RLM wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:26:46 -0500, Andy Asberry wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:35:34 GMT, "retired54" wrote:



He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which
means he's not a plumber."



olddog


How do you get the experience to pass the plumbers test if you are
not allowed to do plumbing work to get the experience to pass the
plumbers test if.....

Carry a lot of pipe, pipe fittings, pick up tools, and more tools.
Years of go-fer work. Purchase your own tools of the trade. Tradesmen
don't lend tools. Next time he needs it, it's not there. Takes time to
hunt lazy ass helpers to get tools returned. You have possibly heard
time ='s money.


All we know is he works for a plumbing company. He may be the
warehouse man or a ditch digger.

Ditch digging is the foremost at teaching the plumbing trade. Breaking
out clogged pipes and cleaning up "waste" is also helpful and builds
character. Tests your ability to follow orders. Clean up after
yourself when you have to, also helps.

Not meant to be easy or everyone would want to be one.

I'm glad I didn't personally chose this occupation but know those that
did. They are not rich by mine or their standards but proud of what
they do. They are within Obama's criteria for tax breaks though.

So much for "Joe the labourer".




you seem to miss the part where Joe said he planned to BUY a business
earning more than Obama's $250K limit,NOT that he currently earned $250K or
more.
If he bought a business,he would of course get the required licenses in
order to operate the business.

Leftist/libs ought to listen better.
They failed during Bush's explanations for the Iraq invasion,the leftist
media aided in continuing that misunderstanding,and thus prolonged the
conflict,and sacrificed more US troops lives in doing so.

(and so did Obama,when he violated the US law(Logan Act) prohibiting US
citizens from working against the direct negotiations of the US Gov't(a
felony) by telling Iraqi legislators they should WAIT until the next
administration before signing the Status of Forces agreement,prolonging the
time US troops stay in Iraq and getting more of them killed.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Dick Cheney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...
Mike Granby wrote:
True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.


Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on people
earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted to punish
anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he want on to explain
his trickle-up theory. You simply can't rewrite history and claim that
this was somehow not related to the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth"
comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****.
He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same philosophy
about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.

Josh Rosenbluth

It was an unfortunate choice of words. With as much speaking a
presidential
candidate does it's bound to happen. It's nothing compared to "Bomb,
Bomb,
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" but McCain is going to ride this thing until the
election because he doesn't have anything else.

I voted for McCain against Bush. Like many other ethical Republicans,
when Bush won the primary, I switched parties. But I've since seen only
rare glimpses of the gracious, upbeat, positive straight-talker McCain
was back then. Mostly all I've seen of McCain in this campaign is the
ugly, stupid sideshow put on by his politically-deformed Republican
campaign managers, many drivers of whom make their clueless, scummy,
racist appearance here on Usenet.

As a party, Republicans of conscience should be ashamed of the means
they employ to win at any cost. The shameless among them should be
fought to a decisive, bloody end. The Democrats are bad enough, but the
contemporary Republican party has become a sickening, traitorous,
repulsively ignorant mob, well worthy of losing every "gain" they think
they have made over the last ten years. They put pimps and procurers in
the DHS, torturers in charge of the military and intelligence
departments, and criminal plotters in the DoJ. They hold drunken and
drugged orgies in the Interior Dept., they elect child molesters to the
House of Representatives and hypocritical, self-hating closet queers &
tax evaders to the Senate.

They piously want to outlaw abortion for poor women everywhere, while
the wealthy maintain their right to choose through their ability to pay
their pregnant daughters' fare to places where abortions are legal and
safe.

The filth and gutter minds backing the Republican party these days form
the cutting edge of this nation's disintegration. It's too bad we
couldn't have locked them all in open-air, Guantanamo Bay-like cages on
the lowest point of Galveston Island to meet Ike when he swept ashore.
They are hicks, thieves, gouging carpetbaggers, feckless reprobates and
utterly irredeemable. They have fully earned their discredited right to
be excluded from any significant governance function or even public
discourse for generations.

but tell us how u really feel.

just joking...well said!!

I voted for McCain in the primaries but he lost any chance at getting my
vote when he picked that airhead for VP.

olddog

In article ,
Jean Smith wrote:



Since the news has been full of the top half percent of the population being
the beneficiaries of Bush tax and fiscal policy, and it added up to no money
on
Main Street, change is in order.

The news is, as usual, wrong on that, too. Politicians depend on the
American publics desire to avoid putting things in any kind of context
and want to deal only with raw numbers.
The top guys get most of the actual money, because they pay most of
the taxes. But if you look at their tax share vs income share you get a
little different.
top 5% earn 30.6% of the income, they pay over half of the taxes.
Top half are 85.8% of the income byt 96.5% of taxes (in 2003). Bottom
50%, 14.2% of the money but 3.5% of the taxes.

In article ,
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Mike Granby wrote:
True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.


Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on people
earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted to punish
anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he want on to explain
his trickle-up theory. You simply can't rewrite history and claim that
this was somehow not related to the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth" comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****. He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same
philosophy about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.


In that case, there needs to be an increase on the middle class and
further decreases for the rich. They have much higher share of the taxes
paid than the share of the income they get.

jdoe wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:35:12 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:



Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth" comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****.


spread the wealth via income redistribution is marxism 101, get a
clue and stop making yourself look so foolish

You see Mike Granby, there is the bull****, dishonest argument that
Obama's use of the phrase "spread the wealth (upward from the middle
class)" is proof he is a Marxist.

Josh Rosenbluth

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth" comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****. He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same
philosophy about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.

In that case, there needs to be an increase on the middle class and
further decreases for the rich. They have much higher share of the taxes
paid than the share of the income they get.

Yes, our tax code is currently progressive. But, how did you conclude
that Obama's philosophy should result in the tax code becoming less
progressive?

Josh Rosenbluth

jdoe wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:35:12 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:



Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth"
comment to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich.
That's bull****.

spread the wealth via income redistribution is marxism 101,

Nope, its actually a progressive taxation system.
What everywhere in the entire world has, including the US.

get a clue and stop making yourself look so foolish

You in spades.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:


Mike Granby wrote:

True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.


Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on people
earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted to punish
anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he want on to explain
his trickle-up theory. You simply can't rewrite history and claim that
this was somehow not related to the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth" comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****. He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same
philosophy about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.



In that case, there needs to be an increase on the middle class and
further decreases for the rich. They have much higher share of the taxes
paid than the share of the income they get.

No, you're ignoring utility theory -- or maybe you never heard of it, or
are being deliberately dense.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Oct 17, 8:18*am, wrote:
*After all, he's a guy that
aspires to the American dream, plans to buy his boss's plumbing
business and worries that he could have an income over $200K and be
hit with Obama's tax increases.

There are millions of citizens who have done similarly. They wanted
to have the big house, with a bathroom for each bedroom. So they
took their aspirations, found a bank that was even willing to float a
loan to cover their down payment, and now they are living in their
Ford Explorer under a bridge while the bank is being bailed out of
its financial hole.

C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running. * *

Top posting resolves having to wade past all the old stuff.

On Oct 16, 5:42*pm, "SBH" wrote:
having to scroll through the whole thing again to read a
small comment won't kill anyone, but would be nice to quickly read on.

In , Kurt
Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jean Smith wrote:



Since the news has been full of the top half percent of the population being
the beneficiaries of Bush tax and fiscal policy, and it added up to no money
on
Main Street, change is in order.

The news is, as usual, wrong on that, too. Politicians depend on the
American publics desire to avoid putting things in any kind of context
and want to deal only with raw numbers.
The top guys get most of the actual money, because they pay most of
the taxes. But if you look at their tax share vs income share you get a
little different.
top 5% earn 30.6% of the income, they pay over half of the taxes.
Top half are 85.8% of the income byt 96.5% of taxes (in 2003). Bottom
50%, 14.2% of the money but 3.5% of the taxes.

Now for a few more facts:

As of 2005, people getting over $ million per year were paying a
slightly lower tax rate than those getting $500,000 to $1 million per
year, due to higher percentage of income being from capital gains and
dividends subject to lower tax rates.

http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-soi/05inrate.pdf

Also, keep in mind that this tax is not the only tax that taxpayers pay
- there are state and local taxes, many being regressive. Lower income
people pay a higher percentage of their income on property taxes (whether
directly as homeowners or indirectly as renters), sales taxes, gasoline
taxes, electricity taxes, and telephone taxes.

Also, the above link does not include social security tax, although that
one is fairly arguably merely a retirement plan contribution with return
roughly proportional to mandated contribution with a low effective
interest rate on gubmint borrowing of your money.

Warren Buffett does say that his tax burden as a percentage of income is
less than that of his secretary.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle1996735.ece

- Don Klipstein )

In , Dick C. wrote
in part:

I voted for McCain against Bush. Like many other ethical Republicans,
when Bush won the primary, I switched parties. But I've since seen only
rare glimpses of the gracious, upbeat, positive straight-talker McCain
was back then. Mostly all I've seen of McCain in this campaign is the
ugly, stupid sideshow put on by his politically-deformed Republican
campaign managers, many drivers of whom make their clueless, scummy,
racist appearance here on Usenet.

As a party, Republicans of conscience should be ashamed of the means
they employ to win at any cost. The shameless among them should be
fought to a decisive, bloody end. The Democrats are bad enough, but the
contemporary Republican party has become a sickening, traitorous,
repulsively ignorant mob,
SNIP the gory bloody poop

McCain over this year has changed from a Republican that I would vote
for over most Democrats to the kind of Republican that is more favorable
to continuing the problems of Bush. Apparently to me, he owes favors to
those who benefited from the policies of Bush - the "Religious Right" and
a bunch of well-moneyed lobbyists paid to achieve "more of the same as the
past 7 years" (my words).

Michael Smerconish said it well.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/
20081016_Michael_Smerconish__McCain__The_first_obi tuary.html

(Link split into 2 lines, only available until a week after its
publication - maybe 5 days from now)

http://www.pennjersey.info/forums/po...h-sums-up.html

If you need web search terms to find this elsewhere, try:

"Michael Smerconish" "first obituary" McCain

- Don Klipstein )

In article , jdoe wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:28:17 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:



Obama merely observed (much lke Henry Ford's approach to wages), if
the middle class can't afford to buy cars, we *all* (which happens to
include the rich) are screwed.

Josh Rosenbluth
the difference is that the people ford was talking about WORKED for
their wages

People who buy (or "lease") cars (and SUVs) disproportinately work
(or have worked) for their means of support, have taxable income, and pay
income taxes.

This is especially true for people buying new cars.

Those spending their lives largely unemployed or unemployable are
disproportionately not having a car (or SUV) owned or "leased" by
themselves.

- Don Klipstein )

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
RLM wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:26:46 -0500, Andy Asberry wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:35:34 GMT, "retired54" wrote:



He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which
means he's not a plumber."



olddog


How do you get the experience to pass the plumbers test if you are
not allowed to do plumbing work to get the experience to pass the
plumbers test if.....

Carry a lot of pipe, pipe fittings, pick up tools, and more tools.
Years of go-fer work. Purchase your own tools of the trade. Tradesmen
don't lend tools. Next time he needs it, it's not there. Takes time to
hunt lazy ass helpers to get tools returned. You have possibly heard
time ='s money.


All we know is he works for a plumbing company. He may be the
warehouse man or a ditch digger.

Ditch digging is the foremost at teaching the plumbing trade. Breaking
out clogged pipes and cleaning up "waste" is also helpful and builds
character. Tests your ability to follow orders. Clean up after
yourself when you have to, also helps.

Not meant to be easy or everyone would want to be one.

I'm glad I didn't personally chose this occupation but know those that
did. They are not rich by mine or their standards but proud of what
they do. They are within Obama's criteria for tax breaks though.

So much for "Joe the labourer".




you seem to miss the part where Joe said he planned to BUY a business
earning more than Obama's $250K limit,NOT that he currently earned $250K or
more.

But the business is really only good for half that at best. Even if it wern't,
which is way more common, the tax increase would be miniscule. And that $250K
would have to be net profit.

"SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas wrote in message
...

"retired54" wrote This is another example of McCain's bad
luck and bad research.

olddog


I'm sorry, wasn't it Ole big eared purple lipped Obama who started the
discussion with Joe?

But McCain brought it into the debate.

"Cheri" gserviceatlodinetdotcom wrote in message
...
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

You need the exercise. *snicker* Besides, after a few
snips and edits, the thread becomes impossible to
comprehend. Especially if it goes on and on like this
one might.

TDD

No it doesn't.

What do you mean by that?

wrote in message
...


Excuse me, but I'm not running for president. And if I was, I would
expect it to be fair for anyone to investigate who my friends are,
what goes on in the church I attend, who helped launch me into
politics, etc.

The fact that the media went all out on Joe the plumber, who had the
audacity to ask a simply question of Obama, while turning a realtively
blind eye toward William Ayers, is OK with you?

**********************************************

It would be more significant if anything he claimed was actually true.

What was McCain thinking to bring this up?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Let's take a look at Obama's full quote:

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom
up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing
business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if
you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and
right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody
and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for
everybody."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-the-weal.html

He wasn't arguing for higher rates on the rich to redistribute
income. To the contrary, he is arguing that lower rates on the middle
class will "spread the wealth" to everyone including upper income
folks who rely on the middle class as their employees and consumers.



Nice try at a save. Really nice try.

Like Murtha's attempt yesterday when he said constituents weren't really
'racist' racists - they were just slow to accept change.

Take from the rich, give it to the poor, so they can give it back to the rich.
Why not just let the rich keep their wealth and eliminate the middle-man?


But you had no problem with the take-it-from everyone and give it to the rich
that has become the practice.

"retired54" wrote in message
...

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...
On Oct 17, 12:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Let's take a look at Obama's full quote:

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom
up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing
business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if
you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and
right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody
and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for
everybody."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-the-weal.html

He wasn't arguing for higher rates on the rich to redistribute
income. To the contrary, he is arguing that lower rates on the middle
class will "spread the wealth" to everyone including upper income
folks who rely on the middle class as their employees and consumers.

Nice try at a save. Really nice try.

Like Murtha's attempt yesterday when he said constituents weren't really
'racist' racists - they were just slow to accept change.

Take from the rich, give it to the poor, so they can give it back to the
rich. Why not just let the rich keep their wealth and eliminate the
middle-man?

You missed the point, namely that Obama's "spread the wealth" line was
not linked to his support for raising taxes on the rich. Thus, your
characterization is off base.

Obama merely observed (much lke Henry Ford's approach to wages), if
the middle class can't afford to buy cars, we *all* (which happens to
include the rich) are screwed.

Josh Rosenbluth

================================================== ==

Maybe a caste system similar to Mexico would make the republicans happy.


That's getting close.

"Dick Cheney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...
Mike Granby wrote:
True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.


Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on people
earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted to punish
anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he want on to explain
his trickle-up theory. You simply can't rewrite history and claim that
this was somehow not related to the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth" comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's bull****.
He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same philosophy
about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.

Josh Rosenbluth

It was an unfortunate choice of words. With as much speaking a presidential
candidate does it's bound to happen. It's nothing compared to "Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" but McCain is going to ride this thing until the
election because he doesn't have anything else.

I voted for McCain against Bush. Like many other ethical Republicans,
when Bush won the primary, I switched parties. But I've since seen only
rare glimpses of the gracious, upbeat, positive straight-talker McCain
was back then. Mostly all I've seen of McCain in this campaign is the
ugly, stupid sideshow put on by his politically-deformed Republican
campaign managers, many drivers of whom make their clueless, scummy,
racist appearance here on Usenet.

As a party, Republicans of conscience should be ashamed of the means
they employ to win at any cost. The shameless among them should be
fought to a decisive, bloody end. The Democrats are bad enough, but the
contemporary Republican party has become a sickening, traitorous,
repulsively ignorant mob, well worthy of losing every "gain" they think
they have made over the last ten years. They put pimps and procurers in
the DHS, torturers in charge of the military and intelligence
departments, and criminal plotters in the DoJ. They hold drunken and
drugged orgies in the Interior Dept., they elect child molesters to the
House of Representatives and hypocritical, self-hating closet queers &
tax evaders to the Senate.

They piously want to outlaw abortion for poor women everywhere, while
the wealthy maintain their right to choose through their ability to pay
their pregnant daughters' fare to places where abortions are legal and
safe.

The filth and gutter minds backing the Republican party these days form
the cutting edge of this nation's disintegration. It's too bad we
couldn't have locked them all in open-air, Guantanamo Bay-like cages on
the lowest point of Galveston Island to meet Ike when he swept ashore.
They are hicks, thieves, gouging carpetbaggers, feckless reprobates and
utterly irredeemable. They have fully earned their discredited right to
be excluded from any significant governance function or even public
discourse for generations.

Reminds me of the venom of the reformed smoker about cigarette smoke.

Well said.

"Terry Cano" wrote in message
...
Poor folk are doing great....think about this.
If you are on welfare you are on a fixed income. Not great of course but
you have income.
You pay little if any taxes.
you don't have to worry about your hours being cut, losing your job
therefore lowering your income.
Retail prices go down so now your fixed dollar buys more.
Hmmmmm.......
Later

It sounds like heaven. I wonder why all the rich don't reach for it.

On 18 oct, 08:48, "Bob F" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Excuse me, but I'mnotrunning for president. And if I was, I would
expect it to be fair for anyone to investigate who my friends are,
what goes on in the church I attend, who helped launch me into
politics, etc.

The term "friends" is over used in everyday language, a friend is
somebody you have known a long time, had a lot to do with and
one likes. It is not a person whom you have had occasional contact
with.

Nor do I think it fair to place everyone one has had contact with
under a microscope. If a real friend has had a messy divorce, what
does
that have to do with a candidate. If one goes over to looking at
anything
and everything, hoping to find something which will grab the publics
attention and create guilt by association, that is slime ball
politics.

The fact that the media went all out onJoetheplumber, who had the
audacity to ask a simply question of Obama, while turning a realtively
blind eye toward William Ayers, is OK with you?

Joe was being used for political exploitation and willingly part of
that
game. He was in the 15 minutes of fame mode, that many dream
about being it. By now he may have had too much and with for
relief.

And no blind ey has been cast on Ayers. He was "played" as
much as the slime balls could. He has said virtually nothing.

Now shall we return to Birth Certificates and a father who is supposed
to be Arab, according to the slime balls.

And all your parsing and picking apart the man, doesn't change the fact that
Obama wants to take money from his paycheck and give it to other people who
have less than he does. "From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need"

----Except for the fact that at $40K, he'll receive a tax cut under
Obama's plan....one that he doesn't want.
Strange that he'll only accept a tax cut when he becomes wealthy.....

On Oct 18, 12:53*am, Michael B wrote:
On Oct 17, 8:18*am, wrote:

*After all, he's a guy that
aspires to the American dream, plans to buy his boss's plumbing
business and worries that he could have an income over $200K and be
hit with Obama's tax increases.

There are millions of citizens who have done similarly. They wanted
to have the big house, with a bathroom for each bedroom. So they
took their aspirations, found a bank that was even willing to float a
loan to cover their down payment, and now they are living in their
Ford Explorer under a bridge while the bank is being bailed out of
its financial hole.

A very jaundiced view of how people can suceed and prosper in
America. For every person living under a bridge, there are
thousands in America who have climbed the economic ladder and made
successes of themselves. That is exactly what Joe the plumber is
working towards. Yet guys like you want to tear him down and **** on
the prospects of hard work and responsible behavior actually working.



C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running. ** *

Perhaps it's that McCain's people have more respect for the privacy of
someone who dares ask a presidential candidate a simple question.
BTW, last time I checked, income tax data is covered under privacy
laws. Isn't it the libs that are all for citizens rights to
privacy? I mean they want to do everything they can to make it as
hard as possible for the govt to intercept information involving
terrorists, but now it's ok to go after a guy's income tax info?

And in the end, Joe's income doesn't really matter. Clearly there are
plenty of small businesses, and yes even plumbing businesses in the US
that earn more than 200K to 250K a year. And the best part of the
exchange had nothing to do with Joe at all. It was Obama's answer
that he wants to "spread the wealth around." That did more to
illuminate his economic policy plans than anything else in the
campaign.

On Oct 18, 3:01*am, "Bob F" wrote:
"Dick Cheney" wrote in message

...





In article ,
"retired54" wrote:

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...
Mike Granby wrote:
True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.

Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on people
earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted to punish
anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he want on to explain
his trickle-up theory. You simply can't rewrite history and claim that
this was somehow not related to the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. *But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth" comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. *That's bull****.
He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same philosophy
about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.

Josh Rosenbluth

It was an unfortunate choice of words. With as much speaking a presidential
candidate does it's bound to happen. It's nothing compared to "Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" but McCain is going to ride this thing until the
election because he doesn't have anything else.

I voted for McCain against Bush. Like many other ethical Republicans,
when Bush won the primary, I switched parties. But I've since seen only
rare glimpses of the gracious, upbeat, positive straight-talker McCain
was back then. Mostly all I've seen of McCain in this campaign is the
ugly, stupid sideshow put on by his politically-deformed Republican
campaign managers, many drivers of whom make their clueless, scummy,
racist appearance here on Usenet.

As a party, Republicans of conscience should be ashamed of the means
they employ to win at any cost. The shameless among them should be
fought to a decisive, bloody end. The Democrats are bad enough, but the
contemporary Republican party has become a sickening, traitorous,
repulsively ignorant mob, well worthy of losing every "gain" they think
they have made over the last ten years. They put pimps and procurers in
the DHS, torturers in charge of the military and intelligence
departments, and criminal plotters in the DoJ. They hold drunken and
drugged orgies in the Interior Dept., they elect child molesters to the
House of Representatives and hypocritical, self-hating closet queers &
tax evaders to the Senate.

They piously want to outlaw abortion for poor women everywhere, while
the wealthy maintain their right to choose through their ability to pay
their pregnant daughters' fare to places where abortions are legal and
safe.

The filth and gutter minds backing the Republican party these days form
the cutting edge of this nation's disintegration. It's too bad we
couldn't have locked them all in open-air, Guantanamo Bay-like cages on
the lowest point of Galveston Island to meet Ike when he swept ashore.
They are hicks, thieves, gouging carpetbaggers, feckless reprobates and
utterly irredeemable. They have fully earned their discredited right to
be excluded from any significant governance function or even public
discourse for generations.

Reminds me of the venom of the reformed smoker about cigarette smoke.

Well said.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And those comments reminds me of someone who isn't a real Republican
at all, but liikes to pretend to be one.

In article , CJT
wrote:


In that case, there needs to be an increase on the middle class and
further decreases for the rich. They have much higher share of the taxes
paid than the share of the income they get.

No, you're ignoring utility theory -- or maybe you never heard of it, or
are being deliberately dense.

INteresting concept. Exactly how does utility theory fit in to whether
or not the tax code is progressive? Are you focusing on the
non-satiation aspects-- where someone can essentially never become too
wealthy and thus they get higher and higher utililty from each extra
buck? But then I would argue that the concavity of the utility function
would suggest otherwise. If anything it would seem to argue against
progressiveness since, above a certain threshold, there is a DECREASING
marginal utility to even wealth.
Either way, I am not sure how you are applying utility theory to the
progressivity of the tax system.
I await, with interest, your reply.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Mike Granby
wrote:


On Oct 17, 7:30*am, wrote:

and the whole thing was a setup
engineered by the Republicons.

Let's assume that was true for the sake of argument. How would that
change the fact that Obama said it was better for everyone if you
"spread the wealth around"? That's the real point here, and levelling
the politics of personal destruction at a voter who dared to ask a
question should not take away from the revealing nature of the reply.

You Republicons really ARE in desperation mode.

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:



Now for a few more facts:

As of 2005, people getting over $ million per year were paying a
slightly lower tax rate than those getting $500,000 to $1 million per
year, due to higher percentage of income being from capital gains and
dividends subject to lower tax rates.

http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-soi/05inrate.pdf

I am not sure what the point is. You saying that because the $1
million plus people pay 0.9% less than the 1/2 mil to 1 mil people, the
tax codes aren't progressive?

