Does this analogy accurately explain Obama's "Redistribution"

[RobMoney$]

Yes, this is a corny email forward that I received likely conjured up by some crazy McCain lover...however, I'm wondering how it's inaccurate.



Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign the read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.


Obama wants to redistribute the wealth to the middle and lower class.
So, maybe instead of not paying the tip we shouldn't pay our Applebee's bill and give the entire sum to your middle to lower class waiter.
Stiff the business that is keeping the server employed and when Applebee's goes under, the US Govt can just buy it.
Hopefully all businesses will be owned by the United States Government!!



I actually think it's a pretty good analogy.

[DroppinScience]

Man, you need better spam filters on your e-mail inbox. :p

[ToucanSpam]

Ugh.


This is a pretty poor analogy. Redistribution of wealth is nothing like that.

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, I guess Olive Garden would have been a better analogy.

[Bob]

it would only work if the server was earning over $250,000 a year, and the customer decided to give an extra 3% of the tip to the homeless guy instead

[RobMoney$]

That's true, he's not quite as evil as someone who makes more.
It's always someone who "makes more than me" that is wealthy enough to have more of their money taxed to be redistributed.

It's a great political ploy though to lop off a small percentage of the population to demonize though and pander to the larger percentage of the voting public.

EDIT:
Whether the waiter made 250k may depend on whether or not he claimed all of his tips on his income tax return.
According to Senator Biden it's patriotic of the waiter to claim 100% of their tips for taxes.
Since virtually none do, I'd say they are close to topping the list of unpatriotic and evil groups,
so it's probably OK to redistribute their "wealth" to someone more "in need" of it.

[Dorothy Wood]

there's no such thing as a waiter who makes $250k. come on. unless you're working in a restaurant that sells $1000 dinners.

I knew a girl who made about 70k working at cheesecake factory downtown, but she worked like 60 hours a week. and it would be a nightmare working there because it's so crowded and filled with dumb ass tourists.


so, obama's gon run around handing out checks to homeless guys? maybe I should become homeless so I can get free money!

[RobMoney$]

It's not that Obama wants to raise taxes, it's what he wants to use the money for that is causing such alarm.

I realize that not many waiters or waitresses make 250k a year, if any do at all.
That's not the issue. The issue is - what right does the Government have to tell you they're taking your money to give to those they deem "more needy" because you can afford it.

When you apply Obama's plan to the "common man" it helps to illustrate how it's fundamentally wrong. Why should people be penalized more for being successful?

[yeahwho]

This common theory, I just realized something about this theory, nobody in my family, both sides from as far back as 4 generations has ever been able to accomplish the wages of the common man.

Of all the people they've worked with none of them accomplished the wages of the common man. Only two of the kids I've known since High School have hit this $250,000 common man wage and surpassed it. Out of over a thousand seniors in my class.

WTF are you talking about? The president is the only elected official in the USA who surpasses that wage.

[RobMoney$]

I'm not saying that 250k a year is the "common man" wages.

What I said was when you apply Obama's plan to the "common man", the waiter making 50k a year (likely only reporting 30k of it and pocketing the other 20k he makes from tips) then it helps to illustrate the problems.

The "common man" is more than willing to take the "rich guy's" money, but when you start talking about applying the same rules to them it sort of changes their opinions.


When you tax big business at 39%, big business leaves.
If the guy wants to do something creative with taxes by increasing rates for any business profiting over $250,000 he should drop corporate taxes. At some point the United States will no longer be an attractive place to do business and large companies all realize you don't have to be located INSIDE the US to do business here. So when you have a company like Pfizer take it's business overseas, our country loses 2000+ jobs.
That is the issue.
Unemployment is high, taxes are high, businesses leave and people lose jobs.

Are you begining to understand where this is going?

[Bob]

When you tax big business at 39%, big business leaves.
If the guy wants to do something creative with taxes by increasing rates for any business profiting over $250,000 he should drop corporate taxes. At some point the United States will no longer be an attractive place to do business and large companies all realize you don't have to be located INSIDE the US to do business here. So when you have a company like Pfizer take it's business overseas, our country loses 2000+ jobs.
That is the issue.
Unemployment is high, taxes are high, businesses leave and people lose jobs.

Are you begining to understand where this is going?

ok...when clinton had the taxes at 39%, businesses left? or at least, you were upset with him for creating a situation where businesses might leave?

i understand that you're annoyed at the clinton-obama comparison (even though they're going to have the same exact tax brackets, i think clinton's might have even been a little harsher), because your gripe is with what obama wants to do with the money, not the amount that he's taxing, i understand that that's the grievance that you're saying you have, but not everything you're saying is related to that. your last post for example, it would have applied with equal force to clinton, because what the fuck does big business care what he's doing with the money? big business is gonna be upset about taxes no matter what they're used for.

I'm not saying that 250k a year is the "common man" wages.


you're right, it's not. and that's why the analogy doesn't work.

[Documad]

Do you understand that everything about our past and current political system involves a redistribution of wealth and always has? I don't understand why people are acting like there is a radical new idea on the table. It's a tiny realignment to bring things back to where they should have been for the last 8 years. I don't understand what it is about human nature that causes people to fall for this shit again and again and to vote against their self interest.

[ToucanSpam]

Do you understand that everything about our past and current political system involves a redistribution of wealth and always has? I don't understand why people are acting like there is a radical new idea on the table. It's a tiny realignment to bring things back to where they should have been for the last 8 years. I don't understand what it is about human nature that causes people to fall for this shit again and again and to vote against their self interest.

Yeah, Documad's on point here.(y)

[Bob]

I don't understand what it is about human nature that causes people to fall for this shit again and again and to vote against their self interest.

because this is america, and someday, i'll be rich too, and i don't want to be penalized for my success and have my wealth redistributed :rolleyes:

[King PSYZ]

Jesus fuck man, how many threads do you need to start to discuss this tax plan?

You claimed I was just attacking and not debating the subject in this week's Saturday Obama tax myth thread yet I did debate the facts and when I completely rebuffed your claims in that and every other thread you've brought it up in you disapeared or changed the subject.

Enough is enough.

[RobMoney$]

WTF are you talking about? We debated the issue until there was nothing left to offer from either one of us, so we stopped debating, at least that's how I saw it.
Saying you "shut me up" or that I disapperaed is bullshit.

I started yet another thread about the Obama tax plan because this was a different take on it.

If you don't like the threads I start, don't reply. I promise you won't be hurting my feelings.

[RobMoney$]

ok...when clinton had the taxes at 39%, businesses left? or at least, you were upset with him for creating a situation where businesses might leave?

i understand that you're annoyed at the clinton-obama comparison (even though they're going to have the same exact tax brackets, i think clinton's might have even been a little harsher), because your gripe is with what obama wants to do with the money, not the amount that he's taxing, i understand that that's the grievance that you're saying you have, but not everything you're saying is related to that. your last post for example, it would have applied with equal force to clinton, because what the fuck does big business care what he's doing with the money? big business is gonna be upset about taxes no matter what they're used for.


Umm,...Big business did begin to leave when Clinton was in office, and NAFTA only helped it leave even more.

[travesty]

I actually think it's a pretty good analogy.

It would be better if the math was correct like this;

For arguments sake lets apply the tax plan Obama has in store for those over $250k to this waiter and let's say the douchebag guy ate a $50 meal and was going to tip a nice 20%
That's where he gets the $10 figure for the tip from.

Obama is going to raise taxes on those over $250k an additional 3% right? Now let's assume all of this additional 3% is going to be given directly to "those more in need" and not funneled off to other programs like paying down debt and bailing out more corporations.

Then according to my calculations the asshole patron should have given the waiter $9.70 and the homeless man $.30 right?

I bet the waiter isn't so pissed off about that right? It doesn't make the scenario right, just,fair or equitable but at the end of the day the waiter isn't going to miss that $.30 much.

Just to clarify, I am not a fan of Obama's plan AT ALL!!! (or McCains' or the current system) as a rational solution to fair and equitable taxation of the masses, but I don't think it is as bad as that e-mail makes it out to be. Especially for me:D.

[RobMoney$]

What's the difference if it's 3%, or 1%, or .5%.
The bottom line is Obama telling you to he's going to take your money and give it to someone he deems "more needy" than you is wrong, no matter if it only works out to be .30 cents.

There's also the issue of precedence that's being set here. This year it's 3%, maybe Obama will decide to make it 5% in a couple of years. Are you OK with 5% of your 250K being taken by Obama to give to someone else, how about 7%?

If he were going to use the money to help the needs of the country so that ALL citizens benefit, then I'd be OK with that. But that's not his plan.

Ask yourself who exactly is he representing?

[ToucanSpam]

He's representing a much better system that doesn't place so much fucking emphasis on the individual. Only a little bit, though, and it's driving righties insane.

[RobMoney$]

He's not representing me or my interests. And he's not representing the common man.
The economy is in the tank and he's flinging other people's money (http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/obama-primetime.html)around like he's a oil tycoon.

He makes me sick.

[jennyb]

Maybe we should all just say "fuck it" and not pay any taxes what so ever. Every man for himself.


[/sarcasm]

[100% ILL]

I see Obama's plan as a way to try and circumvent the growing wage gap. A guy with a degree in computer science gets a job at IBM and starts out making $50,000, in ten years he's edging on $150,000 He decides to buy a house.
The guy framing his house makes about $12/hr. The guy who wires his house makes about $15/hr, and the guy who installs the plumbing makes about $18/hr. In ten years their wages are not going to go up nearly as fast as the guy with the degree.

The guy who works on the big house will NEVER be able to afford to live in one. Of course it's always been this way, but in recent decades the gap is getting larger.



New information from the U.S. Census Bureau reinforces the value of a college education: workers 18 and over with a bachelor’s degree earn an average of $51,206 a year, while those with a high school diploma earn $27,915. Workers with an advanced degree make an average of $74,602, and those without a high school diploma average $18,734.


http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/004214.html

http://www.earnmydegree.com/online-education/learning-center/education-value.html


Mabey I'm totally off here, but this is the way I understand it.

Of course nothing is really going to "fix" this. I just see this as Obama's strategy to entice the larger numbers of "wage earners" to vote for him.

Here in North Carolina the Research Triangle is the biggest draw for technology employment. However in recent years things have not beem so good. An acqaintence of mine recently learned his job at IBM is being shipped to India. Devastating news when you have a family.

[RobMoney$]

1. The guy with the degree working for IBM probably owes tens of thousands of dollars in student loans that he took out to achieve his degree. It's all about how valuable your labor is. The computer scientist working for IBM is more valuable than someone who tapes drywall. Thus the IBM guy should earn more. If the drywall taper wants the computer job, then he should go to school, put in the work, take out the thousands of dollars in loans that it will take to get the necessary training it takes to get the IBM job.
The opportunity is absolutely there for anyone to make 250k a year, and that's all the Govn't should be ensuring.

2. A union plumber, electrician, or cabinet maker makes upwards of 30$ an hour. Not too shabby for someone with a HS diploma or GED. I personally know and I'm related to several of them.
Not only that, but I know several who use their union savings accounts to open small businesses like corner beauty salons or ice cream stands in which their wives run. Those are the real "Joe the Plumbers" who are approaching the 250k figure.

[100% ILL]

Yeah I started a small buisness three years ago and um............ I hate government regulation!!

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan

[travesty]

What's the difference if it's 3%, or 1%, or .5%.
The bottom line is Obama telling you to he's going to take your money and give it to someone he deems "more needy" than you is wrong, no matter if it only works out to be .30 cents.

There's also the issue of precedence that's being set here. This year it's 3%, maybe Obama will decide to make it 5% in a couple of years. Are you OK with 5% of your 250K being taken by Obama to give to someone else, how about 7%?

If he were going to use the money to help the needs of the country so that ALL citizens benefit, then I'd be OK with that. But that's not his plan.

Ask yourself who exactly is he representing?


I hear you screaming Rob, like I said, there is nothing fair, just or equitable about it. I think that our current system of income taxation is a slap in the collective faces of our founding fathers. This is not what "America" was envisioned to be. Time has been most unkind to their interpretation of a "free people". The one thing they held most sacred, the one thing they believed was paramount to protect, liberty, has been stolen, bartered and disgracefully, given away by those who do not comprehend it's true value. Most people prefer to simply lament lost liberties, than fight to reclaim them.
In my opinion, the existence of a progressive tax plan, of any sort, is not to punish the rich, because it really doesn't much, but merely to make the lower classes feel better about their lives and their government and keep them sedated. If they can feel like someone else is paying more, or that they are sticking it to "the richies", well then their tax bill ain't all that bad and the guy who promises them more stuff for free must be the better leader. What ever happened to personal responsibility, accountability and LIBERTY? Why do people even consider the government as an option for running, organizing, distributing, or regulating ANYTHING?

I think Obama needs to actually TALK to Warren Buffett instead of just throwing his name around. He needs to ask Mr. Buffett if it is possible to take over a failing company (our goverment) with massive liabilities, a bad reputation and poor efficiencies and restucture it to be competitive in the market place (the world), reduce or eliminate debt, increase the quality of the product (services provided by the gov.) and realize greater returns (standard of living for US citizens) WITHOUT rasing prices (taxes for those who aren't following the analogy) or losing market share (domestic jobs, GDP). Guess what kids? This gets done successfully EVERYDAY in Buffett's world. It's a simple recipe and it always starts with spending LESS, focusing on your core competencies and eliminating underperforming products. Does that sound like Obama's plan for our future government to anyone? Me neither.

[travesty]

I like this analogy better...............

Bar Stool Economics


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[RobMoney$]

Yeah, but which one of the guys in that story is the muslim?

[100% ILL]

Yeah, but which one of the guys in that story is the muslim?

The bar owner, muslims don't drink!...........Good one Rob (y)

[Dorothy Wood]

rob, you keep throwing out the 250k and how it's common and hardworking people who reach that amount deserved and yadda yadda yadda...but time and time again it's shown that small businesses and the majority of citizens won't be affected by the tax increase.

if that barstool economics thing is talking about the individuals' income, it doesn't seem like it'd have much to do with business leaving. an individual earning 3,000,000 for whatever reason, would be paying 1,162,500 a year rather than 1080000. that's 82,500 dollars more. honestly, I doubt a person could even get a job in another country making that much money and I doubt they'd uproot their lives and businesses because of an extra 82,500. I could be wrong I suppose. I honestly don't think it's fair and it seems like the 1080000 seems like a pretty damn decent amount to contribute in the first place. however, I also think the 82,500 wouldn't make much of a dent in the person's life.

I also am of the opinion that not every person who earns millions or billions of dollars particularly earn that much because of hard work. I think a lot of it is planning, but a lot of it is luck. do you think bill gates knew he'd be raking in the kind of dough he does now?

my point is, all this doesn't address what kind of taxes will be on businesses and is all constructed to illicit emotional responses. people are crying "socialism", but it's all fear-mongering and it's annoying. if obama's tax plan is going to drive out corporations to other countries, then fine, talk about that. otherwise all this folksy bullshit means nothing to me, because the truth is 98% of americans will not see a tax increase.


proceed with caution, rambling having not much to do with the topic to follow:
as for the other points made against too big of a government, we can't forget infrastructure. a private market could never insure that the basic needs of the country's people are served. we need schools, roads, jails, emergency relief, etc. etc. and I don't believe that private companies would be able to do all that fairly and safely because they are interested in profit.


so yeah, we need taxes dudes. I kind of wish everyone paid the same percentage, and then you get to choose what a portion of your paid taxes go to. so like, if the schools in your area are bad, you could decide to put more into the schools. I guess that's kind of the point of representatives and lawmakers...but it would be neat if you had a little bit more control over where the money goes. I can see where it would be incredibly impractical though...like maybe a town is full of idiots who want to pay for a giant dolphin statue and they do that instead of fixing a bridge and then the bridge falls down and people get hurt. seems like that kind of happens anyway though.

[Bob]

1. The guy with the degree working for IBM probably owes tens of thousands of dollars in student loans that he took out to achieve his degree. It's all about how valuable your labor is. The computer scientist working for IBM is more valuable than someone who tapes drywall. Thus the IBM guy should earn more. If the drywall taper wants the computer job, then he should go to school, put in the work, take out the thousands of dollars in loans that it will take to get the necessary training it takes to get the IBM job.
The opportunity is absolutely there for anyone to make 250k a year, and that's all the Govn't should be ensuring.


if everyone's making $250k working in computer jobs, who's putting up the drywall? low-income jobs need to be done, and i think there's a fair few more of them than there are $250k+ jobs. what about the people doing them? toilets aren't going to clean themselves

my thing with a flat tax is that in order to tax everyone at the same rate, regardless of income level, it would have to mean one of two things:

1) bring all the brackets down to the lowest % and significantly reduce the government budget (which i acknowledge that some think would be a good thing, but i disagree)

2) raise taxes on the lower classes and lower them for the upper to reach a flat % that would still create a sufficient (but still probably lower) budget. those guys have a hard enough time as it is, what's fair about raising taxes on them? and with the lower budget they probably couldn't even get food stamps

[Documad]

Again, the entire tax code, and indeed most government regulation, involves social policy.

When the government decides to give a tax break to parents who put their kids in day care, people who don't have kids in daycare shoulder a tiny bit more of the burden. When the government decides to make mortgage interest deductible, people who live at home with their parents shoulder a little bit more of the burden. Our government has attempted to encourage marriage, having children, buying homes, having your own business, etc. through the tax code and through other regulations. Now we want to encourage college education. When I went to school, my student loan debt wasn't deductible. Those benefits started right after I ceased to be eligible. I will never forgive the government for that. :rolleyes: I think that interest paid on consumer debt used to be tax deductible when I was a kid (at least in my state) but I guess they didn't think people needed additional encouragement to run that up. We have historically given tax breaks to companies who do things that hurt their employees. We have given tax breaks to companies who farm out jobs overseas. Some people want that to stop. Now, some democrats want parents with kids in college to get some kind of write off. It's all a matter of politics and personal priorities. Our current tax code has widened the gap between rich and poor to an extent we haven't seen in about a hundred years. That was by design. I don't like that design. I don't think it's good for the health and survival of the country.

Obama has a different set of priorities than McCain. He has well respected economists who are advising him. I don't agree with all of the economists working for either candidate. I happen to agree with Obama's priorities more than McCain's.

I don't believe for a second that Congress will vote to raise the tax rate by a substantial amount. There is an unwritten line that Congress won't cross in recent american history. Obama would not dare to suggest anything over that line. The congress wouldn't adopt it. We've never seen anything like the rate they had in the UK before Thatcher. We're not going to see it because our economists don't recommend it and the american people won't put up with it. We love being a capitalist society.

I believe that if Obama's plan is enacted into law and if it doesn't work, he will try something else. One of my favorite things about Obama is that he is smart and willing to listen to others and adapt. My least favorite characteristic in a president is what we have now--someone who is sure he is right and won't adapt even when all the evidence shows that he's wrong.

The flat tax is fucking stupid.

[travesty]

because the truth is 98% of americans will not see a tax increase.


But they will see the prices of every day items increase as business owners try to recoup their losses. So isn't that just as bad as a tax increase for everyone?

Here's another question and I am going to use your figures Dorothy because they are already posted. Let's take the dude making $3m and paying an extra $80k under the new plan. Is it going to significantly effect his life? Maybe, but I think we all agree it is probably not.

Then why do we think that giving someone earning $50K another $1k is going to make a huge difference to them? I argue that it's not. Did the Bushie Economic Stimulus Package check change your life? Mine neither. I still have all of the same problems I did before it and now the country as a whole has even more. Obviously I realize that it does make more of difference the farther down the income scale you go, but as for Obama's "middle class" I am not sure they will appreciate it enough; I don't.

I would gladly forego my tax decrease under Obama or McCain's plan if I believed that instead of giving it back to me, and especially instead of giving it back to those who don't even pay taxes, they were going to make a SERIOUS dent in the national debt over the next few years so we can really get this country back on track and quit fucking around trying to buy votes with tax breaks and cash handouts. It's shameful.

[yeahwho]

Again, the entire tax code, and indeed most government regulation, involves social policy.

I get this with clarity. I do not understand what the others are missing. This is a redistribution program with disbursements of our money spread across multiple programs that make our country function. This is the way the United States of America operates for 300 million citizens.

I also am a union member where many fellow members make well over $30.00 per hour, have side businesses and own multiple properties. Members in my union who are able to make anywhere near this magical $250,000 have to do so at great personal sacrifice and truly deserve every penny of it. They are smart enough that I know they'll vote Obama. Neither here nor there, just saying a base wage of $30 per hour x the standard 40 hour work week puts you at $62,400.

Overwhelmingly the working Americans are going to cut their losses and vote Obama, we'll worry about that $250,000 dream when it happens.

[RobMoney$]

rob, you keep throwing out the 250k and how it's common and hardworking people who reach that amount deserved and yadda yadda yadda...but time and time again it's shown that small businesses and the majority of citizens won't be affected by the tax increase.

Do you really not see the error in saying "most people won't be affected by this"? History has shown us that's a very slippery slope to travel down, just ask the Jews who were around in the 1930's.
You do realize the 250K number can be changed at any time, don't you?

Do you think we should rip up the constitution and rewrite it with wealth redistribution as one of it's main principles?
I'll say it again. I never said making 250k a year is common.
It doesn't matter if the "majority" of citizens are affected or not. It doesn't matter if only one citizen is affected by Obama's plan.
The point is: it's not the Gov'ts place to take from anyone for the purpose of giving to someone else. That's been the issue I've been consistently trying to point out in this thread.
Countries built on entitlements go in to the toilet. That's a fact. Look no further than N.Korea or the Soviet Union.
It's not the direction I want to see this country go.

if that barstool economics thing is talking about the individuals' income, it doesn't seem like it'd have much to do with business leaving. an individual earning 3,000,000 for whatever reason, would be paying 1,162,500 a year rather than 1080000. that's 82,500 dollars more. honestly, I doubt a person could even get a job in another country making that much money and I doubt they'd uproot their lives and businesses because of an extra 82,500. I could be wrong I suppose. I honestly don't think it's fair and it seems like the 1080000 seems like a pretty damn decent amount to contribute in the first place. however, I also think the 82,500 wouldn't make much of a dent in the person's life.

