2008 Presidential Election : Third Debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Once again, the guy's totally false. What are his plans to take the $100K/year company and turn its profitability into a $250K/year? If he can do that, maybe he should be President. Now he's saying that he can't trust someone who decides that $250K is the threshhold because you can never tell if that person will someday decide if $100K is the threshhold. Sounds to me more like the guy has an issue with the general notion of taxes and tax brackets overall---not an issue with how Obama's plan would specifically affect him, seeing as how it won't.
Joe is not what is in question here--it's the fact that Obama slipped up and said what he actually plans on doing--redistributing income of those that have earned that money to those that haven't. Socialism, plain and simple.

Is it impossible to believe that some people disagree with the principle that the government should decide how much income is too much and redistribute that income lower income individuals? I make under $40K per year as a teacher, so I could be selfish and be all for taxing the "rich" being as I won't be making 250K any time soon. I do, however, value personal responsibility, small government, and individual initiative. I know it's hard to believe that here in this liberal wonderland called "free your mind," but some people do still believe that if you work hard and make good choices, you can (and should) be rewarded without the government taking your money and redistributing it.
 
leave-britney-alone-guy.jpg


Leave Joe the plumber alone!
 
Look, under Obama's plan $250,000's worth of taxes is $900, and for a buisness you can still get tax break on top of that.
There's been WAY too much made of this; besides, it makes sense to me that rich republicans who voted for Bush twice can pay for the war he started.
 
After 8 years of Bush being beyond reproach and people getting attacked for questioning him, we assumed it was accepted practice.

Didn't realize the rules changed now that it's your guys on the other end of the stick, sorry!


Sorry, but can you honestly say that Bush has been "beyond reproach" for the last 4-5 years? If so, then the kool-aid must be awfully strong. Bush has received scrutiny for just about everything he's done since the beginning of 2004.

"your guys on the other end of the stick?" You mean an average American asking a pertinent question to the most unscrutinized Presidential candidate in modern American history? If my guy is someone asking an honest question about the fairness of a progressive tax, then I guess that would be my guy...cuz I'm so rich.

Face it, Obama had a bit of a Freudian slip. He's done a great job coming across as moderate, but this has shown what he truely believes and that he in fact is far left. Why is the left so worried to tell the American People what they actually believe?
 
The problem is that no one works hard, makes choices, and earns money in a bubble. To think that your own success is not greatly due to the environment and people around you is purely ignorant.

No matter what you do for a living, your success at it is influenced by:

- The sacrifices of people before you
- The decisions of people before you
- The sacrifices and decisions of your peers
- Your parents' situation, whether rich, poor, or in between
- The public education system; whether you went or not, your customers/employees/coworkers/bosses/competitors did.
- Your race
- Your sex
- The socioeconomic condition of the people with whom you do business
- The health of your customers/employees/bosses/competitors/family
- The public infrastructure
- The economy of the country, state, city, town in which you live and do business
- The fact that you were born into the country of your birth, as opposed to one with better/worse conditions, policies, and liberties


That is not to say that personal achievement and success is not to be rewarded. In fact, it is. If you view your success solely in economic terms, you'll only look at taxes and think that you're being penalized for success. But if you view your success solely in economic terms, you're missing out on the majority of your success and I greatly pity you.

No one lives in a bubble. Everyone benefits from other people and from influences related to the government and society in which they live. If an individual thinks that his or her success is entirely based on his or her own merits, that individual is dead wrong. If you benefit greatly from other people's situations and from the situations the nation and society have provided for you----you fucking give back.
 
Face it, Obama had a bit of a Freudian slip.
No he didn't. He made a statement. :rolleyes:



He's done a great job coming across as moderate, but this has shown what he truely believes and that he in fact is far left.
:lmao:

People in the US wouldn't know a "far left" candidate from Adam.

And where is all this "kool aid" talk from the right coming from? Was there some kind of email?
 
Obama didn't "slip up." He made a statement.

Then can I take it you don't support the bailout?

He slipped up--he's been portraying himself as moderate...his comment proves he believes in redistribution of wealth--not a very moderate idea.

Yeah, I have real problems with bailout bill...I fear it will cause a slippery slope...but on the flip side we need to use the lessons of the Great Depression and do everything we can to prevent a serious recession/depression. But I will openy admit that I'm no economist...but I am very uncomfortable with the government bailing out businesses/people who make bad decisions, then taking a stake in the company.
 