Also, keep in mind that this tax is not the only tax that taxpayers pay
- there are state and local taxes, many being regressive. Lower income
people pay a higher percentage of their income on property taxes (whether
directly as homeowners or indirectly as renters), sales taxes, gasoline
taxes, electricity taxes, and telephone taxes.
But since we were talking differences between candidates in FEDERAL
income taxes, I am not sure how that fits in. In fact, the Earned Income
Credit was put in place to address the Fed part of many of these issues
(including FICA).



Also, the above link does not include social security tax, although that
one is fairly arguably merely a retirement plan contribution with return
roughly proportional to mandated contribution with a low effective
interest rate on gubmint borrowing of your money.
The EIC was explicitly put in place to address SS taxes. The
expected RoR on SS, though is all over the map depending on where you
are in the age/retirement/ethnic continuum. For examples, because of
their lower life expectancy, minorities currently have a NEGATIVE RoI on
SS. Boomers are probably going to get about 2-3% return.


Warren Buffett does say that his tax burden as a percentage of income is
less than that of his secretary.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle1996735.ece

When he releases his tax returns so we can see how it was figured,
then I would be interested. Buffett is also the one who is calling for
an inheritance tax despite the fact he is going to give it all away and
thus not owe anything.


- Don Klipstein )

Michael B wrote:

C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running.

Bottom line: Obama will raise taxes on some. Maybe not many, but some. Obama
does not have an inbred distaste for raising taxes - with him, it's not a
matter of whether to raise taxes, it's where he draws the line.

In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me whether
it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a yellow van. Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

I despair of a future poem:

In Obama's world, they came first for those making more than $250,000, And I
didn't speak up because I didn't make that much;

And then they came for the corporations, And I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a corporation;

And then they came for those who off-shored their work, And I didn't speak
up because I worked domestically;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left
to speak up.

Don Klipstein wrote:

Warren Buffett does say that his tax burden as a percentage of
income is less than that of his secretary.


And Ross Perot's income tax is zero - on millions in revenue. That's because
his total income is from tax-exempt bonds.

Lets see, that would be "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs". And Obama's crew want to be the one who decides who
has "too much ability" and who has how much needs. How un-American. Or would
that be UN-american?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"jdoe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:35:12 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:



Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth" comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****.

spread the wealth via income redistribution is marxism 101, get a
clue and stop making yourself look so foolish

__________________________________________
Never argue with an idiot.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

That airhead aparently did a lot of good in Alaska.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"retired54" wrote in message
...

but tell us how u really feel.

just joking...well said!!

I voted for McCain in the primaries but he lost any chance at getting my
vote when he picked that airhead for VP.

olddog

We must immediately increase the taxes on the poor.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Terry Cano" wrote in message
...
Poor folk are doing great....think about this.
If you are on welfare you are on a fixed income. Not great of course but
you have income.
You pay little if any taxes.
you don't have to worry about your hours being cut, losing your job
therefore lowering your income.
Retail prices go down so now your fixed dollar buys more.
Hmmmmm.......
Later
Terry the musiician



So what do you call a musician without a girlfriend?
Homeless

HeyBub wrote:
Michael B wrote:
C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running.

Bottom line: Obama will raise taxes on some. Maybe not many, but some. Obama
does not have an inbred distaste for raising taxes - with him, it's not a
matter of whether to raise taxes, it's where he draws the line.

In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me whether
it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a yellow van. Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

I despair of a future poem:

In Obama's world, they came first for those making more than $250,000, And I
didn't speak up because I didn't make that much;

That's completely spurious. That is not what he said at all. This
portrayal is as preposterous as the MYTHICAL "Joe the Plumber" story is
too. It's a fairy tale invented by the GOP.

We have seen enough capitalist extremism to nauseate the majority of
hard-working decent Americans who have seen their 401ks evaporate, their
jobs vanish and hear the fatcats who have stolen it all puff their
chests out and demand that they be allowed to keep the billions of
dollars that they have acquired. Trickle down? Bull****, it all flowed
UP and has gone!



--
BikeFan

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
That airhead aparently did a lot of good in Alaska.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you
with experience.


olddog

In article ,
BikeFan wrote:


That's completely spurious. That is not what he said at all. This
portrayal is as preposterous as the MYTHICAL "Joe the Plumber" story is
too. It's a fairy tale invented by the GOP.

It was an opening left by a chance encounter by Obama himself. The GOP
merely enjoyed themselves immensely beating him about the face and head
using a door that Obama opened himself.

retired54 wrote:
"Dick Cheney" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:


"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...

Mike Granby wrote:

True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.


Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on people
earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted to punish
anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he want on to explain
his trickle-up theory. You simply can't rewrite history and claim that
this was somehow not related to the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth"
comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****.
He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same philosophy
about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.

Josh Rosenbluth

It was an unfortunate choice of words. With as much speaking a
presidential
candidate does it's bound to happen. It's nothing compared to "Bomb,
Bomb,
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" but McCain is going to ride this thing until the
election because he doesn't have anything else.

I voted for McCain against Bush. Like many other ethical Republicans,
when Bush won the primary, I switched parties. But I've since seen only
rare glimpses of the gracious, upbeat, positive straight-talker McCain
was back then. Mostly all I've seen of McCain in this campaign is the
ugly, stupid sideshow put on by his politically-deformed Republican
campaign managers, many drivers of whom make their clueless, scummy,
racist appearance here on Usenet.

As a party, Republicans of conscience should be ashamed of the means
they employ to win at any cost. The shameless among them should be
fought to a decisive, bloody end. The Democrats are bad enough, but the
contemporary Republican party has become a sickening, traitorous,
repulsively ignorant mob, well worthy of losing every "gain" they think
they have made over the last ten years. They put pimps and procurers in
the DHS, torturers in charge of the military and intelligence
departments, and criminal plotters in the DoJ. They hold drunken and
drugged orgies in the Interior Dept., they elect child molesters to the
House of Representatives and hypocritical, self-hating closet queers &
tax evaders to the Senate.

They piously want to outlaw abortion for poor women everywhere, while
the wealthy maintain their right to choose through their ability to pay
their pregnant daughters' fare to places where abortions are legal and
safe.

The filth and gutter minds backing the Republican party these days form
the cutting edge of this nation's disintegration. It's too bad we
couldn't have locked them all in open-air, Guantanamo Bay-like cages on
the lowest point of Galveston Island to meet Ike when he swept ashore.
They are hicks, thieves, gouging carpetbaggers, feckless reprobates and
utterly irredeemable. They have fully earned their discredited right to
be excluded from any significant governance function or even public
discourse for generations.


but tell us how u really feel.

just joking...well said!!

I voted for McCain in the primaries but he lost any chance at getting my
vote when he picked that airhead for VP.

olddog


I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,
energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think of.

Boden

HeyBub wrote:

Michael B wrote:

C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running.


Bottom line: Obama will raise taxes on some. Maybe not many, but some. Obama
does not have an inbred distaste for raising taxes - with him, it's not a
matter of whether to raise taxes, it's where he draws the line.


At least he doesn't have an inbred distaste for paying the bills instead
of accumulating debt.

In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me whether
it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a yellow van. Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

Look at what lowering the taxes of the rich under Bush has done for us.


I despair of a future poem:

In Obama's world, they came first for those making more than $250,000, And I
didn't speak up because I didn't make that much;

And then they came for the corporations, And I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a corporation;

And then they came for those who off-shored their work, And I didn't speak
up because I worked domestically;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left
to speak up.





--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

In article , CJT
wrote:

H
At least he doesn't have an inbred distaste for paying the bills instead
of accumulating debt.


Of course he does. ALL politicians do, that is the problem. The GOP
types abandandoned their pretense of fiscal responsibility long ago.
Thus, the current debacle is largely based on BOTH sides spending money
hand over fist. Synergies and all that.

In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me whether
it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a yellow van. Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

Look at what lowering the taxes of the rich under Bush has done for us.
Kept the revenues rolling in, because they also lowered the taxes
for the non-rich?


\

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
BikeFan wrote:

That's completely spurious. That is not what he said at all. This
portrayal is as preposterous as the MYTHICAL "Joe the Plumber" story is
too. It's a fairy tale invented by the GOP.

It was an opening left by a chance encounter by Obama himself. The GOP
merely enjoyed themselves immensely beating him about the face and head
using a door that Obama opened himself.

With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo stupid.

--
BikeFan