Well what you aren't pointing out in your scenerio is that it's not just $82,500. It's $82,500 more on top of what they're already paying ($1,080,000 by your math).
Who are we to judge whether an individual or a business should be upset or not at the prospect of being forced to pay that much more money? $82,500 probably isn't a big drop in the hat for that business, but you're assuming that the business will just absorb that extra cost as it's "patriotic duty" or doing the "neighborly" thing, as Obama and Biden will have you believe.
The fact of the matter is that that extra $82,500 that Obama just took isn't going to benefit anyone when the business says "$82,500 is about the amount we spend for salaries for two employees, We'll just layoff two people then." I'm sure the two guys making 40k a year would rather have their jobs than Obama's tax credit.
You're also not taking into account hypothetical businesses that haven't been created yet that will compare the US to somewhere else such as China when deciding where to base their operation. We need to make the US more attractive to such business, not establish more burdens.

Many, many small companies net over 250K per year. The big corporate giants will be able to absorb and pass on these costs to consumers, but the smaller fry don't usually have enough market share to do so. As a result, there will be plenty of smaller companies going out of business or selling out to the big boys. It hurts everyone. It hurts job growth. If you want to levy tax hikes on businesses that are on the edge, they go under.


I also am of the opinion that not every person who earns millions or billions of dollars particularly earn that much because of hard work. I think a lot of it is planning, but a lot of it is luck. do you think bill gates knew he'd be raking in the kind of dough he does now?

I agree with you.
Achieving success with a business is partially planning and good luck.
Growing up playing and then coaching sports, I was always taught that you make your own luck. Luck is the residual of solid planning and hard work. Being in the right place at the right time is the residual of a solid game plan to be in said spot.
The opportunity is there for every person in this country to achieve success. The pursuit of happiness doesn't always mean earning 250k for everyone, and if you don't then those who do earn 250k have to help those who don't.
The Govn't isn't there to ensure success in business. Some people, for whatever reason, will fail at business. That's life. It's not the responsibility of the people making over 250k a year to provide a safety net for those who fail.

my point is, all this doesn't address what kind of taxes will be on businesses and is all constructed to illicit emotional responses. people are crying "socialism", but it's all fear-mongering and it's annoying. if obama's tax plan is going to drive out corporations to other countries, then fine, talk about that. otherwise all this folksy bullshit means nothing to me, because the truth is 98% of americans will not see a tax increase.

Obama is supposed to represent 100% of his constituents. Not demonize the richest 2% while pandering to the other 98%.

proceed with caution, rambling having not much to do with the topic to follow:
as for the other points made against too big of a government, we can't forget infrastructure. a private market could never insure that the basic needs of the country's people are served. we need schools, roads, jails, emergency relief, etc. etc. and I don't believe that private companies would be able to do all that fairly and safely because they are interested in profit.


so yeah, we need taxes dudes. I kind of wish everyone paid the same percentage, and then you get to choose what a portion of your paid taxes go to. so like, if the schools in your area are bad, you could decide to put more into the schools. I guess that's kind of the point of representatives and lawmakers...but it would be neat if you had a little bit more control over where the money goes. I can see where it would be incredibly impractical though...like maybe a town is full of idiots who want to pay for a giant dolphin statue and they do that instead of fixing a bridge and then the bridge falls down and people get hurt. seems like that kind of happens anyway though.

Well that's why we elect Senators, Governors, and a President, to make those decisions on how and where to spend the money raised by taxes. We choose them to represent us and to educate themselves on the needs of the "state" so they can make the decisions on how to allocate the money.
That's why a candidates decision making abilities are key for me, and I question Obama's.

[RobMoney$]

I would gladly forego my tax decrease under Obama or McCain's plan if I believed that instead of giving it back to me, and especially instead of giving it back to those who don't even pay taxes, they were going to make a SERIOUS dent in the national debt over the next few years so we can really get this country back on track and quit fucking around trying to buy votes with tax breaks and cash handouts. It's shameful.


You sir, are a great American.
Someone interested in the greater good of the American society than your own selfish needs and how much extra you're going to get.

Kudos.

[Knuckles]

Yeah, but which one of the guys in that story is the muslim?

That was probably the biggest LOL I've had in here in a loooong time.(y)

[travesty]

I try bro, I really try... but it's hard damn work. I really do appreciate all of the things that taxes afford me and my family and you and yours, but it is sooo frustrating to see the inefficiency, waste and duplicity fostered by government bureaucracy.

When so few government programs actually achieve their desired results it is hard to trust any of them to spend our dollars wisely. They just know that if they spend the entire budget this year, it is likely the budget will get increased next year. Do any government programs have incentives for staying UNDER budget? Wouldn't that make sense? I work feverishly day in and day out to make sure my company stays competitive, efficient and profitable. so when I hand over tens of thousands of dollars each year to an entity who I know will not be as responsible about it, it gets me pissed off.

[rirv]

I can't believe the vitriol against giving a little help to those who can't help themselves.

For every scrounging, non-tax paying immigrant who might get a little bit more money, there will be a rich, greedy misanthrope sitting on a big pile of gold coins in Duckburg - just as for every deserving recipient of a little help there might be a hardworking American who loses $.03 in every dollar over $250,000.

As Bob said - not everyone can be an IBM technician or the streets would be filled with rubbish and the sewers would be overflowing. In a way I see this kind of liberal socialism (a help up, not a hand out) as being necessary to keep a country running.

Rob$ - your slippery slope arguments are the most slippery slopes I've ever seen! Bringing up the Holocaust is ridiculous and I find it very offensive because my Grandfather died in a concentration camp...





...he fell out of a guardtower.

[QueenAdrock]

Let's take the dude making $3m and paying an extra $80k under the new plan. Is it going to significantly effect his life? Maybe, but I think we all agree it is probably not.

Then why do we think that giving someone earning $50K another $1k is going to make a huge difference to them? I argue that it's not. Did the Bushie Economic Stimulus Package check change your life? Mine neither. I still have all of the same problems I did before it and now the country as a whole has even more. Obviously I realize that it does make more of difference the farther down the income scale you go, but as for Obama's "middle class" I am not sure they will appreciate it enough; I don't.


$1,000 to someone making 50K means a lot more than 80K to someone making 3m. People who make 50K also have mortgages to worry about, children, cars, whatever else. Every little bit helps. I was making $34K at my old job and got taxed about $2,000 a year. Would any bit of that back be helpful to me? You bet. I was saving for school, paying my rent, food, insurance, car payments, transportation, everything. I don't mind paying taxes because I know what it's going towards, but a little bit of a break for me would have been appreciated.

If you have problems or are trying to save something, that little bit of money will mean everything in the world to you. The stimulus package check didn't change my life, but it definitely saved my cat's. She came down with a bladder infection and it cost $1,500 to keep her in the hospital overnight. When I have a budget set out for the entire year (which includes every last dollar accounted for, and an 'emergency fund' of $1,000), something over that that is completely unexpected pretty much is quite a blow.

So I guess my point is, people at the "middle class" or lower class levels are trying to make a living and struggling to save a little extra to have a good life like everyone else may. The person paying 80K and making 3M a year isn't struggling to save. He doesn't have a budget. If he has an emergency surgery for one of his kids, he won't have to worry about whether his paying for that will mean that he's going to have to work 10 extra hours a week to make up for it. The person making 3M doesn't have a budget of $25 a week for food so he can save up to go back to school (which yes, I did do).

That's why I think the argument is so ridiculous. I'll be more than happy to pay more when I'm making more money. But the people at the top aren't struggling for money. And the people at the bottom or middle aren't "lazy" or "leeches" or whatever else people are trying to make them out to be. I worked my ass off, getting up at 6 AM every day, getting back at 6 PM, and working an extra 5 hours on the weekend to get to where I am. I have a strong work ethic and have been saving for quite some time to pay for what I need. Would I benefit more from a tax break than a guy making $250,000? You're goddamn right I would. If I ever make $250+, I guarantee you, I'd be more than happy to pay an extra 3% of my salary to the government so people in lower income brackets don't have to, because I know what it's like to try so hard to save and still not get anywhere. Those are the people I think need help the most.

[travesty]

In a way I see this kind of liberal socialism (a help up, not a hand out) as being necessary to keep a country running.


WTF? are you serious? How is a direct cash rebate "in the form of a check" a help up and not a handout? Do you have dain bramage rirv? If that's not a handout then I don't know what one is.

Job opportunities, availability of training and education, affordable housing and reliable transportation are a "Help up". A wad of cash is a "Handout".

[QueenAdrock]

Obama is supposed to represent 100% of his constituents. Not demonize the richest 2% while pandering to the other 98%.


I don't even get how any politician is supposed to represent 100% of his constituents. How do you go about representing everyone on issues such as global warming, abortion, war, etc.? Everyone has different ideas on how things are supposed to be run, so there's no way to make everyone happy.

Honestly, pissing off only 2% of the country while making the other 98% happy is a pretty good ratio for a politician. If you have ideas on how to make everyone happy though, I'd like to hear it.

[rirv]

are people being given wads of cash?
I admit I haven't actualy read this whole taxplan thing. I'm just commenting on rich people being taxed a little bit more.

[QueenAdrock]

130,000,000 people in America got a stimulus check earlier this year to help out the economy. I got $600 (married couples get $1200). It doesn't happen every year though, it happens rather infrequently.

[travesty]

That's why I think the argument is so ridiculous. I'll be more than happy to pay more when I'm making more money. But the people at the top aren't struggling for money. And the people at the bottom or middle aren't "lazy" or "leeches" or whatever else people are trying to make them out to be. I worked my ass off, getting up at 6 AM every day, getting back at 6 PM, and working an extra 5 hours on the weekend to get to where I am. I have a strong work ethic and have been saving for quite some time to pay for what I need. Would I benefit more from a tax break than a guy making $250,000? You're goddamn right I would. If I ever make $250+, I guarantee you, I'd be more than happy to pay an extra 3% of my salary to the government so people in lower income brackets don't have to, because I know what it's like to try so hard to save and still not get anywhere. Those are the people I think need help the most.

A new kitten would have cost you nothing. I cannot support those who claim to be "struggling" and yet make such poor financial decisions. :eek: Call me heartless all you want but that was a waste of money, for a dog...maybe but a cat? And if you think that as a single person you were "struggling" while you made $34k then you don't know what struggling is.

I clearly said that as the income level goes down the extra money is obviously more important and more likely to "change" someones life. But for the "middle class" it really is just more of a pay-off for your vote. But I guess if you are willing to whore out your vote then good or you. But as Rob says... that's a slippery slope.

[travesty]

130,000,000 people in America got a stimulus check earlier this year to help out the economy. I got $600 (married couples get $1200). It doesn't happen every year though, it happens rather infrequently.

