Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[fluid.forty.one]

yeah

my smartest friend is going to some private school in cali full ride and parties all the time

pre-med all As, and gets drunk/smokes weed all the time

[Rhylan]

Hey, if you can make good grades and parlay it into a good job, it doesn't qualify as pissing anything away no matter what you do on the side.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

This is the fallacy of the liberal argument (and the neo-con argument).. which basically is, "government isn't the problem, it's that WE weren't running it at the time."

I don't know about neo-cons but I've never heard any liberals make this argument. Liberals rarely see most problems as arising from the state apparatus and when they do identify such a culprit it's usually in the context of their political/ideological opponents being asleep at the wheel so to speak, not that their is too much inefficient government meddling any only if we were in charge...

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Well, how many decades of politicians are we going to believe until we realize that federal government just works best when it's limited to the letter of the Constitution? And state & local governments work best when they are at least fundamentally patterned after some of the same principles.

Works best for who? I don't want my government reduced to some libertarian utopian's dream of a nightwatchman's state. I want my government taking an active role in the provision of public goods and promoting the general welfare, just like it does in every other rich, successful country. And Federalist government is a very inefficient way of doing that.

Originally Posted by Rhylan

To rabbitproof - I'm a strong believer that we need to treat health care as a product and not a right, if we're going to fix it (because I'm a market eco guy), but I agree that there needs to be a discussion because the current hybrid public/private/big insurance system is busted.

The healthcare system in this country is busted but we don't need a MORE market baased healthcare system. Market oriented healthcare is dead. Let us read it's last rights and move onto something better.

Originally Posted by Rhylan

And on education... I think it's a big fallacy of the entitlement establishment that everyone should go to college. The reason high school largely sucks is because everyone has to go. The reason college doesn't is because not everyone can, for a variety of reasons. It's a shame that sometimes those reasons are economical, but that's the breaks. I'm a first generation college grad and my parents missed out solely because of money. There are so many scholarships and grants and all kinds of things available now (or when I was a kid) than 35 years ago when my parents were. Not a whole lot of this outside of Pell Grants and Sallie Mae loans has been aided in any way by Federal spending, and I think that's just fine. We're doing better. No need to tax the crap out of everyone to try and make us perfect.

I'm not crazy about spending on higher education either. It's generally children of the wealthy who end up going to college and the education usually only ends up benefitting the people who go, not the public that spends the money. However, College is popular, a lot of people want their kids to have a shot to go to college and so government assistance for college is very popular. I don't think it's technically in working people's interests to subsidize this but as someone I admire once said, "If you like something, then it's in your interest." So if America wants state help for their kids college funds than god bless them. I do think there should be more federal investment in Tech Schools/Community Colleges where people can learn a skill or trade, and for those who are prepared for a 4 year university and are University material, they shouldn't miss out for lack of funds. Them's not the breaks.

[dude1394]

It's not me!! It's not me!!! It's not me!!! Sheesh what a couple of whiners. Like someone gives a flying heck.

One night while visiting for dinner, I asked my friends little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said, "I want to be President." Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there all proud.

So I asked her, "If you were President, what would you do first?"

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people!"

"WOW ... what a worthy goal," I said, "you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway ... and I will pay you $50." "Then, I will take you to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food, and a new house."

She thought that over a few seconds while her Mom gave me an evil glare, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party .... "

I haven't been asked back since.

[DirkFTW]

^Interesting ad I saw along the same lines.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

I'm not crazy about spending on higher education either. It's generally children of the wealthy who end up going to college and the education usually only ends up benefitting the people who go, not the public that spends the money. However, College is popular, a lot of people want their kids to have a shot to go to college and so government assistance for college is very popular. I don't think it's technically in working people's interests to subsidize this but as someone I admire once said, "If you like something, then it's in your interest." So if America wants state help for their kids college funds than god bless them. I do think there should be more federal investment in Tech Schools/Community Colleges where people can learn a skill or trade, and for those who are prepared for a 4 year university and are University material, they shouldn't miss out for lack of funds. Them's not the breaks.

