Ed Huntress wrote:

snip

When do I get my cut of "Joe Plumber's" money?
Never, unless Joe starts netting more than $250,000 year off of his
plumbing business, which seems unlikely after listening to Joe. However,
if he *does* reach it, I'm going into plumbing right away.

If the small tax increase he'll be exposed to after he reaches $250,000,
until he gets up into the $1 million/year category, really is enough to
keep him from buying the business, then Joe doesn't have enough behind
him to go into business at all.

--
Ed Huntress

It was a valid question, although a hypothetical one. And he apparently drew
an incorrect conclusion from the answer.

But the point is that "Joe" was all set to be McCain's poster boy for the
last few weeks of the election -- until the revelations came out about his
name, his business status, his tax lien and so on. He's a dud poster boy.

McCain's mistake was in focusing on "Joe", rather than the money quote:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure
that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success
too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for
folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Sure sounds like socialism to me.

Will he make sure everyone "behind him" shares the downside too, if his
business fails like so many do? Unless he's a mortgage banker, it ain't
gonna happen.

"RB" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

snip

When do I get my cut of "Joe Plumber's" money?
Never, unless Joe starts netting more than $250,000 year off of his
plumbing business, which seems unlikely after listening to Joe.
However, if he *does* reach it, I'm going into plumbing right away.

If the small tax increase he'll be exposed to after he reaches
$250,000, until he gets up into the $1 million/year category, really
is enough to keep him from buying the business, then Joe doesn't have
enough behind him to go into business at all.

--
Ed Huntress

It was a valid question, although a hypothetical one. And he apparently
drew an incorrect conclusion from the answer.

But the point is that "Joe" was all set to be McCain's poster boy for the
last few weeks of the election -- until the revelations came out about
his name, his business status, his tax lien and so on. He's a dud poster
boy.

McCain's mistake was in focusing on "Joe", rather than the money quote:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure
that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success
too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for
folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Sure sounds like socialism to me.

That's because you've forgotten that we once had a higher social ethic, with
a sense of noblesse oblige even on the part of the newly well-off and a
steeply progressive income tax -- and the result, which was a lower Gini
number, a growing middle class, optimism for the future, blue-collar workers
able to send their kids to college and a lawn to mow and maybe a vacation in
the Bahamas every once in a while. We knew the difference between socialism,
which used to mean government ownership of businesses, and a civil society.

Now we have a fruit-loop economy that reads like something out of a
malevolent and trashy novel, wherein the rich own most of the assets that
aren't nailed down, and they have loaned us the rest at credit-card interest
rates that, when we were kids, would have drawn long prison terms for
usury -- Gordon Gecko's wet dream.

With socialism re-defined, real socialism either is so shocking that it
doesn't register, or no one has noticed that it's those masters of
capitalism, the conservative Republicans, that have brought us to this
brink, wherein the federal government is taking shares at gunpoint in the
country's largest banks. It turns out that the real socialists are the whack
jobs like Bush, Paulson, and the rest of their ilk that preach small
government while making it bigger; fiscal responsibility while driving the
national debt into a new order of magnitude; and who shun "nation building"
while building craven images of ourselves in the sand of ancient
civilizations half a world away, keeping order with the latest in
remote-controlled, unmanned weaponry aimed at insurgent cretins we don't
understand, from some trailer in Nevada.

Does it feel like the world has gotten stood on its head? That's because the
world has gotten stood on its head. War is peace, love is hate, greed is
good, and to hell with everyone else.

Say g'night, Gracie.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2008-10-16, RB wrote:
McCain's mistake was in focusing on "Joe", rather than the money quote:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure
that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success
too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for
folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Sure sounds like socialism to me.

Surely the rich backers of McCain hate that.

I am fairly well off, and do not mind paying more taxes, so that some
poor mother****er can get a little more educated, of to pay down the
debt incurred during the tests of "trickle down" theory.

Will he make sure everyone "behind him" shares the downside too, if his
business fails like so many do? Unless he's a mortgage banker, it ain't
gonna happen.

