McCain speech today 10-21

[Woody]

If I object to THIS post ... will you recant it?

[Bravus]

?

[Woody]

Oh Nothing. Just referring to another thread. Just searchin for someway to combat your leftist leanings and propaganda.

But just forget it. You is cool.

[Woody]

This thread needs an update. Today ... McCain promoted the idea that we need to make Joe proud. Go Joe ...

[jasd]

>>Joe only helps with preaching to the Republican choir,<<

Ain it really a shame - that the matter of Obama's response to Joe the Plumber can resonate only with the "Republican choir"?

Absolutely, shameful. "We's gonna git all that free stuff with Obama - not thems rich people."

>>...and that ain't gonna turn around the McCain Straight to Oblivion Express.<<

Mebbe not. However, Gore, as well as Kerry, were in this same catbird's seat at this time four and eight years ago.

It may be that the gods and fate will yet have pity on us that Obama will go the way of Gore and Kerry. [/mercy]

[Dr. Shane]

The liberal media went way overboard investigating Joe-the-plumber. His crime was asking Obama a question Obama was not prepared to answer. Did he deserve to have a media investigation and national exposure of his dirty laundry?

The facts of Joe-the-plumber are really irrelevant. There are real people working for someone else that have dreams of going out on their own and striking success. Obama's tax plan will punish successful small business owners.

[Bravus]

The media wouldn't have paid anywhere near as much attention had McCain not suddenly decided to make Joe the cornerstone of his campaign.

[Bravus]

Quote:

Obama's tax plan will punish successful small business owners.

Nope. Obama's tax plan will allow anyone successful enough to earn more than $250,000 a year an opportunity to play some part in supporting the country they love. Taxes are not a punishment, they are part of the civic responsibility of citizens. And with America in a massive and growing international debt hole, it is beyond irresponsible to keep cutting taxes on the wealthiest. It's not as though it is going to beggar them - they will still be very, very wealthy and comfortable people. But they will have the opportunity to help extend opportunities to their children and grandchildren and to help their country remain strong.

[Dr. Shane]

Are the poor and lower middle-class which don't pay any income tax unpatriotic?

No matter how one wants to spin it, when the government decides to take more money away from a targeted group of people, that group is going to feel as they are being punished.

McCain mentioning Joe the plumber doesn't make what the liberal media did to him morally right. It was a major invasion of privacy. I am sure he has many friends and family that found things out about him that he didn't want them to know.

[Dr. Shane]

If we raise taxes we should raise taxes on everyone. Certainly the rich may have their taxes raised more than the less successful. However if additional revenue is needed, everyone should pitch in. To take from the rich and give the poor is morally wrong.

Conversely, when we cut taxes we cut everyone's taxes. Those that pay the most, the rich, would get the greatest tax cuts. Those that pay less get smaller tax cuts. That is only fair.

[Bravus]

Yes, but that's not how it has happened recently - tax cuts for the rich have been far larger. That was immoral, and I'm not sure rebalancing is also immoral.

[Dr. Shane]

I disagree. The tax cuts were across the board. I received a tax cut when I was only making $45K/year. Of course the tax cuts for the most wealthy were bigger because they pay more. It is immoral for me to covet the tax savings they got when I got my share too. My share was smaller but I was paying in a lot less taxes too. The Commandment says, "Thou Shalt Not Covet."

[Bravus]

The Bible also says "To whom much has been given, much shall be required". The wealthy have benefited from the country, and are benefiting from the productive work of others, and it is fair that they pay their share. They are not being placed in hardship.

We can argue this forever, of course. The idea that those on the right tend to propagate is that charity, rather than taxes, should help to share the wealth around. But they do not then give enough voluntarily to make it happen, and they decide who is 'worthy' of their charity, on grounds other than need. Make poverty history without government intervention, then we'll talk.

[Dr. Shane]

Yes, and I don't disagree with that. The poor pay just a little taxes and the rich pay a lot. If we raise taxes we raise the poor's taxes a little and the rich's taxes a lot. Everybody's taxes go up. When we cut taxes we actually reverse the tax increase. The poor's taxes go down a little than the rich's a lot. However don't take from the rich and give to the poor. That is what Obama is proposing. He wants to increase the rich's taxes and cut the poor's taxes. That is immoral.

[carolaa]

Why is it immoral to allow poor people to make a living wage? People who are obscenely rich shouldn't have a problem paying more taxes. Good grief, they are still obscenely rich after they pay taxes. The middle class is disappearing, and we're worried about the rich people having to pay more taxes?! C'mon. Obama's plan would help people start their own businesses - that's a good thing.

[John317]

The question Americans have to ask themselves is whether they think the government should be in the business of spreading the wealth around. Is that what our government was designed and elected to do? Do Americans want government taking more of their money?

I don't like the idea of empowering the government to do that.

People ought to be able to keep as much money that they earn as possible.

It's immoral and wrong for the government to force people to turn their money over to others. It's one thing to give because you want to give, but it is totally different to be forced to do it by the government.

It will be very bad on our economy if the people are taxed much more than they already are, yet we know that is the intention of the Democratic party. Barney Franks has already said so. That is definitely what we are looking at if Obama gets in. Obama has not even denied this. He wants a bigger government and more programs, which of course require more taxes.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2008

Is Barney Frank's Solution to Everything Higher Taxes?

"Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=104962

[fccool]

US already has a progressive tax system that is inherent to socialism and communism. The problem with the US is that it is a pseudo capitalism, and pseudo communism. It hang somewhere in the middle. You have a right to property on one hand, just as long as you pay for that right. The moment you can't afford the taxes, your property is confiscated by the government. I'm not even sure what to call such a system.

The mere hypocrisy of McCain campaign though is that he is somehow above the Socialism is ridiculous. He was just jumping up and down praising the 700 bilion bailout as a "solution", but where do you think he got the money from, and who benefited the most? It is obvious that the bailout did not help to prop up the stock market, or stop the recession. The Fed already has power to lend money out of nothing, so why in the world borrow it on behalf of American taxpayers?

Secondly, McCain proposes to buy up the mortgages of the people who are failing to meet their obligations. Where is he planning to get the money? It sure is not coming about by tax cuts. It's a tranfer of wealth from people who were being responsible, and those who wanted to have a free ride and using their homes as ATMs.

So, PLEASE, don't peddle the republican "morality" here as somehow more superior to what Obama is planning to do. The current administration pretty much raped the taxpayers by doubling the debt. The 11 trillion dollars will never be paid off, because the government can't. They can hardly afford the interest. Both McCain and Obama are unwilling to even talk about the issue of 11 trillion debt. They are not concerned.

You can't even honestly call McCain or Bush republicans. They are not republicans. Republicans stand for smaller government, less governmental control. Bush gave government unprecedented powers over his years in the office.

[Bravus]

What's the alternative? What we're seeing in the US economy right now is largely the result of individuals and corporations borrowing endlessly beyond their means. But the whole country is borrowing endlessly beyond its means. That is simply unsustainable. What will happen to the wealthy when the economy entirely collapses? Might they not then wish they had paid some, to avoid losing all?

Look, it's not as though Republicans don't tax at all. Every government taxes. The argument is not about that, but about how taxes are spent. It's not even true that Democratic governments historically tax more or raise taxes more. The 'tax and spend Democrats, fiscally responsible Republicans' line is largely mythical.

The difference is in whether governments seek to expand the gap between the richest and poorest or to contract it. It's as stark and simple as that. And what does the Bible have to say about our responsibility to the poor?

[Bravus]

I seem to remember a 'render unto Caesar', too.

[Bravus]

Would you rather your taxes go on a bomb or on a book in a public school? I know my answer.

[fccool]

The correct answer is neither. The fair tax system is the one that was in place prior to 1913, when the government taxed people indirectly. That's when the people could vote with their taxes.

Today, government get's a carte blanche as they can do whatever they want, and people are blinded by the idealism of the parties are lost regurgitating partisan hackery and political cliches.

[Bravus]

Not seeing a lot of the touted 'Joe Factor' leading to McCain storming back here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Heck, even *Fox* has Obama leading by 9%.

[Dr. Shane]

Why is it immoral to allow poor people to make a living wage?

That is a strawman. We are not talking about a living wage for the poor. That is a separate issue. Taxing the rich more is not going to increase the wages earned by the poor. It may, in fact, do the opposite since the rich will have less money to pay the working poor.

[Bravus]

One more Salon link: http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/10/23/boll/

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

Why is it immoral to allow poor people to make a living wage?

That is a strawman. We are not talking about a living wage for the poor. That is a separate issue. Taxing the rich more is not going to increase the wages earned by the poor. It may, in fact, do the opposite since the rich will have less money to pay the working poor.

You (or someone) were talking about taxing everyone equally. I'm trying to make the point that that is not fair. It is taking a far greater percentage of the poor man's wages than the rich man's wages.