Barbara West's Joe Biden Interview

[Mabus]

A television station dared ask Biden some interesting questions:

WFTV Video of the Interview (http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html)

YouTube of the Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxT0ELP7az0)

Later, it was reported the Obama campaign canceled an interview at the station with Jill Biden:
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election" - Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

[TheEschaton]

HAve you watched that interview? All she does is parrot (disproven) right wing talking points at Joe Biden. I would have reached through the television and strangled her.

[Parkbandit]

HAve you watched that interview? All she does is parrot (disproven) right wing talking points at Joe Biden. I would have reached through the television and strangled her.

Because she was asking questions, you wanted to reach through the TV and strangle her?

What is with your liberal side.. that you say you are for free speech and all.. unless it's directed to you?

[TheEschaton]

I'm all for her spouting her stupid shit. But then people shouldn't see the need for criticizing Obama-Biden for saying, "Hey, we're not gonna put up with her stupid shit." The fact that I wanted to strangle her doesn't mean I ever would. I want to strangle members of the KKK when they spout racist shit, but I don't.*

*I am in no way saying this woman is racist, or even at the level of the KKK in her idiocy.


-TheE-

[Mabus]

HAve you watched that interview?
Of course I have, have you?


All she does is parrot (disproven) right wing talking points at Joe Biden.
She does ask Biden whether Obama is follow Marx:

"You may recognize this famous quote 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", that's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

A fair question.


I would have reached through the television and strangled her.
Instead Biden insulted her intelligence by suggesting she was incapable of writing her own questions, and Biden insulted all of us by not answering the questions asked truthfully.

If Obama is a Marxist or Socialist, Biden should have just stated so. Neither "Marxist" or "Socialist" are "bad words" to you, are they Eschaton?

[Warriorbird]

I dunno... if I were an actual socialist (like TheE) the whole 'Obama is a socialist!' crap would probably annoy me.

[Parkbandit]

It just seems to be a recurring theme with liberal politics. They are all preachy about "FREE SPEECH" and individual rights and suppressing their rights.. unless it's directed towards them. Look what Obama and Company did to Joe the Plumber. Here's a guy that was minding his own business in his neighborhood when Obama came by for some photo ops. He asked the man who could very well be the next President of the United States a direct question.. got the answer.. and then had his life completely scrutinized and looked into.

All because he asked a very simple question.

[Mabus]

Look what Obama and Company did to Joe the Plumber. Here's a guy that was minding his own business in his neighborhood when Obama came by for some photo ops. He asked the man who could very well be the next President of the United States a direct question.. got the answer.. and then had his life completely scrutinized and looked into.

All because he asked a very simple question.
It is getting even worse for Joe, as people are now breaking laws to investigate him:


Officials at the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency will be looking at the computer activity of an employee who may have accessed the personal information of the man who became famous as "Joe the Plumber" during the last presidential debate.

County Administrator James McCafferty said Sunday afternoon that the employee's computer had been "locked up" but that the agency had not been able to check the computer Friday for the activity in question.

McCafferty did not identify the employee, who he said works as a child support specialist.

The Cuyahoga Support Enforcement Agency helps to establish parentage, enforce support orders, and collects and dispenses child support payments in the county.

State and local officials are investigating why suburban Toledo resident Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher's driver license and vehicle registration information were accessed. The information was also accessed through accounts assigned to the office of the state attorney general and the Toledo Police Department, according to the Columbus Dispatch.

But you will find this sort of privacy violations in most repressive, Socialist governments like Obama wants to start.

[TheEschaton]

"You may recognize this famous quote 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", that's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Well, for example, that quote is originally from the Bible. That's where Marx got it. It becomes a very different question if you say, "How is Obama not like the Apostles of Jesus Christ if he's advocating spreading the wealth?"

It's a right wing talking point by taking the much later, non-original source for that question.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

And the media looked into JOe the Plumber. Not Obama.


And only when John McCain chose to invoke his name so many times.

[Mabus]

Well, for example, that quote is originally from the Bible. That's where Marx got it. It becomes a very different question if you say, "How is Obama not like the Apostles of Jesus Christ if he's advocating spreading the wealth?"
So you are stating Obama is for getting rid of the separation of church and state, and that he IS using Marxist principles based in Acts 4:32-4:35 as a means to redistribute the wealth of the people in a free nation?

Wow.

Socialist and ignoring the separation of church and state. You must really be pissed.

[Daniel]

It just seems to be a recurring theme with liberal politics. They are all preachy about "FREE SPEECH" and individual rights and suppressing their rights.. unless it's directed towards them. Look what Obama and Company did to Joe the Plumber. Here's a guy that was minding his own business in his neighborhood when Obama came by for some photo ops. He asked the man who could very well be the next President of the United States a direct question.. got the answer.. and then had his life completely scrutinized and looked into.

All because he asked a very simple question.

Lol. No one is saying that these people can't say any dumb shit that they want. However, that doesn't mean people have to sit there and listen.

A regular theme with the right wnig nut jobs. No one gives a fuck about your bullshit. So, why get all asshurt when someone doesn't deal with it like you think they should?

[Parkbandit]

And the media looked into JOe the Plumber. Not Obama.


And only when John McCain chose to invoke his name so many times.


How again is this Joe's fault? He asked a simple question of his would be President.

I think the way the Obama campaign and their media handled this event is very troubling... almost trying to teach people a lesson. "Don't ask questions, unless you want us to pull the Joe the Plumber treatment on you"

[Mabus]

And the media looked into JOe the Plumber. Not Obama.


And only when John McCain chose to invoke his name so many times.
Look at my post previous. People are researching him illegally. I doubt they are McCain supporters phishing for ideas to make him look bad.

[Daniel]

So you are stating Obama is for getting rid of the separation of church and state, and that he IS using Marxist principles based in Acts 4:32-4:35 as a means to redistribute the wealth of the people in a free nation?

Wow.

Socialist and ignoring the separation of church and state. You must really be pissed.

hahahahahahahaha

Pure Comedy gold.


hahahaha

Thanks Mabus.

[Parkbandit]

Lol. No one is saying that these people can't say any dumb shit that they want. However, that doesn't mean people have to sit there and listen.

A regular theme with the right wnig nut jobs. No one gives a fuck about your bullshit. So, why get all asshurt when someone doesn't deal with it like you think they should?

Case in point.

[Daniel]

How again is this Joe's fault? He asked a simple question of his would be President.

I think the way the Obama campaign and their media handled this event is very troubling... almost trying to teach people a lesson. "Don't ask questions, unless you want us to pull the Joe the Plumber treatment on you"

Lol.

Yea. That's totally what happened.

It had absolutely nothing to do with McCain trying to use the incident to make Obama look bad.

WTF is Obama supposed to do? Say "You're Right McCain. I'm totally fucking this guy over"?

[Daniel]

Case in point.

Of what?

Am I not allowed to say what I think about you and what you say?

[Mabus]

hahahahahahahaha

Pure Comedy gold.


hahahaha

Thanks Mabus.
Thank you for another insightful post.

Is this where you say Obama is not for the Marxist notion of "redistribution of wealth", or where you just post some more nonsense?

If it is the second option then please let the adults debate, K?

[Daniel]

Thank you for another insightful post.

Is this where you say Obama is not for the Marxist notion of "redistribution of wealth", or where you just post some more nonsense?

If it is the second option then please let the adults debate, K?

I'm sorry Mabus.

It must be real sad to be right now. You've tried and tried to convince everyone on the interwebs that Obama is a socialist, anti American, Muslim, Christian, jewish, white people hating hating terrorist with shady political connections and it just hasn't worked.

I know I'd be upset if all my best efforts were for not and everything I held dear was going down in a ball of flames.

It's okay man. Really. It is.

[TheEschaton]

I'm a Christian Democratic Socialist. I don't think he's advocating for the abolishment and separation of church and state, but I'd say Obama is definitely informed by his own personal beliefs - just like Dubya supposedly is (he just is wrong in what the Bible says). I think he's basing his policies on his Christian beliefs, not Marxist teaching, even though the latter also based its redistribution idea on an idea from Acts.

Secondly, I think he is spreading the wealth like Dubya spread the wealth - he's just spreading it elsewhere. It's not a pejorative phrase, IMO. Is Biden wrong in saying "no one thinks that but the Far Right"? Probably, but I think he's trying to avoid the pejorativeness the vast majority of the country associates with socialism and Karl Marx. It was also at the very end of a very combative interview.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Of what?

