flipper

But I am anyway, and i'm going to give it to those that don't work as hard as you. So much for hard work gets you ahead anymore. Let the lazy rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDVM7...eature=related

40sondacurb

Why didn't they play Obama's answer? And why should he have felt intimidated? I don't watch fox news so it's been a while since I've heard an anchor give someone a pat on the back for being able to face a candidate and ask him a question. Didn't an entire town hall do that the other week? I guess those people too are heroes for being able to realize Obama was an uninspiring inconsequential figure with no charisma trying to peddle his communist views.

"You're my kind of plumber," I know the interview was scripted, but it's just lazy to use lines from 1970 smut flicks.
That anchor got a little flush by the end of that interview, thank God he had that desk in front of him. Otherwise he might have caught the vapors and fell over.

flipper

Sorry you don't like fox. A simple search found a full interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA
Don't worry, that one is from ABC News so you cannot blame Fox news for being unbiased.


He still wants to spread the wealth. So I just spend the past 12 years in school getting a doctorates, racked up more debt then I wish to count in student loans and other things, and now he wants to take more money away from me to give to those who don't wish to work hard for something? Tell me how that is fair?

I love at the end how he said he would not raise capital gains tax, and would eliminate it, but if you do a simple search on ABC's News website again, (trying to leave Fox news out for you), he said he will raise capital gains tax, in fact he said he may even come close to double it.


Obama Clarifies Scope of Capital Gains Tax Hike

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...clarifies.html

yustr

Here's the entire discussion. Listen to all five minutes of it and tell me again that Fox tells it straight.

Yes, Fox, we get your point: Obama is a socialist. Now if you can only get a few 10's of million more sheep to beleive it.

If I understand correctly: Joe's tax rate would go from 35% to 39% on his income above $250K. So if he makes $275K next year, he'd pay all of $1000 more than he would now. Hardly driving him to bankruptcy.

40sondacurb

I didn't know I needed sympathy for that . Seeing the reply... I am satisfied with Obama's rational.

However, after seeing the entire exchange, I can see why the Fox anchor thought Obama might have been trying to intimidate him. At one point he held his hands about 6 inches apart, gestured up and down, then put them back at his side. This may have been interpreted as a gang sign of some sorts. You're brave man Joe the Plumber, I would have pissed myself and used a small child as a shield at that point.

Tumbleweed36

Yes, I saw the entire thing and this is called "wealth redistribution" plain and simple. The "Robin Hood" theory. Sounds like Obama thinks he or the government is better equipped to distribute your money than you are. Doesn't that strike you as being more in the realm of socialism?

I went this same route and earned that doctorate through many years of hard work (held a real job at the same time ) while others refused to work for anything. Therefore, I resent taking my hard earned money to distribute it to someone who made a choice to sit around and complain that the government didn't give them enough.

yustr

If the plan was to keep Joe's tax the same as today but eliminate it for everybody who makes less would that still be socialism? (Of course that wouldn't work but I'm trying to get to your position). After all we've had that all along except the amount is way lower.

In your mind is not any tax wealth redistribution? If so, I guess there's not much discussion to be had over a fair tax policy. But I'll ask the question I always do in these instances: what are the legitimate roles of government and how do you pay for them?

Tumbleweed36

Who and where my friend did anyone mention eliminating tax for everyone else who makes less? Guess I missed that one.

No, all tax is not wealth redistribution. Tax for roads, emergency services, and schools, etc. that are provided by the government that can not (remember those two words) be provided efficiently by private individuals are fair and equitable. Bridges to nowhere, million dollar telescopes for Obama's home district are not fair taxes and I should not have to pay for that stuff. Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty, so I am not hammering only Democrats on this issue.

Excess taxes (that is what Obama has proposed with his wealth redistribution) are not fair for those who work hard. His proposals are to take from the rich (as if someone in that $250k bracket is rich) and give to the poor, many of whom are simply too lazy to work.

Honestly yustr, don't you think we are presently taxed enough? Can government handle our private money better than we can? Do you think that you should pay for a million dollar telescope for Obama's home district just because he felt you should? Is freedom rooted on the government taking what they want for special projects (look at the earmarks) or in individuals keeping what they EARN without government stepping in and giving it to someone else? Yes, we do have some of that now, but where do you think it should end?

Why do we tax some individuals at 35% and some have no tax at all? Do they use goods and services? How can individuals get a tax rebate (they did you know) to stimulate the economy when they paid no taxes in the first place? Yep, the flat tax would be fair and equitable.

I do have to give Mr. Obama one thing, he was honest enought to say he is going to steal (higher taxes) from the rich to give away to the poor, many of those (not all) who refuse to work hard to get things they want. He is to be commended for being up front on his socialistic tendencies and promises.

Have you ever been behind someone in the supermarket line and wondered how they could use food stamps for those rib-eye steaks when you took hamburger home because you didn't have the money for the steaks? Have you ever stood there and saw the same person pay for those steaks with your money (food stamps) and then wonder how they had the money to purchase extra cigarettes and alcohol with cash? They do this if you didn't know it. I have seen this many times through the years and it is quite common for that to happen. Yep, that is wealth redistribution, my friend.

I hope you have a great day yustr, and don't forget, if you believe in wealth redistribution, then please do send some extra money along when you pay your taxes. They will certainly take care of it for you.

mommabear

As someone who had to go on food stamps a long time ago, during a very rough period, there are two sides to that story. Have you ever had to stand in line at the grocery watching people glare at you as if you were sub-human? Have you ever had to tell your kids 4 and 8, that they had to put the candy back, because the food stamps only go so far? Have you ever had to steal a roll of toilet paper from your friends (who were nice enough to take you in until you could get the welfare check for your rent) because you were ashamed to ask for it and because you can't buy soap or toilet paper or kotex with food stamps?

flipper

Actually my roommate has told stories of him growing up very poor. His parents could make a single chicken last all week for dinners. They would mix canned milk with regular milk to make it last longer. He has some very frugal tips. Heck when he moved out into his own home he ate roman noodles for 75% of his meals. His g/f is currently on food stamps and WIC.

But he also remembers going to the grocery store, seeing some mexicans who didn't speak any english with two, sometimes three grocery carts full of meats and other stuff and then paying for it with food stamps.

Food stamps are a great idea. Sadly the system has been abused. My brother has people coming into his store asking if he would buy the food stamps from them so that they can buy beer and cigs. Sadly this has been more of a common sight.

Tumbleweed36

mommabear,

I don't think anyone would want to deny someone in true need like you have explained to us. I am sure from your statements that YOU did not and would not abuse the system.

My personal perspective (dealt a lot with personnel and their behavior through the years) is that I am intuitive about people and have seen your posts on here. I would bet anything from that perspective that you would never be dishonorable in the situation you have described.

The other scenario explained by flipper is way too common. We do see that quite often in this area also.

I do have a very close relative who is a supervisor for a state government food stamp program. While many are in true need and deserve the help it is quite often that there are about as many cheaters and those not deserving as there are legitimate. There would be ample resources under the current taxation standards to provide assistance if we could rid the programs of those not deserving. Giving more (and the resultant raising taxes to pay for it) is not the answer, the answer is in monitoring the program so those only in need get the assistance.

The other perspective I have is that I was a principal in a public school for many years and we dealt with free lunch programs, reduced lunch programs, etc. on a daily basis. The majority of those on government assistance were also on the food stamp program. A great many of those who received those benefits lied on their applications about income, jobs, etc., and we had to reject them because they were not eligible if their application happened to be chosen for review.

However, by law, we were only permitted to verify one in twenty-five applications, so the vast majority that we knew cheated, they simply slipped by because we could not question their eligibility. The ones that submitted an application were given a number when they submitted the application. We simply had to go to application 25, then 50, etc. and verify or deny those who did not qualify on verification. Sad, I know, but so true. Don't misunderstand, there were many who were deserving and we as a school did everything to provide assistance so no child would be in need. That was our mission and we did it very well.

One last thing about your questions. I never did have to go on food stamps, but do know about not having enough to eat at times when growing up. We were dirt poor if you know what I mean and didn't always have enough food on the table. My father started his own business when i entered high school, so things got better by the time I graduated from high school His business flourished even more after that.

Later on during the first few years of our marriage, we were also very poor and at the same time trying to get an education so we could work ourselves out of a bad situation. There were all too many times I had to tell my two sons as small children to put candy back because we did not have the money to pay for it, so been there and done that one. That is no fun as you know, but we survived and I went on with a great career when we got past that initial difficult time.

My goal was to get fame and fortune in the work world, and although we live very comfortably now I did get a little fame along the way, but never earned the fortune I had hoped for. We do as I mentioned live comfortable and that is all that matters.

Have a great weekend mommabear, nice to chat with you.

mommabear

The conversation in this topic has really gotten off-topic a bit. We all have our stories of hard times and sacrifice. But there will always be those who will abuse the system meant to help those in times of need. Just like there are those in the corporate board rooms and banks who will abuse their power at the expense of others, because they too are greedy.

But to get back on point. Barack's economic plan is not about socialism. It's not about wealth distribution. It's about fairness. We've had decades of trickle down economics...let the free market take care of itself and it'll take care of you. We're seeing the results now and it hasn't worked.

Everyone has a hand in the blame. Unions got greedy so the corporations took the jobs overseas. Corporations and shareholders got greedy, so they cut salaries and benefits. It turned into a pissing contest of enormous proportions which took us all down a slippery slope.

Take the plumber story...

That waitress who'll pay a little less in taxes, while you or I might pay a little more, will be able to hire the plumber to clear her drains instead of pouring Drano down the bathtub once a week. Pretty soon, all the waitresses will call you. You'll have to hire more people to work for you.

In general and simply put, we'll all get something back eventually because there wouldn't be as big a need for those Food Stamps and Welfare. More jobs will be created and kept here in the US. More kids will be able to go to college and get good jobs. Health care costs will go down because people can get preventive care before they really get sick.

Nobody wants to punish your success. If becoming millionaire is your definition of success, go for it! But you know what? Not everyone wants to be a millionaire. Most of us just want to have enough to feel secure. If changing to an economic plan for the middle class, like Obama talks about, means it might take you a little longer to reach that million dollar goal, could you not live on a little bit less for the time being?

It's not about money. It's about the renewal of the American Dream.

@Tumbleweed36
Nice chatting with you too.

mommabear

Edit: grammar goof-ups.

Drew1369

Unfortunatly there is always going to be "rich" and "poor." That will never change. However, taking from the rich to give to the poor is not the answer. There is already so much that this government provides for, all you have to do is find it.

Take me, I don't make alot of money. However I want to. Which is why I'm going back to school. I applied for financial aid, and with my horendous credit score I got approved. I also apllied for the Pell grant, which I got approved for as well. (BTW as a side note I got approved when all the congressmen and women were screaming after the first bailout failed that college students wouldn't get loans.)

If I didn't get the pell grant, I would have shrugged my shoulders and said "Oh well" and moved on... who am I to demand that I should get it?

The dream is there... you just have to snatch it, and by all means use the multitude of programs already out there.

mommabear

But you see, Grants and other programs like that are the first to get cut when there's a budget crunch. It's fine if they are there. The point of Obama's economic plan is that the middle class will have a fairer opportunity at not needing those subsidies, and so they can be set aside for the truly needy.

sobeit

maybe to help the poor with kids make it illegal for them to purchase cigarettes and beer. Too many take the little income they get and spend it for their own pleasures and then whatever, if any, is left, spend it on their kids needs.

I have seen parents give each of their kids a one dollar food stamp, tell them to go into a convenience store, purchase the cheapest item they can find, then the parents would take the leftover change and make a trip to the liquour store or purchase cigarettes.

I am completely against sharing the wealth. Once it happens, then why should anyone work...the system would be abused...as it is already is. I am against punishing those who are successful.

Chode

I always find it interesting to watch how NeoCons want to cast tax issues as "redistributing wealth" instead of a means of deciding who is going to pay what percentage of the bills. Fact is, at the end of the day, what we decide to spend has to be payed for. We have had a Republican controlled Congress through most of the Clinton Administration, and virtually all of the Bush Administration, and I haven't exactly noticed that Government spending has been in free fall.

So, since government spending shows no signs of declining, we need to look at paying the bills. Frankly, I see Obama's "tax increase" for the wealthy as nothing more than a rollback of years of tax cuts. What have all the NeoCon tax cuts done for the country? Did they balance the budget or did they squander a budget surplus and create record deficits? In fact, I'd argue that Republican tax policies actually constitute a far more extreme example of "wealth redistribution" than any Democratic tax plan.

Here's a example of where the money has gone. In particular, I like the graph comparing CEO earnings to earnings for the average American.

Here's a question for you: As the rich have gotten richer at the expense of everyone else, do you really believe that's happened because they are harder working, smarter, thriftier, or holier? Might there not be some other factors at work that favor their growth in income?

Drew1369

Please stop calling us Neocons... we are not new to this type of thinking.

Please also remember that the top 1% pay 40% of the current income tax being collected.

http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2008/July/pr110-45.pdf

Please stop saying that they dont pay their fair share, and by all means read the rest... as it is the bottom 50% pay 3%

And this was in '06 under Bush's tax cuts.

When Obama actually says he "Wants to spread the wealth around..." you should be able to understand our apprehension of letting this man into office.

Chode

NeoCons believe that budget deficits are OK just so long as we don't tax the rich or businesses too much. Real Conservatives oppose deficit spending.

NeoCons say they oppose bigger Government, but their first reaction to Government failures is to create new bureaucracies such as the Department of Homeland Security, and then just throw handfuls of tax money at the department and hope some of it sticks. Real Conservatives would try to make the process more efficient.

When you say that the top 1% pay 40% of current taxes, you are only counting income tax and failing to take payroll taxes into account. If you include payroll taxes in the equation, the top 1% are getting an additional break due to the earnings cap on payroll taxes. You might also consider that since the wealthiest 2% of Americans control more than 80% of the nation's wealth, that they aren't exactly being taxed to death.