snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 20 October 2008, 05:51 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Obama's response was OK because wealth redistribution, like it or not, happens in the US. Just because it's happened on the DL during this administration doesn't mean it's not going on.
That sorta speaks to my concern. Wealth redistribution is good then according to you? Because to me it is not good, it is very bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
What pot shots have been taken?
By news media and Democrat talking heads whose comments are picked up an repeated; shots having nothing to do with the case at hand. Joe's father in law worked at Lincoln Savings? That is topical how?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
I have no desire to distance myself from it.

Why are you distancing yourself from McCain's actual faux pas of using Joe the Plumber to improperly illustrate Obama's position?
What gives you the idea that I am? If that was the subject under discussion and I kept changing the topic, that would be avoidance. Neither of those is the case here.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 20 October 2008, 05:59 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Can you show me the statements supporting that he is a Republican "plant", because all I saw was a link to a blog that says he is a registered voter. For those of us who've been paying attention, this is old news and I already knew all about Joe and the attempts to find out if he is registered to vote (yes) and if, in fact, he would have to pay more taxes if he bought his business (no).

I was fine with Obama's statement and have no desire to distance myself from it. That really has nothing to do with you stating that the party line is that Joe is a Republican "plant", which is what this thread was originally about.
First step would be to "expose" him as a Republican which is what the replies linking to Ben Smith seemed to be intending. Once you have proven half a lie the second half can be left unanswered and assumed true by association.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 20 October 2008, 06:01 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keokuk View Post
I don't think it's pot-shots at the person asking the question. If McCain really wanted to discuss Obama's "spread the wealth" line, then he could have prefaced it by just saying that he was talking to a voter. Instead, he made a big scene by mentioning "Joe the Plumber" nearly two dozen times during the debate.

It seems that if the real problem is with what Obama said to Joe the Plumber, then the focus of McCain's question to Obama should have been about Obama's statement rather than placing an emphasis on the voter to whom he was talking.

Incidentally, bottom line: McCain's plan also redistributes the wealth. He's not favoring a flat tax, so the rich will still pay disproportionately more taxes. He also favors having the government buy out mortgages to help people avoid foreclosure. When Chris Wallace asked about why that's not a socialist policy on Fox News Sunday yesterday, McCain said that it's okay because it's a response to an emergency situation. (Note that he's not saying it's not a socialist policy, but basically argued that provisional socialist policies are acceptable.) So if we really want to have a debate about whether we should "spread the wealth" around, then maybe we should truly examine if either candidate favors a policy whereby the wealth stays where it is. It's simply untrue to pretend that only one candidate supports spreading the wealth around.

Ahh, how refreshing. A non-defensive reply, clear, and on-topic. Unusual in political discussions. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 20 October 2008, 06:13 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
First step would be to "expose" him as a Republican which is what the replies linking to Ben Smith seemed to be intending. Once you have proven half a lie the second half can be left unanswered and assumed true by association.
Is it illegal to be Republican now, that he has to be "exposed" as one? Didn't he pretty much do that himself by the nature of his questions?

I guess I give most people more credit for their ability to analyze information than you do. Since there are many people out there who are Republicans, it doesn't follow from that information that they have been "planted".
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 20 October 2008, 06:16 PM
Logoboros's Avatar
Logoboros Logoboros is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Wealth redistribution is good then according to you? Because to me it is not good, it is very bad.
At the risk of launching a whole side debate, here's an interesting (and refreshing, I think) quote from this article on former Republican voters shifting Democratic in Indiana:

Quote:
Take John Salter, a 35-year-old doctor and 2004 Bush voter who stressed to the canvassers that he was in the income bracket (above $250,000 a year) that would pay higher taxes under Obama than McCain. Still, his words and tone suggested that he was leaning toward voting Democratic. "In the end, I care about my money," Salter said. "But I like it when Sen. Obama says that we all have to do our part. And maybe my part is to pay more taxes."
I think this in part gets at what I've found to be the best argument for progressive taxation. Those who reap the greatest reward from their country and their fellow citizens owe the most back for their success.

--Logoboros
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 20 October 2008, 06:18 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
Is it illegal to be Republican now, that he has to be "exposed" as one? Didn't he pretty much do that himself by the nature of his questions?
Or by, you know, registering as a Republican?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 20 October 2008, 06:30 PM
Bryan With a 'Y''s Avatar
Bryan With a 'Y' Bryan With a 'Y' is offline
 
Join Date: 11 January 2007
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 2,608
Ponder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
That sorta speaks to my concern. Wealth redistribution is good then according to you? Because to me it is not good, it is very bad.
Perhaps. But after watching the Enron scandal, the Wall Street mess and other deregulation/underregulation hijinks, I've come to the conclusion that "redistribution of wealth" is really what happens when government fails to intervene.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 20 October 2008, 06:45 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
That sorta speaks to my concern. Wealth redistribution is good then according to you? Because to me it is not good, it is very bad.
It is not intrinsically either. There is good wealth distribution and there is bad wealth distribution.