No he didn't. He made a statement. :rolleyes:



:lmao:

People in the US wouldn't know a "far left" candidate from Adam.

And where is all this "kool aid" talk from the right coming from? Was there some kind of email?

He made a statement that shows that he is a believer in redistribution of wealth. Most people would consider that far left, but I need to remember where I post, so that may seem like a middle-of-the-road idea around here.

Kool aid? eh, I dunno..I've used it for years to describe wingnuts on both sides. I guess I've heard both sides use the term plenty--MSNBC to FOX.
 
He made a statement that shows that he is a believer in redistribution of wealth. Most people would consider that far left,

Most intelligent people would ask for more details/clarification before jumping to that conclusion

Most taxpayers would want to see bonuses/salaries slashed of CEOs/Execs of firms being "bailed out", isn't that a redistribution of wealth ? Isn't that Socialism ?
 
To think that your own success is not greatly due to the environment and people around you is purely ignorant.
QUOTE]

My success came from the fact that, instead of sitting around waiting for someone else to take care of me, I went to college. I paid for it, my car, my apartment...everything without the help of the government. When i saw my friends buy nice cars after high school, I bought a piece of crap. When i saw my friends going on spring break to the Carribean, I stayed home and worked....now those people I knew with bad priorities are the ones that now have crappy jobs and are sitting around waiting for the government to "give back" to them.

In this country, you have a CHOICE to become the best person you can be. It's called individual liberty. Personal Responsibility. Individual Initiative.


Maybe I should start grading my students using your philosophy...

I've begun to feel that an "A" is too high of a grade for any student to have. I need to "spread some of that knowledge around." I'm gonna start taking my "A" students, and giving a portion of their grade to the lower performing students...they need the help to get to the same level that those "A" students are at. I'm also going to take my "B" students and redistribute their grade to my students with an "F" or a "D." My goal is to have everyone on the same playing field at a "C."

Yeah, I know those "A" students have worked hard, but they better "fucking give back." because we want everyone to have that "C" average.
 
To think that your own success is not greatly due to the environment and people around you is purely ignorant.
QUOTE]

My success came from the fact that, instead of sitting around waiting for someone else to take care of me, I went to college. I paid for it, my car, my apartment...everything without the help of the government. When i saw my friends buy nice cars after high school, I bought a piece of crap. When i saw my friends going on spring break to the Carribean, I stayed home and worked....now those people I knew with bad priorities are the ones that now have crappy jobs and are sitting around waiting for the government to "give back" to them.

In this country, you have a CHOICE to become the best person you can be. It's called individual liberty. Personal Responsibility. Individual Initiative.


Maybe I should start grading my students using your philosophy...

I've begun to feel that an "A" is too high of a grade for any student to have. I need to "spread some of that knowledge around." I'm gonna start taking my "A" students, and giving a portion of their grade to the lower performing students...they need the help to get to the same level that those "A" students are at. I'm also going to take my "B" students and redistribute their grade to my students with an "F" or a "D." My goal is to have everyone on the same playing field at a "C."

Yeah, I know those "A" students have worked hard, but they better "fucking give back." because we want everyone to have that "C" average.



You missed the whole fucking point of my post.

But you're clearly so enveloped in your own individualistic bubble, I don't expect to make any headway.
 
Most intelligent people would ask for more details/clarification before jumping to that conclusion

Most taxpayers would want to see bonuses/salaries slashed of CEOs/Execs of firms being "bailed out", isn't that a redistribution of wealth ? Isn't that Socialism ?


I made a decision recently at work that I would no longer get into discussions with people who need to resort to name calling or personal insults to get their points across.

Why is it not possible for the majority of people on this site to make a statement without some sort of personal insult. For you, you preface your comment with most "intelligent" people. Utoo prefaced their arguement with the "ignorant" comment.

This is the sort of "Change" we need in this country. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a little more civility in our politics?
 
You missed the whole fucking point of my post.

But you're clearly so enveloped in your own individualistic bubble, I don't expect to make any headway.

No I got the point. I just disagree and I explained why. I don't expect to sway you from your believe that government and high taxation will solve all our problems.

The great thing about america is that we can agree to disagree.
 
Joe is not what is in question here--it's the fact that Obama slipped up and said what he actually plans on doing--redistributing income of those that have earned that money to those that haven't. Socialism, plain and simple.