I think this higher education part is a situation that I think has alot to do with several other problems as a whole. College should be affordable for everyone, and I think it can happen. But, to do this and also help the Tech Schools/Community College assistance as well, I feel that Section 8, Welfare, Food Stamps abusers are cutting into helping in these areas. I think we need to mandate education as part of these programs so that more people can get away from these types of programs in a timely fashion.

I think the system now in place gives too many people a crutch to not get out there and work like the rest of the taxpayers. Right now, people in those programs are penalized for making a decent wage and are not held accountable to get off of them. I have a big issue with that. I say mandate education in order to stay on it, and mandate holding down a job to keep the benefits. That way they are educated, which means they are in a better position to get a higher paying job, which in turn means they dont need the programs.

I also see this to deter people on just having babies to stay on these programs, because it would become increasingly difficult to keep a job while having several babies. This holds people accountable for their actions and at the same time affords them the education to higher paying jobs. Oh, lastly lets put a time limit on these programs as well, so we can make it even more difficult for those who find ways to beat that system as well.

[Silk Smoov]

WOW!!! I have a little story to tell, but I think many other people have this same story.
I dont have time to write it but here it is: Here it is If you dont have time just go here

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

Works best for who? I don't want my government reduced to some libertarian utopian's dream of a nightwatchman's state. I want my government taking an active role in the provision of public goods and promoting the general welfare, just like it does in every other rich, successful country. And Federalist government is a very inefficient way of doing that.

I too think government has more to do than just being a booth ref. But which goods are public goods? Are all goods public goods? And what is the general welfare? Physical? Moral? Both? More? And what specifically should these physical/moral/other welfare points be? I think in trying to answer these questions, the shades of conservative and liberal government have been more traditionally etched.

The healthcare system in this country is busted but we don't need a MORE market baased healthcare system. Market oriented healthcare is dead. Let us read it's last rights and move onto something better.

Have we seen something better that we'd like to move towards? I'm hearing disturbing things about other systems. I myself waffle between private and public health care because I hear about the existing problems in our already pseudo-public hospitals from my friends and family who work there.... and I see my mom trying to figure out how to get insurance for herself.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

I think this higher education part is a situation that I think has alot to do with several other problems as a whole. College should be affordable for everyone, and I think it can happen. But, to do this and also help the Tech Schools/Community College assistance as well, I feel that Section 8, Welfare, Food Stamps abusers are cutting into helping in these areas. I think we need to mandate education as part of these programs so that more people can get away from these types of programs in a timely fashion.

Interesting idea. We'd also need to address the problems in our k-12 education systems, though, because if people are off kilter early on, they're never gonna get to where they need to be for college/professional school. And that's a mess I don't even know where to begin with... from funding to better teachers to more classrooms to TAKS-or-no-TAKS... monstrous.

[purplefrog]

Go ahead Obamamaniacs slice and dice this one. Not saying this is the prophetic rather saying this is a legitimate concern (given the lack of critical analysis by the media).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYEiwR2KklM

[Flacolaco]

lol @ the media for trying to tear apart "Joe the plumber." Joe isn't running for anything.

Joe the plumber made their candidate say something honest and unscripted about wanting to redistribute wealth, and now they're mad. If they tried even half as hard as they have the last 2 days with "Joe the plumber" to delve into Barack Obama's life honestly and truly, then maybe we could take them seriously. The media is a joke. Sean Hannity is right when he says that this is the year journalism died.

Then the junior senator himself said "I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls." Ok how about this, We'll trade you Fox News for CBS, ABC, NY times, MSNBC, NBC, Reuters, every late night talk show, SNL, and the AP and we'll see how the polls stack up. Is he serious with this?

He's going to win, it's a done deal. I can't believe that he would say that.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Go ahead Obamamaniacs slice and dice this one. Not saying this is the prophetic rather saying this is a legitimate concern (given the lack of critical analysis by the media).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYEiwR2KklM

pretty insulting to compare the american electorate, and our institutions, to that of the banana republic that was cuba in 1959....

we could just as well compare obama to vaclav havel...but we shouldn't, as america is not similar to either of these countries.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

lol @ the media for trying to tear apart "Joe the plumber." Joe isn't running for anything.

