pretending that this is a Democrat only process, and that redistribution in itself is all negative... Oh wait, yes I do. It's because they know it helps them to lie like this to the electorate during an election season.

Edited October 22, 2008 by iNow

[ParanoiA]

So you do admit, then, that this is a feature that is rolled out in every society that has ever existed. Which contradicts your statement in that it really isn't a socialist concept. Ok, yes, socialists have redistribution of wealth as part of their backbone, but it isn't restricted to the left wing.

 

Yes, I'd wager it has been rolled out since the dawn of man. In fact, I'm sure early humans shared resources in various ways, much of which would resemble redistribution of what could be considered as wealth, or overabundance of a given resource.

 

Redistribution of wealth is the concrete slab of socialism. It is a principle of their ideology and that same principle is codified in the democrat agenda, and has been for years. It is not part of the republican platform, even though they are guilty of it. Same as the small government feature - their actions don't match their words.

 

The bottom line is that they are going to take your money, even if they have to pry it out of your dead hands. The only choice you have is where you want it to go: you want it to go to rich people, or do you want it to pay you back in some way, such as for example, health care or less taxes for the masses.

 

That is a false dilemma. Or, more accurately, it presupposes the status quo indefinitely. Like Homie the Clown so proudly declared..."homie don't play that". If you want to fall for the propoganda regurgitated by the two party siege and abdicate your responsibility to the republic by capitulating to the thieves in washington, be my guest, but I still believe in other options and will exercise my right to think for myself, to reject the notion of Shitty Option A or Shitty Option B, and vote with my conscience even if I'm standing there alone.

 

The government is not the arbiter of right and wrong, and will never serve as my barometer for my philosophical starting point. I will continue to fight for individual liberty from conservatives who wish to corporatize me and liberals who want to sanitize me.

 

You said that Republicans redistribute wealth "as a matter of course' date='" whereas Democrats redistribute wealth "as a matter of principle and belief." I have a hard time accepting these broad generalizations, both across party and across motivations, so would like to see some evidence. Again, simply asserting it does not make it fact.

 

 

We do agree that wealth will be redistributed regardless who is in office. You raised a good point there.

 

However, you then equivocate this redistribution directly with attempts to supplement the income of the poor using the income of the rich, and that Democrats get "sole responsibility" for this. I think you were making an observation more than an assertion here regarding the Democrats, but I disagree with the premise itself on a number of fronts.[/quote']

 

I'm splitting hairs between stated goals and effective result. The stated goal of socialism depends on a redistributionist structure in order to spread the wealth. Obama said as much during his sidewalk talk with Joe. I believe the democrat agenda mirrors socialism, and I don’t know anybody but you that actually doubts that, but maybe I’m wrong. For most, that’s not a pejorative. If you require evidence, I’m sure I can conjure it up.

 

Republicans spread the wealth, but it's not a stated goal. Worse? Sure, because they fool people into electing them for NOT having a reputation of wealth redistribution while they turn right around and do it. But it's not part of the republican ideology to redistribute wealth, so in reality this is a naughty behavior by the current crop, not an agenda of the party.

 

Democrats spread the wealth in the form of taxation. Refundable tax credits - earned income credit being some of the worst. With zero tax liability, earning barely 30 grand in a year, I received on average about 3 to 5 grand each tax year from earned income credit, and I didn't even pay that much in all year - and got that back too! The rich, when I looked up folks making over $200,000 (not even sure that's considered rich) the table ran out and referred to a 39% calculation - that's 2/5 of their income. And that's just federal taxes.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html - from an earlier thread on the subject. Never mind WSJ’s opinion, just using the reference for the examples of tax credits.

 

Obama's tax plan introduces new tax credits, and increases on these credits - refundable credits - that amount to transfering wealth. Progressive taxation is one thing, but these tax credits are about wealth redistribution.

 

That's blatant strong arming by the masses, taking from a minority of citizens. Sure, they got loop holes, and yadda yadda yadda - but the legal structure is there; sanctioned by uncle sam to loot the rich to help the poor. It may look great on TV for your favorite super action hero, but in real life that's justifying theft. It's wrong.

[bascule]

Well, I let myself get side-tracked on disparaging the substance and lost focus on my larger, very simple point: Why are we pretending that the characteristics of the "questioner" matters?

 

I'm not referring to Obama's specific answers (although we can go there too, just not sure I care that much), I'm referring to why we are pretending that the guy who happened to ask the questions all of us would like to ask, has to pass some kind of integrity test before Obama's answers are relevant.

 

Okay, now I'm really confused. What questions did Joe ask that you feel are worth repeating, and how were Obama's answers unsatisfactory?

[Pangloss]

I think a distinction has to be made between collecting money disproportionately in order to pay for established, debated-and-accepted government programs, as opposed to enacting new procedures for taking money away from the rich solely because they are rich and giving it to the poor solely because they are poor. We simply do not do the latter in this country. We come REALLY REALLY close to that line, but we always stop short of it, at least superficially.

 

Education funding would be an example of something that is generally accepted as not being a product of "income redistribution" by both common sides of the political spectrum. Most everyone generally agrees with the benefits and importance of this sort of program and the problems associated with not having it, especially with regard to competing in the global economy.

 

At the other end of the spectrum we have something like this year's $300 billion farm bill -- if anybody thinks Republicans aren't capable of income redistribution just take a gander at the voting record for that puppy. But even there the argument could be made, however objectionable it may be to nearly everyone on THIS forum, that there was an issue on the table, it was debated and voted on, and the issue was not, ostensibly, about income redistribution -- it was supposed to serve a larger purpose than that (making food cheap).

 

I think where those of us to the right of center get a bit peeved is when we see things like non-taxpayers getting 'refunds' from the IRS. I understand the rationale behind it, but Obama made a mistake yesterday in saying that those people do pay other forms of taxes. We all pay many forms of taxes. He should have made the argument on the basis of stimulating the economy and getting the country out of this economic quagmire. He made the exact same mistake when he neglected to tell Joe the Plumber that his customers would have lower taxes and therefore buy more of his products.

 

When he does that (or rather fails to do that), it raises my hackles and makes me concerned that he is just going to serve the far left. But I think on the whole he does understand both sides of the tax issue I mentioned above, he WOULD have told Joe that had he not been under so much election-related scrutiny, and that's why I'm voting for the guy.

 

Maybe it's a pipe dream. I guess we'll find out, because I don't think McCain stands a snowball's chance in hell at this point.

[iNow]

In addition to the Farm Bill Pangliss mentioned, we cannot forget about the financial system buy off taking place right now. I'm sorry, but any Republican (or repub talking head, for that matter) who claims that Dems are pushing us closer to socialism is a ****ing hypocrit who can't see the reality of present day actions.

 

Also, I'm sort of with Bascule on this... Why is socialism supposed to be inherently bad?... I'm going to open a new thread.

[Mr Skeptic]

Obama's tax plan introduces new tax credits, and increases on these credits - refundable credits - that amount to transfering wealth. Progressive taxation is one thing, but these tax credits are about wealth redistribution.

 

Another effect of these credits is that it amounts to giving people a raise. It would also encourage them to work more. That should be beneficial to the economy.

 

That's blatant strong arming by the masses, taking from a minority of citizens. Sure, they got loop holes, and yadda yadda yadda - but the legal structure is there; sanctioned by uncle sam to loot the rich to help the poor. It may look great on TV for your favorite super action hero, but in real life that's justifying theft. It's wrong.

 

Saying it is wrong implies that it is not fair. But that depends on how you look at it. And life isn't fair. Much of the wealth of the rich is based off the work of the poor. The free market ideal doesn't apply too well here -- the rich can afford not to hire workers more than workers can afford not to work, which gives the rich the advantage in negotiating wages. The rich can invest, the poor must work. If the tables are naturally turned against the poor, perhaps it is fair for the government to balance that out?

[Pangloss]

I disagree with the statement "the rich can afford not to hire workers more than workers can afford not to work". That statement is not supported by the simple reality check of the vast wealth at every level in this nation, where according to the census bureau even people "below the poverty line" have, on average, two cars, a house (albeit w/mortgage), television, DVD player, computer with internet access, microwave, etc etc etc.

[ParanoiA]

Okay, now I'm really confused. What questions did Joe ask that you feel are worth repeating, and how were Obama's answers unsatisfactory?

