There were lots of remarkable moments in last night’s debate, but one of the most interesting to me was McCain’s sudden lurch at Obama about the latter’s encounter with Joe The Plumber (and Natural Law Party member, and Opposer Of Social Security). With his shoulders haunched, his face red, and his eyes bulging, McCain began spitting and whistling over what he said was Obama’s remark to Joe — namely, we need to spread the wealth around.
It was interesting to me because just moments before, McCain had blurted out his plan (if a 24-hour improvisation can be called a plan) to pay mortgages for people who can’t or won’t pay them. Now, set aside the fact that he also had promised to freeze spending, but isn’t it spreading the wealth around when you take money from the people who paid their mortgages and give it to people who didn’t?
If the governemnt take only one dollar from one person and gives it to someone else, it is spreading the wealth around. Unequal tax burdens is spreading the wealth around. Unequal benefits is spreading the wealth around.
Sort of like giving tax credits to people who don’t pay any effective taxes, right? Yeah…I’d have to say that McCain, for all he’s demonized as the consummate capitalist, is actually more like Obama than, say, like me. From where I sit the Dems and Republicans look pretty much the same, except on very narrow bread and circus type issues. They say different things (though as you pointed out McCain doesn’t even do this) but they do pretty much the same things when they get into power.
He’s yammering on in Pennsylvania right now. He is complaining about the “spread the wealth” statement. But that’s exactly what taxes are. This tax increase or any tax on anything. He’s a blithering idiot. And so are his followers.
You might want to consult a dictionary on that one. We’ve been “spreading the wealth around” since the income tax started in 1913. It’s called progressive tax rates. Even at the height of the red panic, people weren’t stupid enough to call taxing the rich at a higher level than the poor communism. It’s just common sense.
Yes, yes it is. But as McCain also said, when you take someone, like me, who pays his mortgage and has his next door neighbor abandon his house (like mine did) it affects us all.
His grass is knee high and I saw a six foot lizard crawl out of it onto my fence post. The cops are as useless as they always are: civil matter, call the Fish and Widlife Commission, I’m too fat to knock on doors.
And the bank who now owns the mortgage on the neighbor’s home doesn’t care about the grass. They now cut the 3 foot section that might infringe on the public area of the street so that they are out of the state jurisdiction.
So, I pay my mortgage on time, but my five year old daughter might get killed by a coral/rattlesnake because the local law enforcement are a bunch of dickhead worthless paycheck cashers who don’t take pride in their work to take it to a higher level.
Yes, so the Feds need a larger role. I have a good mortgage, paid on time, but my home value is down and my neighborhood is trashed because of the actions of others. Is it a good role for the Feds? No, but who else will do it?
McCain’s been offering up some serious helpings of half-baked socialism. That point you make, in particular: why haven’t the so-called “Liberal media” pointed it out more?
Slightly adjusting tax rates to be more progressive than the last 8 years, but far less progressive than most of history : full blown communism.
Nationalizing 300 billion dollars of private debt and extending 700 billion in loans to banks: free market capitalism with a little help from Uncle Sam.
What makes you think Congress will care about the grass? Or the coral snakes? Just because the Feds own the ticket rather than the bank doesn’t mean a Senator is going to dispatch an aide to come kill the snakes and mow the lawn. And God only knows who they might sell — or give — the house to. They might even sell it to — wait for it — the bank! Yes, you could very well end up paying the bank to continue ignoring the tall grass and weeds. Wouldn’t that be just grand.
If you don’t want to go along with your society’s ongoing social contract you can leave. Calling taxes paid to support your commonweal ‘theft’ is ideological red flag waving, not a serious position. Particularly not in a supposedly Christian nation.
And no - the people who wrote the Gospels having omitted a specific Jesus stamp on taxes (apart from ‘render unto caesar’) - does not mean adopting an ‘I’ve got mine’ mentality towards the less fortunate, or playing rich man and table scraps is in any sense ‘what would Jesus do’.
Where did I say I did not support the social contract? I specifically stated that I donate both time and money to various charities.
However, I don’t think the “social contract” is the same as “government”. Taxation drives down private charitable donations, and the amount of money wasted by government administration of charity is sickening.
I could give a shit what Christians or Buddihists or Muslims or anybody else feels their god(s) say about helping the poor and sick. However, your own moral conscience should give you a guide as to what is correct. Last I checked, the government has no moral guide, since it is an abstract entity.
I say turn it all over to private charity - I think the poor and sick would be much better off.
No, there won’t be federal lawn care specialists dispatched to my neighborhood, but the idea is that if the government buys the notes and reworks the terms so that they are making reasonable, fixed payments, then the homeowners won’t have to abandon the house