Cooked Crack Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I noticed McCain loves to use that line but the only people it seems to have any affect on is conservatives. Spreading the wealth doesn’t seem like all that bad an idea to people who aren’t wealthy. I saw the Fox focus group and people saw that as a positive instead of a negative. A lady was like he wants to spread the wealth to improve health care. No one outside of Fox News is thinking socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I just think it'll be much easier for me to stop working and running my business I like the idea of being on the recieving end of "wealth spreading" Now imagine if another 500,000 business owners like me thought the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 I just think it'll be much easier for me to stop working and running my businessI like the idea of being on the recieving end of "wealth spreading" Now imagine if another 500,000 business owners like me thought the same thing Then you'd have 500000 idiots who actually believe it's going to work like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Then you'd have 500000 idiots who actually believe it's going to work like that. And another 4-5 million unemployed when they choose not to run a business anymore I have created more jobs in the past 6 years then the last 6 presidents combined What is my motivation to continue to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 "spreading the wealth" implies that those with wealth have an obligation to be penalized and beholden to those that dont. It is a core tenent of marxism and it is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Add me to that list. I want wealth to be EARNED, not SPREAD. Ive already informed my staff that I will be laying people off the minute Obama and the Dems raise my business taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 16, 2008 Author Share Posted October 16, 2008 I guess I should have made it clearer. Why does McCain think saying that he's going to spread the wealth is going to resonate with voters? He doesn't even explain what it means and just uses air quotes. Spreading the wealth "doesn’t seem like all that bad an idea to people who aren’t wealthy." Quote from Politico. Saying he's "spreading the wealth" doesn't work on anyone besides conservatives. No one outside of Fox News watcher thinks Obama's gearing up for some good ole socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Oh, well in that context, you're right, it's not working as a talking point. But you're fooling yourself if you dont think Obama with a 60 seat Senate wont turn us into a more socialist nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Oh, well in that context, you're right, it's not working as a talking point.But you're fooling yourself if you dont think Obama with a 60 seat Senate wont turn us into a more socialist nation. Like our most powerful ally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I guess I should have made it clearer. Why does McCain think saying that he's going to spread the wealth is going to resonate with voters? He doesn't even explain what it means and just uses air quotes. Spreading the wealth "doesn’t seem like all that bad an idea to people who aren’t wealthy." Quote from Politico. Saying he's "spreading the wealth" doesn't work on anyone besides conservatives. No one outside of Fox News watcher thinks Obama's gearing up for some good ole socialism. I dont watch Fox News, nor listen to most "neo-con" talk shows, and I definitely think Obama is striving for a more socialist agenda. "speading the wealth" proves it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 And another 4-5 million unemployed when they choose not to run a business anymoreI have created more jobs in the past 6 years then the last 6 presidents combined What is my motivation to continue to do that? he is right a lot of small businesses will be going bye bye take for example if you look at people that run a s-corp or an llc which are pass through accounting structures what many people do not realize it is passed down to your regular income for taxes so your taxes will go up a lot, and that means you are going to have to budget accordingly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 All taxation is spreading the wealth. Paying for public schools is spreading the wealth. Funding the DOD is spreading the wealth. Medicare, Medicaid, Police, our Judicial system... is all spreading the wealth. It's a total boogeyman. Should there be no schools in areas that don't raise the tax revenues to pay for the building, personell, supplies, and equipment? Should there be no police presence in areas that can't pay. Should an individual be allowed a judge or a court system if he doesn't pay for it in its entirety. I mean if you really don't believe in spreading the wealth then you believe if I want to sue I should have to pay for a lawyer, rent the court house, hire a jury, hire a judge, clerk, bailiff and go forward. If any of that is provided for me to correct a civil or criminal wrong than the wealth has been spread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Everybody liked Robin Hood. He was a great hero. He was also a thief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Everybody liked Robin Hood. He was a great hero. He was also a thief. We teach our kids that Robin Hood was evil, he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 All taxation is spreading the wealth. Paying for public schools is spreading the wealth. Funding the DOD is spreading the wealth. Medicare, Medicaid, Police, our Judicial system... is all spreading the wealth. It's a total boogeyman.Should there be no schools in areas that don't raise the tax revenues to pay for the building, personell, supplies, and equipment? Should there be no police presence in areas that can't pay. Should an individual be allowed a judge or a court system if he doesn't pay for it in its entirety. I mean if you really don't believe in spreading the wealth then you believe if I want to sue I should have to pay for a lawyer, rent the court house, hire a jury, hire a judge, clerk, bailiff and go forward. If any of that is provided for me to correct a civil or criminal wrong than the wealth has been spread. Not entirely true. Some of those are expressly defined in the Constitution such as providing for the common defense.Burgold, do you think Federal money should fund State and Local programs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Greedy ****s don't want to share (a generalization not a reference to any particular right winger). Despite the fact that many of them belong to churches that promote sharing. Certainly Jesus did. I don't mind if my taxes go up a little, though they won't under Obama's plan according to what he's saying. I will mind if it's not used judiciously and effectively. The fact is, if social programs get to people when they're first having trouble with their health, or single mom's when they first become so, then the long term cost of dealing with these folks will be lower IMO. If you take someone without health insurance and keep them healthy (same as my insurance promotes for me, they call it preventative) it's cheaper than waiting until they have a catastrophic problem that requires the emergency room. We pay anyway, why not make it more effective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Greedy ****s don't want to share (a generalization not a reference to any particular right winger). Despite the fact that many of them belong to churches that promote sharing. Certainly Jesus did. I don't mind if my taxes go up a little, though they won't under Obama's plan according to what he's saying. I will mind if it's not used judiciously and effectively. The fact is, if social programs get to people when they're first having trouble with their health, or single mom's when they first become so, then the long term cost of dealing with these folks will be lower IMO. If you take someone without health insurance and keep them healthy (same as my insurance promotes for me, they call it preventative) it's cheaper than waiting until they have a catastrophic problem that requires the emergency room. We pay anyway, why not make it more effective? So you agree with the idea of taking (by force) from one group of Americans and giving it to another, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 So you agree with the idea of taking (by force) from one group of Americans and giving it to another, right? Every paycheck I see it happen to me. How many people do you think would actually pay taxes if it were an option? I think you must have not thought that out very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Every paycheck I see it happen to me. How many people do you think would actually pay taxes if it were an option? I think you must have not thought that out very well. Paying taxes was never intended to be wealth redistribution. There definitely are some very valid and neccessary taxes that need to be levied. The difference in most of them is that they give a benefit to all at the expense of all, not a benefit to some at the expense of others.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I guess I should have made it clearer. Why does McCain think saying that he's going to spread the wealth is going to resonate with voters? He doesn't even explain what it means and just uses air quotes. Spreading the wealth "doesn’t seem like all that bad an idea to people who aren’t wealthy." Quote from Politico. Saying he's "spreading the wealth" doesn't work on anyone besides conservatives. No one outside of Fox News watcher thinks Obama's gearing up for some good ole socialism. as someone who's flat out stopped watching the news because of how blatantly biased and sensational it is, I can tell you that you are wrong and there are plenty non fox-news viewers who think Obama is moving towards socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Not entirely true. Some of those are expressly defined in the Constitution such as providing for the common defense.Burgold, do you think Federal money should fund State and Local programs? Just cause it's in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't require a spreading of the wealth to make it happen. Another example is tithing. Tithing is a spreading of the wealth for the health of the Church and its community. Is that by its nature wrong and evil too or do we have some shared responsibilities? Federal money is used to fund State and Local programs. I don't see it as a question of whether...? And yes, I think that the federal pot should be spread amongst state cups. Whether its for something big like rebuilding New Orleans or something smaller like making sure that police are adequately equipped or trained. But Federal money is being used to fund state and local projects from education to highway construction and has been for a long time. It's really more about the definitions of good and evil redistribution than it is a question about the distribution itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Russians thought it was a good idea too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Paying taxes was never intended to be wealth redistribution. There definitely are some very valid and neccessary taxes that need to be levied. The difference in most of them is that they give a benefit to all at the expense of all, not a benefit to some at the expense of others.:2cents: If were are going to pay when someone is catastrophically ill, then paying for preventative medicine IS a benefit to all. By way of making it less expensive in the long run. That should actually lead to decrease in the total need for taxes. I know this is theoretical but I can't help but wish someone would make it happen. Most social programs have the same issues. If you deal with a persons problems (considering that we'll pay at some point anyway) at the beginning it's less expensive in the long run than waiting until the problem becomes so large we have to deal with it and it's much more expensive. I also know that it'll be abused by some, but IMO the obligation as a developed and wealthy country of good people is to not allow people to fester here. It's just the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Paying taxes was never intended to be wealth redistribution. Every tax is wealth redistribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 If were are going to pay when someone is catastrophically ill, then paying for preventative medicine IS a benefit to all. By way of making it less expensive in the long run. That should actually lead to decrease in the total need for taxes. I know this is theoretical but I can't help but wish someone would make it happen. Most social programs have the same issues. If you deal with a persons problems (considering that we'll pay at some point anyway) at the beginning it's less expensive in the long run than waiting until the problem becomes so large we have to deal with it and it's much more expensive. no, it is "less expensive" and many times free, for a select group of individuals at the expense of others. There really is no way to spin it to the positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.