Practical Application of Redistribution of Wealth

reply to post by Skyfloating


I understand Sky, I do.

At the same time though, I am only taking one side of this issue as you said, I'm just not completely closed to listening to other ideas.

Didn't mean to sound defensive or anything there.

reply to post by nyk537


Regardless of who did this "story" it is still meanspirited and hateful and nothing to be proud of or gloat over.

Assuming it is true the bottom line is that the person in question was ticked off at someone for expressing a political opinion different than their's so they screwed with the server in question because of it and then bragged about it on the internet claiming that they were trying to make a political point.

In reality the only point they actually made was to highlight what a small, petty and meanspirited person they were.

reply to post by nyk537


You simply cut and paste this from one of those emails that circulate around bashing Obama...No Opinion, Nothing Just a cut and paste...this is not a thread...THIS IS SPAM.

If you want to examine what McCain Palin means by Redistribution of wealth...they mean TAX CREDIT as in the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT CHAMPIONED BY RONALD REAGAN...Was he a socialist?

Geez, don't Americans THINK anymore?

Originally posted by grover
what a small, petty and meanspirited person they were.

Funny, when I hear Obama talk about redistribution of wealth, those are the same things I think about him.

reply to post by nyk537


CNN played the entire conservation Obama had with Joe and it is a totally different affair than the cut and splice sound bite the McCain campaign....spreading.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

elections.foxnews.com...

As opposed to concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few as the bush minor tax cuts have done.


[edit on 29-10-2008 by grover]

reply to post by grover


Yeah, yeah, I've heard that argument before. For some reason every defense of Obama has to come back to "context".

The fact remains he revealed that he believes "spreading the wealth" is a good idea. The fact remains that his tax plan is going to be very detrimental to the economy (as already shown by the fear in the markets). The fact remains that they keep changing their story on who is going to get tax increases. ($250,000 to $200,000 to $150,000).

Obama and Biden are coming across as untrustworthy right now. Their ideas on the economy and redistribution of wealth are way off base.

**By the way, the quote you posted is exactly how I've heard the McCain campaign and everyone else play it. I haven't heard it any other "spliced" way.**

[edit on 29-10-2008 by nyk537]

If you chose to remain ignorant that's fine with me.

Does McCain Think RONALD REAGAN Was a SOCIALIST?

Govenor Palin recently in New Mexico:
"He claims that he'll cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. But the problem is, more than 40 percent of Americans pay no income taxes at all. So, how can you cut income taxes for folks who don't pay them?

It turns out, the question is the key to Barack Obama's plan since you can't reduce taxes on those who pay zero, he wants the government to send them a check that's called a tax credit. (boos)"

Ronald Reagan in 1985 speaking about the Earned Income Tax Credit
"Our plan will also mean an historic correction of a problem we've let go on too long -- the increasing tax burden on low- and fixed-income Americans that's been knocking the bottom rungs off the ladder of opportunity. A compassionate, profamily opportunity society should give a break as well to those Americans struggling to get by and move up. And that's exactly what we intend to do.

By hiking the earned income tax credit, indexing it for inflation, and practically doubling the personal exemption, we can make sure that the working families do not suffer under the burden of Federal taxation. Giving a leg up to those struggling to move up is what America is all about. And that's a top priority of our tax proposal"

When the Earned Income Tax Credit was expanded in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan, who signed the bill into law, called the EITC “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.”

The EITC provides a tax credit to very low-income working families. The credit can exceed federal income tax liability, meaning that some very low-income families actually receive a check from the IRS.

www.ctj.org...

McCain-Palin: 'Ronald Reagan a Socialist'
It appears that the McCain-Palin team is continuing its disingenuous attacks on Barack Obama's refundable tax credits as 'welfare' and tantamount to 'socialism'.

Sure the McCain health care proposal relies on refundable tax credits...but we all knew that already.

Instead of being akin to socialism, the idea of giving tax credits to those who haven't paid income taxes is pretty orthodox, even among Republicans.

It was hailed by no less a conservative than President Ronald Reagan, McCain's hero, who supported one of the best-known of such credits, the Earned Income Tax Credit or EITC.
www.dailykos.com...

reply to post by grover


What a wonderful response! Glad to see we can have a real discussion on the issues here.

Instead of defending your opinions, just call me names and hope that proves your point.

reply to post by nyk537


Funny. Seems to me that all You did was merely copy and paste an email/message that's been circulating the internet over the past few days.

Google is your friend

word for word, no less.

reply to post by Annie Mossity


Funny. You must not have read the thread because it's been discussed ad nausea.

Originally posted by nyk537

Funny. You must not have read the thread because it's been discussed ad nausea.

Not funny. As was previously mentioned by Wildbob77...

Originally posted by Wildbob77
This link seems to be the same article written by Lee Walton

Article by Lee Walton

Is that you or did you plagiarize his work and try to take credit for it?

I strongly believe that writers should get credit for what they write!

Why not just say so in the first place, your opening post. Probably wouldn't have garnered near the response, eh?

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Annie Mossity

 

Funny. You must not have read the thread because it's been discussed ad nausea.

Yes, you plagiaristic dishonesty did cause much nausea in this forum, congrats.

reply to post by nyk537


I was simply expressing my opinion because it is pretty obvious that I could spend an hour here typing out my arguments as to why you are wrong and it wouldn't matter one iota.

Your mind is made up and nothing I will say will change it.

I will say this though... if you really think that Obama would have gotten this far already without the powers that be making sure that he was no real threat to them you are deluding yourself.

He would have never even made it out of the primaries if that was the case... just look at what happened to Howard Dean and his little "scream"... the reaction to it was far in excess to the actual event and it destroyed his chances.

Do you really think everybody was really so outraged at his little shout? No it was deliberately orchestrated to kill his chances because the powers that be... decided that they stood to profit more from 4 more years of bush minor.

The same decision has been made in regards to McCain vs Obama... they have come to the conclusion that they stand to make more money, tax increases or not with Obama than they do McCain.

Obama is no socialist... in fact he's not even a liberal, he is a moderate in the mold of Bill Clinton.

double post


[edit on 29-10-2008 by nyk537]

reply to post by nyk537


You still haven't answered me.

Here is my previous post.

This link seems to be the same article written by Lee Walton

Article by Lee Walton

Is that you or did you plagiarize his work and try to take credit for it?

I strongly believe that writers should get credit for what they write!

SO, did you plagiarize Lee Walton's article?

reply to post by Wildbob77


No, that's the first time I've seen it. My article doesn't even match up word for word with that, his is much longer. This story is floating around in 100 different variations right now, none of which can be pinned down to an original source.

If you want me to give credit to him for this, fine, he can have it.

Getting credit was never my intent.

Now, if you want to discuss the continuing issues at hand, I'd be happy to do that.

1). Hysterical OP. I'd never have the guts. It's not a perfect analogy but it works.

2). For all the complainers: Have a mod slap it into ex tags, add a link, and let's move on.

reply to post by AshleyD


I've been urging them to do that for most of the thread. Unfortunately for a lot of people posting here, if that happened, they would actually have to talk about the issue.

reply to post by nyk537

I think that when you use material that is already on the internet, that you shouldn't post it as your work and that you should give credit to the writer.

It's nice that you offer to give credit but you should have done that upfront, not after you've been busted.

As to the article, I think that it is wickedly funny. It points out the differences in the campaigns in a humorous way. My hats off to the author.

If you'd care to write something original about redistribution of wealth, I'm sure that many people would be interested in reading it.




[edit on 29-10-2008 by Wildbob77]