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

[natina]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/obama-picks-up-first-tribune-democratic-endorsement/


Joe The Plumber....is this his union? United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Industry of the United States And Canada? Because if it is.... http://www.ua.org/ua_endorses.asp "On January 9, 2008, the United Association became the first International Union to endorse Senator Barack Obama as its candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. This endorsement was discussed with the General Executive Board and they concurred."


I wonder if the Joseph Wurzelbacher who spoke to Obama and THIS Joseph Wurzelbacher are the same guy. If so, he's not only a racist, but a liar as well, as THIS Ohio Joseph Wurzelbacher already owns his own construction company. http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_yhcjy


So, let me get this straight. Joe the Plumber lied about his job qualifications, he ALREADY doesn't pay his taxes, and he can't spell his own name? He must be a Republican!

Joe the Plumber has a tax lien on his property for failure to pay income tax from 2007 (I believe). What I can't understand is why Joe is so worried about paying higher taxes when he doesn't bother paying taxes at all....

all i wanna know is this: how can you consider yourself to be 'middle class' if you make over 250,000 a year? would that be upper-upper middle class? or maybe lower upper class? 250k a year is stinking rich as far as i'm concerned.

Do a criminal/civil record search using Wurzelbacher's last name, first initial,for Hamilton County, Ohio, at "http://www.courtclerk.org/cpciv_namesearch.asp". Very interesting...




Joe the Plumber? Doesn't this guy - who may be related to Robert Wurzelbacher (son-in-law of Charles Keating and convicted in Keating Scandal) - own FOUR companies listed in Cincinnati, Oh? R. Wurzelbacher owns one, too. And Joe - who claims to be "just a plumber looking to buy a small business" isn't registered to vote? But he plants himself at a Obama rally to what? Provide a soundbite for John McCain? I'd say John McCain should come clean on this except I doubt he even knows what his campaign has set up for him... or, once again, McCain clearly forgets that ANY INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND. It sure wouldn't be the first time he's been so stupid. McCain = BUSH policies And John, SAYING you know or can fix or aren't something doesn't make it so. YOU ARE A LIAR.

I hope to God this is true: "According to Lucas County, Ohio court records Samuel J. Wurzelbacher lives at xxx. The state of Ohio took out a judgment against him for $1,182.98 in unpaid income taxes on 2007. Samuel J. Wurzelbacher also was involved in divorce proceedings in 2006 (with the Holland address) and previously in 1997, when he had an Arizona address." Documents: http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/DocketDR.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=DM20065458&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0 http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/DocketDR.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=DR19970476&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0 http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/Docket.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=LN200701803-000&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=0 JOE IS ALEGEDLY tied into the Keating 5 owns several business http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/16/02217/845/591/632001 NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE!! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/16/04943/642/556/632036



LOL! The story gets even more ridiculous. DailyKos has a post up showing Joe the Plumber might be closely connected to CHARLES KEATING. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/16/02217/845 This is getting funnier by the minute, a guy who is obviously in the tank for McCain, turns out to lay out this nonsense story, he clearly is going to pay less taxes under Obama than McCain, and turns out he isn't even registered to vote, and now turns out he may be closely conntected to Charles Keating, a relative of Robert Wurzelbacher of Cincinnati, Ohio, who happens to be Charles Keating's son-in-law and a big Republican donor. They've also found at least 4 companies registered in Joe's name right in Cincinatti dealing in construction, painting, investments, and and repair of septic tanks. Hardly an average Joe.

[InHouston]

Before you and your little elves ride off into fantasy land, here's the facts.

He's a plumber and has been for well over a decade. He doesn't currently make $250,000 a year. He works under his employer's license. He's going to skip a Journeyman's license, and is studying to go straight for his Master Plumber's license so he could run his own plumbing company. Hence, this is why he asked Obama about his taxes being raised should he open his own company.

There's no connection to Joe and the McCain campaign. He didn't seek Obama out. Obama walked down his street, and Joe simply stepped outside to ask him a question.

On his taxes, he pays them like most hard working Americans do. He found out he owed an additional $1,100 in taxes he had to clear up before they would refinance his home, and he payed it.

[trish]

So if Joe makes less than $250 000, his taxes will go down. What's his problem?

I understand that Joe plumbs, but he's NOT a licensed plumber. He is not covered by his employer's license or anybody else's license. On his taxes, maybe he pays them, maybe he doesn't. Was he trying to get away without paying the $1100 or was it an honest mistake? Doesn't much matter. The point is, once again John Sydney McCain III made a wild, crazy snap decision. He gambled (like a maverick) on Joe. He made Joe the centerpiece of his campaign for two weeks and didn't bother to find out anything about Joe. Just six weeks before McCain made a similiar wild gamble, picking Palin for his VP over Lieberman whom he really wanted. We've had enough republican assholes gambling with our nation's energy policies. Enough assholes gambling with our nation's economy. Enough assholes gambling with our nation's security. Enough assholes gambling with the lives of our soldiers. We don't need mavericks in the White House, we've had one and he was a loser. McCain's another loser. If McCain wants to get all mavericky, he can go to a casino and lose his own money.

[InHouston]

So if Joe makes less than $250 000, his taxes will go down. What's his problem?


He wants to open his own plumbing company after he gets his Master Plumber license, where he could potentially and easily end up earning $250k or more. So, he asked Obama should he open his own company, "You're going to raise my taxes aren't you?"

Obama told him it's good to spread the wealth.

[trish]

So he gets a break when it counts, on his way up the ladder. It sounds like Joe could use a break right now; and remember McCain is NOT promising him one. All McCain says is that he won't raise Joe's taxes. It's Obama who is offering Joe the tax break. Once Joe's making a quarter of a million dollars a year (if he ever does) he won't need a break, he'll be able to pay his fair share.

Right now those who "skim" 90% of our nation's wealth off the top only pay 50% of the taxes. You want to spend billions of dollars a day in Iraq, pay for it, don't borrow from China. Every time dems get in office they balance the budget and give us a surplus. Every time the repubs get in, they spend like crazy, expand the government, cut taxes for the rich and borrow, borrow, borrow! I should say burrow, burrow, burrow us in a hole sooo deep you can only see the noon day sun.

[NYBURBS]

So he gets a break when it counts, on his way up the ladder. Once he's making a quarter of a million dollars a year (if he ever does) he doesn't need a break, he can pay his fair share.

Those who "skim" 90% of our nation's wealth off the top only pay 50% of the taxes. You want to spend billions of dollars a day in Iraq, pay for it, don't borrow from China. Every time dems get in office they balance the budget and give us a surplus. Every time the repubs get in, they spend like crazy, expand the government, cut taxes for the rich and borrow, borrow, borrow!

OK lets be realistic here, both of those parties have expanded the government. One of the largest single expansions being under FDR, but I'll also note Regan definitely didn't help the cause either (see I dislike both parties lol). As for fair share, what exactly is that? Because 250,000 is nice but it's not mega rich. Should you really pay almost 40% of that to the Federal gov't? I would answer with a resounding NO. How about we get all the people working off the books to pay taxes? Oh wait they typically don't make 250,000 so we shouldn't worry about them? All the landscapers, pizza guys, etc that make money and use services but never pay a dollar in income tax.

I'd remind you that the democrats have just as bad track record with getting us into conflicts as do the republicans. That unfortunately comes from the misguided notion that you can improve a situation by the use of force. There's a grave difference between defending your nation and invading other nations in the name of political change, liberation (I LOL), humanitarian causes (again a big lol, let's stop the killing by killing???wtf), etc. The democrats are just as guilty as the republicans when it comes to this.

On a closing note, I want to agree with you about not borrowing, and the need to balance the budget. However, that simply isn't enough. The entitlement programs need to be looked at and imo gutted. We simply can not afford the continued long term costs of these programs. That's not to say I am advocating cutting off the elderly currently on it, but long term we need a better solution.

PS- Before some long haired hippie tries to call me out, the military budget needs to be gutted also.

[trish]

You're really worried about the pizza guys? I'm not excusing them. They too should pay their taxes...but I don't think pizza guys are the problem here.

Establishing social security is the best thing this government ever did and yes, we can thank FDR for that. The dumbest thing this country did was not safely invest the money paid into the social security system. The government has spent it on wars and given to the wealthy in tax breaks. That is exactly the program Bush based his first campaign on: give the social security surplus paid for by working people, to the wealthy in tax breaks. If that's not called redistribution of wealth, then it's called conservatism...same thing by my reckoning. McCain wishes to continue with that redistribution, draining money from the middle class into the Waterford crystal goblets held by the soft hands of the transcendent.

We all know everybody who makes a quarter of a million dollars a year is going to shelter most of it. We don’t need to worry about some poor quarter of a millionaire paying too much in taxes. We do, however, apparently have to worry about a pizza boy not paying enough! For those of you who do make a quarter of a mill a year, here’s a quote from Obama’s website

“Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.”