 

No need for confusion. I believe Joe's questions on the detail of Obama's tax plan were worthwhile because it gets into the particulars of his philosophy as well as the plan itself, like pointing out he wants to "spread the wealth around". Joe is just asking what any responsible reporter should ask, and any responsible citizen would want to ask or know.

 

It's important because the crux of Obama's plan is tax increases on the rich and cuts for everyone else. It's bold and it's straight forward and it's good to talk about progressive taxation and the concept of wealth redistribution. Getting into detail on this subject area is good for everyone, no matter your ideology, particularly since this man is running for president and this is his proposal. Remember, wealth redistribution is not a disparaging comment unless you believe it is wrong.

 

As for Obama's answers, I thought they were just fine. What made you think I had an issue with his answers?

 

Like I keep repeating...I'm making a point about dishonest redirection; making believe that the credentials of the mouth that asked the questions somehow matters.

 

In addition to the Farm Bill Pangliss mentioned, we cannot forget about the financial system buy off taking place right now. I'm sorry, but any Republican (or repub talking head, for that matter) who claims that Dems are pushing us closer to socialism is a ****ing hypocrit who can't see the reality of present day actions.

 

Yep.

 

Also, I'm sort of with Bascule on this... Why is socialism supposed to be inherently bad?... I'm going to open a new thread.

 

I don't think it's inherently bad, it's all about preference. We're a capitalist country and I prefer to stay that way. If for no other reason than diversity's sake. But, of course, my philosophy is that it is the natural compliment to freedom. You've heard my spill enough, I'm sure.

 

Another effect of these credits is that it amounts to giving people a raise. It would also encourage them to work more. That should be beneficial to the economy.

 

Unless you're referring to a tax credit I missed, I don't know where you're getting the idea it encourages folks to work more. I come damn close to owing income tax now that I make more money, whereas I used to make out with three to five thousand bucks during tax season via earned income credit mainly. People are encouraged to work more so they can make more money today, and to obviously upgrade their standard of living. If they considered their credits and taxes, then one would logically conclude that working more achieves smaller and smaller refunds.

 

Saying it is wrong implies that it is not fair. But that depends on how you look at it. And life isn't fair. Much of the wealth of the rich is based off the work of the poor. The free market ideal doesn't apply too well here -- the rich can afford not to hire workers more than workers can afford not to work, which gives the rich the advantage in negotiating wages. The rich can invest, the poor must work. If the tables are naturally turned against the poor, perhaps it is fair for the government to balance that out?

 

But the poor outnumber the rich. The middle class outnumber the rich. They need us to maintain their wealth, far more than we need them to maintain ours. Think about it...I make money from my labor. I don't make money from 5 other people's labor. If I did, then my wealth is only maintained as long as I can convince those 5 people to keep doing labor for me. But when I'm the only one that does the labor, then I only have to convince myself to keep it up.

 

The poor, middle class, generally speaking, really only depend on themselves to maintain their standard of living. But the rich depend on multiples of people to maintain their higher standard of living for themselves, figuratively one person. We ultimately have the superior power.

 

That said, I've been kicking around the idea of taxing capital gain only. It's tempting because it doesn't involve subjectively judging the income vs. need of a citizen - a gigantic can of worms with hideous consequences - but rather puts a price on doing business in america, a "capitalist fee". Perhaps that's the middle ground of fairness here. Capital gain is more of a business concept than an individual income concept, although I realize many of us get taxed on capital gains come tax season. Admittedly, I don't have much experience in it, and I'm not entirely clear, philosophically, on what is truly a capital gain as opposed to even trade.

 

My gut tells me that our labor does not earn a capital gain, but I'm not sure why it feels that way. When I think it out, it would appear to be a trade like anything else and you're free to market yourself however you can to get the maximum capital out of it. However, no one gets rich just selling their labor, they must sell other's labor in one form or another. Still chewing on this concept...

[bascule]

It's important because the crux of Obama's plan is tax increases on the rich and cuts for everyone else. It's bold and it's straight forward and it's good to talk about progressive taxation and the concept of wealth redistribution

 

Well, let me put it in a different light: right now our government is running record budget deficits, and at the same time our economy is in the crapper.

