snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 21 October 2008, 06:25 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 Sly Dog View Post
If it isn't, why do you dislike GWB so much?
I disagree with the manner in which wealth is re-distributed under GWB. Among other disagreements.

Also, "poor" people pay payroll taxes (assuming they are employed). Much of which goes to the federal government.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 21 October 2008, 06:41 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyra_silvertongue View Post
I'm pretty sure that I pay a 6% tax on everything I purchase in a store, for instance.
Yes, but surely they ask you for your annual income first? Ditto for cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, and so forth? And if it's not very much, they say, "Don't worry, you don't have to pay"?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 21 October 2008, 08:45 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
Yes, but surely they ask you for your annual income first? Ditto for cigarette taxes, liquor taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, and so forth? And if it's not very much, they say, "Don't worry, you don't have to pay"?
They just look at my refugee clothing* and then they say "Oh, you're poor, not only do you not have to pay taxes, but I'll give you some other money, I'm redistributing it to you." Next I'm going to be getting pregnant "just for the welfare."

*When I was a teenager my mother described my clothing as such
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 21 October 2008, 10:05 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

I have to say, when Person One is making enough to afford two homes in which they reside (plus the insurance, untility bills, and maintainence on those homes), a car worth more than $5k for every family member in residence(plus the insurance and maintainence), healthy and fresh foods, new clothes more than 4 times a year bought at a place other than a thrift or discount store, new shoes more than 4 times a year bought at a place other than a thrift or discount store, health care (including not worrying about having enough to pay for prescriptions and co-pays), and a vacation in which they actually leave their home for more than a day; and person two is renting an apartment for too much money, can't pay the utilities, can't afford any car, eats raman and koolade, buys new clothes from thrift stores once a year and shoes perhaps every other year, can't afford to get prescriptions or basic health care, and hasn't had a vacation in which they leave in years:

There's an imbalance. That imbalance needs to be fixed.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 21 October 2008, 10:14 PM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
That imbalance needs to be fixed.
Well duh, Ryda. This is the land of opportunity. Person two just needs to work harder and not waste their money on cigarettes and liquor.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 21 October 2008, 10:18 PM
Logoboros's Avatar
Logoboros Logoboros is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
There's an imbalance. That imbalance needs to be fixed.
Look, I'm in favor of progressive taxation, etc. But I'd have to say that there's no inherent logic in your example.

I mean, you might as well say: "Restaurant A has people lined up outside every night waiting for a table, gives huge bonuses to its employees, and has enough money to open up a second location if it wants to. Restaurant B is barely covering its costs and is losing customers every month. There's an imbalance there that needs to be fixed!"

Or: "Student A is getting great grades, aces every test, and even has extra credit to spare. Student B is only getting average grades and can't seem to get above a B- on a test. There's an imbalance there that needs to be fixed!"

Income is needs to be ultimately tied to some kind of economic merit. Now, we may need to reassess what really counts for merit, or we may need to require those with greater merit/ability to do more economic work (i.e., pay more back into the social system via taxes). I don't think you get anywhere just looking at material circumstances to judge economic justice. The analysis has to encompass more than just A has more and B has less, therefore, redistribute.

--Logoboros

ETA: or, my point in a nutshell: pointing out an imbalance does not in anyway itself constitute an argument for imposing balance.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 21 October 2008, 10:35 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logoboros View Post
Income is needs to be ultimately tied to some kind of economic merit.
You are conflating income with basic standards of life.

Everyone is owed that, no matter what their merit.

If you are going to have a society in which people make wages, receive those wages, and spend those wages, it seems that gov't redistribution is the way to go.

What other way would you recommend?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 21 October 2008, 10:36 PM
Tarquin Farquart's Avatar
Tarquin Farquart Tarquin Farquart is offline
 
Join Date: 20 November 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 16,354
Default

I think everybody should receive enough of a wage to live on. But that would probably require government intervention as well.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 21 October 2008, 10:40 PM
Logoboros's Avatar
Logoboros Logoboros is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo. View Post
You are conflating income with basic standards of life.

Everyone is owed that, no matter what their merit.

If you are going to have a society in which people make wages, receive those wages, and spend those wages, it seems that gov't redistribution is the way to go.

What other way would you recommend?
I don't see how you wouldn't have to apply that to business as well (the source of the wages, after all). Why should one business get higher sales than another? Is that an unfair imbalance? How is that really any different than one person (be they employee or employer) making more than another?