[NYBURBS]

I'm saying that every single person that lives here needs to pay into the system, not just those deemed rich. I'm all for abolishing the income tax, but since that isn't happening anytime soon then Joe the Pizza Guy should pay also. I'm willing to bet you that their paying taxes would have as much if not a far more profound impact on the budget than Obama's new tax plan.

Further, people making 250,000 aren't sheltering tons of that money. There seems to be such a disconnect going on between what is actually rich and what is not. Come move to the suburbs of NY, have a family of 5 and tell me 250,000 is really rich. It is nice, it will help you live comfortably, it IS NOT worthy of a 39% tax rate. No ONE, I repeat, NO ONE should have almost 40% of their income taken from them. It is repressive and contrary to everything this country stood for.

People that make millions or tens of millions of dollars shelter money and this new income tax plan isn't going to get them. On a closing note I would say that social security is one of the worst things ever done. Why? Well not because it isn't a good idea to have people covered with some type of pension check in their old age. Rather, because the government comes and takes your money all through your life, then pisses it away, or gives ss benefits to people that never even paid into the system. We're not going to see SS but I've certainly been taxed to death in the name of it, real nice.

[trish]

...I would say that social security is one of the worst things ever done. Why? Well not because it isn't a good idea...Rather, because the government comes and takes your money...then pisses it away...We're not going to see SS ...

Social security has helped countless millions of people who would otherwise have been rendered homeless and poor in their old age. It's one of the best things we the people can do for ourselves. And not every administration pissed it away. Clinton had a surplus and Gore promised to "put it in a lock box". It'll be there for you and your children, as it has been for generations now, provided you don't vote for administrations that are philosophically opposed to it and will do anything to dismantle it. Had Bush succeeded in privatizing it, a lot of seniors would be in a panic now.

[NYBURBS]

It most certainly is not going to be there. We are in a fiscal crisis and the vast majority of baby boomers have not even started to collect. You do not need the government to set aside money for you, you're completely capable of doing that yourself. Real changes are coming to all of these programs, whether you want to believe it or not. We're broke and the chickens are coming home to roost.

[trish]

It most certainly is not going to be there.

Don’t you believe it. That's only what objectivists and neo-cons need people to believe to get “permission” to dismantle the most popular government program ever, the third rail of American politics. Social security is beloved of most republicans and democrats alike. It’s going to take more than neo-cons and libertarians to bring it down. And it’s going to take more than the current banking failures. Remember the program got its start during the biggest banking failure in world history. It’s in times like these that people most clearly see the need for Social Security.


You do not need the government to set aside money for you, you're completely capable of doing that yourself.

That might apply to you and me. I’ve got a decent job and I’m young enough to invest. However, millions of people (even young, promising and ambitious ones) will never score enough income to put anything of significance aside for old age. Lot’s of people hold down two or three jobs and can barely make ends meet. You’ve suggested yourself that even $250 000 a year isn’t a lot of money to make in the suburbs of NY!


Come move to the suburbs of NY, have a family of 5 and tell me 250,000 is really rich.

Try being a single mom with three kids who makes a secretary’s salary of $16000 a year.

Look, the point is, a lot of us can and will take care of ourselves into old age. But not everyone will be able to. Moreover, neither you nor I can predict who will in fact be able to put enough aside. Nobody knows what financial calamities may befall us singly as we approach retirement age. You may think you’re prepared, well invested and will always be able to work if you need to; but only time will tell. Sometimes self-interest involves looking out for the interests of everyone.

Oh maybe Social Security isn’t essential. We can live with homeless, elderly pan-handlers, right? I can learn to walk around them in the street. But I’d rather pay some taxes so they can continue to collect Social Security. I’m not alone. Few Americans relish stepping over each others grandmothers in the street, and most Americans are weary of their own chances of financial survival. That’s why Social Security is the third rail of American politics. As long as we continue to keep neo-cons and libertarians out of office (that second part’s pretty easy), Social Security will be with us through the next century.

That’s why I can go to bed now and sleep easy. Good-night.

[NYBURBS]

First of all $250,000 was brought up as not worthy of an almost 40% federal tax, I never said it's not more than enough to set aside money for retirement. Second of all the point that it has been run into the ground is still the big ol elephant in the room. Everyone knows it but most are afraid to admit it.

Further, the whole idea of SS is not because the poor can't set aside money. Let's face it, they don't get enough when they collect to live off of anyways. Another excellent point to this is that FICA is the most regressive tax there is. You pay it at around 7% regardless if you make 7.00 an hour or 25.00 an hour. If you're self employed GOD help you because you are responsible for just over 15% of your income on the first $102,000 (Do you know what kind of return you would have investing 15% of your income on your own?).

This program is there to say "you're not smart enough to take care of yourself, so we will do it for you." Of course the sheep love it, the government says "relax we'll give you money later on" but in reality they piss so much of that money away and are simply taking it from you all of your working life.

[PapaGrande]

god forbid someone practice plumbing without an official license from the State! Joe you rebel! I love these left wing Jr. Matlocks that uncover these grand conspiracies, Joe the Plumber is a McCain plant!!!! As if they couldn't have found a plumber with a license and didn't owe back taxes to ask a "fake" question.

I don't make $250k and Im against Obama's tax plans. Some of us think beyond just what is in it for us. Some of us don't fall for class warfare rhetoric and wealth envy. Some of us actually understand basic economics. Some of us believe in ethics.

isn't it funny how we all believe our side is right and the other is just so wrong? I used to be far left, very far left, I volunteered for the Socialist Party. I've read a considerable amount of far left material on politics, economics, history, etc. I know I wont change anyones mind here, but if you are going to argue against something, you should have a good understanding of what you are arguing against. I do have respect for anyone who can put together a halfway intelligent argument for something they believe, if it is based on facts and reason. Most of what I see here regurgitating near propaganda from Huffington Post and DailyKos. I mean really, you people need to get some balance in your information sources, if for no other reason that to strengthen your own case. That shit is as "fair and balanced" as Fox News. Know your enemy!

That being said, I will be happy when this election is over and Dear Leader fails to miraculously cure all of societies ills with government handout and nice speeches. Seriously though I hope this will finally put some of the "America is racist" bullshit to bed. Liberals are obsessed with race. Before the election two people that scored very high in polls of Republicans (of who they wanted to be President) were Powell and Rice. As the primaries showed, it looks like Democrats have more bigots in their ranks. I am sincere in that I hope an Obama presidency lets us move past this, so that next time around we can focus on the issues and not the color of the candidates skin.

OK, back to the real reason Im here, TS nudie pix.

[trish]

NYBURBS said,

the whole idea of SS is not because the poor can't set aside money.

Agreed, it's not the main point (nevertheless, it's not irrelevant because the poor and many others really can't).


Let's face it, they don't get enough when they collect to live off of anyways.

Between the two of us, and those of you reading the conversation, I’m sure we know a lot of people who are currently living off of Social Security who would be in bad shape without it. I certainly do. If there are some who still can’t make ends meet, perhaps we should increase our support.


FICA is the most regressive tax there is. You pay it at around 7% regardless if you make 7.00 an hour or 25.00 an hour.

I thought you guys preferred flat taxes to graduated ones (understanding, of course, you prefer, when possible, no taxes at all).


This program is there to say "you're not smart enough to take care of yourself,

Being able to take care of yourself when you’re elderly is often independent of how smart you are or how smart you were. You do not know now what your needs will be when you’re old, nor do you know what your financial situation will be. It’s fun to act superior when you’re momentarily well situated but the future is as opaque for you as it is for everyone else. The program is there because it is more efficacious and less risky for all of us to look out for each other. It furthers our individual self-interest to minimize our risks by investing in our collective self-interest.

PapaG, the point isn’t that Joe plumbs even though he’s not a plumber. It’s not that he's behind on his taxes. It’s not that he lied about being anywhere close to buying out his boss's business. The point is that John Sydney McCain III didn’t even have his staff of lobbyists, excuse me, campaign advisors give Joe a cursory check before making him a feature vehicle of his message. Once again McCain demonstrated how poor judgments arise from mavericky impulses. In that way he's exactly like Bush, the decider, who made snap decisions and stuck to 'em. Sarah Palin is the worst example of this impulse to bad judgment. We can only guess how McCain might fill cabinet positions and choose judges. The science journal Nature reported in its September 25th issue that McCain’s main science and technology advisors are: J. Woolsey, Former Central Intelligence Agency Director; J. Schlesinger, Former Secretary of Defense; R. McFarlane, Former National Security Advisor; C. Fiorina, Former Chief Executive of Hewlett-Packard; and M. Whitman, Former Chief Executive of eBay. That may be an appropriate group to advise the President on the technology of acquiring and assessing military intelligence, but a real President will need advice on a far more wider spectrum of science and technology issues.

Obama’s main science and technology advisors are reported by Nature to be:H. Varmus of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, D. Lamb of the University of Chicago, G. Omenn of the University of Michigan, H. Kelly of the Federation of American Scientists, S. Long of Stanford University, J. Grumet of The Bipartisan Policy Center and D. Kammen of the University of California at Berkeley.

[NYBURBS]

Yea Trish I know people living off of it, and if those same people kept 7% of their income every year they could have set aside money or invested. If they decide not to well that is their problem. Also any argument that they can't/won't because there are other things they will spend the money on should be moot... There are people that receive social welfare money that use it to drink or buy drugs, or lotto tickets. Somehow that doesn't stop you from wanting to give them that money. It comes down to responsibility for ones life.

You also act as if this money we raise through tax doesn't impact people. It greatly increases the cost of everything, thus hurting the same people you seek to help. A little faith in the individual to do the right thing would go a long way.

Oh and yes I do dislike taxes, along with the "progressive" income tax. Yet I noted the regressive nature of FICA due to the fact that so many people champion it in the name of the poor.

You know there are many things I believe in privately supporting. Some would most certainly have a collective aspect to them, yet I am adamantly opposed to most if not all of those things when imposed through the force of law.

[chefmike]

On his taxes, he pays them like most hard working Americans do. He found out he owed an additional $1,100 in taxes he had to clear up before they would refinance his home, and he payed it.

Oh really? Then why were there news articles showing a local radio station raising money to help GOP poster boy Joe pay his back taxes? He sounds like just another lying repug freeloader to me.

[chefmike]

Establishing social security is the best thing this government ever did and yes, we can thank FDR for that. The dumbest thing this country did was not safely invest the money paid into the social security system. The government has spent it on wars and given to the wealthy in tax breaks. That is exactly the program Bush based his first campaign on: give the social security surplus paid for by working people, to the wealthy in tax breaks. If that's not called redistribution of wealth, then it's called conservatism...same thing by my reckoning. McCain wishes to continue with that redistribution, draining money from the middle class into the Waterford crystal goblets held by the soft hands of the transcendent.

Brilliantly stated, trish. As always.

[trish]

…I know people living off of it [Social Security], and if those same people kept 7% of their income every year they could have set aside money or invested.

Yeah, you already said that, and I already pointed out what’s wrong with it. What if that savings is lost through a banking melt down? What if that savings has to be spent on a health emergency which should be covered by a private health insurance company that insists you’re not covered for that particular emergency? Or what if the company covered your first bout with cancer and then quickly dropped you, so that you had to use up your savings and also borrow to pay for your follow up treatment, or for your second bout with cancer? What if you invested it conservatively, but it turned out you lost a bundle anyway? What if you just simply and unexpectedly outlive your savings? Anything can happen to one person. Of course it’s probable that none of these horrible things will happen to you. But multiply the population of the U.S. by even a small probability and you will be convinced that hundreds of thousands of responsible people would and do benefit from the Social Security safety net. Anything can happen to a single person, but the brilliance of Social Security is making the law of large numbers work to the advantage of each and every one of us. Looking out for our self-interest collectively advances the self-interest of each of us singly.


If they decide not to well that is their problem.

No, that’s your problem. First of all, if people are putting 7% into Social Security they are putting something aside and have every right to benefit. Second, in a society without such a program, there will be more homeless elderly people on the street. That’s your problem. There will be more crime. That’s your problem. With more people living on the street there will be more public health dangers (public urination, defecation, contagion etc.). Those are your problems. There will be political instability and unrest. That’s your problem.


You also act as if this money we raise through tax doesn't impact people.

Of course it impacts people. It’s just like setting aside 7% of your income, which you yourself seem to be advocating. But the impact is even better. Your risk is nil, having been minimized by the law of large numbers. You are guaranteed (which is not the case with your plan) that when you reach retirement you will collect…and that you will continue to collect even when your accumulated withdrawal exceeds the amount you paid in plus interest, you will collect for the remainder of your life no matter how long you live.

My sincere wish is that you don’t outlive your resources. I’d rather that wish not be a constraint on your longevity. I’ll take for my resource any day, working American’s like me. I will work for them, if they will work for me. 300 million strong.

