PDA

View Full Version : Looks like Obama got on the "Straight Talk Express"



batonrougesooner
10/13/2008, 05:15 PM
FOXNews.com

Monday, October 13, 2008


Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

Obama frequently rails against what he calls a Republican concept that tax breaks for the wealthy will somehow "trickle down" to middle-class Americans.

Obama says he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

However, McCain's aides and supporters argue that Obama wrongly wants to raise taxes on businesses in a time of economic distress.

Both candidates spent Monday discussing how they would resurrect the ailing economy. McCain again pointed to his plan to buy up cumbersome mortgages from homeowners and renegotiate them. Obama unveiled what he called an economic rescue plan for the middle class, which included a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/obama-plumber-plan-spread-wealth/comments/

SoonerStormchaser
10/13/2008, 05:39 PM
[hairGel] IT CAME FROM FOX NEWS!!! THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!

Curly Bill
10/13/2008, 05:42 PM
I'm sure that Brack's statement was taken out of context. :rolleyes:

CatfishSooner
10/13/2008, 05:46 PM
Commie...

Veritas
10/13/2008, 05:46 PM
I can't believe that people are intending to vote for this socialist.

olevetonahill
10/13/2008, 05:47 PM
What I dont understand about all of this **** is
Back in the 1800s and early 1900s Folks emigrated here with the Hope Of being able to find a jorb .
They very quickly learned the language and How to pronounce it , so as to not be seen as Imigrants. Many went from Nothing to Vast wealth In just a few years and /or Generations
1000 years ago when I was In school . I had an Instructor tell me and the Class . that If you took all the worlds wealth and devided it up ewualy between all .
In less than 2 years you'd once again have a wealthy Class a Middle Class and the poor . It just more than likely Not be the same Bunch as what started out Befor the Distribution .

Jerk
10/13/2008, 05:53 PM
jvxiG56M-eU

Curly Bill
10/13/2008, 05:56 PM
Is JohnnyMack not on duty? He should have responded by now. :D

Hey JM, see what happens when you let your guard down? :P

olevetonahill
10/13/2008, 05:58 PM
He thinks STEP and I are queer . I think hes off with his lesbo friends .:eek:

Jerk
10/13/2008, 06:14 PM
Something to get JM fired up!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111064/Gallup-Daily-ObamaMcCain-Gap-Narrows.aspx

Look for it to tighten up even more as we get closer to the elections. The pollsters don't want to lose their credibility.

mdklatt
10/13/2008, 06:23 PM
Something to get JM fired up!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111064/Gallup-Daily-ObamaMcCain-Gap-Narrows.aspx

Look for it to tighten up even more as we get closer to the elections. The pollsters don't want to lose their credibility.

National polls don't matter. Just ask George Bush or Al Gore.

According to this (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/), this (http://www.pollster.com/), and this (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/), Obama has 270 and then some sewn up even without any tossup states.

olevetonahill
10/13/2008, 06:23 PM
the Poles are gonna have this Close right up to 11-04
jes sayin

royalfan5
10/13/2008, 06:25 PM
I can't believe that people are intending to vote for this socialist.

****, if we got socialism without voting for it, maybe voting for it would have the opposite effect.

mdklatt
10/13/2008, 06:31 PM
****, if we got socialism without voting for it, maybe voting for it would have the opposite effect.

Yeah, that whole "free market" thing is quite the pantload isn't it? Corporations don't want capitalism, they want whatever is best for corporations. It seems that's what our government wants as well. Is it any better if corporations are responsible for the redistribution of wealth than the government? At least the government is theoretically accountable to us.

Jerk
10/13/2008, 06:39 PM
Yeah, that whole "free market" thing is quite the pantload isn't it? Corporations don't want capitalism, they want whatever is best for corporations. It seems that's what our government wants as well. Is it any better if corporations are responsible for the redistribution of wealth than the government? At least the government is theoretically accountable to us.


People EARN money by WORKING for corporations, or investing money that they worked for in them.

What do people who receive gov't handouts do?

They don't do **** but vote for the politicians who gave it to them.

Anyone on welfare or government aid should be barred from voting.

Curly Bill
10/13/2008, 06:41 PM
Anyone on welfare or government aid should be barred from voting.

Yup

KC//CRIMSON
10/13/2008, 06:50 PM
Something to get JM fired up!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111064/Gallup-Daily-ObamaMcCain-Gap-Narrows.aspx

Look for it to tighten up even more as we get closer to the elections. The pollsters don't want to lose their credibility.


Heh. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)

Frozen Sooner
10/13/2008, 06:52 PM
Something to get JM fired up!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111064/Gallup-Daily-ObamaMcCain-Gap-Narrows.aspx

Look for it to tighten up even more as we get closer to the elections. The pollsters don't want to lose their credibility.

Out of curiosity, did you happen to check today's Gallup numbers, since that article was released yesterday?

'Cause they don't say what I think you think they say.

Veritas
10/13/2008, 06:53 PM
Neah, Gallup >>> RCP.

Frozen Sooner
10/13/2008, 06:57 PM
Neah, Gallup >>> RCP.


Out of curiosity, did you happen to check today's Gallup numbers, since that article was released yesterday?

'Cause they don't say what I think you think they say.

Interesting you'd say that. Because Gallup has been consistently above the RCP average margin for Obama.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111112/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Ahead-51-41.aspx

There's today's numbers, by the way.

Veritas
10/13/2008, 07:00 PM
Interesting you'd say that. Because Gallup has been consistently above the RCP average margin for Obama.
Not really...the facts are what they are regardless of what I'd personally like them to be and the fact is that Obama is leading significantly. Gallup knows surveying and they know how to attain a sample that is stastistically valid...and they know how to ask questions properly.

Frozen Sooner
10/13/2008, 07:04 PM
Fair enough, you do know your stats.

It's getting a little odd how many people are misrepresenting what pollsters are actually saying these days.

Veritas
10/13/2008, 07:12 PM
It's getting a little odd how many people are misrepresenting what pollsters are actually saying these days.
It's hard to find polling bodies that don't have a partisan slant. IMO Gallup is the only one worth lending any credence (Rasmussen is slanted to the right). The media polls are all BS...they might be accurate, but if they do it's completely by accident.

Frozen Sooner
10/13/2008, 07:35 PM
Rass does tend to overestimate Republican performance a tad, but I think that has more to do with their party affiliation weighting and likely voter model than any real attempt to slant the numbers.

R2000s methodology seems fairly sound, but I have a hard time believing their numbers.

Zogby is full of ****. The guy found an acorn in 2000 and everyone believes he knows what he's doing. This is guy who was quoted in 2004 as saying there was no way George Bush could win reelection.

mdklatt
10/13/2008, 07:51 PM
People EARN money by WORKING for corporations

Oh please. Why does the right perpetuate the myth that corporations are doing us all a favor? You left out a couple things.

Corporations EARN money by SELLING to people. People EARN money for corporations by WORKING for them. If corporations and their boards accumulate all the money, who's going to buy their ****?




What do people who receive gov't handouts do?

They buy **** from corporations. What did you do with your $600 handout back in June?

SoonerStormchaser
10/13/2008, 07:51 PM
Here's one from a left-leaning source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/obama.bradley.effect/index.html

JohnnyMack
10/13/2008, 11:12 PM
I went to see teh OKC Thunder. Kevin DooRant is really good. He should win about 15 games on his own. They should win about 30 total.

OleVet IS ghey. STEP told me. :P :D

olevetonahill
10/13/2008, 11:14 PM
I went to see teh OKC Thunder. Kevin DooRant is really good. He should win about 15 games on his own. They should win about 30 total.

OleVet IS ghey. STEP told me. :P :D

Why were you askin . Cause My butts Cute ?:eek:

JohnnyMack
10/13/2008, 11:15 PM
Why were you askin . Cause My butts Cute ?:eek:

He said you work out.

olevetonahill
10/13/2008, 11:24 PM
He said you work out.

I lift 12 Onces at a time

SicEmBaylor
10/13/2008, 11:34 PM
I have said many times that I do not like Obama's politics, but I at least trust him to govern moderately and within reason. Statements like this shake my trust in him.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/13/2008, 11:39 PM
Didn't Sherman make a stop in Waco?

SicEmBaylor
10/13/2008, 11:39 PM
Didn't Sherman make a stop in Waco?

Tecumseh? No.
What the hell are you talking about?

Tulsa_Fireman
10/13/2008, 11:43 PM
This nugget of gold.


There are times when I actually want to see him get elected President and then there are times when I just wish he'd shut the hell up and bring me a mint julep.

Anything else Rasmus Hussein O-sambo can get you, oh mighty Baptist Honky?

SicEmBaylor
10/13/2008, 11:45 PM
This nugget of gold.



Anything else Rasmus Hussein O-sambo can get you, oh mighty Baptist Honky?

:rolleyes:

I'm neither Baptist nor honky.

tbl
10/14/2008, 09:05 AM
How did this turn into a discussion on polls when the real issue of his statement was never dealt with by the liberals? Maybe it was.... I didn't read the whole thread. ;)

Veritas
10/14/2008, 09:23 AM
How did this turn into a discussion on polls when the real issue of his statement was never dealt with by the liberals? Maybe it was.... I didn't read the whole thread. ;)
You mean the part where the decision to vote for a candidate who advocates socialism is justified? I'd kinda like to see that too, and I'd like to see it done by focusing on Obama rather than throwing out red herrings about McCain/Palin.

royalfan5
10/14/2008, 09:24 AM
:rolleyes:

I'm neither Baptist nor honky.

I've always pegged you as more of cracker.

JohnnyMack
10/14/2008, 09:28 AM
I think what he said is being taking slightly out of context. Sounds like typical lib bubble up economics as opposed to R trickle down economics. But let's just throw out "socialism" red herrings instead.

Veritas
10/14/2008, 09:29 AM
I think what he said is being taking slightly out of context. Sounds like typical lib bubble up economics as opposed to R trickle down economics. But let's just throw out "socialism" red herrings instead.
What a bunch of bull****. I don't know what the hell else I expected to see.

JohnnyMack
10/14/2008, 09:38 AM
What a bunch of bull****. I don't know what the hell else I expected to see.

You're gonna see what you want to see. You've decided to take a snippet of what he said and run with it.

He's a ****in' commie. He's going to take all of our guns, redistribute all our wealth, nationalize our healthcare and force all those companies and their workers into an agrarian society. Then he's going to surrender all our military efforts, disband the entire DoD and use the money to have murals of himself painted on walls and billboards across our land.

**** it. I'm voting for McCain.

Tulsa_Fireman
10/14/2008, 09:43 AM
Yay! We win!

KC//CRIMSON
10/14/2008, 11:55 AM
I went to see teh OKC Thunder. Kevin DooRant is really good. He should win about 15 games on his own. They should win about 30 total.

OleVet IS ghey. STEP told me. :P :D


That bastard jinxed us last Saturday.

Air ball!....Air ball!.....Air ball!.....

GottaHavePride
10/14/2008, 09:25 PM
http://www.superpoop.com/101008/straight-talk-express.jpg

Curly Bill
10/14/2008, 11:00 PM
I think what he said is being taking slightly out of context. Sounds like typical lib bubble up economics as opposed to R trickle down economics. But let's just throw out "socialism" red herrings instead.

Refer to post 3 in this thread where I said this would be the excuse. ;)

Condescending Sooner
10/15/2008, 08:52 AM
The libs can't or won't defend what he said so they start polling numbers smack.

Anyone who can't see that this man is serious about the re-distibution of wealth has their head in the sand. I can't believe someone could get so enamored by a candidate because of their speaking ability that they are totally blinded about what the person is really about and the people with whom he associates.

It has happened before in history, so I guess it can happen again.

JohnnyMack
10/15/2008, 09:06 AM
Refer to post 3 in this thread where I said this would be the excuse. ;)

Heh.

Damn you. :bsmf:

NormanPride
10/15/2008, 10:00 AM
What if the American people want socialism?

SoonerBorn68
10/15/2008, 10:11 AM
What if the American people want socialism?

What if we don't?

Stoop Dawg
10/15/2008, 10:46 AM
Oh please. Why does the right perpetuate the myth that corporations are doing us all a favor? You left out a couple things.

Corporations EARN money by SELLING to people. People EARN money for corporations by WORKING for them. If corporations and their boards accumulate all the money, who's going to buy their ****?

If Corporation A is not paying you enough money to work there, go to Corporation B. I interviewed at Hertz back in 1999 and they offered me a crap salary. I said "no". A friend of mine who worked in the same department thanked me a few weeks later. He said they all got raises because everyone they interviewed for the job declined on the basis of low salary.



They buy **** from corporations.

