joe the plummers keating 5 ties and mccain ties plus......

[trish]

I don't want the nanny state…

Good, neither do I. But somehow I get the feeling you think you’ve just given an argument against the Social Security program. Perhaps because it is the cliché that many neo-cons and libertarians throw out in supposed opposition to the program. It is a mischaracterization. It easy to argue against the nanny state; I’m against it too. For the fourth time, it's another straw man, er straw woman. The nanny metaphor consists of the nanny and the children for whom she cares. Those are two distinct entities. With Social Security (to fight a cliché’ with a better, and well respected cliché) it is we the people who are caring for we the people. I think sometimes anti-American government people like neo-cons and libertarians forget the meanings of the three distinct prepositions in phrase, “government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.

Somehow we survived for quite the long time without this program.

More precisely, enough people survived to propagate our form of government and to populate the continent. Sadly many people weren’t surviving. With the intensification of the industrial revolution fewer and fewer people were capable of pursing life, freedom and happiness. That’s why there are unions and that's why there is Social Security. Which brings us to:

To answer your question, it is tyrannical when it unduly burdens a person’s ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

You’ve just given an excellent argument for keeping Social Security but graduating the tax. After all, if you make say $ 250 000 000.00 per year (all those zeros make the figure a quarter of a million dollars) and you pay (as you say) 50% of it on taxes, that leaves an eighth of one million dollars. Let’s see how many zeros that is: $125 000 000.00. That’s more than enough to fund one’s pursuit of happiness.

Is it whining to not want to have your property taken in the name of whatever ill conceived social program someone in Washington comes up with?

(There you go again, fifth time arguing against the straw man.)

It’s whining when the program, like Social Security, is in fact well conceived and its continuance is the desire of the populace. The whining has more the ring of selfishness, than social concern. Many Americans, who contribute to this very forum, were drafted during the Vietnam War. They were expected to do more than pay taxes. They were expected to take risks with their lives and live in the tropic jungle for two or more years of their lives. Some of them may have been against the war, but they didn't see the draft as tyranny. They saw it as their duty and they served proudly. Living within a community sometimes requires some sacrifice. Personally, when it comes to sacrifices, I would choose clearing an eighth of a million dollars, over serving in war any day of the week. So, yeah…it’s whining.

[NYBURBS]

Really so because 51% say so then it should be so huh? You realize the numbers of people nationwide that are opposed to gay rights for instance or in particular gay marriage? Or the number of people that were opposed to civil rights or the number of people that wanted to keep segregation or slavery? Just because a majority want something doesn't somehow make it better. If 51% of the people want to take all of the money belonging to 49% of the people that would be right? There is a reason we put in a super majority qualification for amending the constitution, these programs came about after a shady usurpation of power on behalf of the feds, not an amendment approved by super majorities. If it is so popular than you will be fine with making it voluntary rather than compulsory. Of course with it being so popular it will make little difference that a few don't participate. After all look at the people that work cash jobs and don't pay FICA, we're not stepping over them in the streets.

Btw that "it's not a nanny state" argument isn't going to cut it. However you might want to spin it, it still comes down to the government telling you to give it money because it needs to take care of you. That you can't do it yourself, so the government must do it for you. That is bread and butter nanny state.

[natina]

Joe the Plumber is going to the toilet and taking McCain with him

Senator, Joe the Plumber is going into the toilet and taking you with him.

So, naturally, you have taken the next step — umbrage over Joe the Plumber.

That he approached Obama, lied to Obama's face about a business that wasn't worth what he said it was, that he wasn't about to buy like he said he was, has gotten lost in this barrage of nonsense, Senator.

That you made him some kind of phony every-man symbol for economic savaging of the middle class which Obama wouldn't effect but you in fact would, has gotten wallpapered over, Senator.

You're mad that people have made fun of him, when he didn't ask to be famous. You made him famous! You're mad that people questioned his story, when he didn't ask for people to question his story. You made a story out of his question! You're mad that people have criticized him, when he didn't ask to be criticized. Senator—these are not attacks on Joe the Plumber!

They're attacks on John the Liar! Not to mention Sarah the Shopaholic and Phil the Economy-Killer; G. Gordon the Domestic Terrorist; Steve the Schmidt-Head; Charlie the Banker; The other Joe the Fact-Checker; Rick the Lobbyist; Randy the Lobbyist; Wayne the Lobbyist; William the Saddam Lobbyist; Vinnie the Chin and, of course, Bob the Builder.

Sen. McCain, I'm pretty sure Sen. Obama is right. He can probably survive two more weeks of personal attacks, but America probably can't survive four more years of government by the Republican Party. However, even more urgent, more pressing. He isn't working for you, and he's driving the rest of us to consider going back to the days of out-houses and wooden aqueducts.

On behalf of a tortured nation, with blood streaming from its collective ears.

Enough with Joe the Plumber already!

—Keith the Anchor
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27351270/

[natina]

Joe the Plumber is going to the toilet and taking McCain with him

Senator, Joe the Plumber is going into the toilet and taking you with him.

So, naturally, you have taken the next step — umbrage over Joe the Plumber.

That he approached Obama, lied to Obama's face about a business that wasn't worth what he said it was, that he wasn't about to buy like he said he was, has gotten lost in this barrage of nonsense, Senator.

That you made him some kind of phony every-man symbol for economic savaging of the middle class which Obama wouldn't effect but you in fact would, has gotten wallpapered over, Senator.

You're mad that people have made fun of him, when he didn't ask to be famous. You made him famous! You're mad that people questioned his story, when he didn't ask for people to question his story. You made a story out of his question! You're mad that people have criticized him, when he didn't ask to be criticized. Senator—these are not attacks on Joe the Plumber!

They're attacks on John the Liar! Not to mention Sarah the Shopaholic and Phil the Economy-Killer; G. Gordon the Domestic Terrorist; Steve the Schmidt-Head; Charlie the Banker; The other Joe the Fact-Checker; Rick the Lobbyist; Randy the Lobbyist; Wayne the Lobbyist; William the Saddam Lobbyist; Vinnie the Chin and, of course, Bob the Builder.

Sen. McCain, I'm pretty sure Sen. Obama is right. He can probably survive two more weeks of personal attacks, but America probably can't survive four more years of government by the Republican Party. However, even more urgent, more pressing. He isn't working for you, and he's driving the rest of us to consider going back to the days of out-houses and wooden aqueducts.

On behalf of a tortured nation, with blood streaming from its collective ears.

Enough with Joe the Plumber already!

—Keith the Anchor
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27351270/

[trish]

In regards to the nanny state argument, I explained why it doesn’t work. You did not even attempt to show my explanation was inadequate, you merely called it spin and reasserted the original argument which was nothing more than a strained metaphor. Sorry, but that just won’t do.

You realize the numbers of people nationwide that are opposed to gay rights for instance…or slavery?

So now you want to equate not supporting Social Security with not supporting slavery? One is a social program and the other was a private institution, just for starters!. Gay rights is an issue about rights, your beef with Social Security not, the latter is merely about not wanting to pay taxes. It’s already established there is no right not to be taxed. I think the founders gave that up already when they inserted the qualifier “without representation”.

Social security is not the same as the fire department, and even if it was…

Of course it is. Social Security keeps the elderly in homes and shelters. People living on the street are not only a nuisance but a risk to public health and safety. The homeless are a major factor, for example, in rise in resistant strains of tuberculosis and other bacterial diseases (another major factor is the use of antibodies on factory farm a barrel at time; it’s another example of where private industry is real threat to public health and requires strong regulation).