And it will happen every year under Obama. The poorest whatever percentage of Americans, those who do not even pay taxes they make so little or nothing, will recieve a "tax rebate check" otherwise known as a wad of cash.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, just like when a kid gets sick, you just throw him away and get a new one, right? :rolleyes:

I don't make poor financial decisions. If you read what I wrote, I said that I have a $1,000 "net" that I use for emergencies. I have loans taken out for school. I bought a used car that works for a relatively low price in order to drive. I was on a budget of $25 a week for food. I cut corners every inch that I could. I had enough money to pay for adoption of a cat, its food, vet checkups, etc, once I got to Canada. I don't think it was considered a poor financial decision to get a healthy, young cat to love. Call me crazy, but I don't think I was being irresponsible, seeing as how I factored her into my budget. She's a healthy cat, but shit happens. She reacted badly to a certain brand of food and she came down with a bladder infection. Things happen outside our realm, and even if you think you're prepared for them (such as my emergency fund), shit that happens can really hurt. I would still be able to pay for her without the $600 check, but having that little bit of cash in my pocket meant the entire world to me because I wouldn't have to cram extra hours into my already overpacked schedule to work to make up for that.

And yes, making $34K a year working 45 hour weeks in the DC area is pretty much struggling. You wouldn't know that living in Raleigh, because your cost of living is so much lower. I know, my brother lives in Apex and pays next to nothing for pretty much everything.

As for whoring out the vote, Obama had my vote before this tax shit was ever brought up. I support him for his stance on abortion, women's rights, energy policy, the wars, etc. This sensible tax policy was just the icing on the cake. And like I said if I EVER make above $250K, I'll be willing to pay that extra bit. To portray 3% as being a "substantial loss" to those people is absolutely laughable. Oh, no. They won't be able to buy that platinum watch they wanted. They'll have to settle for gold instead. *sheds tear* :(

Give me a break.

[QueenAdrock]

And it will happen every year under Obama. The poorest whatever percentage of Americans, those who do not even pay taxes they make so little or nothing, will recieve a "tax rebate check" otherwise known as a wad of cash.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

I don't see anything about tax rebate checks for only the poorest every year. Where did you hear that?

[RobMoney$]

are people being given wads of cash?
I admit I haven't actualy read this whole taxplan thing.

LOLZ.:rolleyes:

[DroppinScience]

Is RobMoney a former CEO of the Lehman Brothers or something? I can't think of any other reason why he'd be so pissed off at the unethical treatment of billionaires.

[kaiser soze]

So what is $70 billion in bonuses called?

Being nice?

[Laver1969]

Not that long ago McCain was justifying the rich paying more. This is a prime example of why McCain rubs me the wrong way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

Today he is playing the socialist card.

[ToucanSpam]

Is RobMoney a former CEO of the Lehman Brothers or something? I can't think of any other reason why he'd be so pissed off at the unethical treatment of billionaires.

Speaking of unethical treatment:


Billionaires exploiting their workers. If only people would get this pissed off over the working class. I truly sympathize for the suits who run Nike. It must be so hard having to pay 'hefty' taxes while the little kids in their sweatshop labour camps get paid four cents a day.:rolleyes:

[Documad]

Those stupid cash stimulus checks were another redistribution of wealth. That fucking sucked. I didn't see a dime of it. So basically Bush took my tax dollars and have them directly to someone else so that he/she could buy a PS3 or something.

[ToucanSpam]

Those stupid cash stimulus checks were another redistribution of wealth. That fucking sucked. I didn't see a dime of it. So basically Bush took my tax dollars and have them directly to someone else so that he/she could buy a PS3 or something.

Or maybe feed their family for a week. But fuck them, eh!

[travesty]

Yeah, just like when a kid gets sick, you just throw him away and get a new one, right? :rolleyes:
A cat is NOT a kid. Seriously Queen.

I don't make poor financial decisions.
From a PURELY financial standpoint some would say you do. $1500 for a cat to piss right sounds a bit frivolous to me. Like I said, call me cold hearted if you want. That's like when I see homeless people with dogs...bad decision.

And yes, making $34K a year working 45 hour weeks in the DC area is pretty much struggling. You wouldn't know that living in Raleigh, because your cost of living is so much lower. I know, my brother lives in Apex and pays next to nothing for pretty much everything.

DC is expensive. I used to live in Annapolis and it was bad too. I made about $35k when I was there and I seemed to do alright though, even had enough for a few beers on the weekend but that was a few years ago.

To portray 3% as being a "substantial loss" to those people is absolutely laughable. Oh, no. They won't be able to buy that platinum watch they wanted. They'll have to settle for gold instead. *sheds tear* :(

Give me a break.

I agree they could certainly afford it and have never said that they couldn't.
My point was that you are also not likely to miss the grand or so that Barry is promising if it never comes to fruition (I am not holding my breath). Especially since you already have your budget planned out for the year.

My real point has always been that regardless if the wealthy can afford it or not, it's not FAIR to ask some people to pay more than others for the same thing. What if tickets to the next Beastie Boys show were priced based on your income. Would it be fair to have people in the front row who paid say $1 when you are in the balcony and paid $30? I am not going to get into the whole social policy issue behind a progressive tax structure because I believe in the end...even though I don't like it.....it does actually work. It's not fair, it's absurdly complicated and convaluted but in the real world it works. So there is your break.

[travesty]

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

I don't see anything about tax rebate checks for only the poorest every year. Where did you hear that?

I was referencing his proposal to double the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is not uncommon, for people who make very little to actually get a refund check, even though they have paid NO taxes under this program. Don't get me wrong... I think this program has actually done some good. But doubling it means even more people would likely get this "free wad of cash".

[RobMoney$]

Is RobMoney a former CEO of the Lehman Brothers or something? I can't think of any other reason why he'd be so pissed off at the unethical treatment of billionaires.


Because I believe what's right is right no matter who the victim is, even if it's a rich guy?

Maybe I understand the economy a little better than you and see how unneccessarily imposing added taxes on the rich will only hurt those Obama intends to help in the end?

Who the hell put this image in all of your heads that someone making 250k a year is this guy (http://www.duke.edu/web/hoofnhorn/img/monopoly%20man.jpg) ?

[ToucanSpam]

Because I believe what's right is right no matter who the victim is, even if it's a rich guy?


Except you don't, man. Your entire country doesn't feel that way. Otherwise your major companies wouldn't be exploiting people in third world countries for their cheap labour. If you believed in 'what's right is right', that shit wouldn't be happening.


But it does. And I'm not blaming you, personally. I'm blaming capitalism.

[QueenAdrock]

Have you ever had a pet, travesty? If you've had one, and not loved them like a child, I honestly wonder if there's something wrong with you. Pets are members of the family, but many non-pet owners don't get that. If they die, you cry and grieve for them. If they get sick, you pay for them. To just say "Oh, well, $1500 is too much, let's just kill them," IS pretty heartless. I just can't grasp that kind of mentality, but I've seen it from people who have never owned an animal.

Either way, I could afford to take care of her regardless, my point was that I didn't have to scrap and scrounge as much to make up for the loss since I had the tax check. I do have a budget, but getting more money back WOULD impact it. I could afford more things I want/need but can't justify within my budget. (For example, haircuts, new shoes, etc. - things I can LIVE without, but my life would be a heck of a lot better if I could go out and get those things when I need it.) It's not so much that I'd miss the $1,000 that Bush took away because I can physically live without it, but things would be a lot easier for the year if I could have that extra money back to pay for things. Funny enough, I'd be able to pay for more things at more businesses if I had that money in my pocket, too. Right now, there's things on a "wish list" that I only purchase when I have the money.

And I believe you misinterpreted my "struggling" idea in my first post. I said I was struggling to save for school. I've never struggled to make ends meet, mostly because I do budget everything. However, there's plenty of people like me who may be struggling to save enough to have kids, to have a house, to have a college education. It's really hard to save when you're making an average wage and living in an expensive city.That's why I think people should have more of a tax break given to them.

Taxes have to come from somewhere. They're needed to pay for things in the country. I have no problem with taxes, and when I'm making more money, I won't care when I'm paying more. I really have a hard time with seeing rich people complain about "fairness." If a poorer person gets to pay less while they pay more, do they think they've been "one upped" or something? Does seeing that person who makes SO much less than you being able to purchase some more things they need because they have lower taxes boil their blood? Like, I really don't see why they'd be so angry. If they'd ever been in the shoes of someone poorer than them, I don't see why they'd be so mad about having to pay a little more when others can't.

Either way, I don't give a shit about being "fair." I give to homeless people, I give to charities, I give my "hard earned" dollars to people who may need it more than me. Two reasons: I consider myself very lucky to have everything I do, when I just as easily could have been born into some slum, and because I like bringing happiness to other people. If I can make someone else's life just a little bit better, I'm willing to do so. So that's why, at $250K a year, I would be fine with shouldering a bit of the cost for someone not as fortunate as me. It's funny though, because I know quite a few hardcore Christians who are outraged that the poor may benefit from the tax plan, when helping the poor is pretty much what Jesus preached about all the time. Go figure.

[travesty]

That's a Christian for ya. Don't get me started.

[yeahwho]

Because I believe what's right is right no matter who the victim is, even if it's a rich guy?

Maybe I understand the economy a little better than you and see how unneccessarily imposing added taxes on the rich will only hurt those Obama intends to help in the end?

Who the hell put this image in all of your heads that someone making 250k a year is this guy (http://www.duke.edu/web/hoofnhorn/img/monopoly%20man.jpg) ?

This theory is so ridiculous it's comical. Obama is going to turn off the greed gene and turn on the lazy gene with his tax plan. I get it. The rich people in America are going to stop spreading wealth and capital and businesses making $250,000 + up are going to pay for this party.

We're all going to smoke weed and embrace socialism. Like on January 21, 2009 Obama would get on up to the podium and say, "Kick back brothers and sisters, it's time for the corporations and small business owners to buy us a house and car"... oh wait they already tried this and we ended up with a bailout and recession.

[Randetica]

Have you ever had a pet, travesty? If you've had one, and not loved them like a child, I honestly wonder if there's something wrong with you. Pets are members of the family, but many non-pet owners don't get that. If they die, you cry and grieve for them. If they get sick, you pay for them. To just say "Oh, well, $1500 is too much, let's just kill them," IS pretty heartless. I just can't grasp that kind of mentality, but I've seen it from people who have never owned an animal.




word

i almost died that one week i had to live without a pet

[RobMoney$]

Have you ever had a pet, travesty? If you've had one, and not loved them like a child, I honestly wonder if there's something wrong with you. Pets are members of the family, but many non-pet owners don't get that. If they die, you cry and grieve for them. If they get sick, you pay for them. To just say "Oh, well, $1500 is too much, let's just kill them," IS pretty heartless. I just can't grasp that kind of mentality, but I've seen it from people who have never owned an animal.

You're bleeding-heart cred is off the charts with that story Diana.


Either way, I could afford to take care of her regardless, my point was that I didn't have to scrap and scrounge as much to make up for the loss since I had the tax check. I do have a budget, but getting more money back WOULD impact it. I could afford more things I want/need but can't justify within my budget. (For example, haircuts, new shoes, etc. - things I can LIVE without, but my life would be a heck of a lot better if I could go out and get those things when I need it.) It's not so much that I'd miss the $1,000 that Bush took away because I can physically live without it, but things would be a lot easier for the year if I could have that extra money back to pay for things. Funny enough, I'd be able to pay for more things at more businesses if I had that money in my pocket, too. Right now, there's things on a "wish list" that I only purchase when I have the money.

And I believe you misinterpreted my "struggling" idea in my first post. I said I was struggling to save for school. I've never struggled to make ends meet, mostly because I do budget everything. However, there's plenty of people like me who may be struggling to save enough to have kids, to have a house, to have a college education. It's really hard to save when you're making an average wage and living in an expensive city.That's why I think people should have more of a tax break given to them.

Living on a budget is struggling. If you're not happy living that way, the thing to do would be to persue a different line of work. I'm not trying to disparage you at all, but how much do you think a librarians labor is worth? You are a civil servant, you work for the state. That's about as steady and comfortable a line of work as you can get.
Why would you expect to enjoy the benefits of being rich if you aren't willing to take on the responsibilities of being rich, i.e. the responsibility of running a business?

Taxes have to come from somewhere. They're needed to pay for things in the country. I have no problem with taxes, and when I'm making more money, I won't care when I'm paying more. I really have a hard time with seeing rich people complain about "fairness." If a poorer person gets to pay less while they pay more, do they think they've been "one upped" or something? Does seeing that person who makes SO much less than you being able to purchase some more things they need because they have lower taxes boil their blood? Like, I really don't see why they'd be so angry. If they'd ever been in the shoes of someone poorer than them, I don't see why they'd be so mad about having to pay a little more when others can't.

Either way, I don't give a shit about being "fair." I give to homeless people, I give to charities, I give my "hard earned" dollars to people who may need it more than me. Two reasons: I consider myself very lucky to have everything I do, when I just as easily could have been born into some slum, and because I like bringing happiness to other people. If I can make someone else's life just a little bit better, I'm willing to do so. So that's why, at $250K a year, I would be fine with shouldering a bit of the cost for someone not as fortunate as me. It's funny though, because I know quite a few hardcore Christians who are outraged that the poor may benefit from the tax plan, when helping the poor is pretty much what Jesus preached about all the time. Go figure.

You choose to give to the homeless and charities.
You aren't told by your government that you are being mandated to do so.

[Documad]

Rob: If you believe the things you're writing, you shouldn't vote for any democrats at all. Your views are totally out of line with long-term mainstream democratic economic policy. I don't think that, in practice, your views will line up well with republicans either, but they at least pay lip service to the views you're expressing.

And I don't know what McCain thinks at all. I think he stayed away from the initial stimulus vote because he didn't want to have to take a position at all, but I think he's since said it was wise or suggested another one. I'm not sure. But that's flat out redistribution of cash money from people like me to people who make much less than me.

I keep thinking how it's funny that you're finding your inner anti government soul while all the moderate republicans are finding their inner moderate democrat. :p In my whole lifetime, I've never seen so many high profile republicans abandon their party. :)

[travesty]

Have you ever had a pet, travesty? If you've had one, and not loved them like a child, I honestly wonder if there's something wrong with you. Pets are members of the family, but many non-pet owners don't get that. If they die, you cry and grieve for them. If they get sick, you pay for them. To just say "Oh, well, $1500 is too much, let's just kill them," IS pretty heartless. I just can't grasp that kind of mentality, but I've seen it from people who have never owned an animal.

I have owned and currently do own pets. But I am sane enough to realize that a dog is a dog. I do not pretend they are a human just to make myself feel loved or befriended or to feel power and control over another being. Animals are happiest when you let them be animals, not when try and make them your child. You do know that they can NOT speak english right? So quit try to have a conversation with them....you know you do. I love my dogs dearly but a cat? Fuck 'em. Not my bag.

I do have a budget, but getting more money back WOULD impact it. I could afford more things I want/need but can't justify within my budget. (For example, haircuts, new shoes, etc. - things I can LIVE without, but my life would be a heck of a lot better if I could go out and get those things when I need it.) It's not so much that I'd miss the $1,000 that Bush took away because I can physically live without it, but things would be a lot easier for the year if I could have that extra money back to pay for things.

Either way, I don't give a shit about being "fair."

Between this line and the paragraph above I think you have pretty much summed up the entire platform of Barry Obama and the Democratic Party. So what you really want is for the wealthy to be taxed more in order to buy you haircuts and shoes and you don't care whether that is fair or not? WOW! Ain't that looking out for your fellow Americans. Unfotunately my experience has shown me that most Democrats are Democrat for that exact reason...they want more shit for free. At least you have the balls to admit it. Respect.

[QueenAdrock]

You're bleeding-heart cred is off the charts with that story Diana.



I'd rather be a bleeding heart than a heartless jerk, any day. Thanks. (y)


Living on a budget is struggling. If you're not happy living that way, the thing to do would be to persue a different line of work. I'm not trying to disparage you at all, but how much do you think a librarians labor is worth? You are a civil servant, you work for the state. That's about as steady and comfortable a line of work as you can get.
Why would you expect to enjoy the benefits of being rich if you aren't willing to take on the responsibilities of being rich, i.e. the responsibility of running a business?

Do you know what librarians do? They deal with collections management, reference services, maintaining staff, dealing with database vendors, etc. The responsibilities of a librarian is much more than just checking out books (which, btw, is the responsibility of someone with a library technician degree, not an MLIS like I'm getting). I went into this line of work to make more money than what I was before, you're right. The LOC government librarians make $60K starting, an upwards of $120K+. If Brett and I both end up working there, there's a good chance that we could be in the upper tax income bracket. Most people have the misconception that librarians "work for the state," but there's more jobs than just public or academic libraries (neither of which I plan to pursue). So yeah, being a librarian is quite a bit of responsibility, and quite a lot of money in the long run.

In case you don't believe me, taken from usajobs.gov:

Law Librarian of Congress

SALARY RANGE: 114,468.00 - 158,500.00 USD per year OPEN PERIOD: Thursday, August 14, 2008
to Friday, November 14, 2008
SERIES & GRADE: SL-0905-00/00 POSITION INFORMATION: Full Time Permanent - No time limit
PROMOTION POTENTIAL: 00 DUTY LOCATIONS: 1 vacancy - Washington, DC
WHO MAY BE CONSIDERED: Anyone may apply - By law, employment at most U.S. Government agencies, including the Library of Congress, is limited to U.S. citizens. However, non-citizens may be hired providing that immigration law and other legal requirements are met, and the Library determines there are no qualified U.S. citizens available for the position.

JOB SUMMARY:
Applications for this position are being processed through an on-line applicant assessment system that has been specifically configured for Library Of Congress applicants. Even if you have already developed a resume in USAJOBS, you will need to access this on-line system to complete the application process. To obtain information about this position and TO APPLY, please click on http://www.avuecentral.com/vacancy.html?ref=PGBKA.

KEY REQUIREMENTS:

* See Other Information.




You choose to give to the homeless and charities.
You aren't told by your government that you are being mandated to do so.

I wouldn't care if the government told me to do so. I know it's going to a good place, so why would I be upset?

[QueenAdrock]

I have owned and currently do own pets. But I am sane enough to realize that a dog is a dog. I do not pretend they are a human just to make myself feel loved or befriended or to feel power and control over another being. Animals are happiest when you let them be animals, not when try and make them your child. You do know that they can NOT speak english right? So quit try to have a conversation with them....you know you do. I love my dogs dearly but a cat? Fuck 'em. Not my bag.

Okay, so if your dogs came down with a sickness and you had to pay $1,500, you wouldn't? Wow. That's pretty sad. I have compassion and I do love my animals. Yes, she's just a cat, but if she's sick I'm going to take care of her and not just throw her out for a new one like you suggested. Call me a bleeding heart all you want, but if my cat is sick, yeah, I'm going to take care of her. It's called being a responsible pet owner.


Between this line and the paragraph above I think you have pretty much summed up the entire platform of Barry Obama and the Democratic Party. So what you really want is for the wealthy to be taxed more in order to buy you haircuts and shoes and you don't care whether that is fair or not? WOW! Ain't that looking out for your fellow Americans. Unfotunately my experience has shown me that most Democrats are Democrat for that exact reason...they want more shit for free. At least you have the balls to admit it. Respect.

I keep saying over and over, if I ever make $250K, I WON'T CARE ABOUT PAYING THAT MUCH. In my tax bracket, it matters. If I'm even $100K+, I WON'T CARE. I'm not selfish. The wealthy are taxed not to buy me "haircuts and shoes" as you seem to think, they're taxed to pay for the roads, libraries, police officers, firemen, post offices, etc. I don't think the Republicans seem to understand that the government WON'T be going into their pocket and giving it directly to me. They're going to fix up society. They won't be asking me to pay as much since I can't afford it, and instead, I can finally purchase things that I've needed and been unable to afford.

Society needs to be looked after, and taxing everyone the same amount won't cover the necessary expenses. Someone has to pay more, so the rich are the ones to do so. If they don't, then we'll have a crumbling society. Remember the bridge falling in Minneapolis? That's what happens when taxes are slashed and infrastructure isn't paid for.

However, like I've said, if you all have a good idea on how to pay for everything needed by society without raising taxes, I'd absolutely love to hear it. This country needs to get back on track and the irresponsible tax cuts put in place by Bush need to be rolled back. I didn't see a bunch of rich people getting upset over Clinton's tax plan or call him a socialist. It's the same thing.

If you want to talk about "looking out for your fellow Americans," look at the 2% and ask them why they aren't looking out for the fellow 98% and don't want to. It seems silly the other way around, to ask one of the 98% why they aren't looking out for that marginal 2%.

[Bob]

I was referencing his proposal to double the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is not uncommon, for people who make very little to actually get a refund check, even though they have paid NO taxes under this program. Don't get me wrong... I think this program has actually done some good. But doubling it means even more people would likely get this "free wad of cash".

i know it's really popular to hate on these jerks who don't pay taxes and still get a refund, but is it really so bad to help someone out who's working, but isn't even making enough money to owe taxes? it kind of seems like they could use the money, actually. maybe some of them use it to buy PS3's, sure, but i bet at least a handful buy food and pay utilities with it.

for the record, i too would prefer a candidate who would raise taxes and use it to balance the budget rather than create new entitlement programs, but that candidate doesn't seem to be running this year. instead we have someone who refuses to concede the necessity of undoing the tax cuts and instead wants to do an "across the board spending freeze" and possibly return us to the lochner era, only this time with healthcare, and a candidate who will do with taxes what needs to be done, but wants to increase spending as well.

neither option strikes me as perfect, but if obama's entitlement programs turn out to be a disaster, he strikes me as the kind of guy who might notice that and do something about it. mccain seems like more of a "stay the course" kind of guy (i don't even want to know what palin thinks about the economy). get a better job if you don't want to be poor, nobody's forcing you to be a janitor. you couldn't find any? well, just form a union then. no i won't change the labor laws, just try harder. they fired you? well they can't do that, just sue for your job back, you might even get back pay out of it if you're lucky.

those are all mccain quotes i think, i just don't have the source handy at the moment, just trust me

[Randetica]

Okay, so if your dogs came down with a sickness and you had to pay $1,500, you wouldn't? Wow. That's pretty sad.



yeah, people who think like that dont even deserve any pets

[travesty]

Okay, so if your dogs came down with a sickness and you had to pay $1,500, you wouldn't? Wow. That's pretty sad. I have compassion and I do love my animals. Yes, she's just a cat, but if she's sick I'm going to take care of her and not just throw her out for a new one like you suggested. Call me a bleeding heart all you want, but if my cat is sick, yeah, I'm going to take care of her. It's called being a responsible pet owner.
I would certainly take care of my dogs, no matter the cost, but I'd run over a cat in a heartbeat.

I keep saying over and over, if I ever make $250K, I WON'T CARE ABOUT PAYING THAT MUCH. In my tax bracket, it matters. If I'm even $100K+, I WON'T CARE. I'm not selfish. The wealthy are taxed not to buy me "haircuts and shoes" as you seem to think, they're taxed to pay for the roads, libraries, police officers, firemen, post offices, etc. I don't think the Republicans seem to understand that the government WON'T be going into their pocket and giving it directly to me. They're going to fix up society. They won't be asking me to pay as much since I can't afford it, and instead, I can finally purchase things that I've needed and been unable to afford.
It's all a matter of logistics but at the end of the day, they are paying more, you are paying less and using that money, apparently, for haircuts and shoes.

Society needs to be looked after, and taxing everyone the same amount won't cover the necessary expenses.
Hmmmm.....are you saying that it is impossible to cut a pie into equal portions? What am I missing?

Someone has to pay more,
Why?

If they don't, then we'll have a crumbling society.
No, you'll just have to make do with SuperCuts and Keds because your taxes wouldn't be lowered.

However, like I've said, if you all have a good idea on how to pay for everything needed by society without raising taxes, I'd absolutely love to hear it. This country needs to get back on track and the irresponsible tax cuts put in place by Bush need to be rolled back. I didn't see a bunch of rich people getting upset over Clinton's tax plan or call him a socialist. It's the same thing.

SPEND LESS! Cut government funding for, elimnate completely or turn over to the states those programs that are not specified under Federal control in the constitution (namely highways/infrastucture and the military (though it could stand a cut or two)) . Want a list? Here goes
-Dept of Education
-IRS
-DEA
-National Endowment for the Arts
-FEMA
-Ethanol Subsidies
-Farm Subsidies (at least fix them)
- Oil Subsidies
- 2008 Economic Stabilization Act
- 2008 Economic Stimilus Act

If you want to talk about "looking out for your fellow Americans," look at the 2% and ask them why they aren't looking out for the fellow 98% and don't want to

Because I am ashamed to ask them for more. The top 2% pay almost 45% of all of the income taxes paid America! If you don't think they are already doing a decent job of looking out for their fellow Americans then you are insane and you need to go back to talking to your cat.
Does it seem bizzare to anyone else that the guy who said "Ask not what your country can do for you....." was a Democrat? What happened to those kind of Democrats? All you people want is more...more....more. I have not heard one person on this board even hint at the idea that tax cuts right now for anyone, is probably a little irresponsible given the shape our country is in. If Bush's tax cuts were irresponsible how are Barry's not as well, or more so? All the Dems want to do is parade around the fact that Barry will give you more than McCain will. It's pathetic.

[DroppinScience]

I would certainly take care of my dogs, no matter the cost, but I'd run over a cat in a heartbeat.

That's fine if you're not a cat lover, but dude, don't be a COMPLETE dick about it. Diana loves cats as much as you love dogs, so it's pretty retarded to say: "Go get a new one" to a cat she loves dearly.

[travesty]

i know it's really popular to hate on these jerks who don't pay taxes and still get a refund, but is it really so bad to help someone out who's working, but isn't even making enough money to owe taxes? it kind of seems like they could use the money, actually.

No, actually these are exactly the people who should be getting the most help. Like I said, I actually think this program has done some good. I am leary of doubling the credit but not completely opposed to it.

[travesty]

That's fine if you're not a cat lover, but dude, don't be a COMPLETE dick about it. Diana loves cats as much as you love dogs, so it's pretty retarded to say: "Go get a new one" to a cat she loves dearly.

Obviously my sarcasm does not always convey through the keyboard. My point was that from a PURELY FINANCIAL standpoint, that may not have been a good decision to pay that much for an overnight at the vet. I never said to kill the thing. I absolutely understand what we as pet owners will do for our pets, nearly anything, but it is not alwys a great FINANCIAL decision.

[travesty]

. :p In my whole lifetime, I've never seen so many high profile republicans abandon their party. :)
Because the Republican party is not Republican anymore, it's all sissy-fied and shit.

[King PSYZ]

Do you really not see the error in saying "most people won't be affected by this"? History has shown us that's a very slippery slope to travel down, just ask the Jews who were around in the 1930's.

OH HELL NO YOU DID NOT JUST GOODWIN THIS THREAD IN REFRENCE TO OBAMA'S TAX PLAN

[Dorothy Wood]

it's funny how I am still somehow being disputed when I have said that I agree that higher taxes for some is unfair. I guess I realize that it accomplishes a tax cut for the middle class, and that a flat tax would need to be a higher percentage to even things out. I guess I don't know why that's true...as bob said, can't they just have a smaller budget?

on the other hand, I think what some of you guys are forgetting is that if the middle class has more bucks to throw around, businesses will be taking in more money because there will be more demand for goods and services.

I've also read that all the tax cuts under bush created new businesses and new jobs...but all those new businesses were sort of in that bubble of free and easy lending that was going on 2-4 years ago. My bosses wanted to expand their business and open a new store (and they did, in 2006) and they said the banks were basically throwing money at them. so, I don't think you can't soley credit tax cuts with the job growth that happened under Bush.


the thing is, not every member of our society is capable of acheiving wealth, but it's still in everyone's best interest to take care of society as a whole. unless you're ready to say that the weak should basically just be choked out and die? what about people with mental illness? physical handicaps? limited cognitive abilities? do you think Trig Palin is going to pull up his bootstraps and overcome his down syndrome to become a hard working son of a gun making $250,000 owning his own business? is the Palin family going to pay out of pocket for their son's education and therapy, or they going to take per diems, will they send him to a public school where he'll have a special aid? these things are paid for by taxes.


in addition, I do believe that businesses will be getting tax breaks for staying in the U.S. and doing environmentally responsible business. on the environmental side, obama and biden are interested in developing green technology which I believe will lead to tons of new jobs and trades for american people. I don't believe that mccain or palin have any foresight in that regard and still only have oil on the brain.



and one more point, if some asshole CEO decided that he'd rather fire two people than take a little pay cut, fuck that dude. the CEO of Costco only gives himself a $350,000 salary. yes, he has stocks so he's getting millions from that, but that profit is based on his company's performance, not him saying "omg, I want a 10 million dollar salary no matter how we're performing". he pays his workers well and gives them good benefits, which in turn makes for a more pleasant shopping experience for customers. that coupled with paying attention to what they sell and how they sell it creates a win win for the consumer, and thereby the company.


I forgot my point. I guess I just want people to be responsible for themselves across the whole spectrum of class and wealth (or lack of wealth).

and I highly doubt that obama's tax plan is going to go through as it is, or that if if it does, it's going to destroy the american dream, capitalism, the economy, democracy, freedom, etc. as the mccain/palin camp would have you believe.


ALSO, WHY ARE ALL YOU WINGNUTS IGNORING THIS:

laver said:
Not that long ago McCain was justifying the rich paying more. This is a prime example of why McCain rubs me the wrong way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

Today he is playing the socialist card.

[RobMoney$]

I keep saying over and over, if I ever make $250K, I WON'T CARE ABOUT PAYING THAT MUCH. In my tax bracket, it matters. If I'm even $100K+, I WON'T CARE. I'm not selfish. The wealthy are taxed not to buy me "haircuts and shoes" as you seem to think, they're taxed to pay for the roads, libraries, police officers, firemen, post offices, etc. I don't think the Republicans seem to understand that the government WON'T be going into their pocket and giving it directly to me. They're going to fix up society. They won't be asking me to pay as much since I can't afford it, and instead, I can finally purchase things that I've needed and been unable to afford.

Society needs to be looked after, and taxing everyone the same amount won't cover the necessary expenses. Someone has to pay more, so the rich are the ones to do so. If they don't, then we'll have a crumbling society. Remember the bridge falling in Minneapolis? That's what happens when taxes are slashed and infrastructure isn't paid for.

Roads, libraries, police officers, Infastructure?

Obama isn't planning on using the added revenue for any of that.
What are you talking about?
We're talking about the increase he's proposing that he plans on using directly for entitlement programs for the poor.

[travesty]

I forgot my point. I guess I just want people to be responsible for themselves across the whole spectrum of class and wealth (or lack of wealth).


A-FUCKING-MEN Dorothy! I could not posssibly agree more.(y)(y)(y)

[RobMoney$]

Dorothy is begining to find her inner-conservative. (y)

[King PSYZ]

SPEND LESS! Cut government funding for, elimnate completely or turn over to the states those programs that are not specified under Federal control in the constitution (namely highways/infrastucture and the military (though it could stand a cut or two)) . Want a list? Here goes
-Dept of Education
-IRS
-DEA
-National Endowment for the Arts
-FEMA
-Ethanol Subsidies
-Farm Subsidies (at least fix them)
- Oil Subsidies
- 2008 Economic Stabilization Act
- 2008 Economic Stimilus Act

I usually just gloss over your retorts because lately you come off as Rob's Salacious Crumb...

But you do know that Obama is going to go over the federal budget line by line and cut out programs that are un-needed or are not vital right now and strenghten ones that need it most. Right?

The biggest thing here though this is us going back to the taxes at the levels they were 8 years ago... you know the first time in recent history that the US was in a budget surplus? The first time they were taking more in than they were spending, and we had armed forced in eastern europe for the whole breakdown of communism and checklosovakia [SIC], we had Desert Storm, shit wasn't exactly all rosey red.

There's no slippery slope here, this nation has been a Socialist nation since 1935 if you want to get technical when Social Security was enacted.

[King PSYZ]

Roads, libraries, police officers, Infastructure?

Obama isn't planning on using the added revenue for any of that.
What are you talking about?
We're talking about the increase he's proposing that he plans on using directly for entitlement programs for the poor.

WHAT THE FUCK?!

NO SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK?

HE'S SAID FROM DAY ONE THAT HIS GOAL, HIS GOAL FOR FUCK'S SAKE IS TO REINVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN WHOLLY IGNORED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S STEWARDSHIP OF IT.

HIS GOAL IS TO CREATE JOBS FROM FIXING THE CRUMBLING ROADS AND BRIDGES, TO UPDATE OUR SORELY OUTDATED SCHOOLS. I KNOW IT PROBABLLY DOESN'T GET A LOT OF PLAY ON THE GOP EMAIL FORWARD CURCUIT OR MICHELE MALKIN'S BLOG, BUT GOOGLE IS WAITING TO ENLIGHTEN YOU...

[Dorothy Wood]

dudes, I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal. :cool: I ain't got no patience for people who are perfectly capable of working and making money, but don't. my aunt is like that (she has 3 degrees and works at kmart). she expects her brothers (who have done quite well) to basically give her money. my one uncle offered to pay off all her debt and then set up a payment plan for her to pay him back (with no interest) and she got all mad and said he should just pay for it and not expect her to pay him back, so he was like, "wtf? no" and took the offer off the table. and now that her daughter's a teenager, she's basically transferring some of the responsibilities of raising her on to me...because I agreed to be her godmother when I was 14. :/ uh, no bro. I'll be her friend and offer support, but she's not my child.



I also wanted to mention before with that costco stuff, that my boss only takes a $25,000 salary. (he's got access to the business money though, obviously).


anyway, my boss and my rich uncles are all voting for obama :p

[QueenAdrock]

I'd rather be called a heartless jerk with $1500 bucks in my savings account than a bleeding heart with a cat who can't piss straight. (y)

I wasn't calling you a heartless jerk, I was just saying those are the two extremes, and I'd rather be called a bleeding heart. Quite touchy, I must say.

I sure hope you never have to pay for Aimee having to go to the hospital, or I may have to say something along the lines of "Oh, well at least I have a healthy boyfriend and extra cash in the bank." Because, haha, that's totally funny. Get it? You love Aimee and had to see her go to the hospital because she was in pain, and then on top of that you had to pay premiums? Isn't that hilarious? Seriously, that's the highest level of douchebaggery I've seen from you yet, and that's saying something. :rolleyes:


I don't even know why I'm arguing with Republicans. You're of the party of George W. Bush, supreme asshole. I should expect that the followers of the GOP would have the same attitude.

[QueenAdrock]

WHAT THE FUCK?!

NO SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK?

HE'S SAID FROM DAY ONE THAT HIS GOAL, HIS GOAL FOR FUCK'S SAKE IS TO REINVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN WHOLLY IGNORED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S STEWARDSHIP OF IT.

HIS GOAL IS TO CREATE JOBS FROM FIXING THE CRUMBLING ROADS AND BRIDGES, TO UPDATE OUR SORELY OUTDATED SCHOOLS. I KNOW IT PROBABLLY DOESN'T GET A LOT OF PLAY ON THE GOP EMAIL FORWARD CURCUIT OR MICHELE MALKIN'S BLOG, BUT GOOGLE IS WAITING TO ENLIGHTEN YOU...

But Fox News didn't say that! :confused:

[RobMoney$]

I wasn't calling you a heartless jerk, I was just saying those are the two extremes, and I'd rather be called a bleeding heart. Quite touchy, I must say.

Maybe calling me a jerk wasn't your intent, but that's what you did. I was merely responding in kind, complete with the sarcastic (y)
I apologize if I misunderstood your intent and if any feelings were hurt. Getting into personal attacks as election day nears is something we need to avoid.


I sure hope you never have to pay for Aimee having to go to the hospital, or I may have to say something along the lines of "Oh, well at least I have a healthy boyfriend and extra cash in the bank." Because, haha, that's totally funny. Get it? You love Aimee and had to see her go to the hospital because she was in pain, and then on top of that you had to pay premiums? Isn't that hilarious? Seriously, that's the highest level of douchebaggery I've seen from you yet, and that's saying something. :rolleyes:

You compare my girlfriend to a fucking cat, and I'm the douchebag? OK.
I understand you love your cat and that they all have individual personalities, but do both Aimee and I a favor and leave her out of this and any future conversations we share on here.


I don't even know why I'm arguing with Republicans. You're of the party of George W. Bush, supreme asshole. I should expect that the followers of the GOP would have the same attitude.

I'm not a republican, I'm just not voting for Obama (I know, I'm such an obvious racist)
I'm a registered Dem. You know, the party of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy?
There's plenty of supreme assholes to go around on both sides.

[tpk]

i haven't read through the topic but i get the idea of it.

my question is, should i delete this thread and hope you all can behave in the next, or should i let it be?

either way, robmoney keep the insults down, i've seen too many of them lately.

[QueenAdrock]

You compare my girlfriend to a fucking cat, and I'm the douchebag? OK.
I understand you love your cat and that they all have individual personalities, but do both Aimee and I a favor and leave her out of this and any future conversations we share on here.


It's not a comparison of what kind of living creature they are, it's a comparison of the loving emotional attachment. Obviously, yes, it's a different type of love, but regardless, it's hurtful and unnecessary. When you say jerk comments about how my cat was in pain and I had to pay, I don't really see the motivation behind such cruel remarks and perhaps you'd understand why they're cruel if they're put into a similar context.

It is interesting that you still call yourself a Democrat though, because with all the anti-Obama stuff you've put up, criticizing his taxes, his war strategy, energy policy, whatever else (which is a common platform shared by the Democratic candidates), it's getting harder and harder to see what makes you a "Democrat" still. Perhaps it's time to switch parties?

[RobMoney$]

Unbelievable.

[Dorothy Wood]

i haven't read through the topic but i get the idea of it.

my question is, should i delete this thread and hope you all can behave in the next, or should i let it be?

either way, robmoney keep the insults down, i've seen too many of them lately.


let it be. I like what I said about costco.

[travesty]

I usually just gloss over your retorts because lately you come off as Rob's Salacious Crumb...
Fuck you very much if that was meant to be condescending but if it meant that I am not a blind sheep in the flock for Barry then thank you.

But you do know that Obama is going to go over the federal budget line by line and cut out programs that are un-needed or are not vital right now and strenghten ones that need it most. Right?

Such as????...... are you just taking his word for it or has he ever given examples of what he might cut? He didn't offer any up in the deabtes I watched. I know he's got his nifty "scalpel" and all but he never gave any definitive answers. On the contrary he was more than ready to talk about the the things he would increase spending on. So from what I've seen, and I would love to proven otherwise, he is making the typical Dem campaign promises to reduce spending but history has shown that Dems do not quite live up to those promises in office. Especially if they break the majority deadlock in Congress....look out.

EDIT: On a side not I am going to Barry speak in Raleigh tomorrow so he has chance to sway me on this.

The biggest thing here though this is us going back to the taxes at the levels they were 8 years ago... you know the first time in recent history that the US was in a budget surplus? The first time they were taking more in than they were spending, and we had armed forced in eastern europe for the whole breakdown of communism and checklosovakia [SIC], we had Desert Storm, shit wasn't exactly all rosey red.

This is the biggest line of COMPLETE BULLSHIT that the Dems have available and it keeps you guys happy about Clinton but is really just a Dem party talking point and is based on improper accounting procedures and thus completely wrong. In REAL accounting terms (meaning accrual basis, not cash basis....try and submit your business's books to the gov using cash basis... it won't fly) and not even including Social Security and Medicaire we have not had a budget surplus in the US in some 50 years. Read Here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm) Add SS and Medicaire to the equation and the results are even more appalling. I'm not saying Clinton did a bad job, he was far better than Bush or Reagan, but he NEVER ran a budget surplus, that is just a lie.

There's no slippery slope here, this nation has been a Socialist nation since 1935 if you want to get technical when Social Security was enacted.
Socialist elements. But I think we kind of have a mish mash of most types of government all piled in to one big pot and set on simmer. I like Stew.

Oh and Queen....Douchebaggery is a great word, I think I'll use it quite frequently. :D

[Randetica]

let it be. I like what I said about costco.

haha

[saz]

I'm not a republican, I'm just not voting for Obama (I know, I'm such an obvious racist)

well yeah it's pretty obvious when you post garbage like this:


If you don't wanna be called the N-word, don't act like one.

[Documad]

let it be. I like what I said about costco.

Yes. tpk, let it ride. I like what she said about Costco.

[yeahwho]

The bitter fruit of defeat. (http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1213891332&channel=1213897977)

[tpk]

alright so because of the remarkable support for costco related content this topic stays till someone suggests otherwise

[tpk]

The bitter fruit of defeat. (http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1213891332&channel=1213897977)i actually watched that. it was short enough to be interesting enough to watch for two minutes resulting in some gained knowledge in measuring for drapery panels. she looked scary though.

[ms.peachy]

I don't understand the "puddling effect". Why would you want that?

[kaiser soze]

G.O.P!!!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UtEP3ROE4zw

[travesty]

This one is even better if you remember the old Budweiser Ad "wazzzzup"

Wazzzup 8 Years Later (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8Uc5BFogE)

[RobMoney$]

Last night I debated doing an experiment with my two kids.

My son is the younger of the two, and knows where all the houses are with the good candy. He and his friends were pretty motivated to go get as much candy as they could. My daughter is the older one (one year seperates them) and she wasn't as enthused about going out to trick or treat as her brother. She didn't even really want to go, but her friends pressured her into it I guess. She was just going door to door down the street.
At the end of the night, my son has two grocery bags filled with candy, and my daughter has about half a bags worth. Admittedley that's more than enough for the both of them, but it got me to thinking.
Should I ask the my son to share some of his candy with his older sister?
Redistribute his candy wealth, if you will?
Would it be fair?

[Bob]

only if he had over 250,000 tootsie rolls and you asked him to give her another 3000 or so

and also if your daughter needed candy to pay for rent and food

[King PSYZ]

I remember one year my brother was sick on halloween, so I went trick or treatng and we split the booty, so yeah that would be fair because they're family and that's what families do. If you want to teach them the policy of greed and hoarding, then by all means feel free.

Just like as we're all Americans, an American family if you will. So if someone is extremely well off then a small portion of their income going towards helping others have the same opertunities is very fair.

Once this land abandons our ability to care and have compasion for our fellow Americans is when it will no longer be the United States of America. It actually breaks my heart, my family has been in this country from day one. We came over on the Mayflower and while times, they are a changin', loosing what made this country thrive would be the worst imaginable thing.

[RobMoney$]

I remember one year my brother was sick on halloween, so I went trick or treatng and we split the booty, so yeah that would be fair because they're family and that's what families do. If you want to teach them the policy of greed and hoarding, then by all means feel free.


What about the lesson of reaping the rewards of hard work?
I'll be teaching my daughter that you can get away with not putting any effort into a job and still be rewarded because someone else did the work.

In effect, I'm teaching her to be a sponge.


And you chose to share your candy with your brother. Your parents didn't force you to.
We all should have the freedom to choose how much to donate, and exactly what brothers we choose to donate to.

[DroppinScience]

Is your daughter even interested in any of the candy her brother went and got?

If she wanted candy that badly, she'd have been running to catch up with her brother to go to all the good houses with the best treats.

Don't know how it relates to Obama's tax plan since he's not giving money to people who aren't working for it.

[Bob]

also obama isn't giving away candy

[RobMoney$]

My son and his friends planned out their route the night before and how they were going to maximize their time so that they hit all the streets that had the most houses.
It was simply a social event with friends for my daughter, but now that she sees the haul my son got, she wants some of it and feels I should make her brother share. My son feels like it's his.
I don't really think it's the idea of sharing that he's resisting, because he is normally a very giving person. I think it's more the idea that his sister feels like she deserves it, he doesn't like being told by her to share it, if that makes any sense?

I feel like maybe it's not my place to interfere. His candy is his to do with as he pleases.

[RobMoney$]

also obama isn't giving away candy

figuritively, he is.

[kaiser soze]

Last night I debated doing an experiment with my two kids.

My son is the younger of the two, and knows where all the houses are with the good candy. He and his friends were pretty motivated to go get as much candy as they could. My daughter is the older one (one year seperates them) and she wasn't as enthused about going out to trick or treat as her brother. She didn't even really want to go, but her friends pressured her into it I guess. She was just going door to door down the street.
At the end of the night, my son has two grocery bags filled with candy, and my daughter has about half a bags worth. Admittedley that's more than enough for the both of them, but it got me to thinking.
Should I ask the my son to share some of his candy with his older sister?
Redistribute his candy wealth, if you will?
Would it be fair?

your son needs encouragement to share? My siblings and I never had a problem with sharing or trading our booty

If my kid had 2 garbage bags I would definitely cut it down, child obesity is bad.

[Bob]

figuritively, he is.

no, no he isn't

[Knuckles]

Let's say you are divorced and the mother of your three children lives in Beverly Hills. One of your children is spending the week of Halloween with her while the other two are staying with you in Smalltown USA.

Now, one of the two children that are staying with you broke his leg a week back so he's not going to be able to trick or treat this year. Halloween comes and the two healthy kids go to the exact same number of houses. The kid that trick or treated in Beverly Hills gets ten times the amount of candy than the kid that trick or treated in Smalltown does.

Being the good parent that you are you plan on making them share the booty with their poor, unfortunate brother. Do you think it's fair to make the Beverly Hills trick or treater share a greater amount than the Smalltown trick or treater?

[Documad]

Should I ask the my son to share some of his candy with his older sister?
Redistribute his candy wealth, if you will?
Would it be fair?

You should make your kids select a certain number of pieces of candy that they want to keep and make both of them give the rest of the candy away. No child should have a half a grocery bag of candy. I say that because I wish my mom had taken most of my candy away and I respect my friends who have more rules for their kids and teenagers.

If you want to applaud your boy for his smarts or being more motivated, maybe you could give him something non food related to replace the candy he gives up?

[Dorothy Wood]

my mom used to ration my halloween candy when I was a kid. we'd have it for months. it also helps that I'm not really a candy eater.

as for rob's kids...I don't know. I find it sad that the situation has to be political. you just need to explain to your daughter that your son went through a lot of extra effort and trouble to get all that candy and that she could've done the same if she wanted to. then maybe next year she'll try harder. ask her if she had fun while she was out there, and if she did, explain that the experience is its own reward. I mean...if you want a ton of candy, go buy some with your allowance or something.

and I like documad's idea about trading in the candy for something non-food related.

I do not find that any of this has anything to do with obama's tax plan.

[RobMoney$]

I don't think we should let this discussion digress into how much candy is too much for a kid.
The fact is that although my son has two grocery bags of candy, maybe 50% of it is stuff he or his sister will eat.
First off there was the money and gift certs. Then stuff like twizlers, pixie sticks, apples, tootsie rolls, candy corn, jawbreakers and such along with anything that's homemade or unwrapped goes right in the trash because I won't allow them to have it or they just don't like it.

What you're left with is basically the chocolate bars and recee's cups and such. That's the stuff that's most likely to be eaten.
The way I've always handled Halloween is Halloween night it's carte blanche, they can go nuts with everything they get.
After that, it's a few pieces after they eat their dinner. Most years we wind up throwing most of it out after a few days.

Anyway, they've always kept their candy seperated, but usually shared anyway at their own discression.
I was just wondering how'd they feel if I forced my son to give up a portion of his haul for experiment's sake. I mean they'll both be old enough to vote in the next election so they may as well start learning about "redistribution", right?

[kaiser soze]

I don't think we should let this discussion digress into how much candy is too much for a kid.
The fact is that although my son has two grocery bags of candy, maybe 50% of it is stuff he or his sister will eat.
First off there was the money and gift certs. Then stuff like twizlers, pixie sticks, apples, tootsie rolls, candy corn, jawbreakers and such along with anything that's homemade or unwrapped goes right in the trash because I won't allow them to have it or they just don't like it.

What you're left with is basically the chocolate bars and recee's cups and such. That's the stuff that's most likely to be eaten.
The way I've always handled Halloween is Halloween night it's carte blanche, they can go nuts with everything they get.
After that, it's a few pieces after they eat their dinner. Most years we wind up throwing most of it out after a few days.

Anyway, they've always kept their candy seperated, but usually shared anyway at their own discression.
I was just wondering how'd they feel if I forced my son to give up a portion of his haul for experiment's sake. I mean they'll both be old enough to vote in the next election so they may as well start learning about "redistribution", right?

you spelled Reese's wrong

[RobMoney$]

Let's say you are divorced and the mother of your three children lives in Beverly Hills. One of your children is spending the week of Halloween with her while the other two are staying with you in Smalltown USA.

Now, one of the two children that are staying with you broke his leg a week back so he's not going to be able to trick or treat this year. Halloween comes and the two healthy kids go to the exact same number of houses. The kid that trick or treated in Beverly Hills gets ten times the amount of candy than the kid that trick or treated in Smalltown does.

Being the good parent that you are you plan on making them share the booty with their poor, unfortunate brother. Do you think it's fair to make the Beverly Hills trick or treater share a greater amount than the Smalltown trick or treater?


I'd like to think I wouldn't be forced to make them do anything, and just like Psyzmac they'd come to that conclusion on their own to help their brother in need out.

[Bob]

I mean they'll both be old enough to vote in the next election so they may as well start learning about "redistribution", right?

if you really want to teach them a lesson about redistribution, what you should do is cut off their allowances, make them buy their own food, charge them rent, and make them get full time jobs. then when they get a tax refund they can form their own opinion about it!

[RobMoney$]

if you really want to teach them a lesson about redistribution, what you should do is cut off their allowances, make them buy their own food, charge them rent, and make them get full time jobs. then when they get a tax refund they can form their own opinion about it!


Don't you mean I should reward them for doing nothing?

[kaiser soze]

Or you can tell them how mccain doesn't care if the Iraq carries on for another 100 years, thus extending many no-bid contracts with little oversight, auditing, regulation or accountability wasting billions of tax payers dollars, that's not redistributing the wealth

not at all

[Bob]

Don't you mean I should reward them for doing nothing?

if you consider working a shit job for shit pay "nothing", sure, that's exactly what i mean

[RobMoney$]

What if I mean working said shit job for said shit pay and then deciding to go out and buy a house for way more than you can logically afford and a bunch of other crap you really don't need and can't afford, but the bank tells you "it's alright, you can afford it" and then you cry to the government for help when you really can't afford it because you're living beyond your means because you have a shit job where you make shit pay.
But it's OK because you're "struggling" and the Gov't will bail you out of your financial mismanagement.

[Dorothy Wood]

1. I don't think it's a good idea to perform an experiment with your kids to prove a point on a messageboard.

2. god forbid they ever make mistakes in their lives, because I feel like you could never forgive them.

3. your kids are going to be 18+ years old in 4 years? so they're teenagers? why are they still trick-or-treating?

4. ahem, the banks bit themselves in the ass with risky lending practices and all of us taxpayers had to bail them out. their mistakes destroyed our economy. it used to be that if you didn't have the money, you just couldn't pay for stuff. greed and manipulation and the offer of credit to everyone created this bubble and people just kept borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending. but none of that would've happened if it weren't for the banks and corporations encouraging that borrowing and spending. after 911, Bush pushed consumerism in a big way. keep spending! if you don't buy that new [fill in the blank], the terrorists have won!

meh, I'm tired of trying to explain things you don't want to understand.

[Bob]

What if I mean working said shit job for said shit pay and then deciding to go out and buy a house for way more than you can logically afford and a bunch of other crap you really don't need and can't afford, but the bank tells you "it's alright, you can afford it" and then you cry to the government for help when you really can't afford it because you're living beyond your means because you have a shit job where you make shit pay.
But it's OK because you're "struggling" and the Gov't will bail you out of your financial mismanagement.

so you didn't mean "nothing"?

[yeahwho]

Some kids have parents willing to drive them to high candy volume neighborhoods, multiple community events and chauffeured in first class Escalade leather with the DVD playing cartoons.

Other kids wait till Monday morning and beat the shit out of them for the Reese's.

There's always a tax in life and it is never fair.

[RobMoney$]

1. I don't think it's a good idea to perform an experiment with your kids to prove a point on a messageboard.

Don't worry, this excersize was purely for you people on this MB. It was just an idea that occured to me as they were going through their stuff Halloween night. I have never told my kids how to divide their candy or their money.

2. god forbid they ever make mistakes in their lives, because I feel like you could never forgive them.

They weren't raised to make mistakes. Mistakes are for the weak.

3. your kids are going to be 18+ years old in 4 years? so they're teenagers? why are they still trick-or-treating?

My Daughter just turned 15 and my son just turned 14.
My son was all about it still, as were all his three of his best friends and I'm happy they were.
Like I said, my daughter only went out because her friends talked her into it. It was purely a social event for her. I think they were doing it ironicly. They're a bunch of goofballs.

4. ahem, the banks bit themselves in the ass with risky lending practices and all of us taxpayers had to bail them out. their mistakes destroyed our economy. it used to be that if you didn't have the money, you just couldn't pay for stuff. greed and manipulation and the offer of credit to everyone created this bubble and people just kept borrowing and spending and borrowing and spending. but none of that would've happened if it weren't for the banks and corporations encouraging that borrowing and spending. after 911, Bush pushed consumerism in a big way. keep spending! if you don't buy that new [fill in the blank], the terrorists have won!

meh, I'm tired of trying to explain things you don't want to understand.

I couln't agree with your take on the economy more. spot on.
But if anyone racked up too much credit because Bush told them to, then shame on them. I'd love to go out and buy a brand new home, but I don't because I like to live within my means. I'm not financially irresponsible. So I think it's wrong for people who are irresponsible to be "bailed out", as I'm sure you do too.

[RobMoney$]

Some kids have parents willing to drive them to high candy volume neighborhoods, multiple community events and chauffeured in first class Escalade leather with the DVD playing cartoons.

Other kids wait till Monday morning and beat the shit out of them for the Reese's.

There's always a tax in life and it is never fair.

Hey, you spelled Reese's properly. Kaiser will be relieved.

I live in one of those "high candy volume" neighborhoods.
We deal with the kids coming in from other neighborhoods, but they aren't being chauffeured in a leather seated Escalade.
They're bused in on Yellow church buses from the ghetto neighborhoods because people in the ghetto don't give out candy on Halloween.
I spend $200 on candy every year because I want to have enough to give out to the kids I actually know that live here.

So yes, there always is a tax in life. Even for the adults giving out candy.

[yeahwho]

The working class neighborhoods are always the best, in our area there is a berg called Mountlake Terrace that has cinderblock homes and small 1500 sq. ft stick houses, average lot size 5000-7200. It's flat terrain and no fences or shrub obstructions, just door aftre door with candy. Everybody has kids and the place is extremely generous. Full size candy bars and suckers.

I find the working class do enjoy sharing the wealth and making holidays for kids special, everyone gets served right up till 10:00 last night. I spent $100 on candy and $40 on pumpkins.

[RobMoney$]

Some of the streets in my neighborhood are simply a line of connecting rowhomes. Every 30ft is another door.
One block is over 50 connecting homes on each side of the street, total of 100+ houses to hit in one fell swoop. I know a lot of people who live on this street and spending hundreds on candy is pretty much par for the course. So many kids are on that street that it unofficially gets shut down for the trick or treating hours.

They're the streets my son and his friends were mapping out the night before. You could spend 20 minutes walking up one side of the street and back down the other side and have a grocery bag almost filled.

[Randetica]

my dad usually ate/stole most of my candy and money

problem solved.