Quote:
By news media and Democrat talking heads whose comments are picked up an repeated; shots having nothing to do with the case at hand. Joe's father in law worked at Lincoln Savings? That is topical how?
It's "Democratic talking heads." And Joe's dad's employer is a pot shot? While I agree it isn't relevant, it's not as if people are making digs at Joe because of, say, his baldness, which would be a pot shot.

Quote:
What gives you the idea that I am? If that was the subject under discussion and I kept changing the topic, that would be avoidance. Neither of those is the case here.
Neither was the issue of wealth redistrubtion, not really. You accused Obama supporters of neglecting that issue. "Not bringing up" and "avoiding" are not necessarily the same things.

However, I have answered your question re: wealth distribution, for the record.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 20 October 2008, 07:11 PM
Christie Christie is offline
 
Join Date: 28 November 2001
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 30,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
So Joe the Plumber is a Republican "plant" used to set up Obama? Is that the Party Line now? I'm reading that this event didn't take place at a rally. The guy was standing in his own yard when Obama walked by going door-to-door. Obama went up to greet "Joe" and Joe asked him a question. And Obama answered. And as usual when Obama goes off script his answer generated controversy. And now it's Joe's fault and those evil republicans who pulled the dirty trick on Obama. And Joe's life is fair game, anything to try to discredit him and take the spotlight off what Obama said. At least that seems to be the way it is spinning.
What's amusing about all this is really how trivial it actually is. I'm sure both Kerry *and* McCain would have appreciated this kind of spin back a few years ago when both were being pulled apart by the right wing attack dogs. This is baby school stuff compared to what both those men were put through back in the day. Party line? Piffle.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 21 October 2008, 05:12 AM
Zachary Fizz Zachary Fizz is offline
 
Join Date: 01 March 2002
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 4,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
That sorta speaks to my concern. Wealth redistribution is good then according to you? Because to me it is not good, it is very bad.
Surely wealth redistribution goes on all the time, and the only real questions are from whom and to whom?

Unless the tax burden is exactly correlated with share ownership, all state spending causes wealth redistribution. For example, at present the US taxpayer is paying rather a lot for military procument and spending. Some of that money is going to the shareholders in and lenders to the defense industry. At present I own a very, very small chunk of the defense industry so a tiny bit of the wealth of the US taxpayer is being distributed to me.

Similarly, when US forces on the ground in Iraq or elsewhere are providing the political stability required for US companies to provide services in that country, the US taxpayer is effectively subsidising those American companies. It doesn't particularly matter if one takes an idealistic or cynical view of US military participation in those countries: in either case the US taxpayer is funding military activity which allows the corporations in question to carry out economic activity.

I'm no economist, but I strongly suspect that the tax burden is spread rather more evenly through the US population than the benefits of share ownership. With that in mind, there is a tendency for at least some US government spending to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. I'd be interested, Sly Dog, in your thoughts on whether this is a bad thing, and whether in this context it seems reasonable for government to try to redress the balance when it comes to, say, social programs?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 21 October 2008, 05:12 AM
Zachary Fizz Zachary Fizz is offline
 
Join Date: 01 March 2002
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 4,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
That sorta speaks to my concern. Wealth redistribution is good then according to you? Because to me it is not good, it is very bad.
Surely wealth redistribution goes on all the time, and the only real questions are from whom and to whom?

Unless the tax burden is exactly correlated with share ownership, all state spending causes wealth redistribution. For example, at present the US taxpayer is paying rather a lot for military procument and spending. Some of that money is going to the shareholders in and lenders to the defense industry. At present I own a very, very small chunk of the defense industry so a tiny bit of the wealth of the US taxpayer is being distributed to me.

Similarly, when US forces on the ground in Iraq or elsewhere are providing the political stability required for US companies to provide services in that country, the US taxpayer is effectively subsidising those American companies. It doesn't particularly matter if one takes an idealistic or cynical view of US military participation in those countries: in either case the US taxpayer is funding military activity which allows the corporations in question to carry out economic activity.