I think that it is fairly obvious that employees of a business "share
the downside" to a great extent.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus10312 wrote:
On 2008-10-16, RB wrote:
McCain's mistake was in focusing on "Joe", rather than the money quote:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure
that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success
too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for
folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Sure sounds like socialism to me.

Surely the rich backers of McCain hate that.

I am fairly well off, and do not mind paying more taxes, so that some
poor mother****er can get a little more educated,

Nobody minds education.
It's the entitlements we don't like.

of to pay down the
debt incurred during the tests of "trickle down" theory.

Hell, we're still working off the FDR bill, for that matter.
What makes you think the letter after a pol's name is going to make any
damned difference in your life?

Will he make sure everyone "behind him" shares the downside too, if his
business fails like so many do? Unless he's a mortgage banker, it ain't
gonna happen.

I think that it is fairly obvious that employees of a business "share
the downside" to a great extent.

The employees lose a job, and go find another one, if we haven't screwed
the small business owners into the poorhouse.
The failed business owner is also out of a job, and probably his life
savings as well.

Citizens willing to put their personal fortunes on the line to create
wealth and jobs should be protected, not plundered.

Rex, I think that we all agree on the values of free markets, personal
freedoms, self reliance and the like. But devil is in details. Almost
all of us are getting taxed. I am a "small business owner" and have a
corporation. I also have a day job in addition and some
investments. Much more than the amount of taxes, I hate the amount of
paperwork. (even though I use services of a good accountant).

In any case, since are all are taxed, the question is how much should
we be taxed and how exactly it should be distributed amongst us to
maximize the "good of society". And the trouble is that everyone has
their own idea what is the good of society.

I voted for Bush (the first time). I am livid at the outcome. I feel
completely cheated by his hints at fiscal responsibility, not wanting
to start wars etc. I am very mad for the war in Iraq.

I think that the Republicans totally blew it, they basically performed
an economic miracle and transformed a thriving country with budget
surpluses, good foreign relations, etc, into almost a smoldering
mess. Incredible budget profligacy, started two wars, etc.

I also think that McCain is mentally unstable, corrupt, and besides
that is also a hypocrite and is not someone I would trust to hold my
wallet for 5 minutes.

I have not seen (and I looked) Obama implicated in anything very
distasteful and I think, as of now, that he would make a much better
president. But my record of predicting how good a president will be,
is not great.


i

Ignoramus10312 wrote:
Rex, I think that we all agree on the values of free markets, personal
freedoms, self reliance and the like. But devil is in details. Almost
all of us are getting taxed. I am a "small business owner" and have a
corporation. I also have a day job in addition and some
investments. Much more than the amount of taxes, I hate the amount of
paperwork. (even though I use services of a good accountant).

In any case, since are all are taxed, the question is how much should
we be taxed and how exactly it should be distributed amongst us to
maximize the "good of society". And the trouble is that everyone has
their own idea what is the good of society.

I voted for Bush (the first time). I am livid at the outcome. I feel
completely cheated by his hints at fiscal responsibility, not wanting
to start wars etc. I am very mad for the war in Iraq.

I think that the Republicans totally blew it, they basically performed
an economic miracle and transformed a thriving country with budget
surpluses, good foreign relations, etc, into almost a smoldering
mess. Incredible budget profligacy, started two wars, etc.

I also think that McCain is mentally unstable, corrupt, and besides
that is also a hypocrite and is not someone I would trust to hold my
wallet for 5 minutes.

I have not seen (and I looked) Obama implicated in anything very
distasteful and I think, as of now, that he would make a much better
president. But my record of predicting how good a president will be,
is not great.

All good points, though I view many of them differently.
For me, as a firearms collector, Obama is a non-starter. Given a free
reign, he WILL restrict ownership of guns.

Beyond that, I'd almost be OK with him if there was not also a Democrat
majority in both houses. I am of the "Small government is best
government" club. An ultra-liberal president with both houses controlled
by his party can easily be a runaway freight train of expanded federal
government and reduced personal responsibility and freedom. We are
already headed down that road, perhaps irreversibly but the train will
accelerate if Obama wins.

I think the ideal situation is a majority of one party in one house, and
the other in the other house. That way nothing gets done without
compromise, and marginal bills die off. That is as it should be.