Third Debate Blow by Blow - Page 4

Road maintenance is not wealth.

If you want to call it something else then feel free, but it is explicitly not wealth redistribution.

So if the government forced you to take your neighbour to dinner (and pay for it) each day for the rest of your life, would that be wealth redistribution? He didn't get any money from you.

Your argument reminds me of Gene Clean.

With refundable tax rebates?

Y'know, "Joe" could have called it a day after he was taped querying Obama instead of giving interviews all over the place. He's seeking his 15 minutes of fame. With any luck and a good PR person, he could extend his fame to 25 minutes.

Of course it is. What do you call it when someone gets more money back than they paid in taxes?

It seems to me that this is a crazy Orwellian definition of things, not what hardeehar said.

Which we also have now. So Bush and the Republican Congress were what, a secret socialist terror cell, for all those years they had complete control of tax policy?

Jesus Christ, it's not like Obama is proposing some kind of radical overhaul of the tax code.

Funny, isn't it? They say in one breath that "income redistribution" is exactly what's happening. Which implies a negative connotation (it's a Luntz approved term, like Death Tax). And then in the second breath claim they're not "against taxes being spent on services for everyone".

We can't have one without the other. Relying on "volunteer generosity" hasn't worked out so well in the past. So what do they propose?

Nothing.

Just a bunch of bitching.

Gates and Warren are forking over billions. Bad or good idea?

We all agreed that if we want the pleasure of doing business in this country then we will pay our fair share of the proceeds for such a golden opportunity. Seems pretty fair and straight forward to me.

I fucking hate clean water coming out of the tap. Bastards.

I know. I hate that when I walk out of my apartment there's like pavement and shit. I hate that when I pull out of my garage there aren't sick, downtrodden or dead people in the gutters. I hate that I'm not assaulted by the criminally insane because there's too many hospices, shelters and asylums.

Actually. You know what?

I love clean streets.
I love green grass at the library.
I love feeling relatively safe knowing we've got cops patrolling the streets.
I love that we don't live in our own filth like we did at the turn of the 20th century.
I love that when I flush the toilet it goes somewhere I don't have to think about.
I love using freeways and highways to get to work.
I love that there's a court house that will hear my case against a lazy contractor.
I love that the air is somewhat breathable.
I love that some dude comes to my place once a week and takes out the garbage.
I love that when I flip a switch that those wires actually bring me electricity.
AND
I especially love that my daughter got a great public education and is now attending her first year at a community college.

I would HATE to find out what our communities would look like if we all decided that paying for this stuff was "unfair" and "socialist".

I think the plan is for all of those things to be available in gated towns where you pay directly for services. The fact that American life outside of those gated towns will be one vast teeming slum is just incentive to work harder.

I do think it's interesting, however, that the prospect of a black president means we have to revisit each aspect of our existing social contract and behave as if it were some kind of freshly conceived Marxist assault on normal people.

White guys presiding over business as usual: A-OK.

Black guy presiding over business as usual: OMFG TOTALITARIAN DEATH CAMP!!!!!!

Too bad not every student can enjoy great public education like Northgate's kids(s).

Oh, how I long for breathable air, but alas, it is not to be found in northern Utah.

Yeah, but I think it's different to go seek it versus what happened here. He, through no intention of his own, got on youtube and then got mentioned by McCain. Sure, a bunch of news orgs wanted to interview him and he said yes. But as far as I know he didn't seek it.

Halliburton.

They are a something and not a someone. If they didn't pay taxes then we need to change the tax laws.

First, taxes mostly (super mostly?) do not go to providing services to people.

Second, even if they did go to providing services to people, wealth cannot legitimately be called what services people make use of. If you cannot borrow against those services, you can't call them wealth.

How about, doing a Halliburton instead? Better? I doubt you really care about taxes anyway. Highly doubt Obama's plan will affect you just like it won't affect that Joe wanna-be-plumber moran either.

Shouldn't you be talking about the new talking points anyway? You know. Voter "fraud"?

Except for people in extreme poverty, I don't think that anyone who files tax returns are ever going to recover more money than they paid out in taxes (all taxes total) from refundable tax credits.

And you know what, I couldn't care less about the fact that people in poverty are getting relief from rising costs.

If you have the nerve to walk up to the likely future president and call him out on his policy proposals (with dozens of cameramen and reporters watching, mind you) you would have to have rocks in your head if you expected anything less. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he's milking the attention.

I want someone to explain to me, a person who has never lived beyond my means (and even though I could have purchased a house and gotten myself into a financially tenuous situation I didn't)....I just want someone to explain to me why my taxes or the taxes of the super-rich should go to lift someone else out of poverty? Did I make that person poor by my cautiousness? Did I deny them opportunity when I worked my ass off for decades to get what I have? I guess I'm just a little confused about what's meant by "fairness".

It looks and feels like socialism delivered with a pretty red bow on top.

1) Is it in your best interests, or the best interests of the country, for there to be people who live in poverty?

2) Do you know who made the clothes you're wearing right now?

Holy shit, we really do we really have to revisit every single settled bit of normative social policy as if we've been living in some kind of libertarian paradise and Europe sent Obama as their socialist puppet?

What's this? I hear that Obama fellow will have nothing to do with poor houses! And I am here in possession of an email that alludes to his ongoing plan to institute child labor laws! How is a hardworking blacksmith to amass any wealth, with such wanton disregard for the sanctity of personal fortitude?

Guys? The nineteenth century called, they want their chilling indifference to human suffering back.

Indeed. Fucking gummit telling me how long I can make children work in my blacking factory.

See midwinter's response...

Basically, it does you, society in general, or the government no good to have people living below the poverty line.

To suggest that somehow people who live below the poverty line aren't working hard is an appalling lie that should have died decades ago.

Actually, it should have died eons ago.

Scott:

Who is getting money back they didn't pay in taxes?


e#s:


No, that isn't wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution is the redistribution of wealth.

Yes, I do. They all live in China, Guatemala and India. And they have provided me something in return for my money. Let that sink in. They have provided me something in return for my money.

That is a significant difference between that and income redistribution, handouts and taxation without representation.

This has less to do with imagined inequalities and more to do with an utter lack of economic understanding.

Poverty is not something that can be erased with the wave of a wand, or through income redistribution. If the real answer was for you to live in squalor so the world's poor could be lifted up, would you choose that route? Because socialism doesn't work. It's been proven time and again.

Ok, then. Here's a very serious question. Do you care if your clothes (or diamonds or cocaine or widgets or whatever) are made by slaves? Or, say, by people who make $1 a month?

Here's a serious answer. I've had the task of visiting Chinese factories that make clothes, stuffed toys, baby carriages, paper products, dog collars, leather products, etc. These products were not made by slaves, but I could tell that in the course of trying to find low-cost manufacturers, there were definitely factories employing young kids for labor. This was near the very large city of Shenzhen (there are also some very run down areas in Guangzhou... the further inland you go, usually the poorer the surroundings). Now, these kids actually had it pretty good. They were able to earn some money for themselves and their families in a relatively safe environment instead of stealing manhole covers for their metal content, or begging in the streets or sifting through piles of garbage for food and valuables. It's all relative. Until you go to the places you only hear about or get second (or third) hand information, you literally have no clue because you have no frame of reference, and I would also put myself in that category before I saw this for myself.

If you get the chance to spend several weeks in a poverty-stricken area, somewhere really outside your comfort zone, you'll start to gain a whole new appreciation for how good people have it here in the America. Even the homeless have it better here.

It also helped me to gain a real respect for people who came from parts of China to America to work hard and improve their lives. I get choked up when I see someone become successful due to their hard work and personal sacrifice.

That's not what I asked you. Do you care if your clothes are made by slaves?


I'm from rural Mississippi. You don't need to talk to me about poverty-stricken areas.

If you re-read my entire post instead of cherry-picking, things might make more sense.

Also, your loaded question is theoretical. How's this... Do you care how many people you've harmed or what environmental damage you do by eating hamburgers, which contributes to global warming by increasing the demand for livestock? It's a pretentious stance that ignores the complexity of the real world.

How come, anymore, when we talk about taxes and poor people 'n shit, we start talking about third world peasantry? Is that the benchmark, now?

"Why should my taxes go to help these so-called 'poor people', when they live well above the level of the world's naked children scrabbling through dung heaps?"

Seems like we used to shoot a little higher, here in these United States.

I basically agree with you. But, yes, if you want to talk about peasantry, the third world is still the place to find it.