Am I not allowed to say what I think about you and what you say?

The way you so eloquently put it was my point.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry Mabus.

It must be real sad to be right now. You've tried and tried to convince everyone on the interwebs that Obama is a socialist, anti American, Muslim, Christian, jewish, white people hating hating terrorist with shady political connections and it just hasn't worked.

I know I'd be upset if all my best efforts were for not and everything I held dear was going down in a ball of flames.

It's okay man. Really. It is.


:rofl:

I love the confidence.. reminds me of 2004.

I sincerely hope that Obama loses.. JUST so I can see how the left handles defeat. I'm certain that if the right loses this election, there won't be riots in the street, widespread vandalism, killings, fires, etc...

Can you say the same?

[Daniel]

The way you so eloquently put it was my point.

Which was what?

You're stupid. I tell you you're stupid.

Am I somehow stifling your speech now? Maybe if you're crying into your pillow at night thinking about how all the big bad liberals are mean to you.

[Mabus]

I'm sorry Mabus.
I have always thought f you as "sorry", so we can agree on that.


It must be real sad to be right now.
?
Having mental issues. Let them go. Life is wonderful.


You've tried and tried to convince everyone on the interwebs that Obama is a socialist,
He is for redistribution of wealth, which was a question from the posted interview dealing with Karl Marx.

Address it, and show that he is not for Socialist notion of "redistribution of wealth".

You can do that, correct?

[Parkbandit]

Which was what?

You're stupid. I tell you you're stupid.

Am I somehow stifling your speech now? Maybe if you're crying into your pillow at night thinking about how all the big bad liberals are mean to you.


LOL at you believing I give two shits what someone like you says about me. Seriously Danny Boy? You know me better.

I was merely using you... and you came through like the stupid sheeple I knew you to be.

It's not even fair.

[Mabus]

It was also at the very end of a very combative interview.
Watch the interview. She asked questions.

If asking relevant questions of potential Vice Presidents is "very combative" then we should skip all interviews that we find so, on both sides?

[Daniel]

:rofl:

I love the confidence.. reminds me of 2004.

I sincerely hope that Obama loses.. JUST so I can see how the left handles defeat. I'm certain that if the right loses this election, there won't be riots in the street, widespread vandalism, killings, fires, etc...

Can you say the same?

Yea. I can. What makes you think this is any different than any other year?

Now, if there are something shady that happens. Maybe, but then again our country is founded on nothing less.

[Daniel]

LOL at you believing I give two shits what someone like you says about me. Seriously Danny Boy? You know me better.

I was merely using you... and you came through like the stupid sheeple I knew you to be.

It's not even fair.

Okay.

Still no reference to what your point was.

But alright.

[Parkbandit]

Yea. I can. What makes you think this is any different than any other year?

Now, if there are something shady that happens. Maybe, but then again our country is founded on nothing less.


You mean like ACORN type of shady things?

[TheEschaton]

By 'very combative' I merely mean she asked irrelevant, already disproven, right wing talking point questions, which Joe Biden increasingly got frustrated by. He at one point, even said, "Is that a joke? Or is that a serious question?"

-TheE-

[Daniel]

I have always thought f you as "sorry", so we can agree on that.


?
Having mental issues. Let them go. Life is wonderful.


Pointing out typos is fun!



He is for redistribution of wealth, which was a question from the posted interview dealing with Karl Marx.

Address it, and show that he is not for Socialist notion of "redistribution of wealth".

You can do that, correct?

Show me how Bush and the Republican Party is not Marxist and I'll show you how Obama is not Marxist.

[Daniel]

You mean like ACORN type of shady things?

No. Not really.

[TheEschaton]

And again, ACORN has done nothing shady. Some of its workers have, but ACORN has fully participated in bringing those individuals to justice. Not to mention there's been a couple thousand false registrations out of 1.3 million.

[Mabus]

By 'very combative' I merely mean she asked irrelevant, already disproven, right wing talking point questions,
Obama's comments about "spreading the wealth" and any associations he has had with ACORN are very relevant, have not been disproven and are very relevant to the election.

It was about damn time at least one person from the media asked these questions.


which Joe Biden increasingly got frustrated by. He at one point, even said, "Is that a joke? Or is that a serious question?"
It was a very serious question.

Charges have been made by one campaign that the other is Socialist. She asked about it.

Just because she did not ask about his acceptance speech, or who was picked for the new cabinet this week, or how Obama keeps his abs in shape does not make the questions irrelevant.

[Mabus]

.
Answer the question:

Is Obama for redistribution of wealth?

[Daniel]

Answer the question:

Is Obama for redistribution of wealth?

It's already been answered Ad Nauseum.

If you want to link his policies to socialism, that's your perogative. It's too bad it's not true and no body else believes that bullshit except right wing fear mongers.

But please. Go ahead.

[Parkbandit]

And again, ACORN has done nothing shady. Some of its workers have, but ACORN has fully participated in bringing those individuals to justice. Not to mention there's been a couple thousand false registrations out of 1.3 million.


Ah.. so the 14 states they are being investigated in.. that's not because of anything shady. I guess the history of ACORN being plagued by the same voter fraud allegations is also some kind of right wing conspiracy witch hunt too.

Check.

[Mabus]

.
Since you won't answer the question, I will answer it for you.

Yes, Obama does believe in the Socialist notion of redistribution of wealth.

He has even stated so in the past:
Obama 2001 Chicago Radio Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)

[Parkbandit]

It's already been answered Ad Nauseum.

If you want to link his policies to socialism, that's your perogative. It's too bad it's not true and no body else believes that bullshit except right wing fear mongers.

But please. Go ahead.


Define socialism and how it's different from what Obama is proposing.

[Gan]

And again, ACORN has done nothing shady. Some of its workers have, but ACORN has fully participated in bringing those individuals to justice. Not to mention there's been a couple thousand false registrations out of 1.3 million.

Preach it on high comrade.

:lol:

[Gan]

Ah.. so the 14 states they are being investigated in.. that's not because of anything shady. I guess the history of ACORN being plagued by the same voter fraud allegations is also some kind of right wing conspiracy witch hunt too.

Check.

ITS A CONSPIRACY MAN!

ITS A CONSPIRACY!

[TheEschaton]

14 investigations of WORKERS for ACORN. Which ACORN has not only cooperated with, but in many cases, initiated and participated in.

If only Enron had been so responsible.

And labelling Obama as Socialist IS just a right wing talking point, Mabus. Obama has, time and time again, pointed to people like Warren Buffet, who would not endorse him if he was actually a socialist. Obama's tax cuts, again pointed out by the campaign, merely restore old tax brackets which were under effect in the Clinton Administration. Now, you can call CLinton many things, but I don't believe socialist is one of them.

-TheE-

[Gan]

14 investigations of WORKERS for ACORN. Which ACORN has not only cooperated with, but in many cases, initiated and participated in.



-TheE-

How much has ACORN paid in fines as a result of these investigations?

[Mabus]

And labelling Obama as Socialist IS just a right
Did you listen to that radio interview?

[Ravenstorm]

No no... It's perfectly justifiable to blame the ones who pay the workers who have committed acts that are under investigation. So it's totally ACORN's fault for hiring these people who then performed these questionable and perhaps criminals acts.

Say, while we're on the topic...

Here's John McCain trying to suppress voters and other illegal acts. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/mccain-employing-gop-oper_n_136254.html)

[TheEschaton]

Which radio interview? The Barbara West interview was on TV. She asked how Obama spreading the wealth is not socialist. By quoting something he said, and then asking how that's not socialist, she's working from the default assumption that it is, and asking Joe Biden to disprove it.

Meanwhile, you continue to obfuscate the fact that Obama wants to raise the top tax bracket rate to the level it was before the disasterous and ill-advised cuts of Bush. I wish someone in the Obama camp would say that: "Hey, those tax cuts of Bush were wrong, and ridiculous. I'm merely advocating their return to a Clinton Administration level, when we ran a surplus in the budget."

[Gan]

No no... It's perfectly justifiable to blame the ones who pay the workers who have committed acts that are under investigation. So it's totally ACORN's fault for hiring these people who then performed these questionable and perhaps criminals acts.

Say, while we're on the topic...

Here's John McCain trying to suppress voters and other illegal acts. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/20/mccain-employing-gop-oper_n_136254.html)

And why do you think these employees of ACORN felt compelled to turn in so many fraudulent voter registration cards?