Joe the plumber made their candidate say something honest and unscripted about wanting to redistribute wealth, and now they're mad. If they tried even half as hard as they have the last 2 days with "Joe the plumber" to delve into Barack Obama's life honestly and truly, then maybe we could take them seriously. The media is a joke. Sean Hannity is right when he says that this is the year journalism died.

joe is famous! don't know about "trying to tear [joe the plumber] apart", it seems he's getting his 15 minutes and he's going to profit from it.

as for if it is poor journalism, heck anyone who is in the spotlight is going to have themselves examined, and imo that is what journalism is all about.

Then the junior senator himself said "I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls." Ok how about this, We'll trade you Fox News for CBS, ABC, NY times, MSNBC, NBC, Reuters, every late night talk show, SNL, and the AP and we'll see how the polls stack up. Is he serious with this?

He's going to win, it's a done deal. I can't believe that he would say that.

let's read the whole passage first:

I asked Obama if it was frustrating to have seen, throughout the campaign, so many polls that showed him trailing badly among white men with lower incomes or less education.

“It’s not frustrating,” Obama said, shaking his head. I found this believable; Obama seems almost impervious to frustration. “There are a couple of things at work here. No. 1, let’s face it — I’m not a familiar type.” He laughed. “Which means it would be easier for me to deliver this message if I was from one of these places, right? I’ve got to deliver that message as a black guy from Hawaii named Barack Obama. So, admittedly, it’s just unfamiliar.

“Which, by the way, is a different argument than race,” Obama continued, pausing to make sure I understood. “I’m not making an argument that the resistance is simply racial. It’s more just that I’m different in all kinds of ways. I’m different even for black people. I went through similar stuff when I ran against Bobby Rush on the all-black South Side of Chicago.” In that race, a Democratic primary for Congress in 2000, Rush, the black incumbent, handed Obama his first and only political defeat. “It’s like: ‘Who is this guy? Where’d he come from?’ So that’s part of it.

“The second part of it is that I’m trying to do this in an environment where the media narrative is already set up in a certain way. So it’s hard to not be dropped into a box.”

He reminded me that back in March, for instance, he accepted a spontaneous invitation from a voter in Altoona, Pa., to bowl a few frames, and it turned out Obama was basically a god-awful bowler. Some commentators gleefully used this deficiency to portray him as out of touch with the common man, in a John Kerry-windsurfing sort of way. (Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC, used the word “prissy.”) To Obama, this brought home the bleak reality that, as a Democratic nominee, he was going to be typecast, fairly or not.

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told me. “If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?

“I guess the point I’m making,” he went on, “is that there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it’s powerful. People want to know that you’re fighting for them, that you get them. And I actually think I do. But you know, if people are just seeing me in sound bites, they’re not going to discover that. That’s why I say that some of that may have to happen after the election, when they get to know you.”

I think he has made an excellent point. soundbites do not accurately communicate a person and what it is they are actually saying, and those soundbites can be easily turned in a negative way.

[chumdawg]

Last night I had to listen to my grandfather tell me how Obama wants to, for example, take $50,000 from a guy making $250K and give all of it to a guy making $15K. I said, "What makes you think that?" He snapped back, "Because that's what he said!"

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

pretty insulting to compare the american electorate, and our institutions, to that of the banana republic that was cuba in 1959....

we could just as well compare obama to vaclav havel...but we shouldn't, as america is not similar to either of these countries.

Perhaps you missed the point. Imo, the point is that we are at a point in history when the people are craving for true leadership and change + you have the media giving a candidate a free ride (rather than doing their job) = you open yourself up to horrendous possibilities. We don't know what Obama will do because no one is putting his feet to the fire. It's like being desperate for money, so you go "all in" when you haven't even looked at your cards. Obama promises change. What change? He promises "to spread the wealth around". He is fickle with his relationships to the point where I feel he'll say anything, anytime, anywhere if it is politically expedient + way too many people are infatuated with him (including the press). If he wins in a landslide, then he will claim a mandate for change (without definition) has arrived, the people have spoken. Congress goes strong Democrat, so there are fewer checks and balances. The possibilities are potentially horrific. Let's just hope he's what the Obamaniacs believe him to be or at least benign because America is about ready to give this guy a blank check.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Go ahead Obamamaniacs slice and dice this one. Not saying this is the prophetic rather saying this is a legitimate concern (given the lack of critical analysis by the media).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYEiwR2KklM

Yes the media has not given serious thought to the idea that Obama is going to implement a violent, bloody revolution and turn America into a totalitarian state. They also haven't given much thought to the prospect that both Obama & McCain are lizards from another galaxy, disguised in human form to rule over us.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Perhaps you missed the point. Imo, the point is that we are at a point in history when the people are craving for true leadership and change + you have the media giving a candidate a free ride (rather than doing their job) = you open yourself up to horrendous possibilities. We don't know what Obama will do because no one is putting his feet to the fire. It's like being desperate for money, so you go "all in" when you haven't even looked at your cards. Obama promises change. What change? He promises "to spread the wealth around". He is fickle with his relationships to the point where I feel he'll say anything, anytime, anywhere if it is politically expedient + way too many people are infatuated with him (including the press). If he wins in a landslide, then he will claim a mandate for change (without definition) has arrived, the people have spoken. Congress goes strong Democrat, so there are fewer checks and balances. The possibilities are potentially horrific. Let's just hope he's what the Obamaniacs believe him to be or at least benign because America is about ready to give this guy a blank check.

I hope the McCainaniacs dont think that a president has a blank check. I am pretty sure there is a checks and balances process somewhere to keep from having a blank check. Lastly, I am pretty sure the McCainaniacs do realize that Obama is not going to steal from the rich to give to the poor. I am not worried about that, because that is not what Obama is going to do, and there is no way to get that passed with the checks and balances of the government on this issue. Lets just hope we dont get McCain in there with the same failed policies of Bush. I am most afraid of that..

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

One night while visiting for dinner, I asked my friends little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said, "I want to be President." Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there all proud.

So I asked her, "If you were President, what would you do first?"

She replied, "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people!"

"WOW ... what a worthy goal," I said, "you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my driveway ... and I will pay you $50." "Then, I will take you to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food, and a new house."

She thought that over a few seconds while her Mom gave me an evil glare, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, "Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party .... "

I haven't been asked back since.

Are you going to credit David Zincavage for this anecdote or are you going to pretend like you made it up?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

joe is famous! don't know about "trying to tear [joe the plumber] apart", it seems he's getting his 15 minutes and he's going to profit from it.

good for us, cause Obama will take that profit and spread it around. How do we know? Cause Obama said so!

let's read the whole passage first:

good grief! that's even worse!

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told me. “If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?

That's the quote you want to excuse??? If there were no ABC, CNN, etc., then Obama would be 10 - 15 points behind right now. And for the very reasons he's using as an excuse. And the portrayal? It probably has something to do with talking about how midwesterners cling to their guns and religion, talking about spreading someone else's wealth around, and invoking Warren Buffet in response to a Joe the Plumber reference.

one mention of how this affects the other side would destroy the effete, whiney, politically correct, arrogance that Obama portrays. Why doesn't he do such a thing? Maybe he just can't bring himself to do it.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Are you going to credit David Zincavage for this anecdote or are you going to pretend like you made it up?

I called him out on it as soon as he posted it..He thought we would not know about that one..

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Perhaps you missed the point. Imo, the point is that we are at a point in history when the people are craving for true leadership and change + you have the media giving a candidate a free ride (rather than doing their job) = you open yourself up to horrendous possibilities. We don't know what Obama will do because no one is putting his feet to the fire. It's like being desperate for money, so you go "all in" when you haven't even looked at your cards. Obama promises change. What change? He promises "to spread the wealth around". He is fickle with his relationships to the point where I feel he'll say anything, anytime, anywhere if it is politically expedient + way too many people are infatuated with him (including the press). If he wins in a landslide, then he will claim a mandate for change (without definition) has arrived, the people have spoken. Congress goes strong Democrat, so there are fewer checks and balances. The possibilities are potentially horrific. Let's just hope he's what the Obamaniacs believe him to be or at least benign because America is about ready to give this guy a blank check.

oh yeah, I got the point. it's just the point was ludicrous.

a) there has not been a "free ride". far from it imo. that talk is just opponents not recognizing what he has accomplished.

b) if you want to know "what obama will do" just look at the positions that he has expressed over the last 20 months. pretty straighforward.

c) the opponents in the primary battle and the republican opponent for the presidency have all done a great job of putting his "feet to the fire". he has been challenged and he has responded.

d) he will not win in a landslide, and there will be no mandate which allows for unrestrained liberties by the presidency. he will still have to deal with the congress, and the congress has its own self interest.

e) you characterazation of obama saying "anything, anytime, anywhere if it is politically expedient" is just whining and not supported by the facts. could you point out exactly where this happened and what he said that was a clear example of pandering?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

I hope the McCainaniacs dont think that a president has a blank check. I am pretty sure there is a checks and balances process somewhere to keep from having a blank check. Lastly, I am pretty sure the McCainaniacs do realize that Obama is not going to steal from the rich to give to the poor. I am not worried about that, because that is not what Obama is going to do, and there is no way to get that passed with the checks and balances of the government on this issue. Lets just hope we dont get McCain in there with the same failed policies of Bush. I am most afraid of that..

I am not a McCainiac, in fact I don't really like McCain at all. But what checks and balances are there if the Senate goes 60+ Dem, the house stays Dem, and Obama wins 350-400 electoral votes? Not that far fetched in my opinion.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

I hope the McCainaniacs dont think that a president has a blank check. I am pretty sure there is a checks and balances process somewhere to keep from having a blank check. Lastly, I am pretty sure the McCainaniacs do realize that Obama is not going to steal from the rich to give to the poor. I am not worried about that, because that is not what Obama is going to do, and there is no way to get that passed with the checks and balances of the government on this issue. Lets just hope we dont get McCain in there with the same failed policies of Bush. I am most afraid of that..

So there's a checks and balances system... unless it's BUSH!!!!!! That SOB RUINED THIS NATION AND THE CONSTITUTION SINGLE-HANDEDLY!

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Are you going to credit David Zincavage for this anecdote or are you going to pretend like you made it up?

My, my how bitchy. I don't know who the heck it was. but I edited it just for you.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I am not a McCainiac, in fact I don't really like McCain at all. But what checks and balances are there if the Senate goes 60+ Dem, the house stays Dem, and Obama wins 350-400 electoral votes? Not that far fetched in my opinion.

Closest thing to a blank check would be the war. And we all know how we got into this war Other than that, that is it. There is not enough republican or democrat votes to be able to get blank checks unless you LIE about something to start a war.

Point is there is no blank check that you are talking about. Another case, maybe lets talk to the person who has the highest earmarks per capita. Mrs. Palin is queen of the earmarks and especially the earmarks to nowhere.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

My, my how bitchy. I don't know who the heck it was. but I edited it just for you.

I like how you're trying to defend your plagiarism - classy!

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I am not a McCainiac, in fact I don't really like McCain at all. But what checks and balances are there if the Senate goes 60+ Dem, the house stays Dem, and Obama wins 350-400 electoral votes? Not that far fetched in my opinion.

The checks and balances are there to make sure government works deliberately & slow, if at all, and no monumental change takes place unless there is strong consensus. The Senate has filiubuster power, the President can Veto and the House, if there is sufficient unity, can override that veto. A supermajority is required for certain actions to be undertaken & an independent judiciary watches over the proceedings. These checks and balances are there to ensure change is slower, deliberate and doesn't happen without strong consensus. Not to ensure that no change happens at all, or to prevent anyone from doing anything ever. If the Dems end up controling the Whitehouse, increase their majority in the house and approach 60 seats in the Senate, an institution already gerrymandered in the GOP's favor, then the American people are effectively greenlighting their agenda. Maybe when the Republicans become a party that reasonably decent people can consider voting for again, the American public will grant them less power.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

The checks and balances are there to make sure government works deliberately & slow, if at all, and no monumental change takes place unless there is strong consensus. The Senate has filiubuster power, the President can Veto and the House, if there is sufficient unity, can override that veto. A supermajority is required for certain actions to be undertaken & an independent judiciary watches over the proceedings. These checks and balances are there to ensure change is slower, deliberate and doesn't happen without strong consensus. Not to ensure that no change happens at all, or to prevent anyone from doing anything ever. If the Dems end up controling the Whitehouse, increase their majority in the house and approach 60 seats in the Senate, an institution already gerrymandered in the GOP's favor, then the American people are effectively greenlighting their agenda. Maybe when the Republicans become a party that reasonably decent people can consider voting for again, the American public will grant them less power.

You've said nothing to reassure me. In fact you seem to be supporting the blank check idea.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I like how you're trying to defend your plagiarism - classy!

What a moron...I'm defending being in a hurry at work and not putting quotes around the thing and laughing at you the the misogynist for getting their panties up in a wad about it. Since you are so hepped up on it, I guess you are not pulling the lever for Biden because of the proven plagiarism?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

oh yeah, I got the point. it's just the point was ludicrous.

a) there has not been a "free ride". far from it imo. that talk is just opponents not recognizing what he has accomplished.

b) if you want to know "what obama will do" just look at the positions that he has expressed over the last 20 months. pretty straighforward.

c) the opponents in the primary battle and the republican opponent for the presidency have all done a great job of putting his "feet to the fire". he has been challenged and he has responded.

d) he will not win in a landslide, and there will be no mandate which allows for unrestrained liberties by the presidency. he will still have to deal with the congress, and the congress has its own self interest.

e) you characterazation of obama saying "anything, anytime, anywhere if it is politically expedient" is just whining and not supported by the facts. could you point out exactly where this happened and what he said that was a clear example of pandering?

To say it's ludicrous is ludicrous. You can make the point that it seems unlikely, but ludicrous... far from it. Imo, conditions are right for a true paradigm shift and there is a high probability that Obama and the Dems will be at the helm with the Republicans largely on the sidelines. Paradigm shifts are scary things if your chief executive is inexperienced and vague on the direction. It's true that some presidents have excelled when faced with the right circumstances to implement fundamental change in government. I sincerely hope that Obama falls in that category, but I'm highly skeptical.

I don't have time today to address your other points, but will get back to them later.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What a moron...I'm defending being in a hurry at work and not putting quotes around the thing and laughing at you the the misogynist for getting their panties up in a wad about it. Since you are so hepped up on it, I guess you are not pulling the lever for Biden because of the proven plagiarism?

No, I'm not pulling the lever for Biden, you douche - I'm not an Obama supporter either (but you suddenly seem to think I'm a misogynist for some reason too, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about anymore...)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

No, I'm not pulling the lever for Biden, you douche - I'm not an Obama supporter either (but you suddenly seem to think I'm a misogynist for some reason too, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about anymore...)

no silk's the misogynist...you were just being whiney about someone leaving quote marks off a quote in a hurry and accusing them of plagarism because of it.

[dude1394]

Hmm....maybe individual plumbers don't make 250K, but plumbing businesses sure do.

You go 'bama, you go 'bama, tax the man, tax the man.
Oopps...the man cut my job, the man cut my job.
Where's me check 'bama, where's my check 'bama?

http://www.patterico.com/2008/10/07/...ll-businesses/

At tonight’s Town Hall Presidential debate, I think Barack Obama said this about his tax policies [EDIT: according to the CNN transcript]:

“Only a few percent of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. So the vast majority of small businesses would get a tax cut under my plan.”

The US Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a “small business” according to its average annual receipts or the number of its employees. Here are examples from the SBA’s Table of Small Business Size Standards setting forth the maximum average annual receipts by industry that a business can have and still be classified as a small business:

Crop production of all types — $750,000
Animal production except for cattle & chicken/eggs — $750,000
Cattle feedlots — $2.5M
Chicken/egg production — $12.5M
Forestry & logging — $7M
Fishing — $4M
Irrigation, sewage, water supplies — $7M
Housing construction — $33.5M
Heavy and civil engineering construction — $33.5M
Dredging and cleanup — $20M
Concrete, framing, and other housing contractors — $14M
Car dealers — $23-29M
RV, motorcycle, & boat dealers — $7M
Furniture, hardware, clothing & sporting good stores — $7M
Electronic stores — $9M
Supermarkets, gas stations & department stores — $27M
Pharmacies — $7M

There are many more examples at the link. In addition, most of the industries in the Table — such as manufacturers of food, beverages, apparel, print, oil/gas, plastics, plumbing, machinery, computers, electronics, electrical, transportation, and furniture — are considered small businesses based on their total number of employees instead of average annual receipts. In those industries, the cut-off between small and large businesses ranges from 500-1,000 employees per business/industry.

It’s difficult for me to imagine a business that has 50 or more employees (let alone 500-1,000) that has receipts of less than $250,000 per year. And, given the SBA definitions of “small business,” it seems likely that many small businesses in a wide range of industries have receipts of more than $250,000 per year.

If so, it is appalling that Obama would imply that, if he is President, a small percentage of businesses exceed the $250,000 per year cut-off for increased taxation under his tax plan. In fact, the number of businesses subject to additional tax may be large and could well be the 50% number I think John McCain mentioned.

Small businesses are vital to the American economy and Americans’ livelihoods, and it sounds like Obama wants to tax as many as he possibly can.

[fluid.forty.one]

dude this election has turned you into a blabbering, name calling 5 year old

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

dude this election has turned you into a blabbering, name calling 5 year old

I"m having to match the qualifications of the candidate for the democrats.

You didn't think that was funny?

[chumdawg]

It's pretty sad when someone doesn't know the difference between receipts (revenue) and income. How very, very disappointing.

[dude1394]

You do have a point however. We are about to elect a candidate who tried his damdest to surrender to AlQueda and believes in socialism. The Democrats picked the most liberal politician(s) in the senate and we are about to elect him.

It makes me cuckoo and quite sad.

You can call it HDS.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

You've said nothing to reassure me. In fact you seem to be supporting the blank check idea.

I wasn't trying to reassure you that the big bad democrats won't do stuff you don't like. Just giving you a primer on what those "checks & balances" are for, and what they actually do.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Hmm....maybe individual plumbers don't make 250K, but plumbing businesses sure do.

You go 'bama, you go 'bama, tax the man, tax the man.
Oopps...the man cut my job, the man cut my job.
Where's me check 'bama, where's my check 'bama?

http://www.patterico.com/2008/10/07/...ll-businesses/

This was a pretty hackish piece high on speculation and short on facts. 2 minutes on the Internet could have turned up a much more informed, fact based piece on this subject.

There are 27.2 million small businesses in the United States, according to the Small Business Administration. Of those, only 6 million firms, or about 22 percent, had employees. The rest were sole propitiator companies, according to the government.

The vast majority of these companies earn less than $250,000 a year.

Most small businesses file individual tax returns. (The others file as corporations.) The Internal Revenue Service does not have detailed income information about which taxpayers are small-businessowners and which ones are employees. But the overall numbers show just how few Americans earn more than the Obama tax-hike threshold.

In tax year 2006, 138.4 million tax returns were filed by Americans. Only 2.9 percent -- a little more than 4 million tax filers -- reported earning more than $200,000. (The IRS does not have data for the $250,000 mark.)

Small-businessowners do tend to earn more than the general population but a majority of them still do not earn above $200,000 or $250,000.

The National Federation of Independent Business found that 14 percent of those surveyed earn $200,000 or more. Those who did tended to own larger businesses. For instance, of those with 20 to 249 employees, 32 percent earned $250,000.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Vote2...6051995&page=1

So yes. For a conclusion based on actual facts, the number of small businesses that will be 'hit' by the obama tax plan is small because the number of small businesses in general earning more than 250'00. is small. And certainly not the 50% figure that was wishful thinking on the part of the hack that wrote the article you cited.

Facts: 1
Dude: 0

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

dude this election has turned you into a blabbering, name calling 5 year old

This is pretty much the way Dude acts all the time.