 

Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to try to get the deficit down by raising taxes on Americans who can afford to have their taxes raised, as that won't have as much of a negative impact on the economy.

 

"Wealth distribution" has nothing to do with the taxation structure. If you don't like wealth distribution you should be complaining about welfare. The tax structure affects how we fund the government, which during the past 8 years our government has done an abominally miserable job of, and in the process the wealth of every American has been redistributed into the aether.

[ParanoiA]

Perhaps it's not such a bad idea to try to get the deficit down by raising taxes on Americans who can afford to have their taxes raised, as that won't have as much of a negative impact on the economy.

 

Ok, so I guess you agree with my point that this question and answer incident is legitimate substance regardless of Joe's illegitimacy. I can only guess you agree since you keep avoiding it.

 

"Wealth distribution" has nothing to do with the taxation structure. If you don't like wealth distribution you should be complaining about welfare. The tax structure affects how we fund the government[/b'], which during the past 8 years our government has done an abominally miserable job of, and in the process the wealth of every American has been redistributed into the aether.

 

No, refundable tax credits affect how we fund the poor, bascule. Remember, a refundable tax credit is a credit you get even if you have zero tax liability - which means a gain in income. If I qualify for a 2500 dollar earned income credit, and I paid a total of 1000 in taxes throughout the year and my tax liability is zero, then I'll get 3500 bucks from the feds. That's a freaking capital gain - that's giving out money for being poor enough - and these people are not on welfare. They're not even qualified welfare recipients, yet they're getting multi-thousand dollar handouts.

 

Earned income credit is like a pyramid of opportunity - if you make too little (adjusted gross income), like way under the poverty line, then you won't get much out of it, and if you make too much, like over 30,000 or so, then you won't get much or even qualify, but if your income falls about in the middle, like maybe 20,000, then you're right in the sweet spot and can qualify for several thousand dollars, depending on children, filing status and etc. As I made more money from my career, my earned income credit got lower and lower and now I don't even qualify - lucky for you.

 

That equates to a transfer of income from the upper classes to the lower classes. The upper classes pay in while the lower classes capitalize and earn income using credits. And, incidentally, since poverty is an education and discipline problem, and not a resource problem, they blow this blast of cash on stupid shit, like a big screen TV, iPods, Cell Phones...while they field bill collector phone calls.

[bascule]

Ok, so I guess you agree with my point that this question and answer incident is legitimate substance regardless of Joe's illegitimacy. I can only guess you agree since you keep avoiding it.

 

I only avoid it because you're desperately trying to change the subject and have kept me perpetually confused as to what the subject you're trying to change to is.

 

I will gladly state for the record that saying an argument is wrong because of who is saying it is clearly a logical fallacy, an ad hominem, however I didn't do that, nor have you stated which arguments Joe was making which I should care about here.

 

However, this is a thread about Joe. The guy clearly isn't credible. I was just pointing that out. It's certainly on topic.

 

No, refundable tax credits affect how we fund the poor, bascule.

 

Okay, so now the subject has gone from Joe to progressive taxation to refundable tax credits. So apparently your problem, again, isn't with progressive taxation, but with refundable tax credits.

 

So to reiterate, again, it's not progressive taxation that redistributes wealth.

[ParanoiA]

I only avoid it because you're desperately trying to change the subject and have kept me perpetually confused as to what the subject you're trying to change to is.

 

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black... Let's review my post that started our exchange:

 

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' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

The main theme of my post was the unfair attack on Joe, to redirect the focus from dialogue on Obama's tax plan. Secondary was the wealth redistribution. I've been consistent on both points and my focus has not changed one bit.

 

Okay' date=' so now the subject has gone from Joe to progressive taxation to refundable tax credits. So apparently your problem, again, isn't with progressive taxation, but with refundable tax credits.

 

So to reiterate, again, it's not progressive taxation that redistributes wealth.[/quote']

 

Nope, the subject stays where it's always been - wealth redistribution using the tax code. The only thing that's changed is the level of detail in our exchange and I certainly don't see an issue with that. You challenged my ascertion of wealth redistribution via taxation and I answered by pointing out refundable tax credits.

 

When you increase taxes for one class, and then hand out money to another class, that's essentially a transfer of wealth - particularly when you use the phrase "spread the wealth around" when describing it to an unlicensed plumber named Sam.

[bascule]

Nope, the subject stays where it's always been - wealth redistribution using the tax code.

 

Joe was whining about progressive taxation. Was Joe ever talking about refundable tax credits?

 

You apparently want to collude this with refundable tax credits/welfare/whatever. These happen regardless of how tax brackets are structured. Therefore your argument is a non-sequitur.

[ParanoiA]

Joe was whining about progressive taxation. Was Joe ever talking about refundable tax credits?

 

 

Joe didn't say the words "refundable tax credits", he just bitched about the higher tax bracket which prodded Obama's retort about spreading the wealth around. That's exactly what I said in my post too:

 

Why does a single speck of his personal information have to do with the validity of his questions and [b']the revelation of Obama's answer: wealth redistribution. [/b]

 

So yeah, I never said that Joe made a case on wealth redistribution, in fact, I never mentioned his argument or his whining at all whatsoever, that's exactly the point of my post - to eliminate his credibility altogether since it is meaningless and only serves the interests of Obama's followers that are concerned about covering his "spread the wealth" intentions.

 

You apparently want to collude this with refundable tax credits/welfare/whatever. These happen regardless of how tax brackets are structured. Therefore your argument is a non-sequitur.

 

Refundable tax credits are wealth redistribution since you've taken tax payer money and handed to people who make less money, because they make less money. If they were on welfare, then it would more difficult to make a wealth redistribution argument since the recipient must prove a lack of resources to maintain life, to feed themselves etc. They are applying for a safety net of resources.

 

Refundable tax credits go to people who are already feeding themselves, clothing themselves - they are not on welfare, they just simply make less than others make. Tax credits are good, but refundable ones are not right. It's not right to take money I can barely make ends meet with and hand it out to others - to provide a class of citizens with profit gained from forcibly taking from another class of citizens.

[iNow]

I don't think it's inherently bad, it's all about preference. We're a capitalist country and I prefer to stay that way.

I think this may be part of the piece where we disagree. I assert that we're NOT a capitalist economy, but a mixed economy. I also see this mixed approach as a good thing.

 

And, for what it's worth, I tend to enjoy your shpeels. I often learn from them, and they make me think, so thanks for that.

[ParanoiA]

I think this may be part of the piece where we disagree. I assert that we're NOT a capitalist economy, but a mixed economy. I also see this mixed approach as a good thing.

 

And, for what it's worth, I tend to enjoy your shpeels. I often learn from them, and they make me think, so thanks for that.

 

Oh, I don't disagree with that. Certainly we're not purely capitalist, but I suppose I figure we're moreso enough that we can wear the badge.

 

Thanks for the appreciation. I'm honored for anyone to actually read my bullshit, so thanks for that.

 

And it goes both ways, you don't know how many times I've started to type up high five to one of your posts, but then chicken out since it felt stupid to contribute nothing more than a hell yeah.

[iNow]

Hell Yeah!!

 

 

Great. Now I feel stupid.

[waitforufo]

Government computers used to find information on Joe the Plumber

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101

 

speaks for itself.

[iNow]

Broken link, mate. Bunch of ASCII characters presented in place of text.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

 

Here it is:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html

 

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

 

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher,

or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

 

Paul Lindsay, Ohio spokesman for the McCain campaign, attempted to portray the inquiries as politically motivated. "It's outrageous to see how quickly Barack Obama's allies would abuse government power in an attempt to smear a private citizen who dared to ask a legitimate question," he said.

 

Isaac Baker, Obama's Ohio spokesman, denounced Lindsay's statement as charges of desperation from a campaign running out of time. "Invasions of privacy should not be tolerated. If these records were accessed inappropriately, it had nothing to do with our campaign and should be investigated fully," he said.

 

 

 

My guess is that it's just some paper pusher making barely above minimum wage using their access to educate themselves on this "Joe guy" the potential future president keeps talking about. Considering that they don't even know WHO accessed the system yet, charges of political motivation seem (at this point) complately unfounded and baseless.

Edited October 25, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged