The Smallest Minority

I take this to mean that she won't have to work 3 or 4 jobs just to make ends meet because the rising costs of living have far outpaced wages.

In other words, she (and you Kevin as well as everyone else who posts here) have been putting gas in the cars and paying the mortgages of the wealthiest people in this country.

I'm not sure I get that.

I never thought this day would happen. I won't have to work on puttin' gas in my car. I won't have to work on payin' my mortgage.

That's a "my".

Not a "their".

Please explain. I assume that you are suggesting that the proceeds of tax etc. are given to people above a certain threshold.
I'm not American, and I don't know your tax system, but that does seem a rather stupid proposition.

The truth? $42k

It helps if her words are transcribed accurately. Listen to her carefully. She said,

"I won't have to worry 'bout puttin' gas in my car! I won't have to worry 'bout payin' my mortgage! You know, if I, if I had none, he's gonna help me."

She doesn't have to worry because Obama's gonna take money from rich folks and give it to her if she needs it. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. He's preaching socialism and she's buying it.

Mark you are so absolutely full of it. Nothing you have said, as far back as I can remember, has been truthful, accurate, or even remotely backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

I take this to mean that she won't have to work 3 or 4 jobs just to make ends meet because the rising costs of living have far outpaced wages.

Of course you do, Mark. It's the only interpretation that fits your worldview, so that's what it MUST MEAN.

You are both going to be so sorely disappointed . . .

Kev, I have to concur. The word is "worry", not "work".

Not that is changes the outcome a whole lot, mind you.

"You are both going to be so sorely disappointed"

If this woman thinks, and it may be true, that she is going to get a free handout from your tax dollars in an Obama administration, she will be sorely disappointed.

Many of you will also be sorely disappointed when you see what is going to happen. I, for one, am looking forward to how you are going to spin more people working, making and spending more money, as well as taking more responsibility for themselves as individuals--all things Obama has called for repeatedly which you do not hear.

I am curious, though, that most of you ignored my second sentence. I guess that means that re-distributing wealth to wealthy people is just dandy with all of you.

I have to say that I take a certain amount of pleasure in knowing that when DJ pays higher costs for services in this country and when his tax dollars, which go to defense contractors and the oil industry, fund vacation homes for the top one percent of this country that all is right in his world.

>>I am curious, though, that most of you ignored my second sentence. I guess that means that re-distributing wealth to wealthy people is just dandy with all of you.


Conflating the distinct phenomena of profit making with confiscatory wealth redistribution is a classic collectivist failure of reasoning.

The propriety of govt buying a certain thing is a separate question from the issue of the person from whom it is bought making a profit on the transaction. It is unreasonable to expect such owners (that'd be anyone w/ a 401k, really) to "virtuously" fore go such profit because tax funds are involved.

Frankly, the purposes to which such profits are put, be it food for the kids, clothes, cars, vacation homes or coke & companions is none of your, my, or anyone else's god damned business.

It is also classic conflation for the Left to classify any event in which government declines to levy a tax as a contribution of tax money from other parties "to make up the difference". Again, this is muddled and fallacious thinking. In theory, this line of thinking can be applied to any and every dollar not taken in tax.

Go read the Geek's response, then come back here. We all know you can't understand it, but do it anyway.

"If this woman thinks, and it may be true, that she is going to get a free handout from your tax dollars in an Obama administration, she will be sorely disappointed."

It's likely that she's already getting one now, you blithering fool. It's likely (but not certain, as we know almost nothing about her) that she gets a net handout from the gubmint because her "refundable tax credits" exceed her taxes. That arithmetic is more than you can handle, isn't it?

Obama has stated repeatedly and in published detail that he wants to increase this effect by increasing the "refundable tax credits" for those with lower incomes and pay for them by increasing the taxes on those with higher incomes. You can talk until the sky falls (and you will, more's the pity) but you cannot change the simple fact that this is income redistribution, pure and simple, and Obama wants to increase it. So, if he is elected, and there is a Dimocrat majority in both houses of Congress, then we can expect that she will indeed get a handout from the gubmint that she does not now get, or a bigger handout than the one that she already gets. She apparently thinks so and is overjoyed at the prospect of it.

"I have to say that I take a certain amount of pleasure in knowing that when DJ pays higher costs for services in this country and when his tax dollars, which go to defense contractors and the oil industry, fund vacation homes for the top one percent of this country that all is right in his world."

Of course you jump to the conclusion that all is right in my world. Still haven't learned a goddamned thing, have you, little boy?

I find your approach to this election to be just amazing. If Obama is just peachy with you, then I would expect you to tout what he is expected to do. Instead, you keep trying to convince us that he is more conservative than we are and so we, too, ought to think he is peachy.

Goddamn, little boy, but your stupidity is really boundless, isn't it?

I guess that means that re-distributing wealth to wealthy people is just dandy with all of you.

Well M, I guess my response to that is about the same as my response to someone who tells me that Jesus is my way to salvation. Politely smile and walk away.

I'm not about to convince either person that the world might not fit their beliefs.

Juris:

I admire your restraint.

have been putting gas in the cars and paying the mortgages of the wealthiest people in this country.

That's right, it's not fair for people to make products and sell them.

But Mark (And his hero, Obama, espousing the same lines) aren't to be called Socialist or Communist.
"Because... well, JUST DON'T! You're LYING! Like NIXON! NIXON! NIXON! There! I said it three times! You are SILENCED! I have cast the NIXON SILENCE SPELL! (I can do that 3 times a day.)"
"That's D&D, that's not real..."
"NIXON SILENCE SPELL! YOU CANNOT TALK!"
"Nix..."
"NIXON SILENCE SPELL! MY WISDOM STAT IS 18!!!! 18!!!! YOU CAN'T TALK!!!!"
Sorry, Mark, it's not D&D. If it had been, "rocks would have fallen" long, long, long ago.

You've been bitching because we call Obama a socialist, a communist, and then you go and prove that you're expecting and hoping him to be.

And you're so fucking clueless you don't even realize it. That's the sad/funny/frustrating part.

I, for one, am looking forward to how you are going to spin more people working, making and spending more money, as well as taking more responsibility for themselves as individuals--all things Obama has called for repeatedly which you do not hear.

Because he's never done anything other than "calling for" it. He's all talk. All hat, no cattle.
He's never lived in a manner that he calls for. It's just words to him. At least for now.

Calling for, or doing. That's what you can't grasp. It's easy to say that you want to do something. Even when there's no way in hell your plan will result in what you say you want.
For example: It's easy to say you're a "critical thinker". It's much harder to actually synthesize information. You've never proven you are. All you've done is claim.

So we look at what his plan is, and go to estimate the effects. Funny, it doesn't look at all like the claims. You wave away the math, the history, the previous examples, and insist that the claims are all that matter.

You'll lie to get your preferred policy supported. You'll support other obvious lies.

I guess that means that re-distributing wealth to wealthy people is just dandy with all of you.

You're lying. Again. We've explained this enough and again and again and more times that now you're just lying again to say that now.

Marky sounds more and more like a Mad Lib script.

When politicians redistribute wealth, always the programs soon become inpenetrably complex - and that's to hide how the net effect is to redistribute wealth from the powerless to the powerful.