[trish]

Establishing social security is the best thing this government ever did and yes, we can thank FDR for that. The dumbest thing this country did was not safely invest the money paid into the social security system. The government has spent it on wars and given to the wealthy in tax breaks. That is exactly the program Bush based his first campaign on: give the social security surplus paid for by working people, to the wealthy in tax breaks. If that's not called redistribution of wealth, then it's called conservatism...same thing by my reckoning. McCain wishes to continue with that redistribution, draining money from the middle class into the Waterford crystal goblets held by the soft hands of the transcendent.

Brilliantly stated, trish. As always.

Thanks, sweetie :wink:

[NYBURBS]

Trish look around, this nation is going BANKRUPT, a government doesn't pull an additional 700 BILLION dollars (plus how many hundreds of billions for Franny/Freddy), spend hundreds of BILLIONS per year in foreign nations on some misguided crusade, and then keep up with entitlement payments that are about to balloon. Let's also not forget that we are trillions of dollars into debt. I know people like to think "We're the US we can't go broke" but we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I really think your confidence in government backed programs is perhaps misplaced.

[trish]

If the nation goes bankrupt, nobody but the wealthiest among us are going to have any savings to speak of. If the nation goes bankrupt, you go bankrupt too, whether you've been putting 7% aside or not. If the nation doesn't go defunct, then my arguments above hold, Social Security is the far less risky option for your future.

Remember, Social Security originated in worse times (1935) than these and thrived.

In 2004 Social Security paid out $500 billion in benefits. If we can come up with $700 billion to nationalize the mortgage banks and we can spend more than a billion a day in Iraq, we can continue Social Security. Five hundred days after we're out of Iraq we will have saved enough to cover one year’s worth of benefits. Our real problem concern is the billions that private banks have cost us.

There is no indication that private corporations and banks will ever seek stable economic equilibrium on their own. You're asking us to give up faith in ourselves and trust that the lumbering wild dinosaurs of private enterprise (who are only ever looking out for their own self-interest) will somehow strike a balance that is more advantageous for us working mammals than the balance we can construct for ourselves using intellect and reason. Social programs and regulated economies are uniquely human. They insure our survival on this planet. Economic systems in the wild (i.e. those which are not governed and well-regulated) are rarely expected to serve the needs of those who actually labor to design and produce goods. Wild systems minimize costs by exploiting workers as well as consumers. Moreover, they only serve their own short term needs. While huge unregulated and poorly regulated dinosaurs have been filling their coffers, they have also been draining our planet of vital resources, spewing toxins into the atmosphere and wreaking havoc with our climate. Now more than ever we need to domesticate internationals and more closely govern their interactions. Now, as in FDR’s day, we need public works programs to fix our failing infrastructure (roads, bridges, locks and damns, commercial airliners etc. etc.) As in FDR’s day, this is the kind of action that will create jobs and get the economy moving again. Enough trickle down. It doesn’t work, it never has.

[NYBURBS]

I'm not asking you to give up faith in anything, I'm asking that I not be mandated by law to go down with the ship. There are proposals that would allow people to still participate in social security, but also allow others to invest privately. While still forcing one to do something with their own property, which I oppose, it nevertheless is better than the current system.

Further, the logic that the US going broke means I go broke is faulty. There are plenty of people that invest their money in diverse areas throughout the world. It's entirely possible to make money in other markets even if this one goes to shit. Perhaps not short term but long term yes.

[trish]

I'm asking that I not be mandated…

That is the problem with libertarians in a nutshell.

Okay we’ll devise a plan that make’s you the sole exception. You, NYBURBS, won't have to pay Social Security, but everyone else will. Even though the relation of one thing being the property of an agent is a completely social construction determined not by the agent, but by the society in which the agent lives, we'll let you and only you have complete and utter autonomy over "your" property. If you want to build a nuclear weapon out the stuff that you bought and carted to your own home, well, hey, it’s your property. We’ll let you do it. But it applies only to you. Others will not be allowed willy-nilly to divert waterways, built nuclear weapons or produce anthrax on their property. How's that? It’s a system specifically designed to serve what you perceive to be your specific self-interests. As a libertarian you cannot be opposed to it. The self-interests of others are of no interest to you, unless of course you don’t really subscribe to the tenants of objectivism.

Let me anticipate your objection. You won’t be able to make as much money on the market if everyone else’s freedoms are too tightly constrained. If their companies are subject to regulation they won’t produce on your investment. Their self-interests ARE of interest to you.

Your objection is my point: Self-interest is not a sufficient basis for an ethical philosophy and it is not a basis for a realistic, let alone a fair economy. Everyone’s interests complexly knot and intertwine, melt and merge. How do you tell where your interests end and others begin? If we are all intricately connected, do your interests have an end? Should the boat go down, we’ll all get wet, mandated or not.


It's entirely possible to make money in other markets even if this one goes to shit.

Beautiful sentiment. I hope you invest well. Remember our deal, you’re not covered.

[NYBURBS]

That is such faulty logic. Building a nuclear bomb in your yard, or anything else outwardly harmful, trespasses upon the rights of a party other than yourself and is therefore wrong (not too mention irrational). Not being forced to give the government money so it can "invest" it for you is a completely legitimate request and is not trespassing upon others. You'll notice the difference. Yes you will come back with, well you use roads, and school, and hospitals. Yea I do and I help pay for them, but that doesn't mean I should have to invest in social programs such as SS. Two different ball games and as much as you want to tie them into being one and the same you know they're not :wink:

PS- It's called rational self-interest. I see nothing rational in a large central government draining the majority of your earnings so it can spend it as IT sees fit. That my friend is tyranny, no different than the mob coming along and threatening to break your legs if you don't pay protection money. I think you'd find a philosophy of self interest does not preclude helping others, it just has a problem with being mandated to do it under the force of law.

[trish]

That is such faulty logic. Building a nuclear bomb in your yard, or anything else outwardly harmful, trespasses upon the rights of a party other than yourself and is therefore wrong (not too mention irrational).


Well actually, building one is not so harmful, detonating one is a different story…it’s more a matter of risk than logic isn’t it? That’s also the case with fire departments. Imagine that instead of being paid for with public money, your fire department was entirely financed by its subscribers. Suppose everyone on your block subscribes except your neighbor. By not subscribing to any fire department your neighbor has become a hazard. If his house catches fire, no one is going to put it out. A fire at his house is now a threat to your house. So it is, as I explained before, with all those elderly homeless on the street. They become a hazard.

But I see you are okay with regulation aimed at preventing corporations from trespassing on the rights of other parties? I’m sorry but I thought libertarians were against such regulation on the basis that government had no business telling them what to do with their money and their property. But I see you agree that sometimes the government CAN tell you what to do with a portion of your money and it CAN limit the use of your property.


Not being forced to give the government money so it can "invest" it for you…


I see nothing rational in a large central government draining the majority of your earnings so it can spend it as IT sees fit.

That is a complete misrepresentation of Social Security. The investment is for everyone who ever worked for their living, not just you. That distinction goes to the whole point of Social Security. Neither is it tyranny. It is not tyranny to contribute taxes to a public program that the public supports and voted for over and over again (anytime a politician threatens Social Security he’s voted out). I understand the proclivity of libertarians to characterize all taxation as “being forced to give,” but it is not tyranny when a republic undertakes to enforce its laws. To call Social Security tyranny shows just how ridiculous the libertarian grasp of political reality is.

It is nice, however, to meet a libertarian who willingly pays for public schools, roads, bridges and even hospitals. Many do not distinguish between those social programs and others.

[NYBURBS]

Yes it is tyranny, we pay easily over 50% of our incomes in various forms of taxes (probably higher) and that is repressive. There is something wrong with the logic that you MUST give your money over for a program such as that. Want to set it up as a voluntary program, then hey w/e have fun.

As for the nuclear bomb scenario, just admit you picked a bad example Trish. You're a bright gal and you know you're not going to be able to argue that point through. For example I'm going to come back and say that they are radioactive and therefore do present a danger to others even prior to use.

The fire department and social security comparison is also just not going to cut it. If the block catches fire then we're all fucked. I need a fire put out just as much as the next guy, but it is unlikely and less than rational to think we're each going to have a fire truck(s) of our own. That is different than thinking you can invest or save your own money rather than asking the government to do it for you.

Once again I will point out that I am not opposed to all forms of regulation, nor am I an anarchist. Nor do I like big giant corporations, but we both know corporatism is not free market economics. My biggest issue is with the federal government imposing these programs. 1) It goes beyond the scope of what was granted to them. 2) It is least responsive, least efficient, and hardest to alter at the central government level. Plenty of towns/cities/counties/states that are capable of deciding what if any programs might work for them.

[trish]

You could say the shielded warhead in your basement exposes your neighbor to radiation, but you would be wrong. A properly shielded weapon harms your neighbor no more than the shotgun resting in your gun cabinet. But that’s beside the point I was making. If you don’t like the nuclear warhead example, replace it by two truck loads of nitroglycerin. I think you and I do agree that even if a nuclear weapon or a truckload of nitro does your neighbor absolutely no physical harm, it still presents an unwarrantable risk. The point is that it is a trespass on your neighbor’s rights to expose him to unwarrantable risk. This is like the risk presented by the neighbor who doesn’t buy the protection of fire department. In both cases the government mandates against such risk taking: in first case by making it against the law for private citizens to keep nuclear warheads or tons of explosives in residential areas and in the second case by “forcing” citizens to give protection money to their local fire department (I’m just trying to use the language of the objectivist here).


That is different than thinking you can invest or save your own money rather than asking the government to do it for you.

Thrice again you mischaracterize Social Security. I understand that’s the straw man against whom you wish to argue. However, Social Security isn’t an investment portfolio. It is more akin to the fire department. It is there not for you in particular but for everybody. Like the fire department it will aid you directly when you need it (on the other hand you may never retire and never draw from it), but it also prevents hundreds of thousands of tragedies that would burden and certainly diminish us all were they allowed to occur.


Yes it is tyranny, we pay easily over 50% of our incomes in various forms of taxes…

I didn’t know tyranny was a matter of percentages (not that I’m accepting the 50% figure). I’d be curious to know the minimum tax rate at which a republic ceases to be a republic and tyranny kicks in. If it’s just a matter of percentage, then why is the Social Security budget tyrannical and not the military budget, or the payroll of the judiciary? Humans are social animals. They live together in communities. There aren’t many willing anchorites out there. In the wild state individuals gave much, much more than 50% of their energy and effort to the daily survival of their tribe and often willingly. I understand tribes aren’t always democratic; but democratic or not, that high level of community dedication was necessary for the tribe’s survival and the individual’s survival. Modern societies (for good or ill) have reduced and eased our social obligations. These days the only thing that is expected of us is that we mind the law and pay some taxes, and yet these days it seems we have more whiners.

[NYBURBS]

Pay some taxes? Do you really say that with a straight face? lol. You pay more to taxes than to any other single expense if you're the typical working class person. Social security is not the same as the fire department, and even if it was it should not be run by the federal government without an amendment granting it authority. Otherwise we end up back in this situation with tons of people (like myself) wanting to dismantle it in one fashion or another.

I don't want the nanny state, apparently you do. I know what is good for me, somehow I have the feeling you know what is good for Trish. Mr. Bureaucrat in Washington is a lot less likely to know what you need. Besides, if it is backed by the government and is more akin to an individual security guarantee, then you should have no problem with making it voluntary. Just don't allow anyone that didn't pay in to collect. Obviously it is so overwhelming popular that most will still contribute, and of course I'm sure you won't mind stepping just the handful of us that apparently would be so mistaken.

Somehow we survived for quite the long time without this program. Somehow we were quite the prosperous nation. Somehow scores of immigrants still wanted to come to this nation even before we had all these social programs and ungodly high tax rates. I wonder why?

[trish]

Way to not answer any questions, what I say with a straight face is Social Security is not tyranny. But you keep on saying that it is, be my guest. But if you do, don't expect ever to see a libertarian in the White House.

[NYBURBS]

Way to not answer any questions, what I say with a straight face is Social Security is not tyranny. But you keep on saying that it is, be my guest. But if you do, don't expect ever to see a libertarian in the White House.

To answer your question, it is tyrannical when it unduly burdens a persons ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Is that a set percentage? No probably not, yet nevertheless we are there. Further, the ruling elite (which most liberals profess to hate but really embrace) have been entrenched on both ends by endless streams of money, making representative democracy really a thing of the past. Yet that is our fault as a general populace, because so many people live consumed with bullshit like did Spears show her cooch or not, rather then concerning themselves with how they are governed. This of course is another reason not to centralize so much power, because it is easier to get people to wake up and make changes on a local level.

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? You know liberals "whine" constantly about expanded police powers and government oppression of certain groups. Yet conservatives "defend" it as simply keeping the good social order. Yet liberals will contend that people that complain of excessive government interference in their lives and burdensome taxation in the name of the "social good" are nothing more than whiners. I'd say both are ample reasons to complain and perhaps both sides should pause and think about their fundamental ideology.

Btw- Average person pays say 20% federal income tax. Then we have say 7% on every sale, FICA, property tax, school tax, state income tax, excise taxes, luxury tax, DMV/car tax?, Usage fees on utilities, phones, etc. This is right of the top of my head and of course even if you don't pay it directly one way or the other you end up with the bill. I'll research it but I'm willing to bet my 50% figure is about right.

[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).