It seems to me that if you have some moral objection to a particular corporation's business practices, you should stop giving them money. Unfortunately, people are greedy too. Why the hell would anyone shop at Wal-Mart? I can only think of one reason: It's cheap.

Maybe people should be less greedy and more willing to spend a little more money to shop at responsible businesses.



They buy **** from corporations. What did you do with your $600 handout back in June?

I didn't get one. But I have to assume that you didn't give yours to some lousy corporation that you hate, right?

achiro
10/15/2008, 10:51 AM
http://www.chiefexecutive.net/Media/PublicationsArticle/p49_4.jpg

Stoop Dawg
10/15/2008, 10:56 AM
Let me just add one thing. I am NOT in favor of letting corporations run rough-shod over employees and consumers. Government regulations are necessary to ensure worker safety and to prevent fraud against consumers. Regulations are particularly important in industries where it is exceptionally difficult for new players to enter the market.

What I oppose is blatant wealth redistribution without consideration for need or merit.

GrapevineSooner
10/15/2008, 11:02 AM
It's still right out of the class warfare playbook.

Even if you don't mean direct wealth distribution, you're still playing off the idea that those who make more money than you make more money because they had more opportunities for success. And not because perhaps, just perhaps, they worked a little harder at some point in their life to warrant that opportunity to make more money.

Stoop Dawg
10/15/2008, 11:08 AM
It's still right out of the class warfare playbook.

Even if you don't mean direct wealth distribution, you're still playing off the idea that those who make more money than you make more money because they had more opportunities for success. And not because perhaps, just perhaps, they worked a little harder at some point in their life to warrant that opportunity to make more money.

Well said.

However, there definitely *are* people who make more money because they had more opportunities for success. Sometimes those differences in opportunity are unavoidable (Paris Hilton) and sometimes they are not. IMO, it's the government's job to "level the playing field to a reasonable degree". Namely, by providing quality education to everyone who chooses to accept it.

IMO, direct monetary compensation for lack of opportunity doesn't do anybody any good - least of all the person receiving the compensation.

NormanPride
10/15/2008, 11:12 AM
What if we don't?

What if more want it than don't? Because that's what it looks like to me. Not saying that I support them, just saying.

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 11:21 AM
It seems to me that if you have some moral objection to a particular corporation's business practices, you should stop giving them money.

You missed my point. I don't hate corporations. But I also don't buy into the pubz BS that we should all bow down to their every demand. Without workers and consumers there would be no businesses. Without businesses there would be no workers or consumers. Without workers, there would be no businesses or consumers. Etcetera. Any sound economic policy needs to address all three components of that cycle. If consumers have no money to spend, all the corporate tax breaks in the world won't do any good, c.f. the current economic situation.

achiro
10/15/2008, 11:36 AM
You missed my point. I don't hate corporations. But I also don't buy into the pubz BS that we should all bow down to their every demand. Without workers and consumers there would be no businesses. Without businesses there would be no workers or consumers. Without workers, there would be no businesses or consumers. Etcetera. Any sound economic policy needs to address all three components of that cycle. If consumers have no money to spend, all the corporate tax breaks in the world won't do any good, c.f. the current economic situation.

Seriously!!!!??!! If the corps have no reason to be here then everyone is screwed. The workers and consumers are here, there is nothing that will change that except that "workers" become unemployed welfare recipients. I understand your argument you have to have both but as I said, the "people" are here to stay. Corps may not be. The ones that do stay will pass the costs on to the consumers that still have money to spend. Why is this all so hard for you to understand?

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 11:49 AM
Seriously!!!!??!! If the corps have no reason to be here then everyone is screwed. The workers and consumers are here, there is nothing that will change that except that "workers" become unemployed welfare recipients. I understand your argument you have to have both but as I said, the "people" are here to stay. Corps may not be. The ones that do stay will pass the costs on to the consumers that still have money to spend. Why is this all so hard for you to understand?

So you're saying that American corporations are so short-sighted that they'll set up shop overseas just to save a little on taxes, even though that means more unemployment back here, less customers to buy their crap, and their own ultimate downfall? Are CEOs really that stupid? Oh, wait....

achiro
10/15/2008, 11:56 AM
So you're saying that American corporations are so short-sighted that they'll set up shop overseas just to save a little on taxes, even though that means more unemployment back here, less customers to buy their crap, and their own ultimate downfall? Are CEOs really that stupid? Oh, wait....