--Logoboros

ETA: Oh, and as for the first part of your reply: You can rightly demand basic minimum standards of living. But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with imbalance. It does if you start arguing that the minimum acceptable standard should actually be the median standard (or close to it) -- and I think you can only achieve that kind of goal by dismissing any concept of high income going with greater ability (because the moment you allow that for some people, you're screwing up the median level).
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 21 October 2008, 10:52 PM
Ryda Wong, EBfCo. Ryda Wong, EBfCo. is offline
 
Join Date: 14 December 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 24,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logoboros View Post
Why should one business get higher sales than another? Is that an unfair imbalance? How is that really any different than one person (be they employee or employer) making more than another?
Yes. A business is an non-human entity, and it isn't a member of society.

I'm missing why you think you'd have to apply it to business.


Quote:
But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with imbalance.
Again, I'm losing you. There is a fundamental inequity here, in which those with power (read money, first and foremost), decide the worth of a person and what that person should be paid and what they should receive as their basic due.

This has resulted in a class that retains wealth and a class retains lack of wealth. The class with wealth maintains a grasp on a dissproportinate amount of available resources and they have, to this point, denied basic standard of living to those who don't have wealth.

So, yes, providing a minimum standard of living has everything to do with the imbalance.


Quote:
It does if you start arguing that the minimum acceptable standard should actually be the median standard (or close to it)
I think that, by making an adjustment to the fantastically wealthy, the highest portion, we could provide a minimum standard to poor citizens and, for the most part, leave everyone else alone to do as they wished.

But I'm tired and leaving for the day, so this likely makes no sense whatsoever....
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 22 October 2008, 02:00 AM
Seraphina
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I really cannot comprehend why would anybody want to live in a country where wealth is distributed so unevenly that small minority of people are fabulously wealthy, while large proportion of people do not earn enough for the basic needs, and to me medical care is a basic need. To say that the poor just have to work harder is ludicrous. If you have jobs paying less than $10 an hour, doesn't matter how long a person works they will never be able to afford even basic necessities. Some people do not have the mental capacity to do anything but the unskilled badly paid jobs. In any case if they were able to "better" themselves, there would be nobody to do these menial jobs that everybody expects to be done. If these poor people were paid more, that would mean cost of their services would go up.

It is lot preferable if the government does some wealth re-distribution aimed towards the poorer people in the society.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 22 October 2008, 04:41 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
Too subjective a question.
I really don't know what you mean by this - please could you explain?

Quote:
To begin with who are these "poor" whose wealth is being diverted?
It seems that the debate in the USA over Joe the Plumber sets the bar at US$250,000 per year income, though that seems high to me. To keep it simple, we could look at those below the median level of income in the USA.

Quote:
Poor people don't pay taxes, even some not-so-poor don't pay much in taxes, at least to the Federal Government.
I thought you weren't defining poor people a moment ago, yet you are now telling me they don't pay tax? Is it really correct that someone on, say, US$30,000 a year pays no tax?

Quote:
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?
So the inherent unfairness in the wealthy receiving state subsidies is okay, because it is redressed by tax? Isn't that a rather socialistic view?


Quote:
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.
No. By "at least some" I mean US$623 billion, a little over half of discretionary Federal spending for fiscal 2009 (which amounts to about 20% of all budgeted Federal spending for the year). It's all in the Federal budget.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 22 October 2008, 04:55 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,577
Icon605

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphina View Post
It is lot preferable if the government does some wealth re-distribution aimed towards the poorer people in the society.
The poor are just going to have to pull themselves up by whatever bootstraps they haven't eaten yet. We'd like to help out but we can't help the poor when we've already promised redistribution of wealth to the banks and universal health care to the stock market.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 23 October 2008, 05:43 AM
BamaRainbow BamaRainbow is offline
 
Join Date: 09 May 2006
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 956
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Joe's life is fair game because McCain brought him up in a debate. Blaming the scrutiny on Obama means someone wasn't paying attention to the debate.

That's *my* party line.
Oh, for the love of Pete. Everybody BUT Barack Obama has faced a level of scrutiny that is just appalling. There is NO justification (short of explaining Obama's vote for Bush's FISA bill) for the media to dig into a PRIVATE CITIZEN'S life simply because he embarrassed the One.
I have loathed Obama since HE invited the anti-gay "ex-gay" minister Donnie McClurkin on his little "faith" tour of South Carolina. (His excuse, at the time, was that he didn't KNOW anything about McClurkin other than McClurkin's popularity among African-American Evangelicals. That showed a serious lack of a thing called JUDGMENT, but the Obamapologists just played it down as being Obama's willingness to work with people who didn't share his beliefs.) And Obama has become even more appalling since then. The media (lead by the DNC) has been in the tank for Obama since the Iowa caucus, and has attacked ANYONE who dared criticize Obama publicly.
I would love for SOMEONE to please explain what is so ****ing impressive about Obama. He's less than zero in terms of experience. He berated Hillary Clinton for her vote authorizing Bush's Iraq War, then he selects a VP who also voted to authorize Bush's Iraq War. He's praised as a "real progressive" yet HE voted to support Bush's FISA "compromise" and his voting record in the US Senate was no better overall than Hillary Clinton's. He went out of his way to avoid Gavin Newsome in 2004 AND he PERSONALLY opposes same-sex marriage (based on his "religious values") but he's excused when he *claims* to support civil unions. (If he's really serious about this, why hasn't he offered up some, oh I don't know, LEGISLATION to overturn DOMA? I'll tell you why: He doesn't want to take the leadership on the matter because it might offend some people.)
Why has Team Obama been allowed to play the race card? Obama himself injected a very tacit racial ploy with the "I don't look like the other guys on US currency" line. People with LEGITIMATE reasons for not supporting Obama are accused of being racists who wouldn't vote for any African-American. (Of course, people who had legitimate reason for not supporting Hillary were offended for being deemed sexists, and would attempt to justify their opposition with "I'd vote for any woman but Hillary". Hell, one of the male African-American analysts/journalists on CNN tried to pull the "if you can support an African-American athlete, then you can support an African-American president". No one challenged him to swap "African-American" with "female" and see if his analysis would stand up, yet that was MY very first thought when I heard his "analysis".)
Why is it that when 90-95% of African-Americans support Barack Obama, it's not viewed through a racial lens? But, let there be ANY criticism of Obama from whites, then that racial lens is pulled out. (Maybe I should say "race-colored glasses".)
Hell, it's not like there's only one African-American running for President either. I'm more than happy to back Cynthia McKinney. She's ALWAYS been against Dubya. (Of course, the media seems to be showing its own "racism" in the matter. Where is the coverage of McKinney's campaign? Or is it too much to ask that the media pay attention to TWO African-Americans at the same time?)
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 23 October 2008, 05:56 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,645
Roll eyes

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
Oh, for the love of Pete. Everybody BUT Barack Obama has faced a level of scrutiny that is just appalling.
Right. I mean, you can't hardly watch TV for more than five minutes without hearng about the Keating Five these days.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 23 October 2008, 05:59 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
Everybody BUT Barack Obama has faced a level of scrutiny that is just appalling.
Right. Keep telling yourself that. Of course, everyone knows what Rev. Wright said and very few people know what Palin's witchdoctor whatever said, but that's the liberal media's fault, I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
There is NO justification (short of explaining Obama's vote for Bush's FISA bill) for the media to dig into a PRIVATE CITIZEN'S life simply because he embarrassed the One.
Nor for John McCain to mention a random PRIVATE CITIZEN in a debate 20 times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
The media (lead by the DNC) has been in the tank for Obama since the Iowa caucus, and has attacked ANYONE who dared criticize Obama publicly.
Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
Why has Team Obama been allowed to play the race card? Obama himself injected a very tacit racial ploy with the "I don't look like the other guys on US currency" line.
I'm quoting this comment because it can be very effectively ironically juxtaposed with a comment you make later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
People with LEGITIMATE reasons for not supporting Obama are accused of being racists who wouldn't vote for any African-American.
By who?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
Of course, people who had legitimate reason for not supporting Hillary were offended for being deemed sexists
By who?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
Where is the coverage of McKinney's campaign?
Duverger's conspiracy strikes again!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
Or is it too much to ask that the media pay attention to TWO African-Americans at the same time?
That makes your above comments about accusations of racism exceedingly ironic. Almost hilariously so. Indeed, your whole post is that way, in that you criticize an attitude by displaying it yourself at 10x the level. If that was the intended point that wooshed over my head, umm, bravo.

Last edited by lord_feldon; 23 October 2008 at 06:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 23 October 2008, 12:53 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Cynthia McKinney, crazy lady Green Party candidate for President, who didn't bother to show up for the alternative parties' candidates debate that was held here the day before the Town Hall debate?

The candidate who may get 1% of the popular vote?

Yeah, I can see why she should be paid equal attention as Obama.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 23 October 2008, 01:34 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
TV

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Right. I mean, you can't hardly watch TV for more than five minutes without hearng about the Keating Five these days.
I know! If I have to watch one more episode of Family Ties, I think I'm going to snap!

[/close enough]
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 23 October 2008, 01:36 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon24

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaRainbow View Post
Hell, it's not like there's only one African-American running for President either. I'm more than happy to back Cynthia McKinney. She's ALWAYS been against Dubya. (Of course, the media seems to be showing its own "racism" in the matter. Where is the coverage of McKinney's campaign? Or is it too much to ask that the media pay attention to TWO African-Americans at the same time?)
And the marijuana party was on par with the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada's recent elections.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 23 October 2008, 03:56 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
People with LEGITIMATE reasons for not supporting Obama are accused of being racists who wouldn't vote for any African-American.
On this board, or in general? Do you have an example?

Incidentally, I asked the same question in this thread.
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 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.