VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:15:30 11/12/08 Wed
Author: Deep Diction
Subject: Re: redistribution of wealth
In reply to: Deep Diction 's message, "Re: redistribution of wealth" on 08:06:32 11/12/08 Wed

>>>>>>>>I just have no idea why McCain was trying to
>>claim
>>>>>he
>>>>>>>>was the one trying to help out the working class
>>>>>(Joe
>>>>>>>>the Plumber and Tito the Builder, etc.), while
>>>>>>>>simultaneously promoting a tax plan that was
>much
>>>>>>more
>>>>>>>>generous to the wealthiest citizens than to the
>>>>>>middle
>>>>>>>>class. It seemed like a very hypocritical
>>position
>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>me, especially when the position McCain
>>criticized
>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>2008 was his own position from 2001.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because he's a maverick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And I'm the one who's close-minded.
>>>>>
>>>>>What's closed-minded about this conversation? I
>>>>>thought it was a discussion about redistribution of
>>>>>wealth, and whether Obama's or McCain's policies
>>fall
>>>>>under that category.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm still looking for an explanation as to why
>>>>>McCain's 2001 position suddenly became
>>>>>redistributionist when Obama adopted it.
>>>>
>>>>McCain isn't the issue. He was a dinosaur 10 years
>>ago
>>>>and he's a fossil now. Obama's many associations
>with
>>>>radicals, terrorists and terrorist apologists
>coupled
>>>>with his mentors such as Alinsky, Farrakhan, Wright
>>>>and a myriad of others, combined with his marked
>>>>inexperience and short-sightedness when it comes to
>>>>foreign affairs makes him dangerous.
>>>
>>>That statement, false as it is, has nothing
>whatsoever
>>>to do with the issue we're discussing. This is a
>>>discussion about taxes, and I'd like to hear somebody
>>>explain why it's okay for McCain to propose ideas in
>>>2001 that he calls redistributionist and socialist
>>>when the other guy proposes them in 2008. In 2001
>were
>>>you speaking out against McCain's radical tax
>>policies?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>McCain wasn't the Presidential nominee in 2001. He
>>was one Senator among 100. Maybe he saw the error of
>>his ways between then and now.
>>
>>If Obama can get his tax cut through a Democrat
>>Congress, then I'll be flabbergasted.
>>
>>I'd still prefer the Steve Forbes flat tax approach.
>
>If he saw the error of his ways between then and now,
>then why doesn't he refer to himself as a former
>redistributionist? Instead, he flaunted his
>experience, which apparently was spent being a leftist
>commie in terms of economic policy. If you're calling
>Obama a redistributionist in 2008, you'd better have
>been calling McCain one in 2001.
>
>The Bush tax cuts were a way to give huge breaks to
>the wealthy, while placating the working class with a
>small check to distract them from the realization that
>it simply represented a shift in the tax burden from
>the rich toward the poor. McCain saw that in 2001, and
>chose to abandon his principles in 2008.

And incidentally, flat taxes simply won't work. That's why no thriving economy in the world uses one. The Czech Republic is about the closest you'll find. It's just an issue of not being able to generate enough revenue to pay for all of the services a civilized society needs. The poor simply can't pay the same rate as the wealthy without falling into bankruptcy. Sure, you can exempt them, but then you're just creating a welfare state. Additionally, you're just going to piss off the working class and eventually they'll vote for leaders who advocate reimplementation of a graduated tax system. So it's basically doomed to fail.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.