[TheEschaton]

Raven, I'm perfectly willing to throw ACORN (unfairly, IMO) under the bus if Gan et al is willing to throw the McCain campaign under the Straight Talk Express.

They felt compelled because they were lazy, and didn't actually want to do the work which required them to go out and actually talk to people. If you read some of their interviews, many of them said things like, "Why would I go out and get actual registrations when I can make them up in a fraction of the time and still get paid?"

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

And why do you think these employees of ACORN felt compelled to turn in so many fraudulent voter registration cards?

And why do you think the McCain camp felt compelled to hire a firm they knew was under investigation for voter fraud?

And why do you think a McCain campaign worker decided to invent a story about being attacked and raped by a scary black man from the Obama camp?

Do you... Could it be... Maybe some people are just idiots? (Which doesn't explain McCain hiring that guy. Unless you want to assume whoever did it is just an idiot.)

[Gan]

And why do you think the McCain camp felt compelled to hire a firm they knew was under investigation for voter fraud?

And why do you think a McCain campaign worker decided to invent a story about being attacked and raped by a scary black man from the Obama camp?

Do you... Could it be... Maybe some people are just idiots? (Which doesn't explain McCain hiring that guy. Unless you want to assume whoever did it is just an idiot.)

Way to not answer the question. Way to throw up "but but but McCain ..." instead.

:lol:

[Ravenstorm]

Way to fail at reading comprehension.

The answer to your question is 'Some people are idiots'. As was clearly stated.

[ElanthianSiren]

:shrug: I'm not sure what everyone has their panties in a twist over. I thought the interview was interesting. It was much better than "What do you read?" "Uh...what don't I read?" "What qualifies you to run the US?" "Alaska shares a border with Canada," and I can see Russia from my house.

[Mabus]

Which radio interview?
This one:

Since you won't answer the question, I will answer it for you.

Yes, Obama does believe in the Socialist notion of redistribution of wealth.

He has even stated so in the past:
Obama 2001 Chicago Radio Interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)

[Mabus]

:shrug: I'm not sure what everyone has their panties in a twist over. I thought the interview was interesting. It was much better than "What do you read?" "Uh...what don't I read?" "What qualifies you to run the US?" "Alaska shares a border with Canada," and I can see Russia from my house.
The Obama supporters are not used to any media asking tough, relevant questions about Obama's policies, associations and beliefs.

They see it as attacks, combative and just plain heresy.

[Gan]

The Obama supporters are not used to any media asking tough, relevant questions about Obama's policies, associations and beliefs.

They see it as attacks, combative and just plain heresy.

Hater.

[Mabus]

Hater.
Racist!
;)

[ElanthianSiren]

They see it as attacks, combative and just plain heresy.

Even combative attacks have their uses when met with proper decorum. That's what American politics is about after all, isn't it? -Two sides, one that will aruge the sky is green if the other side says it's blue. It doesn't actually matter what color the sky really is. The person with the snappier, smarter answer wins.

[Sean]

What's the acceptable level of wealth redistribution that a candidate is allowed to espouse before they become a socialist?

[Warriorbird]

Slight disagreement with board Republican standards. I imagine PB or Gan would call McCain a socialist, given the opportunity.

[Mabus]

What's the acceptable level of wealth redistribution that a candidate is allowed to espouse before they become a socialist?
That is a damn good question.

I find some of McCain's policies to be Socialist. For example his Mortgage Buyout Plan, and his Health Care Tax Rebate are Socialist in nature (to me).

I was also appalled that he did not flat out vote "no" on the bailout bill. Perhaps it would have been political suicide, but it may also have driven his numbers through the roof. We will never know. I found that bailout bill Socialist.

So it would seem that where the money is being spent/sent that draws that chalk line.

Both candidates lean Socialist in my view, but one has completely fallen toward his left.

[Gan]

What's the acceptable level of wealth redistribution that a candidate is allowed to espouse before they become a socialist?

First, the definition of redistribution has to be agreed upon.

Refunding monies to someone already earned by that someone is simply that, a refund.

Refunding monies to someone not earned by that someone is considered a handout, a freebie, or a redistribution of income.

The latter is simply enabling the welfare mentality. See New Orleans as a good example thereof.

And I choose to abide by the obligation that I work for what I want to achieve in life. I do not expect handouts, I do not wait for someone else to do it for me, I take responsibility for myself and my family and all that involves it.

[ClydeR]

First, the definition of redistribution has to be agreed upon.

Refunding monies to someone already earned by that someone is simply that, a refund.

Refunding monies to someone not earned by that someone is considered a handout, a freebie, or a redistribution of income.

The latter is simply enabling the welfare mentality. See New Orleans as a good example thereof.

Person A pays $100 of tax and gets a $100 refund. Person B pays $100,000 of tax and gets a $1,000 refund. Both A and B enjoy approximately the same level of government services, like police and roads. Redistributive?

[Gan]

Person A pays $100 of tax and gets a $100 refund. Person B pays $100,000 of tax and gets a $1,000 refund. Both A and B enjoy approximately the same level of government services, like police and roads. Redistributive?

God your example sucks.

How about:

Person A pays $1,000 in taxes and gets a refund of $100.00. And Person B pays $0.00 taxes and gets a refund of $100.00.

Thats social redistribution.

[TheEschaton]

So, we've had this socialist problem since FDR instituted welfare, huh? I'm glad you guys are jumping on it now.

(Oh, and that other time when Joe McCarthy made a big deal about leftist economic policies.)

[Gan]

So, we've had this socialist problem since FDR instituted welfare, huh? I'm glad you guys have been jumping on it all this time.

Fixed that for you. Since you seem to think that all issues for and against major policy ideals seem to just start up from thin air with this election...

[TheEschaton]

I don't recall you (the GOP) calling John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, et al, a socialist. At least not to this extent. And it's arguable that 1, maybe 2 on that list are just as liberal as Obama.

[Mabus]

So, we've had this socialist problem since FDR instituted welfare, huh?
FDR's programs were pretty bad.

Johnson's "Great Society" programs were worse.

It is the Johnson programs that have been a massive failure to our society.

See ADC program rules, for instance, that would only give maximum benefits if the father of the children did not live in the home. Any other man, or men, could live there, but the father being there lowered benefits.

The impact of such rules forced cultural changes into our society that still impact us to this day. Not only the whole "entitlement mentality", but also in the such things as the structure of the family unit (especially in poor, urban and minority communities).

That is one of the problems with liberal-intellectual social experiments; The outcome may be worse then the "problem" the programs were supposed to address.

Now we can worry about the possibility of further social engineering experiments that will not only cost large sums of money, but that may also prove disastrous to the very people they were supposed to aid.

[ClydeR]

God your example sucks.

How about:

Person A pays $1,000 in taxes and gets a refund of $100.00. And Person B pays $0.00 taxes and gets a refund of $100.00.

Thats social redistribution.

Is either candidate proposing that?

[Daniel]

FDR's programs were pretty bad.

Johnson's "Great Society" programs were worse.

It is the Johnson programs that have been a massive failure to our society.

See ADC program rules, for instance, that would only give maximum benefits if the father of the children did not live in the home. Any other man, or men, could live there, but the father being there lowered benefits.

The impact of such rules forced cultural changes into our society that still impact us to this day. Not only the whole "entitlement mentality", but also in the such things as the structure of the family unit (especially in poor, urban and minority communities).

That is one of the problems with liberal-intellectual social experiments; The outcome may be worse then the "problem" the programs were supposed to address.

Now we can worry about the possibility of further social engineering experiments that will not only cost large sums of money, but that may also prove disastrous to the very people they were supposed to aid.

I have a bigger problem with the "sense of entitlement" that comes with the notion that Americans are better than everyone else and that society does not contribute to anyone's successes or failures.

[Daniel]

Is either candidate proposing that?

No.

Gan is just a tool.

[Sean]

Fixed that for you. Since you seem to think that all issues for and against major policy ideals seem to just start up from thin air with this election...

This is more of a stream of consciousness post than anything. So take it for what it's worth.

But this kind of goes back to my question. You'll never see a candidate come out and go "Fuck poor people, they aren't getting anymore of my money redistributed via the gov't!" or "those old bitches should have saved up more money for their dialysis I'm not subsidizing Medicare anymore!" etc. so instead you settle for reform of a social programs that still at the heart of it is wealth redistribution. You can chant for privatization but unless you switch to a system where it's purely put in = put out the net result is more or less the same. At what point do you draw the line? I don't really expect answer as this is mostly rhetorical and isn't really answerable. But to me if there is one the answer most likely lies somewhere between the welfare state of minorities with their hands out riding on nice rims w/50" plasma's that people like PB see and the world where no one can break out of the cycle of poverty and everyone needs to be lifted out that people like TheE see. But I don't I'll ever live to see a viable campaign with the stance of "No more social programs" because honestly you never know what's going to happen or when you might need some help redistributed your way.

[Daniel]

But I don't I'll ever live to see a viable campaign with the stance of "No more social programs" because honestly you never know what's going to happen or when you might need some help redistributed your way.


Herein lies the whole crux of the problem.

A lot of people on the right seem to be under this illusion that everything bad that happens is the fault of the person involved.

Lose your job? You should have went to college

Couldn't afford college? You should have worked harder in high school

Couldn't have done better in high school because of any number of reasons? Well it's your parents fault. Maybe you'll think better before you have kids

Oh your parents were struggling to make it by? They should have gotten a better job.

It's a ridiculous circular argument that doesn't really mesh well with reality.

This philoshophy worked well when the country was doing well and people were getting rich off nothing. Now that times are hard and jobs are going down the toilet?

You have the potential for a democratic landslide. The country will get better and people will lose their sense of perspective and in 30 years we'll be right back here again.

[Gan]

Is either candidate proposing that?


No.

Gan is just a tool.

So 95% tax cuts going to 41% of people not paying income taxes is not the same thing?

Seriously?

[Daniel]

So 95% tax cuts going to 41% of people not paying income taxes is not the same thing?

Seriously?

We've been over this. There are tax liabilities beyond income tax that you refuse to acknowledge or flatly just don't understand (For instance, FICA is not refundable).

If you took the time to look at what the refundable tax credits are, you would understand that A) They aren't just going to poor people and B) They are designed to incenticize things like "Saving", "Buying a home" and "Going to College".

You can of course call this socialism, but you'd be conveniently ignoring the breaks that are given to businesses and those "Rain Makers" that you like to talk about being integral to the economy. A good example of this would be a capital gains tax that is lower than most income tax brackets and thus benefits those who make their income primarily off capital appreciation, i.e. The rich.

[Gan]

We've been over this. There are tax liabilities beyond income tax that you refuse to acknowledge or flatly just don't understand (For instance, FICA is not refundable).
Yes, we have been over it already. You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

The simple fact is that someone who pays no federal income tax at years end and is then allowed to receive a tax rebate is being handed free money. Its another form of wellfare, social redistribution, whatever you want to call it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.


If you took the time to look at what the refundable tax credits are, you would understand that A) They aren't just going to poor people and B) They are designed to incenticize things like "Saving", "Buying a home" and "Going to College".
Your description above is in no way matching anything that Obama is promising based on what I've read about Obama's plan. Specifically 95% of 'working families' will receive a tax cut. Now apply the fact (2006 data as posted earlier) that 41% of all people who filed out a tax return paid no taxes at years end. So 41% of the 95% are getting a handout - compliments of the tax payers who have to pay. That smells like social redistribution.

If the government wanted to incentivize savings - they should tax spending and not income. Giving a tax rebate will not incentivize buying a home in any form. At best it adds a miniscule amount of disposable income to the family that will barely be a factor in getting considered for a home loan.

I can see it being applied to college tuition in and above the other forms of financial aid that are already in existence.


You can of course call this socialism, but you'd be conveniently ignoring the breaks that are given to businesses and those "Rain Makers" that you like to talk about being integral to the economy. A good example of this would be a capital gains tax that is lower than most income tax brackets and thus benefits those who make their income primarily off capital appreciation, i.e. The rich.
I'm not ignoring the breaks. Ive spoken out repeatedly that the tax loopholes need to be shut down. Its just convenient for you not to remember me saying that so I fit into your leg humping GOP talking point role model.

Capital gains taxes should be treated like any other form of income tax. I dont believe I've ever come out and said they should be abolished. Large businesses should not enjoy their tax loopholes either. They must do their part in as much as everyone else here who enjoys the ability to participate in such a rich social and economic environment.

So again, I'm not a talking point GOP puppet. There are things I dont agree with that I hope to see changed. However, that also means I'm not a talking point DNC puppet... so expect me not to agree with Obama's social redistribution plan. Because thats exactly what it is.

[TheEschaton]

The simple fact is that someone who pays no federal income tax at years end and is then allowed to receive a tax rebate is being handed free money. Its another form of wellfare, social redistribution, whatever you want to call it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Unfortunately, dumbass, there's no way to rebate the other taxes that 41% pay. It's a tax cut for them on THOSE taxes, but there's no way to do it other than through filing federal income tax returns, being deemed as being owed X amount, and receiving X amount in a check.

-TheE-

[ClydeR]

So 95% tax cuts going to 41% of people not paying income taxes is not the same thing?

Seriously?

The Wall Street Journal says (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122435566048047731.html) that both candidates are proposing refundable tax credits. Obama proposes a $500 refundable credit "to middle-class workers, even if they earn too little to owe federal income taxes. The Obama campaign says the money is meant to offset the payroll taxes that these workers pay."

McCain proposes "refundable tax credits—$2,500 per person or $5,000 per family toward the purchase of health insurance. It, too, would be available to people who don't owe income taxes."

If you look only to income taxes to determine whether or not Obama's and McCain's tax credits are "redistribution," then you have to conclude that the tax credits are redistribution. If you take into account other federal taxes, like payroll taxes and gasoline taxes, then it's less clear under Gan's working definition (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=828426&postcount=62) of "redistribution."

Keep in mind that proposing a change in the tax law is not the same as getting it passed. Even George W. Bush didn't get all the tax changes he wanted when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

[Gan]

Unfortunately, dumbass, there's no way to rebate the other taxes that 41% pay. It's a tax cut for them on THOSE taxes, but there's no way to do it other than through filing federal income tax returns, being deemed as being owed X amount, and receiving X amount in a check.

-TheE-
Sorry you took it so personal (dumbass comment).

Then at least you agree that its a massive redistribution platform issue.

Grats for getting caught up in the populist movement. Although, with your socialist leanings its not really a populist thing for you - its a way of life. Except that you happen to be a limousine socialist. Sometimes I wonder if you really feel the way you do about redistribution with your hefty portfolio and impending inheritance. ;)

[Daniel]

Yes, we have been over it already. You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now.

The simple fact is that someone who pays no federal income tax at years end and is then allowed to receive a tax rebate is being handed free money. Its another form of wellfare, social redistribution, whatever you want to call it. A rose by any other name is still a rose.



Oh. So how much was your FICA refund last year?



Your description above is in no way matching anything that Obama is promising based on what I've read about Obama's plan. Specifically 95% of 'working families' will receive a tax cut. Now apply the fact (2006 data as posted earlier) that 41% of all people who filed out a tax return paid no taxes at years end. So 41% of the 95% are getting a handout - compliments of the tax payers who have to pay. That smells like social redistribution.

If the government wanted to incentivize savings - they should tax spending and not income. Giving a tax rebate will not incentivize buying a home in any form. At best it adds a miniscule amount of disposable income to the family that will barely be a factor in getting considered for a home loan.



It's not my fault you don't actually read anything other than talking about.

There are 6 initatives in Obama's plan which are "Refundable tax credits"

These are:



A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.


Of those only one would be considered "social redistribution" and I'm sorry; $500 bucks isn't exactly a marxist revolution.

[Gan]

The Wall Street Journal says (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122435566048047731.html) that both candidates are proposing refundable tax credits. Obama proposes a $500 refundable credit "to middle-class workers, even if they earn too little to owe federal income taxes. The Obama campaign says the money is meant to offset the payroll taxes that these workers pay."

McCain proposes "refundable tax credits—$2,500 per person or $5,000 per family toward the purchase of health insurance. It, too, would be available to people who don't owe income taxes."

If you look only to income taxes to determine whether or not Obama's and McCain's tax credits are "redistribution," then you have to conclude that the tax credits are redistribution. If you take into account other federal taxes, like payroll taxes and gasoline taxes, then it's less clear under Gan's working definition (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=828426&postcount=62) of "redistribution."

Keep in mind that proposing a change in the tax law is not the same as getting it passed. Even George W. Bush didn't get all the tax changes he wanted when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

McCain's health plan is easier to swallow with regards to the tax credits simply because it will be given straight to the provider rather than a check to the recipient. I still do not like it. I dont like it that someone will still have to foot the bill. And footing the bill with the war expenditure and sustaining the Bush tax credits give little option for cost recoup.

I'd really be happy if we could finish things in Iraq and Afghanistan and that he would let the top tax bracket return to 39% until we are finished with the war.

[TheEschaton]

It's a TAX CUT. Those people are being GIVEN A TAX CUT. They are not insidiously being bribed by getting other people's wealth.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Oh. So how much was your FICA refund last year?
$37 bucks

*Thats with claiming 0 dependants.

[Jorddyn]

$37 bucks
*Thats with claiming 0 dependants.

What do dependants have to do with FICA?

[Gan]

What do dependants have to do with FICA?

Claiming your deductions on your W-2. It determines how much is withheld by your employer for FICA out of each paycheck.

[Jorddyn]

Claiming your deductions on your W-2. It determines how much is withheld by your employer for FICA out of each paycheck.

No it doesn't.

FICA = UASDI = Social Security + Medicare = 7.65% of your gross pay up to the SS ceiling, where it becomes 1.45%.

[Gan]

I mis-spoke. Its the W-4 I was trying to picture.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/employees/article/0,,id=130504,00.html


The W-2 is what you get at years end.

PS.
Look on your paystub. You'll see that Federal Income Tax is withheld (dependent upon your W4 deduction listing) as well as your Social Security and your Medicare Tax. 3 separate taxes.

FICA seems to be misinterpreted here. I understood Daniel's question as my total Federal Income Tax Refund. FICA seems to be solely social security - which is not reimbursed yearly as implied by Daniel's question. So unless Daniel cares to revise his question then I'll stick by my interpretation that Daniel meant overall Federal Income Taxes. (Which also happens to be the topic of discussion with Obama's tax cuts)

[Jorddyn]

I mis-spoke. Its the W-4 I was trying to picture.

Which is still entirely irrelevant to FICA.

[Daniel]

I mis-spoke. Its the W-4 I was trying to picture.
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/employees/article/0,,id=130504,00.html


The W-2 is what you get at years end.

PS.
Look on your paystub. You'll see that Federal Income Tax is withheld (dependent upon your W4 deduction listing) as well as your Social Security and your Medicare Tax. 3 separate taxes.

FICA seems to be misinterpreted here. I understood Daniel's question as my total Federal Income Tax Refund. FICA seems to be solely social security - which is not reimbursed yearly as implied by Daniel's question. So unless Daniel cares to revise his question then I'll stick by my interpretation that Daniel meant overall Federal Income Taxes. (Which also happens to be the topic of discussion with Obama's tax cuts)

Why would I revise my statement when you're the one who doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about?

The point is: People pay taxes beyond Federal Income taxes.

FICA is one of those.

It's not my fault that you don't understand how our tax system works.

[Jorddyn]

Look on your paystub. You'll see that Federal Income Tax is withheld (dependent upon your W4 deduction listing) as well as your Social Security and your Medicare Tax. 3 separate taxes.

I guarantee I understand this.



FICA seems to be misinterpreted here.

Only by your posts, actually.

Daniel's point, as he posted, is that there are additional Federal income taxes that aren't called "Federal Income Tax", and to state that one pays no taxes even though they pay those is a bit short sighted.

[TheRoseLady]

Look what Obama and Company did to Joe the Plumber. Here's a guy that was minding his own business in his neighborhood when Obama came by for some photo ops. He asked the man who could very well be the next President of the United States a direct question.. got the answer.. and then had his life completely scrutinized and looked into.

All because he asked a very simple question.

It was John McCain who made "Joe the Plumber" a household name. He brought him up during the debate and they are still talking about him.

This was not the fault of Obama. The guy asked Obama the question:

"Do you believe in the American dream?", and the conversation went from there.

[TheRoseLady]

Look at my post previous. People are researching him illegally. I doubt they are McCain supporters phishing for ideas to make him look bad.

I guess that being from the Cleveland area and all, it escaped you that the Cuyahoga County Commissioners are all Democrats, the CSEA falls under their jurisdiction. It seems counter-intuitive for them to make public that they are investigating an employee for possible misconduct, while they are covertly phishing out more dirt to throw at him.

You're grasping.

[Mabus]

I guess that being from the Cleveland area and all, it escaped you that the Cuyahoga County Commissioners are all Democrats, the CSEA falls under their jurisdiction.
I tried to steer clear of pointing out the corrupt policies of the Cuyahoga County commissioners.

Yes, many are Democrats. Yes, many are corrupt.


It seems counter-intuitive for them to make public that they are investigating an employee for possible misconduct, while they are covertly phishing out more dirt to throw at him.
Point to where I stated the commissioners were the ones guilty of the phishing, or eat your words. ]

Never mind. You will not admit you are wrong, even though you know you are.


You're grasping.
And you are delusional if you believe a McCain supporter is responsible for illegally searching databases in multiple incidents (The Ohio Attorney General's Office, the Toledo Police Dept., and the Cuyahoga County CSEA) in order to discredit a citizen that asked a simple question of Obama.

Just because Obama's true colors showed though in his Socialist answer does not give license to others to attack him, or to illegally search government databases for information about him.

Whoever is caught should be prosecuted, if the corrupt Democrat commissioners ever catch who it is.

[Gan]

I guarantee I understand this.



Only by your posts, actually.

Daniel's point, as he posted, is that there are additional Federal income taxes that aren't called "Federal Income Tax", and to state that one pays no taxes even though they pay those is a bit short sighted.

Considering that medicare and social security are eventually recouped, I dont consider those 'taxes'.

I consider the federal income tax the crux of my conflict with the tax cut with Obama and the topic of my discussion.

If thats not what you're discussing then perhaps you've entered into the wrong discussion, as late has you have.

Clearly reading back through the posts will demonstrate the context of whats being talked about. Sorry you happened to have missed that contextual concept.

[Gan]

Why would I revise my statement when you're the one who doesn't know what the fuck you are talking about?

The point is: People pay taxes beyond Federal Income taxes.

FICA is one of those.

It's not my fault that you don't understand how our tax system works.

So you honestly mean to say that people (my age) get a FICA refund?


Oh. So how much was your FICA refund last year?


:lol:

Sometimes you should just not post. It will really help your credibility.

[Daniel]

Considering that medicare and social security are eventually recouped, I dont consider those 'taxes'.

I consider the federal income tax the crux of my conflict with the tax cut with Obama and the topic of my discussion.

If thats not what you're discussing then perhaps you've entered into the wrong discussion, as late has you have.

Clearly reading back through the posts will demonstrate the context of whats being talked about. Sorry you happened to have missed that contextual concept.

No. She got it right. You still seem to be lost though. Maybe you want to go back and re-read what is being said.

[Jorddyn]

Considering that medicare and social security are eventually recouped, I dont consider those 'taxes'.
The government certainly does. As does the justice system - what do you suppose is the charge if you do not pay your medicare and social security, uh, eventually recoupable contributions to the Federal coffers?



I consider the federal income tax the crux of my conflict with the tax cut with Obama and the topic of my discussion.

And it's incredibly convenient that you ignore the income tax that those people most certainly do pay while the wealthy only do at a much smaller percentage.


The simple fact is that someone who pays no federal income tax at years end and is then allowed to receive a tax rebate is being handed free money. Its another form of wellfare, social redistribution, whatever you want to call it. A rose by any other name is still a rose

And an income tax, whether it be called FICA, medicare, Federal Income Tax, Dividend Tax, Capital Gains Tax, or "Eventually Recoupable Let Us Hold Your Money Loan" is still an income tax.

Now, were our governement a little more fiscally responsible with our money, and were social security held and managed separately from the general fund, you might have a point, but even then, it'd be a stretch, since you might die and your loan to the government would become a gift.


Sorry you happened to have missed that contextual concept.

I guarantee I understand what's being discussed. You're saying you don't want refundable credits going to people who don't pay Federal income taxes, fully ignoring the fact that most of them do.


If thats not what you're discussing then perhaps you've entered into the wrong discussion, as late has you have.

Didn't realize there was a time limit on when I am allowed to enter such a discussion, especially considering I do know a thing or two about the topic.

[Daniel]

So you honestly mean to say that people (my age) get a FICA refund?




:lol:

Sometimes you should just not post. It will really help your credibility.

No you jackass. I'm saying that FICA is not refundable.

[TheRoseLady]

I
Point to where I stated the commissioners were the ones guilty of the phishing, or eat your words.

Never mind. You will not admit you are wrong, even though you know you are.



:rofl:

Eat my words? Sure I'll eat my words if it makes you happy.

Here's the difference between you and I. I really don't give a shit who votes or doesn't vote for Obama. I don't get my panties all in a bunch and spew rhetoric, mince words and prepare my posts like I'm going to argue my points in front of the SCOTUS.

You on the other hand... ;)

[Mabus]

Here's the difference between you and I.
I admit when I am incorrect.

That makes me different then most posters on this forum, including you.

[TheRoseLady]

I admit when I am incorrect.

That makes me different then most posters on this forum, including you.

Yes you do (some of the time).

[Mabus]

I guess that being from the Cleveland area and all, it escaped you that the Cuyahoga County Commissioners are all Democrats, the CSEA falls under their jurisdiction. It seems counter-intuitive for them to make public that they are investigating an employee for possible misconduct, while they are covertly phishing out more dirt to throw at him.

An Update on "Joe the Plumber" (Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) phishing by Cuyahoga County, Ohio CSEA:

The search was authorized by Helen Jones-Kelley.

Helen Jones-Kelley has donated the maximum amount ($2,300 in July 2008) to the Obama campaign.

Joe has no child support cases against him, which made the search of his private data by Child Support Enforcement unneeded, and an invasion of his privacy.

[Tsa`ah]

The entire "socialist" argument is pretty hypocritical.

There doesn't seem to be a cry of socialism when it comes to the police, or fire departments. No one seems concerned about socialism while they're driving their car on any road. Socialism doesn't cross any parent's mind as they send their children off to a public school. Hell, until 700 billion was presented as a bailout ... not too many people cried socialism during the bailouts of the past.

Honestly ... the socialism schtick is completely over used, more so than the claim that socialism leads to communism.

If you're so dead set against socialism, the U.S. is not the place for you.

[Sean]

An Update on "Joe the Plumber" (Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) phishing by Cuyahoga County, Ohio CSEA:

The search was authorized by Helen Jones-Kelley.

Helen Jones-Kelley has donated the maximum amount ($2,300 in July 2008) to the Obama campaign.

Joe has no child support cases against him, which made the search of his private data by Child Support Enforcement unneeded, and an invasion of his privacy.

And Helen Jones-Kelley will hopefully get what she deserves. You doing your best to make an implied connection to the Obama campaign is no different than people making an implied connection between Ashley Todd and her backwards B to the McCain campaign for whom she volunteered. It just comes down to people do stupid shit for their candidates in the hopes to get them an edge.

[Gan]

And Helen Jones-Kelley will hopefully get what she deserves. You doing your best to make an implied connection to the Obama campaign is no different than people making an implied connection between Ashley Todd and her backwards B to the McCain campaign for whom she volunteered. It just comes down to people do stupid shit for their candidates in the hopes to get them an edge.

Agreed. Its been happening on both sides.

Just like the Tennessee Congressman's kid who hacked Palin's email account.

Luckily these attempts are not likely to cause much damage to the campaigns at all... the only damage will be to the victim of said malicious activities.

[Parkbandit]

And Helen Jones-Kelley will hopefully get what she deserves. You doing your best to make an implied connection to the Obama campaign is no different than people making an implied connection between Ashley Todd and her backwards B to the McCain campaign for whom she volunteered. It just comes down to people do stupid shit for their candidates in the hopes to get them an edge.


I don't think he's blaming Obama for the invasion of privacy.. merely pointing out that it was a Democrat who donated the maximum amount to Obama.

If I were Joe, I would most certainly sue the shit out of this bitch. I'm not sure how anyone, including a liberal, would excuse this behavior.

[Sean]

I don't think he's blaming Obama for the invasion of privacy.. merely pointing out that it was a Democrat who donated the maximum amount to Obama.

I don't think he's blaming Obama either. I do think he's trying to create an implied connection between her actions and the Obama campaign/supporters.


If I were Joe, I would most certainly sue the shit out of this bitch. I'm not sure how anyone, including a liberal, would excuse this behavior.

I'm certainly not excusing what she did. Like I said I hope she gets what she deserves.

[Mabus]

And Helen Jones-Kelley will hopefully get what she deserves.
Doubtful.

She is well connected in the Ohio Democratic Party.


You doing your best to make an implied connection to the Obama campaign is no different than people making an implied connection between Ashley Todd and her backwards B to the McCain campaign for whom she volunteered.
Is this Ashley person a government official with access to the private information of millions of citizens? The two are not the same.

This was an attempt to find information to aid Obama (with or without his campaign's knowledge), done by a government official, using government databases.

The fact that she has given the maximum amount of money to Obama's campaign is just a fact that adds motive. It is important in the context of the action.

[Mabus]

I don't think he's blaming Obama either. I do think he's trying to create an implied connection between her actions and the Obama campaign/supporters.
There is at least one Obama supporter involved, Helen Jones-Kelley.

[Tsa`ah]

Maybe, for you, it would be a good idea to switch back to the padded helmet. The tinfoil isn't giving you much protection.

[Mabus]

Maybe, for you, it would be a good idea to switch back to the padded helmet. The tinfoil isn't giving you much protection.
Thank you for another knowledgable post that really lays out the facts clearly. It cleared the tsa`ah from the debate.

[Warriorbird]

I love it when people suggest that Communism is Socialism. They're totally political science experts.

[Tsa`ah]

Thank you for another knowledgable post that really lays out the fats clearly. It cleared the tsa`ah from the debate.

There's no debate with you ... you ignore the "fats" when they don't serve your unstable position. You throw out conspiracy and conjecture as "fats" ... you even chose to respond to the padded helmet post and completely skipped the post that destroyed your "socialism" bullshit.

So again I suggest you switch back to the padded helmet ... you're just going to further damage your fragile brain with the tinfoil.

[Mabus]

There's no debate with you Not with you, no.

We were discussing actual and factual conditions in the election.

You attacked me.

Who was not debating, eh feces?

[Tsa`ah]

Wow ... so "shameful excitement/penis" what facts did you present to support your claim? Why did you dodge the initial post?


....William Timmons?

[Ravenstorm]

I'm not sure how anyone, including a liberal, would excuse this behavior.

When you find someone who is be sure to let us all know.

[TheRoseLady]

This was an attempt to find information to aid Obama (with or without his campaign's knowledge), done by a government official, using government databases.

The fact that she has given the maximum amount of money to Obama's campaign is just a fact that adds motive. It is important in the context of the action.

How would this benefit Obama?

You have insinuated from the time you mentioned it, that all of the people who are doing checks on "Joe the Plumber" are somehow covertly searching to assist Obama.

Perhaps...just perhaps... She ordered such a search to see if he did owe child support. That is of course their job, to find and enforce the collection of child support.

Ah.

Edited to add: I think that unauthorized accessing of records is reprehensible. If it turns out that she ordered this as some political action, I'll take my words back. Ordering such a search is well within the scope of Helen Jones-Kelly's realm of responsibilities. It's not like she's in waste management and suddenly decides that his child support status must be checked.

[Mabus]

How would this benefit Obama?
If you believe that information found would not have been released on the internet to discredit this gentleman, then you are deluding yourself. There is a concerted effort to tear down this man by Obama supporters, from the first time the video aired on YouTube. Both the media and Obama supporters have dug deeper into this man's life then I would venture any of us would like to have done.

Many of us here, for instance, know that Joe has a tax lean. This was found as a public record search, and even posted in this forum. News outlets reported this several times.

Have any of these same outlets reported that Martin Nesbitt. Obama's treasurer (and a Daley appointee as Chairperson of the Chicago Housing Authority), also has a tax lien against him? Has Illinois ran a Child Support check on him?


You have insinuated from the time you mentioned it, that all of the people who are doing checks on "Joe the Plumber" are somehow covertly searching to assist Obama.
And again, if you believe these are McCain supporters doing these illegal searches (especially after being shown the name, party affiliation and donation record of one in this thread) then it makes little sense in responding.


Perhaps...just perhaps... She ordered such a search to see if he did owe child support. That is of course their job, to find and enforce the collection of child support.
If you can prove that she randomly searched the name, and that she has searched the names of anyone that publicly made McCain commit a gaffe of as Obama did, you would have the start of an argument.

I am sure that is exactly what she will claim. "I was just following orders. I was just doing my job."

Searches of private information should be do to a complaint, or probable cause should be involved.

What was her probable cause?

There is no child support enforcement claim being made against the gentleman. No investigation is underway into child support surrounding him. No judge has ordered that his private records be searched.

Nothing will likely come of it. As I have said previously, she is well connected in the Democratic Party in Ohio.

[Warriorbird]

Most of the stuff going against Joe's claims was public record with some easy searching.

[Mabus]

Most of the stuff going against Joe's claims was public record with some easy searching.
Not the illegal accessing of government databases. There are at least 3 instances of this being investigated in Ohio currently.

That is what we were discussing.

[Warriorbird]

Not that there've ever been any Republicans accessing databases they shouldn't (I remember the State Department employee flap... it got handily quiet when they threw out that they'd accessed McCain's passport info as well).

[Mabus]

Not that there've ever been any Republicans accessing databases they shouldn't (I remember the State Department employee flap... it got handily quiet when they threw out that they'd accessed McCain's passport info as well).
"duh repubs does it too"

Get a new tactic, seriously.

[TheRoseLady]

If you believe that information found would not have been released on the internet to discredit this gentleman, then you are deluding yourself.

Searches of private information should be do to a complaint, or probable cause should be involved.

What was her probable cause?

There is no child support enforcement claim being made against the gentleman. No investigation is underway into child support surrounding him. No judge has ordered that his private records be searched.



I didn't think about the discrediting part, that makes sense.

Mabus, who said that it was illegal? From the Columbus Dispatch:

Director Helen Jones-Kelley said that after a "team meeting," she OK'd the check because the department often runs inquiries to check for unpaid child support when people are thrust into "the public spotlight."

I am not talking about the person who pulled a BMV report for a reporter, or the other people who accessed records that are not within the scope of their responsibility.

Sorry but checking someone for child support is not illegal, nor is it an invasion of his privacy when it's done within the scope of the agency that oversees such things. It's pretty simple, as I stated before....

She has jurisdiction over this area and it makes sense. You somehow believe that a non-existent child support record has some privacy attached to it.... sorry but that's not how some things work.

You seem to think that by checking his child support status that it was somehow illegal, and that those records if they exist are private and can only be accessed by a court order. Silliness.

[Mabus]

You seem to think that by checking his child support status that it was somehow illegal, and that those records if they exist are private and can only be accessed by a court order. Silliness.
And you seem to believe that using a government database to purposefully search the records of a private citizen, that also happens to be a liability to a candidate you support, when there is no justification or cause is somehow legitimate.

What do you expect her to say, "I did it because I wanted to screw him for asking a question of my candidate."?"

Of course she pleads her own innocence.

Unless you are stating you firmly believe that the director of the agency personally OK's each name that enters the public for a search of private government databases, in which case a discussion is likely to go nowhere.

Ohio, as I am sure you know, is the seventh largest state in the Union. It is highly doubtful someone in her position personally asks (or even OK's) these searches.

[TheEschaton]

THat's pure speculation, and discounting her (admittedly, possibly outright false, but doubtful) assertion that people put in the spotlight are often checked for child support payments.

[Mabus]

THat's pure speculation, and discounting her (admittedly, possibly outright false, but doubtful) assertion that people put in the spotlight are often checked for child support payments.
Of course it is speculation.

But it also contains motive and ability. It also contains an excuse by the principle that does not stand to reason.

In a state with 11.5 million people it is highly unlikely that she would have a team meeting about, and personally OK, each name that enters the public sphere.

[Parkbandit]

Not that there've ever been any Republicans accessing databases they shouldn't (I remember the State Department employee flap... it got handily quiet when they threw out that they'd accessed McCain's passport info as well).

{Insert Assliana's "B-b-b-b-but Republicans" line here}

Oh wait, it doesn't have that line.. it only has "B-b-b-b-b-but Democrats!"

Sad.

[TheEschaton]

Fair enough point, Mabus, but how often are people "thrust into the spotlight"?

Though I do agree that the team meeting seems pretty fucking shady.

[Mabus]

Fair enough point, Mabus, but how often are people "thrust into the spotlight"?

Though I do agree that the team meeting seems pretty fucking shady.

You are not the only one that thinks it is a bit suspicious.

A Cleveland Plain Dealer Editorial today had this:

A mighty fishy fishing trip through Joe Wurzelbacher's state records -- editorial (http://www.cleveland.com/editorials/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1225269030317840.xml&coll=2)

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Whether cause and effect or coincidence, here's the lesson of the records checks, through state databases, on Samuel Joseph "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher: Mouth off politically and someone may run your name through a state computer in Columbus.

The Columbus Dispatch reported Tuesday that state Job & Family Services Director Helen Jones-Kelley, a member of Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland's Cabinet, approved a check of Wurzelbacher's records. That OK came after John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, cited Wurzelbacher affirmatively in the Oct. 15 debate McCain had with Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

Jones-Kelley told the Dispatch she approved the records check to see whether Wurzelbacher was current on any required child-support payments -- assuming he is obliged to pay child support. (Conveniently for Jones-Kelley, she said she couldn't reveal whether Wurzelbacher is in fact even subject to a child-support agreement.) She explained the records check this way: "When someone is thrust quickly into the public spotlight, we often take a look."

Jones-Kelley cited an (unnamed) lottery winner dunned, after publicity about a jackpot, for child support. But if such records checks are "often" done, why did Wurzelbacher's require personal approval from a Cabinet member? Something about her story doesn't pass the smell test.

Given her job's enormous responsibilities, it's hard to believe Jones-Kelley's approval of requests for records checks was just part of a normal day at the office -- especially since she works for an Ohio administration consumed with politics.

By the way, according to the Federal Election Commission, Jones-Kelly is a $2,500 donor to the Obama Victory Fund.

From all that I can find, Wurzelbacher only has one child, a 13 year old son, and he lives with him.

[Tsa`ah]

And you seem to believe that using a government database to purposefully search the records of a private citizen, that also happens to be a liability to a candidate you support, when there is no justification or cause is somehow legitimate.

Court records, except in the case of juvenile court or court order, are public record.


What do you expect her to say, "I did it because I wanted to screw him for asking a question of my candidate."?"

You need to refine that for truth. It's not that he asked Obama a question, it's that his candidate chose to make him famous. Celebrity sucks, ask any celebrity.


Of course she pleads her own innocence.

She doesn't have to plead for anything. Hell in IL, you can search court records on-line. It's public domain.


Unless you are stating you firmly believe that the director of the agency personally OK's each name that enters the public for a search of private government databases, in which case a discussion is likely to go nowhere.

You're still asserting that court records are private. Unless sealed ... they're public.


Ohio, as I am sure you know, is the seventh largest state in the Union. It is highly doubtful someone in her position personally asks (or even OK's) these searches.

Requests and authorizations weren't needed. Mr Plumber rushed out with his "Rush" talking points and got an answer. McCain chose to thrust him into the spotlight and Mr Plumber has been more than eager to stand there ... and look like a dumbass.

Your line of reasoning lacks the facts and is skewed by politics.

[Mabus]

Court records, except in the case of juvenile court or court order, are public record.
These were not court records. Read the posted links.

Here is another one, perhaps you should go defend this woman with your distorted view of the facts:

Toledo Police have confirmed that a TPD records clerk is accused of performing an illegal search of information related to 'Joe the Plumber.'

Julie McConnell, has been charged with Gross Misconduct for allegedly making an improper inquiry into a state database in search of information pertaining to Samuel Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16.

You should immediately call the Toledo Police Department and threaten them that you can prove these are public records!


Requests and authorizations weren't needed.

Did you miss this:
"Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments."

Since you seem to know more then the woman that gave said permission, by her own word, explain why she had to give permission and why it is being investigated.

[Tsa`ah]

Child support is a court matter ... thus a court record.

[Mabus]

Child support is a court matter ... thus a court record.
Explain why Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, has a team meeting and then OK'd the check on him.

[Tsa`ah]

Family Services.

Stop being retarded.

[Mabus]

Family Services.

Stop being retarded.
So you accuse me of a mental handicap, but have not answered.

If the records were public, as you claimed, then why are some people being prosecuted for illegally viewing them?

If the records are public, as you claim, why would a Gubernatorial cabinet member have to hold a team meeting and give her personal OK for them to be searched?

Answer the questions, or be the piece of shit I know you to be in front of everyone on the forum.

[Tsa`ah]

Well until someone has been indicted, prosecution doesn't exist.

No one is being charged for viewing them, they're being charged with gross misconduct (read using state resources for what could possibly be a personal investigation).

Had they just gone through the normal avenues of document collection, there wouldn't be an issue.

[Mabus]

Well until someone has been indicted, prosecution doesn't exist.

No one is being charged for viewing them, they're being charged with gross misconduct (read using state resources for what could possibly be a personal investigation).

Had they just gone through the normal avenues of document collection, there wouldn't be an issue.
Thank you for proving my point.

You are just a self-hating, pseudo-intellectual pile of dung.

[Tsa`ah]

I wasn't aware you had a point to prove. Just as with any other "penis" post, it was nothing more that spinning shit into misinformation on your part.

As I've said in the past ... you're the poster child for abortion.

[Mabus]

I wasn't aware you had a point to prove.
The "point" was the suspicious nature of doing a search on a private citizen that was authorized personally by a state cabinet member in a state of 11.5 million people.

Then after you posted completely false information as a distraction, the point became showing what a little inconsequential piece of shit you were by having you unable to support your own bullshit.

You succeeded marvelously!

[Tsa`ah]

What false information did I post? The corrections to your rhetoric? Of course to you that's false. You're also a mental midget ... it can't be helped.

[Mabus]

What false information did I post?
Just to keep it on topic with this thread? Your belief that the records that were searched were public court records, for one. If they were public court records there would not be seven instances being investigated.

Then there are these:

Requests and authorizations weren't needed. Mr Plumber rushed out with his "Rush" talking points and got an answer. McCain chose to thrust him into the spotlight and Mr Plumber has been more than eager to stand there ... and look like a dumbass.
If "requests and authorizations weren't needed" then why was there a meeting held, and the head of a state bureau personally gave her OK?

You should contact her, her department and the state government to inform them of how wrong she was to believe that her authorization was needed, I am sure all parties will appreciate your great wisdom!

No one is being charged for viewing them, they're being charged with gross misconduct (read using state resources for what could possibly be a personal investigation).
Once again:

The Toledo Police Department confirms that one of its records clerks has been charged with performing an unlawful search of Joe The Plumber’s records.(bold my own)

Then it was off to the attacks for you. The usual when you fail intellectually.

[TheRoseLady]

And you seem to believe that using a government database to purposefully search the records of a private citizen, that also happens to be a liability to a candidate you support, when there is no justification or cause is somehow legitimate.

What do you expect her to say, "I did it because I wanted to screw him for asking a question of my candidate."?"

Of course she pleads her own innocence.

Unless you are stating you firmly believe that the director of the agency personally OK's each name that enters the public for a search of private government databases, in which case a discussion is likely to go nowhere.

Ohio, as I am sure you know, is the seventh largest state in the Union. It is highly doubtful someone in her position personally asks (or even OK's) these searches.

Seriously, your fascination with nefarious deeds and conspiracies that ultimately benefit Obama is a common theme in the majority of your posts. It makes it really difficult to take your insistence that something is gravely wrong again with a straight face.

Remember those black helicopters?

[Warriorbird]

I'm sure he has an Obama shrine in his bedroom.

[Mabus]

Obama is a common theme in the majority of your posts.
It is a political folder. Two major party candidates are running. I think you can figure it out, or do you need a hint?

[Mabus]

I'm sure he has an Obama shrine in his bedroom.
You fantasizing about me and bedrooms is getting disturbing. Perhaps you would be better off with Keller and Tsa`ah, as they seem to have a thing for male genitalia.

[Warriorbird]

You already have Obama and another man in your profile...and Obama in above 90% of your posts.

Admit it! There's a large and welcoming gay community here on the PC (apart from Drew2).

[Stanley Burrell]

If you Republicans feminazis insist on being such a bunch of whiny-hippy-pinko procrastinators; God help you, I'll send in Katherine Harris and Co. to "speedily review" your voting records.



Wait...

[Tsa`ah]

Just to keep it on topic with this thread? Your belief that the records that were searched were public court records, for one. If they were public court records there would not be seven instances being investigated.

Again ... try to follow along.

Court records (such as divorce, child support, and alimony) are public records. Anyone can see these so long as they're not documents from juvenile court ... or if the records have been ordered sealed by the courts.

That is not the issue. The issue is that a government official utilized government resources to conduct a personal investigation.

Now, had they conducted themselves as private citizens, there wouldn't be room for charges of any kind.


Then there are these:

If "requests and authorizations weren't needed" then why was there a meeting held, and the head of a state bureau personally gave her OK?

The official did not have to request permission, any more than Palin did to terminate an official for personal reasons. Both will have to face the music for their actions.

You should contact her, her department and the state government to inform them of how wrong she was to believe that her authorization was needed, I am sure all parties will appreciate your great wisdom![/quote]

You're suggesting that I'm of the mind that she didn't do anything wrong ... and you're wrong. I'm just setting you straight on the facts.

Facts such as an investigation doesn't translate to prosecution ... as I said, an indictment has to be handed down before prosecution can begin.


Once again:
(bold my own)

Then it was off to the attacks for you. The usual when you fail intellectually.

Sadly, the claim of failure from you usually translates into success for the person you direct it at ... that's how laughably sad your posts are.

[Mabus]

Court records (such as divorce, child support, and alimony) are public records. Anyone can see these so long as they're not documents from juvenile court ... or if the records have been ordered sealed by the courts.
Proof with sources that there were the only records accessed, or your argument is without merit, as she has stated publicly that she gave permission to access these records.

There are other records our government keeps that are not publicly accessible. If you are disputing this, say so.

The official did not have to request permission,
If this is the case, then why has she stated that she did give permission after a team meeting?


Facts such as an investigation doesn't translate to prosecution ... as I said, an indictment has to be handed down before prosecution can begin.
As previously posted, someone has already been charged for illegally searching through this gentleman's records. Not investigated, charged.

Perhaps you missed that?

While not the specific case of a top state official giving permission to search the man's records, it is 1 of at least 7 cases either currently being prosecuted, or investigated, dealing with the same man. That a head of a state department, who also happens to be a maxed out Obama donor, would use their office to seek information about this man does not seem to bother you speaks to your character (or lack thereof).

Perhaps you believe none of these cases have any bearing on Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, and that it is all just some coincidence. Is this the case?

[Tsa`ah]

Proof with sources that there were the only records accessed, or your argument is without merit, as she has stated publicly that she gave permission to access these records.

Yes.. yes ... she admitted she gave permission to GOVERNMENT OFFICALS to access these records USING GOVERNMENT RESOURCES. Read your own fucking article and stop being a dumbass.


There are other records our government keeps that are not publicly accessible. If you are disputing this, say so.

List for me the records that are not considered public property.


If this is the case, then why has she stated that she did give permission after a team meeting?

Answered ... learn to read.


As previously posted, someone has already been charged for illegally searching through this gentleman's records. Not investigated, charged.

Your words spanky ..


If the records were public, as you claimed, then why are some people being prosecuted for illegally viewing them?

... bolded the relevant.


Perhaps you missed that?

No, I caught your misinformation the first time ... hence my correcting you.


...

The rest of this is nothing more than your usual "tinfoil hat on too tight" bullshit and not worth the effort.

[Mabus]

The whole board just got a little better for me. Keller and Tsa`ah can post all the nonsense they want.

[Keller]

The whole board just got a little better for me. Keller and Tsa`ah can post all the nonsense they want.

Your father was a hampster and your mother smelt of elderberries!

[Parkbandit]

The whole board just got a little better for me. Keller and Tsa`ah can post all the nonsense they want.


Why's that?

[Tsa`ah]

Why's that?

He couldn't handle an unfiltered politics folder ... so it's likely he's pulled a play from your book and placed the people that regularly busted his chops on ignore.

[Parkbandit]

He couldn't handle an unfiltered politics folder ... so it's likely he's pulled a play from your book and placed the people that regularly busted his chops on ignore.

I've only put one tard on ignore.. and it wasn't for that.

And even if that was the case, you busting anyone chops /= people pointing out your stupidity... stop equating the two.

Thankfully though, you don't put people on ignore. If you used getting your chops busted for a threshold, you would probably be reading only your posts.

[Tsa`ah]

Oh boy ... you sure told me!