If the tax rate is low enough where they are moving to, incentives(like not paying any taxes for 10+ years for moving there), the employee base is high enough, wage rates low enough, and free trade with the US it won't matter where they are, they can still sell to the US consumer. In todays world economy especially, the corp is much more about bottom line than country support.
Oh, but don't worry, the gov will be there to bail you out when you can't support yourself.

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 12:01 PM
If the tax rate is low enough where they are moving to, incentives(like not paying any taxes for 10+ years for moving there), the employee base is high enough, wage rates low enough, and free trade with the US it won't matter where they are, they can still sell to the US consumer.

Not if the US consumer is unemployed. Is that really so hard to understand?

achiro
10/15/2008, 12:05 PM
Not if the US consumer is unemployed. Is that really so hard to understand?

Oh my bad, I thought there were other countries that participated in trade. :rolleyes:

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 12:10 PM
You said this:


...they can still sell to the US consumer


I said this:


Not if the US consumer is unemployed.


And now you pull this out:


Oh my bad, I thought there were other countries that participated in trade. :rolleyes:

logic = FAIL

Turd_Ferguson
10/15/2008, 12:10 PM
Oh my bad, I thought there were other countries that participated in trade. :rolleyes:If we only traded with ourselves, is that considered Tit for Tat:confused:

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 12:12 PM
If we only traded with ourselves, is that considered Tit for Tat:confused:

I think that would actually be tit for tit. :texan:

Turd_Ferguson
10/15/2008, 12:15 PM
I think that would actually be tit for tit. :texan:Even better, cause I like typ'n the word Tit....So, Tit for Tit it is.

achiro
10/15/2008, 12:15 PM
You said this:




I said this:




And now you pull this out:



logic = FAIL
Look, double talk all you want, avoid the facts all you want, avoid responding to the real point all you want, try and make fun of me(ie "FAIL") but the truth is you don't have a clue what you are talking about and continue to try and sound like you do.

Turd_Ferguson
10/15/2008, 12:16 PM
but the truth is you don't have a clue what you are talking about and continue to try and sound like you do.heh. He came up with Tit for Tit:confused:

achiro
10/15/2008, 12:22 PM
heh. He came up with Tit for Tit:confused:

Well there is that. :D

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 12:25 PM
Look, double talk all you want, avoid the facts all you want, avoid responding to the real point all you want, try and make fun of me(ie "FAIL") but the truth is you don't have a clue what you are talking about and continue to try and sound like you do.

So I'm wrong when I say that companies won't be able to sell to US consumers when US consumers don't have any money. Got it.

BTW, way to play the snark victim card there Mr. "Wait for the goverment to bail you out" and ":rolleyes:".

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 12:26 PM
heh. He came up with Tit for Tit:confused:

Actually, that's a Dwightism.

Stoop Dawg
10/15/2008, 12:48 PM
You missed my point. I don't hate corporations. But I also don't buy into the pubz BS that we should all bow down to their every demand.

So lowering tax rates to make doing business in America more attractive is "bowing down to their every demand"? What a gross mis-characterization. No wonder this debate is going no where.


So you're saying that American corporations are so short-sighted that they'll set up shop overseas just to save a little on taxes, even though that means more unemployment back here, less customers to buy their crap, and their own ultimate downfall? Are CEOs really that stupid? Oh, wait....

Yes, exactly. Although I think "ultimate downfall" is out of line. Last I checked, there are about 4 times as many consumers in China as there are in the U.S. Now imagine if all of those Chinese had high disposable incomes (from working for the corps that moved over there).


Not if the US consumer is unemployed. Is that really so hard to understand?

No, it's not. That's why Obama's policy of raising taxes on corporations and giving that money to the unemployed - which leads to more unemployment - is bad.

Paying people not to work is NOT the way to create a successful economy.

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 01:06 PM
So lowering tax rates to make doing business in America is "bowing down to their every demand"?

Lower taxes, less regulation, public bailouts...what haven't corporations gotten in the last 8 years? And what good has it ultimately done? If lowering corporate taxes causes more financial stress on middle class consumers, does it do any good? Lower taxes are the Republitarian knee-jerk solution to every economic problem, so color me skeptical in thinking that that's we need this time. And what about the deficit? "Lower taxes" is a misnomer, since we end up paying for it some other way.




No, it's not. That's why Obama's policy of raising taxes on corporations and giving that money to the unemployed - which leads to more unemployment - is bad.

Paying people not to work is NOT the way to create a successful economy.

Taking all the money out of the hands of the people that buy your crap is not the way to be successful, either. Increasing income inequality is not a sustainable situation for anybody. There has to be a middle ground.

Stoop Dawg
10/15/2008, 01:43 PM
Lower taxes, less regulation, public bailouts...what haven't corporations gotten in the last 8 years? And what good has it ultimately done? If lowering corporate taxes causes more financial stress on middle class consumers, does it do any good? Lower taxes are the Republitarian knee-jerk solution to every economic problem, so color me skeptical in thinking that that's we need this time. And what about the deficit? "Lower taxes" is a misnomer, since we end up paying for it some other way.

C'mon, be fair. Legislation was proposed (by the Rs) to change the regulations on Fanny and Freddie. It was shot down by the Ds in committee. The recent public bailouts were trumpeted loudly by the Ds. In fact, it was the Rs that were opposing it.

Yes, spending is out of control. Blame most of that on the war in Iraq.


Taking all the money out of the hands of the people that buy your crap is not the way to be successful, either. Increasing income inequality is not a sustainable situation for anybody. There has to be a middle ground.

That's why regulations are important.

It's a very complicated and subjective discussion to say what regulations are necessary, but in general, I think that workers need to be compensated "fairly". That may include a share of the company's profits (if any). The problem there, of course, is that the employees don't bear any risk. Would we pay them less if the company loses money for the year? Not likely.

What is decidedly NOT fair is simply taking money from high earners and just giving it to low earners. What if it was perfectly legal for your neighbor to come into your house and take whatever he wanted so long as you had more of it than he did? You have more TVs then he does? He can just come take one of yours. You have more beer in the fridge? Sorry, gotta give it up. I don't know about you, but I'd move pretty quickly - preferably next to some rich dude.

mdklatt
10/15/2008, 02:31 PM
C'mon, be fair. Legislation was proposed (by the Rs) to change the regulations on Fanny and Freddie. It was shot down by the Ds in committee. The recent public bailouts were trumpeted loudly by the Ds. In fact, it was the Rs that were opposing it.


I never said both parties weren't in the pocket of business interests.




The problem there, of course, is that the employees don't bear any risk. Would we pay them less if the company loses money for the year? Not likely.


They don't?? If the company loses money for the year, the employees are more likely to lose their jobs. I'd call that bearing some risk. In the case of large corporations, the reasons for the company losing money or going out of business are almost always due to decisions at the top, not collective incompetence of the employees. Did Lehman Brothers go down the tubes because all the secretaries, IT guys, etc. sucked at their jobs? No, but they're the ones left holding the bag. And we're all left holding the bag for AIG. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. **** that noise.




What is decidedly NOT fair is simply taking money from high earners and just giving it to low earners.

It's fair to the extent that the system is rigged in favor of the high earners. Wealth begets wealth. Sure, you can start out as a fry cook and end up running the company one day, but you'll never ever see Trevor Wealthington III running a cash register. It's all well and good to say that if somebody wants to earn more money they can get off their *** and get a better job, but somebody is still going to have to do that crappy-paying job, so there's a perpetual underclass that we benefit from because it allows us buy cheap **** at Wal-Mart. Of course, the not-so-hidden cost of the underclass is all the money we spend on welfare to support them.

batonrougesooner
10/15/2008, 04:49 PM
Lower taxes, less regulation, public bailouts...what haven't corporations gotten in the last 8 years? And what good has it ultimately done? If lowering corporate taxes causes more financial stress on middle class consumers, does it do any good? Lower taxes are the Republitarian knee-jerk solution to every economic problem, so color me skeptical in thinking that that's we need this time. And what about the deficit? "Lower taxes" is a misnomer, since we end up paying for it some other way.

I think people are approching this from two completely different philisophical view points on taxation and the role of the government. I think you are looking at this that the government has defacto control of all the wealth generated in this country and it is up to them to decide how much to let those who produced the wealth keep. As if some how a lower tax rate is a gift from our benevolent rulers and that it is government's justified right to keep what it wishes.

Taxes are a necessary evil of running a government but they should always be approached from a minimalist standpoint. Raising taxes on any segment of an economy can not make an economy stronger.

Socialism has permeated so many aspects of our society that we hardly recognize it for what it is anymore. That is scary.