once again the jokes write themselves...

I saw a chart, I think in the NY Times, that indicated that we'd see a bit more money back from McCain than Obama. And we're nowhere near 250K per year.

Originally posted by very sonick:

Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.

if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain.

<img src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp10-27-08b.jpg" alt=" - " />

Originally posted by nkotb:
You mean the ad paid for by Obama's campaign :)

Originally posted by very sonick:

Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.

if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain.

doesnt matter, its on drudge must be true

Originally posted by nkotb:
You mean the ad paid for by Obama's campaign :)

Originally posted by very sonick:

Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.

if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain.

I didnt see that, but now it appears to be gone. I wish manimtired would link these cool stories he speaks of , cause i am too busy to be searching through the disgusting layout that is Drudgereport.com.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I saw a chart, I think in the NY Times, that indicated that we'd see a bit more money back from McCain than Obama. And we're nowhere near 250K per year.

Originally posted by very sonick:

Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.

if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain.

we're getting there and my wife says…soon we'll have to vote republican.

(thats right, i thnk i'll be able to vote next election)

I know you're joking about soon having to vote Republican!

But the difference for us was very minor in favor of McCain. I guess if we made more McCain would benefit us more. Ah, maybe when my wife goes back to work full time.

Still, I don't think I'll ever vote for a Republican presidential candidate…at least not where the two parties currently are in the spectrum.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I know you're joking about soon having to vote Republican!

she just meant moneywise, soon we'd be better off financially. I still dont put myself first often enough to ever consider myself a republican. :p

Originally posted by very sonick:

Originally posted by nkotb:
You mean the ad paid for by Obama's campaign :)

Originally posted by very sonick:

Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.

if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain.

I didnt see that, but now it appears to be gone. I wish manimtired would link these cool stories he speaks of , cause i am too busy to be searching through the disgusting layout that is Drudgereport.com.

don't worry you'll hear all about this… and i'm sorry but i can't believe that McCain is running with it… someone posted on youtube and old radio interview with some supposedly juice comments about re-distribution, all taken out of context of course…

here's what i want to know… did the mccain campaign actual verify what was posted on youtube wasn't edited or altered in any way? i highly doubt it…

how was it taken out of context?

Originally posted by manimtired:
how was it taken out of context?

it was on drudge… seriously does america really want a person so desperate to become president that they use stellar journalistic skills of drudge as a talking point?

he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?

its not news.

Where exactly in this quote does Obama advocate for the redistribution of wealth via courts? I'm not a lawyer or play one on TV, but what I believe he is advocating that change should happen first via community action and then via the courts. One could say he's against judical legislation…

"One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change"

Originally posted by kosmo:

Originally posted by manimtired:
how was it taken out of context?

it was on drudge…

it's also on ABC. . .

the plain reading of at least what jake tapper posted is more troubling, at least to me, on his view of the warren court and the constitution.

however, i find this statement amusing:

"As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up â?? not from the corridors of Washington."

so, how does he think he can effectuate change if change doesn't come from washington?

regardless of all that. . it is still evident that he believes government redistribution of wealth is a policy that should be enhanced and encouraged. . .in this interview, he merely notes, wistfully, that the court couldn't do it, because the constitution has "negative liberties" in it that make it difficult through judicial activism. well, the constitution is there precisely to limit what government can do, something obama apparently believes is a bad idea.

Originally posted by very sonick:
he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?

Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well. Ever hear of those farm subsidies? Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable.

Originally posted by Bags:

Originally posted by very sonick:
he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?

Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well. Ever hear of those farm subsidies? Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable.

Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal. Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?

The Reps redistribute the wealth to the super rich and corporations in order to effectuate this 'trickle down' theory. That's all I'm saying…they just redistribute differently.

I know they're all guilty of supporting immense farm subsidies, but the Rs, then, need to stop pretending they are completely innocent in welfare and redistribution of wealth. It's just the tax and spend liberals, though it is Bush that has created the highest deficit and largest government of them all.

Hey, would 'small' government give a crap if John married Betty or Bob? I don't think so…

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:

Originally posted by Bags:

Originally posted by very sonick:
he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?

Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well. Ever hear of those farm subsidies? Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable.

Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal. Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?

McCain?

no, cant be, because he said


"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,"

Here's a chart, though it's not a calculator. I get a bit more back from McCain, but I get money back under Obama as well. And the point is, I'm fine. I think it's more important that a family making $50K gets 3.5 times as much back under Obama. That's where the world of hurt is.

Originally posted by Bags:
The Reps redistribute the wealth to the super rich and corporations in order to effectuate this 'trickle down' theory. That's all I'm saying…they just redistribute differently.

I know they're all guilty of supporting immense farm subsidies, but the Rs, then, need to stop pretending they are completely innocent in welfare and redistribution of wealth. It's just the tax and spend liberals, though it is Bush that has created the highest deficit and largest government of them all.

Hey, would 'small' government give a crap if John married Betty or Bob? I don't think so…

if that's all your saying, the you used an especially non-useful parallel with farm subsidies, especially since the most recent farm bill is one of the worst one in decades, all effectuated under a democratic congress.

that being said, you are right that the republicans from the election of W have made the situation worse. the difference between what obama is saying and what republicans are supposed to be doing is that republicans don't want government to limit the ability of someone to become wealthy (of course, the economic theory is that only the well-to-do have the means and ability to inject capital into markets, therefore, government shouldn't limit the ability of people to do that), whereas, obama is quietly all about limiting the ability of people to make money and have government tell people how much money they can make (through potentially crippling tax hikes), then take that money and give it away.

and it has nothing to do about whether small government should care about who people marry, it's that government of any size shouldn't care- government should not be dictating to people and limiting people how they live their life, be it socially or economically.

Originally posted by very sonick:

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal. Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?

McCain?

no, cant be, because he said
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,"

how convenient you neglect this statement- "In Grinnell, McCain said he still opposes subsidies"

as i'm sure you can note, this is about subsidies. even in the article above, it still states that mccain is against ethanol subsidies. in fact, mccain has stated he supports dropping the tariff on brazilian sugar-based ethanol, coupled with killing corn-based ethanol subsidies here, let them compete and see how it works. i don't think it takes a genius to realize and note the travesty that ethanol subsidies have had on the price of food worldwide.

i will note my own trepidation about brazilian sugar-based ethanol only because i wonder how many acres of rainforest are being tilled under to increase sugar production. .and if the u.s. does drop its tariffs, what effects would that have.