Cheap Joe Biden

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]tme wrote:
Zappy the Pinhead wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.

Really? You can say that with a straight face even? Because companies like Haliburton and KBR didn’t get any of that wealth, did they? But borrowing it from China to redistrubute to 'merican companies is cool, it’s the taxing the rich and giving it to poor folks that you have an issue with.

Trickle down.

[/quote]

Um, those companies provided goods and services for their pay.

you are damned right I have a problem giving my money to people that have not earned it.

23

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Slightly off the subject but don’t forget that back in 1989 Cheap Joe the Great Plagiarizer With the Bad Hairpiece is also the same chump that introduced the legislation that classified AAS as Class III drugs and later became law.

Cunt ass cocksucker. Nothing will stop me from voting against him.[/quote]

If that’s your make-or-break issue – which I realize it’s not – then you can’t be going in McCain’s direction. He’s got his own anti-steroid crusade to lead.

24

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.

Wow. How sad. Look at it this way, at least this time the money will help your own citizens and your own economy. Cold comfort?

Wrong. It will damage our economy and make our citizens dependent on handouts. How can you not see this? [/quote]

He can’t see it because he’s Canadian.

26

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Except it doesn’t help me, working 20 hours a week putting lots of that away for college while already earling several college credits in highschool so I can have a good job and take care of MYSELF AND MY OWN. I’m NOT being responsible so I can bail out some fuckups ass based on me being sucessful because I worked for it.

I am (will be) joe the plumber.

NOBAMA.[/quote]

Dude, you get too uptight about the ideology and miss the point.

The poor are costing your nation a fuckload of cash. They are the ones receiving aid, housing, while at the same time costing a ridiculous amount in terms of crime, policing and prison.

While you might be happy with that, and be more than willing to lock up every poor person on the planet, there are alternatives. In particular, there are alternatives that make your nation stronger economically, meaning you can support a larger military, have a larger impact on the world, and so forth.

Me first is not the same as country first… no matter how nicely it is phrased.

27

[quote]cremaster wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Wrong. It will damage our economy and make our citizens dependent on handouts. How can you not see this?

He can’t see it because he’s Canadian.[/quote]

Seriously, most people who have some belief that they have a chance at success don’t want to sit on their asses doing nothing.

You can imagine “those people” all want to live off your money because it’s an “us and them” issue. Dammit, it’s not that hard to give people serious incentives to get off the government tit.

It might make more sense to fight for good policies than static ideologies. The time for assuming any one ideology has all the answers is drawing to a close…

28

[quote]pushharder wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Slightly off the subject but don’t forget that back in 1989 Cheap Joe the Great Plagiarizer With the Bad Hairpiece is also the same chump that introduced the legislation that classified AAS as Class III drugs and later became law.

Cunt ass cocksucker. Nothing will stop me from voting against him.

If that’s your make-or-break issue – which I realize it’s not – then you can’t be going in McCain’s direction. He’s got his own anti-steroid crusade to lead.

Seriously, what’s McCain got going on in that regard?[/quote]

McCain was very involved in the baseball/steroid hearings. He worked right along with Biden. He has consistently voiced his anti-steroid stance in recent years.

29

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
One fucking TRILLION dollars in new spending. ONE TRILLION!!!

I didn’t hear you wailing when Bush was busy whacking the trillions button on the old deficit calculator.

However, back to the current, I’m a little leery of where you are getting your numbers and what they include. Just consider it another war… that will excuse any degree of spending, right?

Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth. [/quote]

a deficit is a deficit, in the end it will make you bankrupt

30

Biden’s generous with other people’s money.

31

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Biden’s generous with other people’s money. [/quote]

I would be too if people were dumb enough to allow me.

32

So, I take it Biden doesn’t pay taxes and that you guys are all wealthy!

33

[quote]vroom wrote:
So, I take it Biden doesn’t pay taxes and that you guys are all wealthy![/quote]

You have missed the point every time it has been pointed out to you, and you think you are being witty with these little quips.

You’re not. You just prove how badly you miss the point.

But I need to ask, why do you care about OUR deficit? It has strengthened your dollar, and made your country a ton of money.

Why don’t you go read up on the issues. Read up on exactly what Biden has said he wants Americans to do, and compare/contrast that with his own life.

It’s called hypocrisy, vroom. Go look it up. I am sure that will fly over your head as well.

34

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why don’t you go read up on the issues. Read up on exactly what Biden has said he wants Americans to do, and compare/contrast that with his own life.

It’s called hypocrisy, vroom. Go look it up. I am sure that will fly over your head as well. [/quote]

Yeah…

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=

[i]“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

A spokesman for Biden, David Wade, says the figures on Biden’s tax return do not reflect the true extent of his giving. “The charitable contributions claimed by the Bidens on their tax returns are not the sum of their annual contributions to charity,” Wade said in a statement to NRO. “Like most regular churchgoers, they contribute to their church, and they also contribute to their favorite causes with their time as well as their checkbooks, whether it’s [Jill] Biden’s volunteer work with military families or the Biden breast-health initiative, or the way in which the family pitched in driving supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, or the ways Sen. Biden has supported charities that help women, police, and veterans.”

Wade also suggests that Biden, who is famous for being the least wealthy member of the U.S. Senate, simply doesn’t have piles of money to give. “Like a lot of families that put three kids through college and have an aging parent move in with them, the Bidens aren’t divorced from the realities of everyday life,” Wade says. Still, Wade continues, “finding ways to give back is important to them.”

So far, at least, Biden’s tax returns have attracted little attention. On Saturday, the Washington Post published a 468-word story on the subject, the main point of which was that the release of Biden’s returns was an effort by the Obama campaign to pressure the McCain campaign to release Sarah Palin’s returns. After a few brief paragraphs on Biden, the rest of the story concerned Palin, reporting that “progressive groups” are eager to find out whether Palin “skirted tax obligations” on the per diem payments she received from the Alaska state government. The story made no mention of Biden’s charitable giving.

But for people who have studied the impressive generosity of the American public, there is news in Biden’s returns. “I’m not going to say he’s a bad guy,” says Arthur Brooks. “My only point is that his values are not typical American values when it comes to charitable giving. Americans in general are very generous.”[/i]

35

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush wasn’t doing it to spread the wealth.

Wow. How sad. Look at it this way, at least this time the money will help your own citizens and your own economy. Cold comfort?[/quote]

Vroom you really are showing that you don’t understand just because you don’tlive here. You don’t have all the details.

Bush had to deal the the 9/11 attacks, a failed military and homeland security thanks to the clinton administration, and more financially devistating natural disasters than a president I can think of.

All while fighting a liberal uprising, a liberal media, and his fellow republicans tucking tail. So he was spending to try and fix systemic problems, and getting blamed for others failed policies.

That is the difference. He wasn’t trying to take money from people who worked hard to get where they were and probably donate very well to the charities of their choice, in order to redistribute in accordance to his own special interest groups.

Our problems stem from every liberal majority that gets to pass legislature that completely underminds the very nature of capitolism.

36

[quote]vroom wrote:
<<<>>>
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg= >>>[/i][/quote]

Biden is a pompous, lying, self important, God hating, America hating nanny state insect and an affront the free world.

I’ve despised him for 20 years. This campaign did nothing to dissuade me from that view.

37

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Vroom you really are showing that you don’t understand just because you don’tlive here. You don’t have all the details.

Bush had to deal the the 9/11 attacks, a failed military and homeland security thanks to the clinton administration, and more financially devistating natural disasters than a president I can think of.

All while fighting a liberal uprising, a liberal media, and his fellow republicans tucking tail. So he was spending to try and fix systemic problems, and getting blamed for others failed policies.

That is the difference. He wasn’t trying to take money from people who worked hard to get where they were and probably donate very well to the charities of their choice, in order to redistribute in accordance to his own special interest groups.

Our problems stem from every liberal majority that gets to pass legislature that completely underminds the very nature of capitolism.[/quote]

That’s a fairly slanted view of the past.

Anyway, look, it’s not flying in the face of capitalism to have a progressive taxation system. Neither is it flying in the face of capitalism to have reasonable controls on the operation of businesses or markets.

We can argue about what is reasonable, but we’d probably agree that fraud and deceptive practices should be kept under control.

What is very important is that market forces, which require proper functioning markets, are used to guide the decisions of business and that the businesses are not owned by the government.

Taxation, and in particular progressive taxation, does not have anything to do with removing the forces of capitalism from exerting their effects on the decision making process. Funding government programs using a higher percentage of money from the higher earners doesn’t hamper capitalism… as businesses remain free to do whatever the hell they want, within the law, to get it back. It also doesn’t stop those with earning ability to invest or otherwise earn more… though it can make it harder or cause business to seek ways to lower their taxes.

Now, I do agree that the concept of wealth distribution is a bugaboo that drives a lot of people around the bend. However, regardless of the language used, I’m not aware of anybody promoting the concept of everyone earning the same or having the same standard of living. Nobody has suggested that we should tax people so heavily they will simply give up trying to get ahead.

38

[quote]vroom wrote:

Taxation, and in particular progressive taxation, does not have anything to do with removing the forces of capitalism from exerting their effects on the decision making process. Funding government programs using a higher percentage of money from the higher earners doesn’t hamper capitalism…[/quote]

So those higher taxes don’t hamper wages and employment?

39

[quote]Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:

Taxation, and in particular progressive taxation, does not have anything to do with removing the forces of capitalism from exerting their effects on the decision making process. Funding government programs using a higher percentage of money from the higher earners doesn’t hamper capitalism…

So those higher taxes don’t hamper wages and employment?
[/quote]

I didn’t say there would not be effects on the economy… but it isn’t changing the fundamental nature of it.

People with capital, or who borrow to purchase it, produce goods and sell them to consumers – all using market forces to guide their choices.

Tax rates have been rising and falling around the world from time to time as circumstances have changed. Some would be happy to have higher taxes if it they could get spending and the deficit under control.

40

[quote]vroom wrote:
cremaster wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Wrong. It will damage our economy and make our citizens dependent on handouts. How can you not see this?

He can’t see it because he’s Canadian.

Seriously, most people who have some belief that they have a chance at success don’t want to sit on their asses doing nothing.

You can imagine “those people” all want to live off your money[/quote]

From my own personal experience, that is exactly what many people want to do.