I missed that, I did not see you call the person who made the video an idiot. Could you point me to post where you said that. (I am not trying to be snarky here, but honestly, all I have read in hour responses are, things along the lines of he missed an opportunity to say this, and that's how some of else felt about the Palin/Gibson interview, I honestly saw no mention from you about the video maker (or should I say the video editer) being an idiot-- maybe you said it and I missed it, so please point me to it)
No, sorry. Nowhere in this country is $250k/yr considered "middle class." 1.5% of this country makes $250,000 and up. There is not any reasonable definition under which only people making more than 98.5% of their fellow countrymen and women can be considered "middle class."
I listened to the first part of the interview with "Joe the Plumber" (I think it was posted in the "and you STILL want to vote for Obama" thread. Joe admits he was "irritated" when Obama came to his neighborhood, something about the Secret Service shutting down part of the street, or telling people to move or something or other, and so, because he was irritated with all of this, that he went up to Obama and asked him that question.
So it's true that according to Joe, that while Obama was canvassing in his neighborhood, it was Joe who initiated the question answer thing. (as was his right to do so) I really don't think Joe considers himself a victim, otherwise, why does he continue to give interviews ?
I don't think Joe is a "creep", as some on this board have said, and I don't think he is a "victim" as others on this board have painted him to be.
I think he really is a Joe average citizen, who took the opportunity to ask a question, not knowing that the result would be that he would be mention a gazillion times in the debates, and is now enjoying his 15 miniutes of fame.
I also don't think he "tripped" anyone up. He asked a question, and Obama answered it. The fact that Obama haters have siezed on what snippet of his answer and ignored the entire exchange is just what I have come to expect of them.
If they are going to scream "socialist" then what exactly do they think the bail out is ?
EVERYONE "works hard for their money." Were you under the impression that somehow the salaries in this country could reliably be gauged as a measure of how hard people work? That's ridiculous. This world needs waitresses and shoe salesmen - and yes, plumbers (not owners of plumbing companies) - as much as they do anaesthesiologists and attorneys and investment bankers. Actually, these days, I'd say most people - if you asked them - might very well tell you they thought we all could've done a lot better without so many investment bankers.
I'm not suggesting that all jobs should be compensated equally; far from it. But to suggest that those with the greatest incomes "work the hardest" is simply wrong. Try picking strawberries in the San Joaquin valley for a season, and then get back to me about what "hard work" is. The point of the Obama campaign's approach to taxes and giving Americans of all backgrounds and career histories a "fair shake" lies not just in providing equality of opportunity to everyone in America, but in making sure that in America, anyone working hard, full time, will be able to earn a living wage. Maybe not a family wage...but enough to provide for their own basic necessities without fear of penury around every corner, or at the drop of a hat from financial hardship.
Fifty years ago, in America, CEOs made far less than they do today, expressed as percentage of their lowest-paid employees' salary. Were we "penalizing" people for success then? Do you think the CEOs of that era felt poor, or as if they weren't enjoying "the benefits of success?" Not: "would they have wanted more, if you asked them" (since most people always would say they WANT more if you ASK them if they would WANT it), but was the American economy in the doldrums as a result of CEOs not being paid what they are paid today? Hardly.
Most of what you write about Obama and his notions is simply nonsense, from the standpoint that I don't think you can credibly demonstrate that Obama actually thinks the way you suggest, or desires the outcomes or policies which you attribute to him. But beyond the simple ludicrousness of lines like "Let's make sure that we take away the benefits of success so that our children can just rely on the govt" as far as being anything even close to what Obama's stated positions are, there's the larger issue of the overall silliness of such hyperbole. It asks us to assume that there is nothing whatsoever between complete laissez-faire, hands-off, free-market capitalism - which is what brought you the lovely financial crisis we have now, in large measure - and oppressive, government-enforced socialism from which no deviation or private success is possible. Such statements are ridiculous because they leave no room for the notion that - contrary to Ronald Reagan's quote that "government doesn't solve our problems, government IS the problem - there most definitely IS a positive and proactive role that government can play in the lives of the citizenry of this country, without being either "the problem" or the kind of absolute socialism you're cartoonishly depicting.
Pages
Yes we all know.
I missed that, I did not see you call the person who made the video an idiot. Could you point me to post where you said that. (I am not trying to be snarky here, but honestly, all I have read in hour responses are, things along the lines of he missed an opportunity to say this, and that's how some of else felt about the Palin/Gibson interview, I honestly saw no mention from you about the video maker (or should I say the video editer) being an idiot-- maybe you said it and I missed it, so please point me to it)
TIA
What, incapability to understand the English language?
No, I don't believe I did.
I listened to the first part of the interview with "Joe the Plumber" (I think it was posted in the "and you STILL want to vote for Obama" thread. Joe admits he was "irritated" when Obama came to his neighborhood, something about the Secret Service shutting down part of the street, or telling people to move or something or other, and so, because he was irritated with all of this, that he went up to Obama and asked him that question.
So it's true that according to Joe, that while Obama was canvassing in his neighborhood, it was Joe who initiated the question answer thing. (as was his right to do so) I really don't think Joe considers himself a victim, otherwise, why does he continue to give interviews ?
I don't think Joe is a "creep", as some on this board have said, and I don't think he is a "victim" as others on this board have painted him to be.
I think he really is a Joe average citizen, who took the opportunity to ask a question, not knowing that the result would be that he would be mention a gazillion times in the debates, and is now enjoying his 15 miniutes of fame.
I also don't think he "tripped" anyone up. He asked a question, and Obama answered it. The fact that Obama haters have siezed on what snippet of his answer and ignored the entire exchange is just what I have come to expect of them.
If they are going to scream "socialist" then what exactly do they think the bail out is ?
I'm not suggesting that all jobs should be compensated equally; far from it. But to suggest that those with the greatest incomes "work the hardest" is simply wrong. Try picking strawberries in the San Joaquin valley for a season, and then get back to me about what "hard work" is. The point of the Obama campaign's approach to taxes and giving Americans of all backgrounds and career histories a "fair shake" lies not just in providing equality of opportunity to everyone in America, but in making sure that in America, anyone working hard, full time, will be able to earn a living wage. Maybe not a family wage...but enough to provide for their own basic necessities without fear of penury around every corner, or at the drop of a hat from financial hardship.
Fifty years ago, in America, CEOs made far less than they do today, expressed as percentage of their lowest-paid employees' salary. Were we "penalizing" people for success then? Do you think the CEOs of that era felt poor, or as if they weren't enjoying "the benefits of success?" Not: "would they have wanted more, if you asked them" (since most people always would say they WANT more if you ASK them if they would WANT it), but was the American economy in the doldrums as a result of CEOs not being paid what they are paid today? Hardly.
Most of what you write about Obama and his notions is simply nonsense, from the standpoint that I don't think you can credibly demonstrate that Obama actually thinks the way you suggest, or desires the outcomes or policies which you attribute to him. But beyond the simple ludicrousness of lines like "Let's make sure that we take away the benefits of success so that our children can just rely on the govt" as far as being anything even close to what Obama's stated positions are, there's the larger issue of the overall silliness of such hyperbole. It asks us to assume that there is nothing whatsoever between complete laissez-faire, hands-off, free-market capitalism - which is what brought you the lovely financial crisis we have now, in large measure - and oppressive, government-enforced socialism from which no deviation or private success is possible. Such statements are ridiculous because they leave no room for the notion that - contrary to Ronald Reagan's quote that "government doesn't solve our problems, government IS the problem - there most definitely IS a positive and proactive role that government can play in the lives of the citizenry of this country, without being either "the problem" or the kind of absolute socialism you're cartoonishly depicting.
Pages