I'm no economist, but I strongly suspect that the tax burden is spread rather more evenly through the US population than the benefits of share ownership. With that in mind, there is a tendency for at least some US government spending to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. I'd be interested, Sly Dog, in your thoughts on whether this is a bad thing, and whether in this context it seems reasonable for government to try to redress the balance when it comes to, say, social programs?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 21 October 2008, 05:23 AM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Wealth redistribution is good then according to you? Because to me it is not good, it is very bad.
What are your thoughts on Gov. Palin raising taxes on the oil companies doing business in Alaska, then using the increase in revenue to cut checks to each Alaska resident? McCain touts this as one of her accomplishments as Governor. And it seems a lot like "speading the wealth".
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 21 October 2008, 04:50 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zachary Fizz View Post
I'm no economist, but I strongly suspect that the tax burden is spread rather more evenly through the US population than the benefits of share ownership. With that in mind, there is a tendency for at least some US government spending to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. I'd be interested, Sly Dog, in your thoughts on whether this is a bad thing, and whether in this context it seems reasonable for government to try to redress the balance when it comes to, say, social programs?
Too subjective a question. To begin with who are these "poor" whose wealth is being diverted? Poor people don't pay taxes, even some not-so-poor don't pay much in taxes, at least to the Federal Government.

I disagree with your first statement, it seems to limit the "benefits" of share ownership to the financial gains that brings. The benefits do not all accrue to the actual owner. Remember Capital Gains tax, for example?

Your second statement is way too broad, "at least some US government spending..." is like the advertisement promising "up to 40% savings", which actally only promises no more than a 40% savings if any at all. And, even if some pennies of tax money taken from the many "poor" ends up in the hands of the few "rich" the overwhelming flow is in the opposite direction. Hundreds of thousands of people received Bush "tax rebates" well in excess of the total taxes they paid.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 21 October 2008, 04:54 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Hundreds of thousands of people received Bush "tax rebates" well in excess of the total taxes they paid.
This is, according to you, bad. Right?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 21 October 2008, 05:10 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
What are your thoughts on Gov. Palin raising taxes on the oil companies doing business in Alaska, then using the increase in revenue to cut checks to each Alaska resident? McCain touts this as one of her accomplishments as Governor. And it seems a lot like "speading the wealth".
I don't view an Oil Company the same way I view a person. Saying that is walking over mushy ground filled with mines I realize. I am someone who buys the oil that got the price increase caused by the tax payments that are given to the citizens of Alaska. So I am in effect paying the citizens of Alaska for simply being citizens of Alaska. I happen to view Corporate wealth differently than personal wealth.

However, the original deal made for the North Slope and the pipeline included "revenue sharing" with the citizens of Alaska. I believe it was Alyeska that suggested it as part of the package they offered to get the contract and rights.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 21 October 2008, 05:24 PM
Sly Dog
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
What are your thoughts on Gov. Palin raising taxes on the oil companies doing business in Alaska, then using the increase in revenue to cut checks to each Alaska resident? McCain touts this as one of her accomplishments as Governor. And it seems a lot like "speading the wealth".
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
This is, according to you, bad. Right?
If it isn't, why do you dislike GWB so much?
(BTW, is there an icon dictionary available? I'm sure there is an appropriate one but I don't dare, winking smiley seems close but diving behind a stone wall as a hail of bricks fly over might be better.)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 21 October 2008, 05:31 PM
Mad Jay's Avatar
Mad Jay Mad Jay is offline
 
Join Date: 19 July 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
I don't view an Oil Company the same way I view a person. Saying that is walking over mushy ground filled with mines I realize. I am someone who buys the oil that got the price increase caused by the tax payments that are given to the citizens of Alaska. So I am in effect paying the citizens of Alaska for simply being citizens of Alaska. I happen to view Corporate wealth differently than personal wealth.
Wait, so when Joe "the Plumber" gets a tax break, it's Personal wealth. And when Exxon gets a tax break, it's Corporate wealth? Where do you draw the line?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 21 October 2008, 05:58 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
If it isn't, why do you dislike GWB so much?
Oh, I think there is a lot he's done over the past 8 years I could point to. Thankfully, he's not actually running for president again.

Quote:
(BTW, is there an icon dictionary available? I'm sure there is an appropriate one but I don't dare, winking smiley seems close but diving behind a stone wall as a hail of bricks fly over might be better.)
<--this is a good one.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 21 October 2008, 06:03 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Dog View Post
Poor people don't pay taxes
That is simply incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 21 October 2008, 06:21 PM
lyra_silvertongue's Avatar
lyra_silvertongue lyra_silvertongue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 September 2007
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 2,794
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
That is simply incorrect.
I'm pretty sure that I pay a 6% tax on everything I purchase in a store, for instance.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.