Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Joe the Plumber?; Not a plumber. And not even called Joe
Topic Started: Oct 17 2008, 06:00 AM (2,538 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Oct 19 2008, 08:27 AM
Not everyone is going to get to the "giving side of the equation". Redistributed wealth helps people to make the most of their potential and it also helps those at the bottom to live more comfortable lives than they would otherwise. It’s a matter of fairness.

There are many, many people who will work very hard in their jobs all their lives. Because the market sees these jobs as unskilled and therefore easy to fill they are not paid well. Frankly these people may be doing the best they can and may have lived up to their personal potential. They work damn hard, harder in many ways than people in more skilled professions where the wages are higher. They deserve to have some of the comforts that they would otherwise not be able to afford because of their low income. Their children also deserve not to be tied down by the low income of their parents, to not be forced into working at a young age to boost the family income as happened in the past, they deserve to be able to explore their potential through education and freedom from treatable illness.

My grandfather was denied the chance to stay on at school despite being an intelligent man. Why? Because his parents could not afford to pay for his school uniform. They had to make a priority of things like food and rent. Was that fair? No it was not. It was wasted potential. He ended up doing semi-manual work and never had a great deal of money. He never owned his own home and left his wife a modest pension.

His daughter however, living under the new welfare state, did get to go to school, then got to go to college and then spent 40 years doing highly skilled professional work. She does own her own home. She has been able to fulfil her potential and countless people have benefited from the job she has done helping disabled children.

Here's idea...

<sarcasm>I think it's unfair there is a disparity in appearence. Why should the tall and beautiful people get all the benefits of that height and beauty, and not have to do anything for it other than being born? They get the positions of power... they get the higher paying jobs... they get the glamerous movie roles.

Out of fairness, I think that every person over 6' tall or has soft, smooth skin and perfectly symetrical features, ought to be taxed more and there ought to be job quotas so the less beautiful people might have a chance... Or we could just minorly disfigure them.</sarcasm>

The only thing I want the government doing here is insuring equality of opportunity, because they rob people in their effort to insure equality of outcome. It's literally the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching him how to fish.

If a person is not willing to pull them self up by the bootstraps and make a life for himself, why should I waste my money making his journey to the end any easier? What is he doing for me to make my life easier?

Whatever happened to that saying "Life isn't fair"?

Society throwing more money at people who will never take the initiative to create more wealth for society is part of the problems financial problems facing western nations and is a large part of the moral decline we see too.

Life is not fair at all, and people need to get over it.

And keep in mind, charity is an individual initiative. If you force me, that's just stealing.
Edited by Dwayne, Oct 19 2008, 09:02 AM.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Oct 18 2008, 11:15 PM
And, if you're wondering why I keep putting "Joe" in quotes, it's because his name is really Samuel (and I'm aware that his middle name is Joseph). There have been all kinds of fabrications with this guy, but McCain just jumped right on his bandwagon. I wonder if McCain plans to do such poor background research before he jumps on other bandwagons if he becomes President.
Isn't that just a bit petty?

After all, William is my middle name, but you've never typed my name as "Bill" before, now have you? You've heard of nicknames before, haven't you?

This sounds like, and I'm sorry to say this, you using the DNC talking points.

Offline | Profile ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dwayne, equating tax to stealing is nonsense. If thats the case then the United States military is one of the biggest beneficiaries of theft in your country.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
RTW
Oct 19 2008, 12:42 AM
What do we make of Joe embracing his middle name publicly and Obamaniacs being upset when his is mentioned?
People have the right to chose what name they go under. I know people who use thier middle name - by choice.

Obama has every right to reject use of a name that makes him appear to be something other then what he truely identifies himself as.

I think it is silly to bring up this issue in this thread because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The only real question with regards to this is whether Joe has always gone by his middle name or whether he convieniently changed from Sam to Joe as part of an attempt to be subversive.

To be clear I am not accusing him of this. I am merely asking the question.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dwayne
Oct 19 2008, 01:49 AM
Minuet
Oct 19 2008, 12:13 AM
Quote:
 
Wouldn't fairness be everyone paying the same percentage?


Simple answer. No.
You're attitide is part of what's wrong with the world... it's envy, plain and simple.
What a pantload!

Do me a favour and stop telling me what I feel. Envy has nothing to do with this.

Once again you have hurt your credibility with a ridiculous statement.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
RTW
Oct 19 2008, 03:36 AM
Nothing prevents anyone from paying additional taxes. In Kerry's home state, for example, the state income tax form had a line specifically for that purpose. He never used it.

Another "I didn't mean me" moment?
:headscratch:

Does this comment have anything to do with tax fairness?

It would be nice if you actually explained your point of view instead of falling back on meaningless talking points straight out of the mouths of commentators.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dwayne
Oct 19 2008, 08:59 AM
ds9074
Oct 19 2008, 08:27 AM
Not everyone is going to get to the "giving side of the equation". Redistributed wealth helps people to make the most of their potential and it also helps those at the bottom to live more comfortable lives than they would otherwise. It’s a matter of fairness.

There are many, many people who will work very hard in their jobs all their lives. Because the market sees these jobs as unskilled and therefore easy to fill they are not paid well. Frankly these people may be doing the best they can and may have lived up to their personal potential. They work damn hard, harder in many ways than people in more skilled professions where the wages are higher. They deserve to have some of the comforts that they would otherwise not be able to afford because of their low income. Their children also deserve not to be tied down by the low income of their parents, to not be forced into working at a young age to boost the family income as happened in the past, they deserve to be able to explore their potential through education and freedom from treatable illness.

My grandfather was denied the chance to stay on at school despite being an intelligent man. Why? Because his parents could not afford to pay for his school uniform. They had to make a priority of things like food and rent. Was that fair? No it was not. It was wasted potential. He ended up doing semi-manual work and never had a great deal of money. He never owned his own home and left his wife a modest pension.

His daughter however, living under the new welfare state, did get to go to school, then got to go to college and then spent 40 years doing highly skilled professional work. She does own her own home. She has been able to fulfil her potential and countless people have benefited from the job she has done helping disabled children.

Here's idea...

<sarcasm>I think it's unfair there is a disparity in appearence. Why should the tall and beautiful people get all the benefits of that height and beauty, and not have to do anything for it other than being born? They get the positions of power... they get the higher paying jobs... they get the glamerous movie roles.

Out of fairness, I think that every person over 6' tall or has soft, smooth skin and perfectly symetrical features, ought to be taxed more and there ought to be job quotas so the less beautiful people might have a chance... Or we could just minorly disfigure them.</sarcasm>

The only thing I want the government doing here is insuring equality of opportunity, because they rob people in their effort to insure equality of outcome. It's literally the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching him how to fish.

If a person is not willing to pull them self up by the bootstraps and make a life for himself, why should I waste my money making his journey to the end any easier? What is he doing for me to make my life easier?

Whatever happened to that saying "Life isn't fair"?

Society throwing more money at people who will never take the initiative to create more wealth for society is part of the problems financial problems facing western nations and is a large part of the moral decline we see too.

Life is not fair at all, and people need to get over it.

And keep in mind, charity is an individual initiative. If you force me, that's just stealing.
It seems to me that DS's example of his own mother is an example of what you call "equal opportunity"

No one gave her a degree. They gave her the means to get an education, but she decided on her own what she would do with that opportunity. She was never forced to stay in school. She chose to do that.

So frankly I don't really understand the point you are making. The government is not robbing people in an effort to ensure equality of outcome. This is impossible without becoming a purely communist state that does things like force people to get education in specific areas (or to become an elite athlete)

What is done in free, democratic countries that embrace a small amount of socialism is to provide basic education up to the high school level that is free to all. If someone doesn't graduate that is due to thier own deficiencies. Higher education is still something that people have to work for themselves. Financial help is available via scholarships to those who prove themselves worthy through the attainment of high marks. Government loans are also available - but are expected to be paid back.

It honestly appears to me that you are fear mongering here. There are many countries in the world who successfully embrace capitalistic socialism and do just fine thank you.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds
 
Dwayne, equating tax to stealing is nonsense. If thats the case then the United States military is one of the biggest beneficiaries of theft in your country.


You just gave your strawman... Try sticking to the original premise.

Premise: Redistribution of wealth is stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

Now can you draw some analogies from that, that doesn't turn the whole tax collection process into some Machiavellian scheme to rob people?

And let's address one thing here, because I just know how people who favor these redistribution schemes always like to look to the military, and then say, "See, you don't mind taxes when it goes to things you like," or some variation thereof.

The whole premise is specious, because it rests on the notion that the apparatuses for insuring the integrity of state and society... military and police... are some how as optionable as redistributing wealth in order to create fairness. You cannot have a state, create laws, collect taxes, and then start redistributing wealth, unless you first have a military.
Edited by Dwayne, Oct 19 2008, 10:29 AM.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Oct 19 2008, 10:12 AM
Dwayne
Oct 19 2008, 08:59 AM
ds9074
Oct 19 2008, 08:27 AM
Not everyone is going to get to the "giving side of the equation". Redistributed wealth helps people to make the most of their potential and it also helps those at the bottom to live more comfortable lives than they would otherwise. It’s a matter of fairness.

There are many, many people who will work very hard in their jobs all their lives. Because the market sees these jobs as unskilled and therefore easy to fill they are not paid well. Frankly these people may be doing the best they can and may have lived up to their personal potential. They work damn hard, harder in many ways than people in more skilled professions where the wages are higher. They deserve to have some of the comforts that they would otherwise not be able to afford because of their low income. Their children also deserve not to be tied down by the low income of their parents, to not be forced into working at a young age to boost the family income as happened in the past, they deserve to be able to explore their potential through education and freedom from treatable illness.

My grandfather was denied the chance to stay on at school despite being an intelligent man. Why? Because his parents could not afford to pay for his school uniform. They had to make a priority of things like food and rent. Was that fair? No it was not. It was wasted potential. He ended up doing semi-manual work and never had a great deal of money. He never owned his own home and left his wife a modest pension.

His daughter however, living under the new welfare state, did get to go to school, then got to go to college and then spent 40 years doing highly skilled professional work. She does own her own home. She has been able to fulfil her potential and countless people have benefited from the job she has done helping disabled children.

Here's idea...

<sarcasm>I think it's unfair there is a disparity in appearence. Why should the tall and beautiful people get all the benefits of that height and beauty, and not have to do anything for it other than being born? They get the positions of power... they get the higher paying jobs... they get the glamerous movie roles.

Out of fairness, I think that every person over 6' tall or has soft, smooth skin and perfectly symetrical features, ought to be taxed more and there ought to be job quotas so the less beautiful people might have a chance... Or we could just minorly disfigure them.</sarcasm>

The only thing I want the government doing here is insuring equality of opportunity, because they rob people in their effort to insure equality of outcome. It's literally the difference between giving a man a fish and teaching him how to fish.

If a person is not willing to pull them self up by the bootstraps and make a life for himself, why should I waste my money making his journey to the end any easier? What is he doing for me to make my life easier?

Whatever happened to that saying "Life isn't fair"?

Society throwing more money at people who will never take the initiative to create more wealth for society is part of the problems financial problems facing western nations and is a large part of the moral decline we see too.

Life is not fair at all, and people need to get over it.

And keep in mind, charity is an individual initiative. If you force me, that's just stealing.
It seems to me that DS's example of his own mother is an example of what you call "equal opportunity"

No one gave her a degree. They gave her the means to get an education, but she decided on her own what she would do with that opportunity. She was never forced to stay in school. She chose to do that.

So frankly I don't really understand the point you are making. The government is not robbing people in an effort to ensure equality of outcome. This is impossible without becoming a purely communist state that does things like force people to get education in specific areas (or to become an elite athlete)

What is done in free, democratic countries that embrace a small amount of socialism is to provide basic education up to the high school level that is free to all. If someone doesn't graduate that is due to thier own deficiencies. Higher education is still something that people have to work for themselves. Financial help is available via scholarships to those who prove themselves worthy through the attainment of high marks. Government loans are also available - but are expected to be paid back.

It honestly appears to me that you are fear mongering here. There are many countries in the world who successfully embrace capitalistic socialism and do just fine thank you.
No, equal opportunity is insuring that everyone has the same chance irrespective of ideology, race or religion. There have been many things I had the opportunity to do, but could not afford to do it, but given time I was able to save the money to fulfill that opportunity.

Yes, some people can more easily afford this or that, and that can seem unfair, but taking, with threats of violence, what others have rightfully earned isn't seemingly unfair, it is unfair.

Offline | Profile ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
In our current system redistributed wealth STIFLES potential. It robs people of initiative. It requires them to eek by.

There is nothing fair about condemning people to a lifetime of poverty.

In our system those who work in "unskilled" jobs aren't eligible for "redistributed wealth" unless they make poor decisions that put them deeper in the hole. A woman with a child is not eligible for many types of "redistributed wealth" unless the father is out of the picture. The mother must choose between a family and eating.

Saying that people deserve anything beyond "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" reeks of the entitlement mentality. People have the right to achieve/pursue any goals they want.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Quote:
 
Yes, some people can more easily afford this or that, and that can seem unfair, but taking, with threats of violence, what others have rightfully earned isn't seemingly unfair, it is unfair.


Ummm - we are talking about taxes here. Where did the rhetoric about threats of violence come from?

No one is taking what others have rightfully earned. Taxes are taken to benefit society as a whole. An educated populace is IMO a benefit to society as a whole.Without education that was freely available to all where do you think your society would be today? Do you think you and I would be sitting here at our computers having this conversation if the general populace had never had the opportunity to get even basic education? Not likely because computers would probably not exist. Basic education leads to the desire for higher education. As already pointed out in my prior statement higher education is not a right. Government loans are meant to be paid back.

It is because of the larger numbers of educated people in Western society that we have been able to make the large technological leaps that we have made. Just look at countries that have not had those opportunities and how backward they still are.

Basic education, paid for by taxes is a benefit to all. And in my opinion a right.
Offline | Profile ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
ds9074
Oct 19 2008, 09:41 AM
Dwayne, equating tax to stealing is nonsense. If thats the case then the United States military is one of the biggest beneficiaries of theft in your country.
When you include all levels of government then our public school system is a 50% greater thief than our military.

Our military provides national defense as well technical training for those who would otherwise not be able to afford it. In that respect you should be a huge supporter.

Our public schools provide free babysitting services. "Get 'em in, get 'em fed, get 'em home" was the motto of one local elementary school for the crazy first week of school.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
RTW
Oct 19 2008, 11:36 AM
In our current system redistributed wealth STIFLES potential. It robs people of initiative. It requires them to eek by.

There is nothing fair about condemning people to a lifetime of poverty.

In our system those who work in "unskilled" jobs aren't eligible for "redistributed wealth" unless they make poor decisions that put them deeper in the hole. A woman with a child is not eligible for many types of "redistributed wealth" unless the father is out of the picture. The mother must choose between a family and eating.

Saying that people deserve anything beyond "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" reeks of the entitlement mentality. People have the right to achieve/pursue any goals they want.
You are limiting your argument to welfare.

Redistribution of wealth, IMO has nothing to do with welfare. Spending money on better education to give those who are capable of handling it better opportunities to improve themselves is what I am talking about.

A hand up, not a handout.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
RTW
Oct 19 2008, 11:40 AM
ds9074
Oct 19 2008, 09:41 AM
Dwayne, equating tax to stealing is nonsense. If thats the case then the United States military is one of the biggest beneficiaries of theft in your country.
When you include all levels of government then our public school system is a 50% greater thief than our military.

Our military provides national defense as well technical training for those who would otherwise not be able to afford it. In that respect you should be a huge supporter.

Our public schools provide free babysitting services. "Get 'em in, get 'em fed, get 'em home" was the motto of one local elementary school for the crazy first week of school.
It's really sad that your local schools are so bad.

My daughter spent a year in one of the best school districts in the USA. The schools here in Ontario easily match it. I don't understand why apparently some schools in the USA don't live up to the potential that others have.

Maybe it's because I was lucky enough to be able to afford to live in a good area that could afford to pour a lot of money into better education. This is where redistribution of wealth comes in. Every child deserves an opportunity to go to "good" schools up to the end of high school.

It can be done.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Minuet
Oct 19 2008, 11:38 AM
Quote:
 
Yes, some people can more easily afford this or that, and that can seem unfair, but taking, with threats of violence, what others have rightfully earned isn't seemingly unfair, it is unfair.


Ummm - we are talking about taxes here. Where did the rhetoric about threats of violence come from?

No one is taking what others have rightfully earned. Taxes are taken to benefit society as a whole. An educated populace is IMO a benefit to society as a whole.Without education that was freely available to all where do you think your society would be today? Do you think you and I would be sitting here at our computers having this conversation if the general populace had never had the opportunity to get even basic education? Not likely because computers would probably not exist. Basic education leads to the desire for higher education. As already pointed out in my prior statement higher education is not a right. Government loans are meant to be paid back.

It is because of the larger numbers of educated people in Western society that we have been able to make the large technological leaps that we have made. Just look at countries that have not had those opportunities and how backward they still are.

Basic education, paid for by taxes is a benefit to all. And in my opinion a right.
First off, let me point out that ultimately all taxes are collected at the point of a gun, because if you refuse the polite means of government collection, they'll send men with guns to your home or business, and they'll collect their tax by force.

Now you have this major contradiction here....

"No one is taking what others have rightfully earned. Taxes are taken to benefit society as a whole."

Your second sentence negates the first. If people are having taxes taken from their pay for any reason, then rightfully earned money is taken. PERIOD.

Then there is the issue of the first sentence itself. The premise of your sentence suggests that no one takes rightfully earned money... The money taken is ill-gotten. This is class envy at its worst, because it's so insidiously inter-woven into the whole narrative the left tells about capitalism, that no one ever really challenges the notion.

Oh, and those "large technological leaps that we have made"... You know you can thank military spending for all most all of it. And where the military wasn't directly funding the R & D through organizations like DARPA, military imperatives encourage private capital to flow toward R & D. Look at where the integrated circuit would be if not for the United States military making more and more advanced weapons, better sensing technology, and faster communication systems.

And ultimately Minuet, you have the right to your beliefs, but those people who want to remake the United States on a more European-style socioeconomic model, need to move to you country, and quit trying to change mine.
Edited by Dwayne, Oct 19 2008, 12:25 PM.
Offline | Profile ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus