This whole “Joe the Plumber” debate is silly, and only reveals just how blindly some people are allowing themselves to be led by a VERY biased media.

 

What the majority on the left and in the media seems to be overlooking with the whole “Joe the Plumber” episode is the fact that Obama was in Joe’s neighborhood, not the other way around. In fact, I think Obama may have even knocked on Joe’s door. It’s not like Joe came looking for Obama at some open public meeting away from his neighborhood.

 

Even more so, it’s not who Joe is or is not, or what Joe said, or whether Joe’s in the union, or has a license, or has paid all his taxes on time, or any other red herring published by our stellar media… IT’S WHAT OBAMA SAID in his own words that has caused the uproar.

 

As good as Karl Rove and his associates may be, and even if they could somehow manipulate circumstances to get O and Joe together, THERE’S NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE PUT THOSE WORDS IN OBAMA’S MOUTH.

 

Obama said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

 

IMO, Obama revealed his true heart and objectives. This is not something any republican operative could have arranged. (if in fact, there is any Republican capable of orchestrating this event to achieve this result, that republican is a genius of incomparable status. He or she should be the next POTUS and arrange world events in a similar manner.)

 

The fact that the mainstream media pounced on Joe the Plumber, and in two days revealed more information about Joe than we know (by current media reporting) about Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright or any of Obama’s associates is very revealing.

 

There is a full court press to destroy Joe the Plumber, or at least to destroy his credibility, when the elephant in the room has nothing to do with Joe, it’s what Obama said.

 

My understanding of Socialists (which admittedly may not fulfill the strict textbook definition required by some BGP posters) is they believe that capitalism wrongly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who controls capital. This in their opinion creates an unequal society. Socialists advocate the creation of a classless society, where wealth and power are distributed as evenly as possible. Call me a fool. Attempt to destroy my credibility, but this is exactly what I hear Mr. Obama advocating.

 

Am I stating that Barack Obama is a socialist? No. I am saying that his vision for America’s future contains a strongly socialistic agenda. I simply do not feel this is where America needs to go.

Did you or did you not say the following?

 

Most republicans want limited government,

 

Like it or not the standard bearer for the GOP is Bush by virtue of his presidency and his tie to the Republican Party.

 

My point was that you used a wide brush to say "most republicans," when the leadership in Congress and the White House have shown themselves to spend and create as much more government as the Dems often do.

 

So instead of responding to the truth of the matter, you choose to reciprocate with hyperbole.

 

I stand by my statement. The GOP we knew in the 80's and 90's has been slipping away from the core precepts you said the majority of Republicans had. All I'm doing is pointing out it's time to get back to those or stop spouting the myth.

 

 

I completely and totally disagree, that's like annointing him as the person who created the republican party, and shaped it into what it is today, I just don't see it. Sorry Chief. He's one President in a long line of many, not a founding father of an ideal, or a Karl Marx type figure, he's just one guy that comes from a part with members that have alot of different beliefs, so I don't see him as being the standard for what republican wants and beliefs are.

This whole “Joe the Plumber” debate is silly, and only reveals just how blindly some people are allowing themselves to be led by a VERY biased media.

 

What the majority on the left and in the media seems to be overlooking with the whole “Joe the Plumber” episode is the fact that Obama was in Joe’s neighborhood, not the other way around. In fact, I think Obama may have even knocked on Joe’s door. It’s not like Joe came looking for Obama at some open public meeting away from his neighborhood.

 

Even more so, it’s not who Joe is or is not, or what Joe said, or whether Joe’s in the union, or has a license, or has paid all his taxes on time, or any other red herring published by our stellar media… IT’S WHAT OBAMA SAID in his own words that has caused the uproar.

 

As good as Karl Rove and his associates may be, and even if they could somehow manipulate circumstances to get O and Joe together, THERE’S NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE PUT THOSE WORDS IN OBAMA’S MOUTH.

 

Obama said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

 

IMO, Obama revealed his true heart and objectives. This is not something any republican operative could have arranged. (if in fact, there is any Republican capable of orchestrating this event to achieve this result, that republican is a genius of incomparable status. He or she should be the next POTUS and arrange world events in a similar manner.)

 

The fact that the mainstream media pounced on Joe the Plumber, and in two days revealed more information about Joe than we know (by current media reporting) about Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright or any of Obama’s associates is very revealing.

 

There is a full court press to destroy Joe the Plumber, or at least to destroy his credibility, when the elephant in the room has nothing to do with Joe, it’s what Obama said.

 

My understanding of Socialists (which admittedly may not fulfill the strict textbook definition required by some BGP posters) is they believe that capitalism wrongly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who controls capital. This in their opinion creates an unequal society. Socialists advocate the creation of a classless society, where wealth and power are distributed as evenly as possible. Call me a fool. Attempt to destroy my credibility, but this is exactly what I hear Mr. Obama advocating.

 

Am I stating that Barack Obama is a socialist? No. I am saying that his vision for America’s future contains a strongly socialistic agenda. I simply do not feel this is where America needs to go.

You were listening to Rush today too weren't you :flame:.

I choose to look at the national debt and the state of the economy over the past four presidencies under Republican policies vs democratic policies. For that matter, look at the great depression, but I'm sure you aready knew that..

 

So you base your opinion soley on persidential history, and not economic history, world history, or even social issues that were prevelant during presidential time periods? Ha let alone the fact that our government consists of more than just one person, but hey let's leave congress out of this right.

I completely and totally disagree, that's like annointing him as the person who created the republican party, and shaped it into what it is today, I just don't see it. Sorry Chief. He's one President in a long line of many, not a founding father of an ideal, or a Karl Marx type figure, he's just one guy that comes from a part with members that have alot of different beliefs, so I don't see him as being the standard for what republican wants and beliefs are.

 

I think you need to get a historical perspective and realize it's not just George Bush, any President is the fact of his party, like it or not. That's the historical perspective.

 

As to the subject of which I addressed you haven't shown much in the way of debunking my initial statment. Bush increased the size of Government through "No Child Left Behind" among others. The Republican Controlled Congress went along with it. Many current GOP leaders went for the bailout plan. IF the majority of GOP believed as you said, why have they nominated Bush (2 times) and McCain this time. Neither of these speak of the ideals that have forged the GOP's recent past. I stand by my statement with the facts. :thumb:

You were listening to Rush today too weren't you :flame:.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Honestly no... but I must confess that I do listen to El Rushbo when my work permits.

 

He's been pontificating on this topic for a few days.

 

I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night however. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Honestly no... but I must confess that I do listen to El Rushbo when my work permits.

 

He's been pontificating on this topic for a few days.

 

I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night however. :lol:

Just about every point you stressed, Rush covered a little while ago .

Just about every point you stressed, Rush covered a little while ago .

No wonder I enjoy listening to him.

 

Where do you think he gets all his talking points anyway... :lol:

 

Aside from where you heard the points, what's your opinion of what I posted?

Raising taxes on the middle class while giving the rich tax breaks has never worked, look at the history. I assume you're saying that if the rich are in a higher tax bracket they can't afford to hire workers. Spare me. At the same time, if the workers that the rich do hire are in a higher tax bracket, how is it helping the economy that they are barely scraping by, while Millionaire Joe is shoving his pockets full.

I found the attached graphic on the Wall Street Journal site. It documents the percentage of taxes paid by the wealthy. It also verifies that Bush's tax cuts for every taxpayer resulted in increased revenues, an increase in folks attaining "rich" status AND an increased percentage of total share of taxes paid by the rich. These numbers are from the U.S. Treasury... the folks at the IRS who collect the taxes.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

 

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income. How could this be?

 

One explanation is that the Bush tax cuts reduced the income tax liability of middle and lower income households by more proportionately than the rich. The average family of four with an income of $40,000 saw its income tax liability fall by about $2,052 a year from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts."

 

Please try to refute the facts and justify Obama's scheme to redistribute wealth. :thumb:

 

Anyone?

More from the WSJ article:

 

"Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that

the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year.

The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%,

and the richest 10% paid 70%.

These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000."

 

"Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005."

 

"The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more."

 

The bottom line is that the rich are paying a greater share of the overall tax burden under Bush's tax reductions than they paid under Clinton's tax increases.

 

Those earning over $365,000 pay TEN TIMES more taxes than the 66 million taxpayers in the bottom 50% COMBINED.

 

The best line in the whole article is the last, "If Democrats really want to soak the rich, they'll keep tax rates where they are, or, better, lower them some more."

"He's already done more interviews than Sarah Palin." -John Stewart

 

That is funny. Stewart is good.

Fastbreak, you are killing the discussion by bringing facts into it!

 

Others may not realize it but if my income is coming though K-1's by way of sub-chapter "S" corporations (as most small business are set up), I may have "made" that money without it ever hitting my pocket.

 

The tax-burden to the so-called "high income earners" is already too burdensome.

Fastbreak, you are killing the discussion by bringing facts into it!

 

Others may not realize it but if my income is coming though K-1's by way of sub-chapter "S" corporations (as most small business are set up), I may have "made" that money without it ever hitting my pocket.

 

The tax-burden to the so-called "high income earners" is already too burdensome.

You rich so-and-sos whine too much!

 

Just shut up and keep pulling ten times your weight or we'll turn Barack loose on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

First of all, you can't separate Republican policies from Democrat policies because neither exists in a vacuum. They pollute one another.

 

We've been spreading wealth to the tune of 1.6 Trillion Dollars since LBJ's great society War on Poverty began in the 60's and we have just as many poor, uneducated, pitiful souls as we ever had in this country... except more of them have cell phones and cable television than ever before.

 

DO NOT misinterpret my words. My heart genuinely goes out to those incapable of doing better for themselves. I have no problem whatsoever assisting them to at least a basic quality of life. My contention is that throwing more money at a system that has proven to be ineffective in accomplishing its stated mission is insane.

 

This is simple.

 

Honestly tell me one job with decent pay, any kind of benefits at all, with a future longer than a few weeks that's been provided for you by a poor person and I'll admit you have a point. Show me anywhere in this country where the poor are providing multiple jobs, benefits and futures for hard working Americans... (...not the need for the work, but the actual jobs and revenue itself...) and I'll concede entirely.

 

Increasing taxes on the people who actually pay the taxes and provide the jobs, just to send bigger checks to people who pay no taxes is a recipe for disaster that will make the Great Depression look like a hiccup.

 

Any decent dog knows better than to bite the hand that feeds it.

 

I'm sure taxing the "rich" even more is really going to help with the problem of companies leaving the United States and setting up shop elsewhere.

 

With a global economy, they can get their product out and sell it anywhere, so it doesn't really matter where they're located in that regard. What does matter is that other locations would offer more favorable incentives than the "You're too rich...let's take some of your money and re-distribute it" idea that people seem to love. Guess what...when a company leaves the United States, a 40% tax on zero is zero. And, where does that leave us? Re-distributing the wealth...only there ain't gonna be as much "wealth" to go around.

 

Does it not seem counterproductive to implement a system that gives handouts to Person A and encourages him to succeed, only to punish him and pull him back when he does succeed?

 

That may be an oversimplified version, but...geez. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

You keep trying to make it worse and worse for the rich and eventually, there going to take their ball and play somewhere else. That is not going to help the United States and it's economy. At all.

I'm sure taxing the "rich" even more is really going to help with the problem of companies leaving the United States and setting up shop elsewhere.

 

With a global economy, they can get their product out and sell it anywhere, so it doesn't really matter where they're located in that regard. What does matter is that other locations would offer more favorable incentives than the "You're too rich...let's take some of your money and re-distribute it" idea that people seem to love. Guess what...when a company leaves the United States, a 40% tax on zero is zero. And, where does that leave us? Re-distributing the wealth...only there ain't gonna be as much "wealth" to go around.

 

Does it not seem counterproductive to implement a system that gives handouts to Person A and encourages him to succeed, only to punish him and pull him back when he does succeed?

 

That may be an oversimplified version, but...geez. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

You keep trying to make it worse and worse for the rich and eventually, there going to take their ball and play somewhere else. That is not going to help the United States and it's economy. At all.

Amen... preach it Brother! :thumb: