Presidential Debate

[Grogger31]

I think Joe the plumber

Ha Ha Ha!

"Fat, dumb, and stupid is no way to go through life, son"

[ERC7.5]

I think Joe the plumber

A comment from that link: "Memo to ALL Americans: If you speak up, we will destroy you. Now get back to filling out those multiple voter registrations..."

Just thought that was funny.

And even if it did, provided he had no other taxable income, he would only see an increase of $0 to $900. Hardly enough to make any significant difference with regards to his ability to hire new employess or run the business.

That justifies it?

The company that I work 2680+ hrs/yr (that's 600+ hrs of OT) is going to get nailed pretty bad.... I'm willing to bet that's going to hurt the OT that I rely on to be able to golf and enjoy my free time. This means that I am probably going to be golfing less....eating at the clubhouse less.....tipping the servers less often as I'll be eating less often. Trickle-down economics (on any scale) just seems to make more sense than Redistribution of wealth.... Oh yeah.... I’m not sure tax breaks for the oil companies are a bad thing. You increase their taxes, you increase our gas prices. Again.... a trickle down....

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

Ok....wasn't really posted by Churchill.... just stated by him.

[immts007]

This is too much! You can't make this stuff up:

Joe the Plumber is related to the Keating Family ... and John McCain was one of the Keating Five .

Oh, apparently this story was broken by a very conservative blogger , in case some don't like the crooks and liars link.

I think McCain is going to be very sorry he made Joe the focus of the debate last night.

Absolutely unbelievable! Seriously, my head is spinning over how perfect this is...

[ERC7.5]

(Is that McCain on the left, by the way?)

Funniest part about that..... "McCain on the left"...lol

Made me chuckle

[Smallville]

Definitions of socialism:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

American Heritage Dictionary:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Wikipedia:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries.

Sound like anyones policy? Do you need a hint?

[pjsnyc]

Definitions of socialism:

Thank you Professor Smallville, but I don't think the debate last night explicitly talked about socialism as a probable outcome for an Obama administration. I like your debate tactics though - seems to be in line with how both candidates handled the topics at hand last night.

[Smallville]

Good comeback.

So you are saying that this doesn't sound like your candidate?
Or are you OK with it?

[Grogger31]

Definition of 'curmudgeon'

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1):
a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person.

American Heritage Dictionary:
An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions

Sound like anyones policy? Do you need a hint? (once again, on the left)

[Smallville]

Well I can't argue with that based on last nights debacle! That's actually pretty funny.

But, I'd rather have that than a Socialist.

[immts007]

Good comeback.

Hey Smallville, your candidate wants to buy up all the failed mortgages and give them back to homeowners at a loss to the taxpayer. What do you call that?

To broadly accuse a candidate of being socialist because you don't like the way they prioritize spending is unfair and disingenuous, I think. Broadly defined, the term 'socialism' can be applied anywhere common efforts and monies are contributed to 'promote the general welfare'. Also: How come no one is commenting on the fact that "Joe the Plumber" is a Keating family member??? Don't you guys find the irony rich and creamy and delicious?

[Grogger31]

Also: How come no one is commenting on the fact that "Joe the Plumber" is a Keating family member??? Don't you guys find the irony rich and creamy and delicious?

Not even a little bit. (I still love you, man)

I can't get into all these tenuous, guilt-by-association things. Too exhausting. I think the fact that "Joe the Asshat" is a tax-dodger is delicious enough.

[immts007]

I can't get into all these tenuous, guilt-by-association things.

But I'm not excited about the 'guilt' by association so much as the sheer cosmic unbelievability and karmic payback of it all.

In a nation of millions, Obama takes a question from a guy in a crowd. John McCain decides to try and use it to his advantage, and the guy turns out to be related to a scandal that brings one of McCain's greatest failings of character and judgement to the forefront of public conciousness. Absolutely priceless, if you ask me.

[pjsnyc]

Good comeback.

I'll agree that Obama's agenda will give government more say in private entities. I'll also agree that we've been down this road before in one way, shape, or form in the past. It appears that one of the main ingredients in the fundamental ideological differences between the two main parties is less govt vs. more govt. It also seems that the GOP equates less govt with freedom when that's only a drop in the bucket.

We all know that America is the symbol of freedom in an ever so increasingly globalized (and might I add SCARY) world. But we must also acknowledge that freedom is a relative term. Freedom to some might mean little to no government intervention in the economy. Freedom to some might mean not having to worry about the government tapping phones and scanning email messages. Freedom to some might mean freeing ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil. Freedom to some might mean shipping jobs overseas to enjoy paying lower wages for employees. Freedom to some might mean aborting a conceived child due to rape or health risks. The list goes on. In my opinion, freedom to me means having the power to vote. It is this freedom that I am proud to have as an American and I know deep in my heart that although I don't agree with all of Obama's policies or all of McCain's policies, neither of them would do anything in their power to hurt America intentionally. In many cases, this leads voters to choose the candidate that is the lesser of two evils - and I'll admit I did that in 2000. Am I OK with Obama's spread the wealth ideology? Not necessarily, but there is no reason to believe that just by changing the fundamentals to stimulate our economy, our health care system, our education system, and most importantly our future (yep - America sucks when it comes to education compared to other countries), it will make us any less free. Especially in extremely drastic and uneasy times.

[Smallville]

First of all, I am glad we have this area of the forum where we can vent and voice our opinions. Everyone is making good points because everyone who is posting is passionate about this topic. Agree or disagree, this country is great because we can voice our opinions without having to worry about getting thrown in jail for our opinions. Hope we can all settle down (myself included!) when this election is over and we can get back to other more user-friendly topics.

immts-

Not a good thing; but I don't agree with the $700 Billion Bailout either. The problem is, it was allowed to get so bad that there really was no other choice (although so far it doesn't look like it has done much - - they say it's gonna take a while though). My problem is that he's trying to make it sound so good, "95 percent of the people aren't going to see a tax increase." The 5% he's going to raise taxes on own the businesses!

You don't see this as a problem? If the business owners make less money, do you think they are going to affect themselves or are they going to let people go because payroll is too high? At the least you'll see your overtime go out the window. Income redistribution is not the way to go. And no one has yet told me why it is a good thing that people are able to utilize Earned Income Credit and get back more in their tax refund than they paid in taxes?

And back to the 95% of people not seeing a tax increase, you might not realize that not everybody even pays any taxes. So do these people who don't pay any taxes anyway get some of this redistribution too? Damn straight. Tell me how that is fair. You saw the Daschle's diner story posted on this site ealier didn't you? Describes this perfectly.



pjsnyc -

Good arguments. Thanks for your opinion. Expressed eloquently.

[Grogger31]

But I'm not excited about the 'guilt' by association so much as the sheer cosmic unbelievability and karmic payback of it all.

Who's to say he wasn't a plant by the McCain campaign. Although, you'd think they'd be smarter than to pick someone that is a tax-dodger.

Wait ... on second thought ...

[immts007]

Who's to say he wasn't a plant by the McCain campaign. Although, you'd think they'd be smarter than to pick someone that is a tax-dodger.

or be smarter than picking someone related to the LAST big financial crisis/scandal which John McCain himself was implicated in.

I'm wondering if people around here don't know who Charles Keating was or McCain's role in the Keating 5 or remember the S&L; crisis of the late 80's early 90's.

[iacas]

Am I OK with Obama's spread the wealth ideology? Not necessarily, but there is no reason to believe that just by changing the fundamentals to stimulate our economy

While "trickle down" economics may or may not have worked, "trickle up" has never worked. Taking money from the rich (and I'm not among them) and giving it to the poorer people does nothing to help the middle class where 70%+ of American families live. Welfare is a broken system that rewards people for having more kids they can't afford. The Robin Hood principle doesn't work.

Obama has a better technology plan. He's probably more in line with me on abortion. He's probably directly opposed to me on gun control. He's opposed to me on smaller government (not that Bush has done much with that "ideal"). I could give a rat's behind about religion. But on economics, I can't say either one makes any sense, except that I know "trickle up" makes even less sense than "trickle down." There's more to this election than economics, and frankly, I'm sick of hearing about the economics. How about the other issues that affect our country? You can talk all you want about your "freedom" to vote and your freedom to do other things, but the Democrats control Congress and have for awhile now, so it seems awfully small to sit back and take pot shots now as if it's been one party doing everything to strip you of freedoms. I'm not keen on wire tapping or some of the other b.s. either, but if Democrats were opposed so strongly, why haven't they done more the past four+ years to oppose some of the new laws? And Joe the Plumber is loosely related to a family? Gee, that must make him a secret operative! And McCain was cleared of any wrong-doing in the "Keating Five" crap anyway, except for "exercising poor judgment" (gee, who hasn't been guilty of that?). Oh, and he didn't pay some funny state taxes?! There's a reason I pay a CPA to do my taxes - for the self-employed, they're a pain in the rear to figure out. I haven't decided who I'm voting for, but the bias on the forum is obvious and, frankly, it's turning me off to Obama. Y'all can jump on McCain and "cite sources" all day long, but as soon as someone does so and asks a reasonable question about Obama's economic policies, you cry foul? P.S. Buying up mortgages is stupid too. I was responsible and bought a house I could afford. Now I have to pay for other idiots who knowingly got in over their heads? P.P.S. I'm not interested in getting into the details of the language I've chosen here either. I don't suppose anyone actually "cried foul" but I think you know what I'm saying, in general. I also realize bias is bound to happen if there's one side with a majority - duh - it's almost the definition of bias. I guess I'm just disappointed that the discourse here has not been as high-level as I'd have hoped.

[Grogger31]

While "trickle down" economics may or may not have worked, "trickle up" has never worked.

Right, the economy under Clinton was awful.