Is it impossible to believe that some people disagree with the principle that the government should decide how much income is too much and redistribute that income lower income individuals? I make under $40K per year as a teacher, so I could be selfish and be all for taxing the "rich" being as I won't be making 250K any time soon. I do, however, value personal responsibility, small government, and individual initiative. I know it's hard to believe that here in this liberal wonderland called "free your mind," but some people do still believe that if you work hard and make good choices, you can (and should) be rewarded without the government taking your money and redistributing it.



repeating hard right talking points, dodging the questions asked, and pointing to tired boogeymans of "socialism" while insulting people in the forum probably isn't the best way to make any points.

but, on the subject of points, one about "socialism." there is "socialism" in the US to varying degrees. society cannot exist without a government to support it, as government organizes people and, yes, attempts to work for the greater good. i find it strange that, almost alone in the western world, Americans fear the government in an almost pathological manner.

there's a charming naivete in your post, too, as you don't seem to realize that bad things can happen to good, honest, hardworking people. people do lose their homes. they get fired. their health insurance premiums skyrocket. they get cancer. they are born with disabilities. spouses die. higher education can put you in enormous debt.

all this can and does happen, and it happens frequently. a little over a year ago, i was the victim of a totally freak accident, and i've probably spent over $10K in rehabilitation and hospital bills ... and i'm insured! i used to pay a little under $150 a month for that insurance, but it's now gone up to about $200 a month. that's about a $600 a year increase. and i'm lucky. i make really decent money, and i don't have any kids. what do people do when disaster strikes, and they can't afford it?

so much has been made, even by Obama, of Americans living "beyond their means." well America's "means" have decreased in comparison to the cost of living. food, gas, health car, education -- these costs have skyrocketed compared to personal income, and so we have to put things like food and gas on the credit card. are some people irresponsible? sure. did some fools think that nothing was going to happen to them with 0% down with an ARM? yes. but the reality is that most people do the best that they can with what they have, and still some people are locked into cycles of poverty or near-poverty with little hope of upward mobility. and it's not even so much upward mobility, but the fact that life has gotten drastically more expensive, but they're earning less. we have a rapidly disappearing middle class -- and who is more invested in social stability than the middle classes?

do the rich not owe a greater debt to society? the drive on the roads, use the schools, and, especially, rely upon the police to keep them safe. is not the measure of a society how well we treat our most vulnerable citizens? is there not some obligation on the part of the rich to help the poor in some way? and do the rich not benefit? when unemployment goes up, when people get more desperate, does crime not increase? do our cities not become less safe?

and there are things that only government can do. we can talk about how lovely it is to volunteer at a soup kitchen, but personal charity isn't going to educate millions of kids. personal charity isn't going to run a bus system that's efficient enough to get a poor person who can't afford a car to be able to get to her job in the suburbs on time. personal charity isn't going to address the need of working parents for child care.

there are things only government can do. Republicans have told us for years that the government only screws things up. yes, when bad people are in government. and by "bad" i mean incompetent. government can work. government can be better than we've been trained to think it can be. government is not the answer, but one part of a larger solution.
 
Then Bush is far left for nationalizing some banks, ain't he?

Nationalizing banks to avoid a collapse of our financial and economic system that could break the back of our country is different than the redistribution of wealth.

Again, I agree to disagree. I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine.
 
I made a decision recently at work that I would no longer get into discussions with people who need to resort to name calling or personal insults to get their points across.

Why is it not possible for the majority of people on this site to make a statement without some sort of personal insult. For you, you preface your comment with most "intelligent" people. Utoo prefaced their arguement with the "ignorant" comment.

This is the sort of "Change" we need in this country. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a little more civility in our politics?

I think the same can be said for people who lazily throw the word socialist or socialism around...
 
I made a decision recently at work that I would no longer get into discussions with people who need to resort to name calling or personal insults to get their points across.

Why is it not possible for the majority of people on this site to make a statement without some sort of personal insult. For you, you preface your comment with most "intelligent" people. Utoo prefaced their arguement with the "ignorant" comment.

This is the sort of "Change" we need in this country. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a little more civility in our politics?

I made the assumption that "most people" may actually think more deeply about it than jump to an irrational conclusion, i.e, they used intelligence; you jumped to the conclusion that most people are dumbasses who can't think for themselves. Don't preach about civility !

You said "most people":, how the fuck do you know "most people" would jump to that conclusion ?? You were being patronising and condescending, somehow you are able to speak for the majority of people in this country ? How did you get that job ?
 
Nationalizing banks to avoid a collapse of our financial and economic system that could break the back of our country is different than the redistribution of wealth.

I see. So when rich guys benefit from socialism, it's ok with you. But when a rich guy might have to pay more taxes, it's a bad thing.

This, coming from someone making jack for a salary. Talk about "drinking the kool aid."
 
Nationalizing banks to avoid a collapse of our financial and economic system that could break the back of our country is different than the redistribution of wealth.

Again, I agree to disagree. I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine.

I have a real problem with deregulation on the way up, and implementation of socialist-type policies on the way down.

Extol the benefits of "far right" policies when things are going your way, implement the policies of the "far left" when they don't appears to be the order of the day.
 
repeating hard right talking points, dodging the questions asked, and pointing to tired boogeymans of "socialism" while insulting people in the forum probably isn't the best way to make any points.

but, on the subject of points, one about "socialism." there is "socialism" in the US to varying degrees. society cannot exist without a government to support it, as government organizes people and, yes, attempts to work for the greater good. i find it strange that, almost alone in the western world, Americans fear the government in an almost pathological manner.

there's a charming naivete in your post, too, as you don't seem to realize that bad things can happen to good, honest, hardworking people. people do lose their homes. they get fired. their health insurance premiums skyrocket. they get cancer. they are born with disabilities. spouses die. higher education can put you in enormous debt.

all this can and does happen, and it happens frequently. a little over a year ago, i was the victim of a totally freak accident, and i've probably spent over $10K in rehabilitation and hospital bills ... and i'm insured! i used to pay a little under $150 a month for that insurance, but it's now gone up to about $200 a month. that's about a $600 a year increase. and i'm lucky. i make really decent money, and i don't have any kids. what do people do when disaster strikes, and they can't afford it?

so much has been made, even by Obama, of Americans living "beyond their means." well America's "means" have decreased in comparison to the cost of living. food, gas, health car, education -- these costs have skyrocketed compared to personal income, and so we have to put things like food and gas on the credit card. are some people irresponsible? sure. did some fools think that nothing was going to happen to them with 0% down with an ARM? yes. but the reality is that most people do the best that they can with what they have, and still some people are locked into cycles of poverty or near-poverty with little hope of upward mobility. and it's not even so much upward mobility, but the fact that life has gotten drastically more expensive, but they're earning less. we have a rapidly disappearing middle class -- and who is more invested in social stability than the middle classes?

do the rich not owe a greater debt to society? the drive on the roads, use the schools, and, especially, rely upon the police to keep them safe. is not the measure of a society how well we treat our most vulnerable citizens? is there not some obligation on the part of the rich to help the poor in some way? and do the rich not benefit? when unemployment goes up, when people get more desperate, does crime not increase? do our cities not become less safe?

and there are things that only government can do. we can talk about how lovely it is to volunteer at a soup kitchen, but personal charity isn't going to educate millions of kids. personal charity isn't going to run a bus system that's efficient enough to get a poor person who can't afford a car to be able to get to her job in the suburbs on time. personal charity isn't going to address the need of working parents for child care.

there are things only government can do. Republicans have told us for years that the government only screws things up. yes, when bad people are in government. and by "bad" i mean incompetent. government can work. government can be better than we've been trained to think it can be. government is not the answer, but one part of a larger solution.


Hard right? LOL. If you only knew. On this site, yes anything right of far left seems far right doesn't it?

Speaking of which, I when is the last time that people on here took the political compass test? I took it recently...I was almost perfectly in the middle...slightly libertarian and slightly to the right...but like I said, almost directly in the middle.

I don't live in a bubble, you know nothing of my life, my hardships, or my experiences, so don't pretend to. I haven't thrown out insults this morning while making my point...it's the lefties who have done that While I wish I had the time to fully describe myself on here, but I do have a busy life and a full time job...my "naivete" as you call it is the fact that while I have the ability to back up my arguements, I dont' have the time. I quite simply cant figure how some people have the time to post as much as they do in here.
 
Why is it not possible for the majority of people on this site to make a statement without some sort of personal insult.

Wow, have you really read posts from more than half of all the people on this site? That's impressive -- I salute you, dude!
 
Back
Top Bottom