Floridians link Obama with Manley socialism

[Yuttie]

some? some? are u kidding me?

give me a break islandman. but i pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

[Islandman]

Just because you disagree with me doesn't make them right wing talking points.

Where have I said anything about socialism? Go and have that argument with the neocons if you want. I have said more than once here that I am totally comfortable with some form of govt health care and other govt run programs intended to benefit people who need some help getting ahead, so why you should ask me about medicare and social secutiry is silly at best.


What I am AGAINST, is the govt giving out money to INDIVIDUALS (get that I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L-S) on a permanent basis who are neither disabled, temporarily out of work, nor held responsible for what they should be using that money for. Thats why I was a BIG fan of Clintons welfare reform (I guess you were against that or are a Johnny-Come-Lately to this thing).

YOU don't have to be against that kind of govt policy, that is your right. But I will not accept that because I have a problem with it and don't think that is the best way to deal with taxes in an economy that it makes makes me some some kind ofevil person who does not like poor people.

And if you want to talk about distribution of wealth, we can have that discussion too. It is not a black and white issue either though i am sure you think so.

[Islandman]

OK, so every GOP candidate is a racist then? Or most of them?

[Assasin]

Well nuff black church preach some of this in common with the republicans.

Even some rastas do

They are against abortion
Against Homosexuals
they are against many government programs
They don't believe in some modern science
and believe only one set of people is choosen.

[Yuttie]

that's my point, the redistribution of wealth is quagmire, it was just a dog whistle to say the blackman gonna take your money and give it to his people.

you do know Obama tax policy requires an individual to work? stop listening to talk radio.

[Islandman]

You know the only thing i don't like about debating with you Yuttie? Often times you see me take a position on something and somehow take that to assume a whole lot of other things that I NEVER said,. and many times I have said exactly the opposite!

Why is it that just because I don't agree with A CERTAIN PART of Obamas tax plan, you somehow take that to mean that i am against universal health care, against social programs for the poor, agree with tax loopholes and subsidies for the rich, thinks Obamas tax plan is the same as welfare, etc,etc,etc?

Boss, there is a thing called unintended consequences that can happen to plans made with the best of intentions.

I happen to think that everybody who earn an income should pay some income taxes no matter how small, and think that any benefit from a govt program should come with some specific requirements. Why that is such an evil view to have I will never understand.

[Yuttie]

the redistribution of wealth is a emotional phrase to mi boss... so it just lead to an emotional outburts on my part.

low income workers contribute to payroll taxes, but that said, the money refunded is eventually pumped backed in system(unfortunately in most cases, it's debt)

[Islandman]

the redistribution of wealth is a emotional phrase to mi boss... so it just lead to an emotional outburts on my part.

LOL. Like I say save those emotional outbursts for the right wingers that it look like you have been scrapping with.

Regarding distribution of wealth, let me ask you this. It is not a trick question, just a way for me to understand how you think about these things.

A country has X amount of wealth, distributed in a way that the top 20% have lets say 40% of the wealth and the bottom 80% have 60% which is probably more evenly distributed than most countries in the world today.

Then the country implemented policies that causes the wealth to grow to 10 times X, but the result of the policies is that the top 20% now has 60% of the wealth and the bottom 80% have 40%. Were the policies a good thing for the wealth of country or a bad thing overall ? At what point, in your view, does the uneven distribution become more of a problem than the overall wealth?

[Yuttie]

when the top 1% possess 20%. LOL.

[Islandman]

And then what? Redistribute by any means necessary and as quickly as possible (or face revolt from the masses) or find a way to maintain the wealth and slowly close the gap?

[Islandman]

And i take it you are OK with growing the wealth and increasing the inequality... up to a point, then?

[Yuttie]

no. that would be required under two conditions. If the middle class is gutted and or if they are the ones stuck footing the bill. the redistribution is used to fund infrastructure, social causes, and security hence the rich is going to have contribute more out of there 1%.

[Yuttie]

there should be no limit on wealth, but we can't expect 1st world service if we are not sufficiently funded. Ima Rockefeller Republican, shhhh.....

[Islandman]

OK, sounds good so far.

I don't consider funding infrastructure and security as redistribution though. Or social causes either unless there is no purpose for them except to hand out money and ask for nothing in return.

So why the bl**cl**t you give me such a hard time then? Where is my position so different from yours?

Oh I forget, I had a disagreement about something to do with Obama.

[Yuttie]

lol, mi nuh tell yo se adi "redistribution" thing set mi off man, lol.