Poor Joe

[waitforufo]

The link in my post works fine for me:confused:

 

In this political season there has been much discussion about what people yell out at stump speaches. I think commenting on govenment workers leaking private citizen information is fair game.

[iNow]

Me too, but I don't have enough information to be confident that's what happened here. I'm not willing to make that leap and jump to that conclusion yet. AFAIK, the media had just as much (if not more) access to information about Joe's past.

[ParanoiA]

^ Hell Yeah!

[npts2020]

Isn't at least as likely that the information was accessed and leaked (if that is what happened) on behalf some media representitive as anyone from Obamas campaign?

[waitforufo]

Isn't at least as likely that the information was accessed and leaked (if that is what happened) on behalf some media representitive as anyone from Obamas campaign?

 

But why was the information leaked, and who did it benefit? Why is it so important to discredit "Joe?" A candidate came to his street uninvited seeking questions from real people. Is this how such a person should be treated? His question was no big a deal. The candidate's answer is why "Joe's" information was leaked. Everyone should be repulsed by how this common citizen is being treated.

[iNow]

Most of us simply don't care. You seem to be the only one making a big stink and keeping the subject in the present dialog, when we could instead move past it and talk about more important things.

[ParanoiA]

Well Joe has been doing interviews too, so he's somewhat made himself available for battle.

[Pangloss]

Yeah even I (Joe's biggest defender, lol) have to admit that if you go before the cameras to tell the world that you are hoping to have your privacy back soon, you're not doing it right. (grin)

[bascule]

Hmm, Joe has a suspended drivers license and more than $700 in outstanding court fines

 

What a stand-up fella...

[waitforufo]

Again, all about Joe. Little about Obama's answer.

[bascule]

Again, all about Joe. Little about Obama's answer.

 

Oh man, that again?

 

Let me state for the record: I'm for wealth redistribution. Obama's answer certainly didn't offend me.

 

The Fox News crowd has certainly latched onto that line though...

[iNow]

Bascule, the point you and I have been making received support from the unlikeliest of sources this morning. Conservative commentator and right winger George Will on This Week said that "95% of what the government does is redistribute wealth. It operates on the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Case in point, we have sugar subsidies. Costs the American peoples billions of dollars, but they don't notice it, it's in such small increments, but the few sugar growers get very rich out of this. Now, we have socialism for the stong. That is, the well represented and the organized in Washington, like sugar growers, but it's socialism nonetheless, and it's not new."

 

Clip below:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6114125

Edited October 26, 2008 by iNow

[Pangloss]

There's a big difference between "income redistribution" that George Will would support and "income redistribution" that bascule would support...................................... ... ...

 

That was one of their best round-tables in weeks, btw.

[iNow]

There's a big difference between "income redistribution" that George Will would support and "income redistribution" that bascule would support...................................... ... ...

That's not very fair of you to say, and only adds to the perceived ideological divisions you so frequently lament against. It adds nothing to this dialog, and also George Will was not supporting anything, simply commenting on facts.

 

 

That was one of their best round-tables in weeks, btw.

I agree. They seem a little lighter in spirit knowing that this epic campaign season which has been going on for eons is soon to end.

[bascule]

When I was a teenager I used to look to George Will as a conservative blowhard, but it seems like lately we agree on a surprising number of issues. So much so that I have to wonder... is George Will turning into a liberal?

[Pangloss]

That's not very fair of you to say, and only adds to the perceived ideological divisions you so frequently lament against. It adds nothing to this dialog, and also George Will was not supporting anything, simply commenting on facts.

 

This is in direct contradition with this:

 

Bascule, the point you and I have been making received support from the unlikeliest of sources[/b'] this morning. Conservative commentator and right winger George Will...

 

Your second statement (the first one above) is the correct one -- Will wasn't supporting your position at all.

 

We need better definitions here before anybody starts celebrating the country moving to the left -- in fact I think it's moving to the RIGHT. There is a HUGE ideological gap between redistributing wealth so that everyone gets the money, and investing in key areas for long-term, overall economic gain.

 

One of the reasons I'm voting Democrat this year in the presidential election is because, local tree-hugging and heart-bleeding posts notwithstanding, I no longer fear that Democrats are going to turn this country into a socialist state. I hear Democrats talk about personal responsibility and fiscal necessity and cautious, deliberative change. And the result is not only my support, but the support of malleable moderates nation wide. Democrats are the Big Tent again. Even "Give 'em Hell Zell" may come back on board.

 

But just as the Republicans lost us when they started pushing religion on us, so will Democrats lose us if they start insisting that wealth redistribution is for putting $9/hr single-mom hairdressers in $350,000 homes, or for directly attacking the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

 

You wanna invest in the infrastructure, you have my support. You start talking about a Playstation in every home, I'm going right back to the right.

 

And I'm taking the next election with me.

[john5746]

You start talking about a Playstation in every home, I'm going right back to the right.

 

Party pooper.

[iNow]

Your second statement (the first one above) is the correct one -- Will wasn't supporting your position at all.

If you don't see how you're spinning this, then you're blinded by your own filters.

 

I said our point was supported... it was reinforced... it was agreed with by George Will.

 

You then used that comment to drive an ideological wedge into the conversation, asserting that there is a BIG difference between the income distribution George Will would support and the income redistribution that Bascule would support.

 

My point, however, the one I said had just been supported by George Will, is that income redistribution already happens, it just goes to different places, so these ridiculous comments out of the McCain campaign seem to ignore some pretty obvious realities around us in their attempts to pander to the less educated and more fearful among the populace.

 

The only contradiction I see is your ability to take a post at face value, and to avoid getting it all poo stinkied with partisan nonsense.

 

 

 

We need better definitions here before anybody starts celebrating the country moving to the left -- in fact I think it's moving to the RIGHT.

Ah, yes. More insertion of ideological and partisan BS by the guy who says it won't be accepted on *his* boards. Who is celebrating any such thing? Read my post again. It was pretty non-subjective.

 

 

One of the reasons I'm voting Democrat this year in the presidential election is because, local tree-hugging and heart-bleeding posts notwithstanding,

You're just bringing people together left and right, aren't you? Do you not see how damned hypicritical you are being here with such comments, themselves implicitly intended as slanderous and to cast the broad net of typecasting oversimplifications on to large numbers of individuals who participate here at SFN?

 

 

 

I understand that you are supporting the Democratic ticket this year. I understand that you are upset with where the Republican party has turned. I understand that you don't think we'll become socialists under a Democratic leadership, and that some redistribution is good.

 

Those points were never in dispute.

 

My point was that you continue casting people into ideological buckets. You keep splitting conversations along these self-imposed "left/right" divisions, and it's frustrating.

 

My point was to show how much closer we all are ideologically (hey look, even george will thinks this), and you used that post to label members of this forum for no damned reason and for no useful purpose.

 

 

Wake up, dude. You ARE the partisanship you always claim to be against, and I know from experience you are better than that.

[Pangloss]

I'm sorry my comments bothered you so much. Obviously I thought they were fair, reflective of reality, and non-partisan. You're more than welcome to think otherwise.

[iNow]

My hope was that they would bother YOU, but I guess I'll just have to instead cry into my tree hugging pillow tonight as I drift asleep.

[ParanoiA]

My point, however, the one I said had just been supported by George Will, is that income redistribution already happens, it just goes to different places, so these ridiculous comments out of the McCain campaign seem to ignore some pretty obvious realities around us in their attempts to pander to the less educated and more fearful among the populace.

 

You're wrong. Wealth redistribution is taken to a whole new level here.

 

For one, your candidate is a liar. He labels tax credits as tax cuts. He says 95% will get a tax cut - that's the refundable credits that are being increased, in addition to a lower tax burden. That's why, even though only roughly over 60% even pay income tax, they still get a cut - because of the refundable credits they PROFIT from.

 

With Obama's Thuggery Proposition poor taxpayers are PROFITING off the upper class. Let me repeat - PROFITING by taking even MORE money from the "rich" and giving even MORE money to the "poor".

 

That's not techno-babble economics where the geek in the corner stands up and reminds everyone that all government processes are wealth redistribution - it is wealth redistribution taken wholesale.

 

We no longer see it buried and doled out codified in the services the government gives to the poor - no it's just handed to them as cash, the same way it was taken.

 

REDISTRIBUTION = SOCIALISM.

 

It's up to you if you interpret that as an insult or a compliment.

[iNow]

Your post has zero relevance to my point.

We already have socialism in various forms, and redistribution of wealth in our existing government... lots of it.

People on both sides of the ideological aisle stipulate this.

Arguments that it's no time to "experiment" with socialism are ignorant and misrepresentive of an existing reality.

Stop trying to change the subject and morph this into an argument about a topic nobody here is defending.

[ParanoiA]

Your post has zero relevance to my point.

We already have socialism in various forms, and redistribution of wealth in our existing government... lots of it.

People on both sides of the ideological aisle stipulate this.

Arguments that it's no time to "experiment" with socialism are ignorant and misrepresentive of an existing reality.

Stop trying to change the subject and morph this into an argument about a topic nobody here is defending.

 

It's ignorant or misrepresentative of existing reality to deny the major majority of our economic structure is still rooted in capitalism, and is grossly capitalist in most of its particulars.

 

So, yes, "experimenting" with socialism is a valid concern. Most of the socialism we have today was incrementally developed rather than just roled out, like the new deal. So it's still very much an experiment to overhaul our retirement, healthcare, and etc entirely centralized. Very much so.

 

You're trying to act as if anyone who cries foul over wealth redistribution is somehow wrong since we already have wealth redistribution in various forms - but that doesn't invalidate their fears. Most of the redistribution is done in the form of services, so it is arguable.

 

And then some of it has been done for years, and will continue, and it's being expanded. THAT's the concern. The refundable stuff. So calling it wealth redistribution is accurate. McCain is right in calling it that way. And I hope they keep it up.

[iNow]

It's ignorant or misrepresentative of existing reality to deny the major majority of our economic structure is still rooted in capitalism, and is grossly capitalist in most of its particulars.

If you can find a single quote where I denied any such thing then I'll concede your point.

 

 

 

You're trying to act as if anyone who cries foul over wealth redistribution is somehow wrong since we already have wealth redistribution in various forms - but that doesn't invalidate their fears. Most of the redistribution is done in the form of services, so it is arguable.

It doesn't invalidate their fears, that is correct. It makes such fears misplaced, or potentially the subject of said fears very poorly described and inaccurately represented.

 

 

And then some of it has been done for years, and will continue, and it's being expanded. THAT's the concern. The refundable stuff. So calling it wealth redistribution is accurate. McCain is right in calling it that way. And I hope they keep it up.

 

The issue is not what it's being called. Have I done a piss poor job of communicating, or what?

 

We have socialism already in many arenas. It just flows to different places. This is a point agreed upon by any reasonably intelligent conscious human being. The argument being made is one designed to inspire fear, not to reprsent reality or protect against the excesses of redistribution.

 

You can rail all you want. My point has been simple and direct.

[bascule]

And then some of it has been done for years, and will continue, and it's being expanded. THAT's the concern. The refundable stuff. So calling it wealth redistribution is accurate.

 

ParanoiA, can you please point out specifically what you don't like about Obama's plan? Preferably, can you post a link to the relevant section on Obama's web site and quote the relevant text you disagree with? You seem to be arguing about general ideas rather than specifics.

 

This is what I take issue with:

 

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.

 

The only case I can see in Obama's tax plan where they would receive a refundable tax credit without being able to qualify for welfare is because they have too much income. Those people aren't the dead beats who are mooching off the government. These are people who are working and paying more into the system than they're getting back from it.

 

As far as I can tell, the moochers won't qualify for Obama's tax credit.

 

Tax refunds aren't necessarily a bad thing. If I sign up for withholding and pay more into the system than I'm supposed to, I should get a tax refund back from the government.

 

How is Obama's plan any different from that?