Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.
Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--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 've 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 needed money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.
It all depends on wether you are giving or receiving. Sometimes it is BETTER to give than to recieve, that is the honest truth - when you do it VOLUNTARIALLY. It's when someone TAKES it from you and GIVES it to someone else regardless of how you feel about it, that it becomes little more than THEFT.
Remember to get out and VOTE on Nov 4th. This is not an easy one, so think about it, make you choice and let your vote be counted. All jokes aside, the last four years have been brutal but the next four may impact us for the remainder of our lives.
Gee Pillager, you make me want to start those Political discussions agian..................... :evil:
Dave, you are so misguided. Obama is not going to take money from you. The bottom line is that if you earn less than 250k a year, your taxes will not be raised and may be lowered. Do you think McCain gives two shits about you? Do you think McCain will do anything to improve the economy (two months ago, he said the economy was fine)? Maybe I am mistaken. Perhaps you earn more than 250k a year . . . if so, vote for McCain. He still sucks.
You both should realize that no matter what either candidate states in the Economic Plan or any other statement they have made during the campaign is BS and can not be trusted. They both stink....
The only question is which one lied more and which one is worse...
Eli,
Your response is indicative of why you are the chosen leader. You always seem to find a middle-ground and never seem too opinionated. Nevertheless, McCain still sucks (and I am trying my best to not be too opinionated).
Quote from: Wishing2BFishing on October 23, 2008, 08:17:13 PM
Dave, you are so misguided.
I just posted it because I thought it was funny.
I'm with Eli. For many elections now I have thought that the choice was about the "lesser of two evils" so to speak, not about the better person for the job. I found a diary I wrote when Bush first got elected in 2000. I wrote "Well, I voted for Bush today. I don't like him, but I like Gore even less." I remember thinking about Clinton the first time I heard a speach in the race: I don't trust him. I haven't felt really good about a candidate I voted for since Bob Dole. His biggest problem was that he was boring, not that he wasn't a good man for the job. Presidents get elected today because of their charisma or charm or whatever it is that endears them to the public. (Religious fanaticism, fear, racism, whatever the case may be) And this is all our fault. Yours and mine. We allow the media to feed us the bullshit they do. We allow the candidates to dance around the issues instead of fully discussing them. We re-elect an incumbent even though they don't deliver on anything they promise. And the house and senate are even worse than the presidency.
In Discover magazine, November issue, 20 things you didn't know about elections, here are two of them:
- In 2007 neuroscientists examined the brain activity of undecided voters as they viewed the leading presidential candidates in the race.
- The two candidates who elicited the least amount of activity? John McCain and Barack Obama.
We don't have great people running for office any more. And who can blame them? With the state of politics in both parties and in the congress, I wouldn't want that job for any amount of money. It is impossible to get anything of value done any more.
Politics? Damn it's hard not to bite such a tasty lure................................................ :evil:
There are two sides to every position. Your personal view is from whatever side you see yourself as being on. And, of course, we all think that what we believe is correct, and that the other side simply doesn't "get it". Whatever, that won't change.
GENERALLY SPEAKING: Democrats, not just Senator Obama, hold that the "redistribution of wealth" accomplished by taking from those that have found a way to earn financial success and giving it to those that have not (does this sound familiar to any of you "senior" members) through various entitlement programs, is the correct way to do things. Rebublicans, including Senator McCain, believe if you earn it you should keep a major portion of it. The governments (local through Federal) shouldn't take more than a "fair" share from anyone and everyone needs to pay something. Those that are "wealthy" already pay a higher percentage of their earnings, as well as a greater portion of the total tax base. This also include business as well.
Note: at this point I have edited (DELETED) about 6 paragraphs and 1000 words, because argument of a Political nature is fruitless in this venue.
While I agree G. W. is undoubtably the worst President in our history, he is not entirely to blame. The Democratic Congress with which he has had to "work" also shares blame. Government, in my opinon has grown too large and it's bureaucrats (both blue and red) obsessed with what they can do for themselves or their particular constituancy (which reverts back to themselves), rather than the Country as a whole - which IS the primary responsibility of the FEDERAL Government. Our Federal elected officials spend more time promoting legislation of the "pork barrel" variety than they do to National isssues. They, for the most part, pander to "special interests" to the detrement of "National intersts" Why? To placate the people that send them to Office and keep them doing it. The "cycle" is well established (or entrenched may be a bettter word) in the Politics of this Nation, and will not be broken or restructured anytime soon, if ever.
History has shown, while everyone may be "created equal" as our Constitution states, not everyone works or succeeds equally for many reasons. As long as there are two people (or groups) there will be a difference of opinion on how things should be done. As long as mutual assistance works and an equal balance exists things progress in a stabil environment, but once one side gains a perceived or real advantage the other will try and balance the scale. That's the bottom line - COMPETITION - it cannot be avoided. Politics just takes it to a scale of National polarization. We will drive our species into extinction because of competition - it is inevitable, and we are the only species capable of causing our own demise knowing it and still not caring about it.
So which ever side you're on, you can go to sleep at night believing you are right. We all do, and that won't change either.
I am right!!!
GeeWhizzzzzzz, W2BF took you seriously. :grin:
QuoteDave, you are so misguided. Obama is not going to take money from you.
Maybe not directly - but. Taxing those that make in excess of $250K? Who are those people? Mostly business people? People who maybe employ others? So if they are business people, why are they in business? To make money? Support their family by working hard and being successful? Senator Obama wants to increase THEIR taxes - what will be the result? Those businesses will continue to make a profit or go out of business. What are their options to stay in business and pay their increased tax burden? Raise thier prices? Who pays for that? Pillager and all the rest of us that use their products or service - yeah WE WILL pay. Bottom line, the money to pay the tax increase on those who earn more than $250K will come from those that make a lot less and can least afford it. Those making $250K or more will continue to do so, no amount of tax increase will prevent that. Or maybe they layoff some of their employees, increasing the burden on government services - maybe another tax increase to fund that. Or maybe they outsource some of their work to third world Countries. More unemployement. Less money in circulation, more debt, who pays? The remainder of us that are working and paying our taxes. Those that purchase goods and services they will pay for that particular tax increase.
Obama's plan to increase taxes on those making more than $250K is a soundbite - in reality it's mostly a disguised tax on consumers. Tax increases are the rally cry of the Dem's and are not the answer. Tax increases result in more of consumer money passing through the government bureauracy who skims theirs right of the top (in order to process the money) resulting in less of that tax money going where it was originally intended/needed. When Government is involved in anything, the cost goes up and to put more money in the citizen's pocket we need less regulation, manipulation and interference from our Federal Government, not more. Obama is for more Government at the Federal level - which means it's going to cost more for less.
QuoteI am right!!!
We both are, I am quite certain of that. :grin: :grin:
Taxes would be a lot more fair if they just got rid of ALL of the loopholes. That doesn't mean deductions but it does mean all the special rules put in to benefit targeted industries or individuals.
Boogs, one of the big problems lately, and remember I've always been a Republican, is the distribution of jobs off shore. You work in an industry where that pretty much can't happen, but a lot of us don't both blue and white collar, and it's hitting home harder and harder every day.
If everyone is worried about a recession, or a depression, then moving jobs off shore ONLY helps this become a reality. Sure, the companies make more money, but it's not here to be spent in our economy. The increased profits go into the pockets of few. The wages for employees are not remaining in this country any more.
Having said all that, I don't trust that either candidate could reverse this no matter how good their intentions. Congress will only get in the way.
Quotethen moving jobs off shore ONLY helps this become a reality
My last shot before my access is revoked:
I believe I said that. Increasing the tax burden, as Obama and the Dem's want to do on those EARNING $250K+, only increases the probability that a Corporation, especially large ones, will go looking to find a cheaper way to produce their goods or services, which includes shipping work outside the Country. It's a CATCH 22 situation, as it gets goods made cheaper and more affordable for the American Consumer - but if those Consumers are not working who really benifits? FOR CRAPS SAKE - even Kistler is having a majority of their rods produced in CHINA. I hate that.
We might keep you around just for your entertainment value.
How much you payin'? Yeah, in this case it is about the money. :evil:
Quote from: bassboogieman on October 28, 2008, 05:38:01 PM
How much you payin'? Yeah, in this case it is about the money. :evil:
Ten
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ZiQj65hAFvbKeM:http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jun06/bucks.jpg)
:14: