Interview with a plumber - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Thursday, 16 October 2008


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
0801 - Interview with a plumber

(16 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


From:jer_
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Oh, a plumber called it socialism, it must be!!

I am not exactly an economic liberal (I'm fairly centrist), and I'm not a fan of Obama's economic plan (nor am I a fan of McCain's non-plan)... but even *I* see the fallacious logic in saying "look, a guy who would have to pay higher taxes because his business will make over $200,000 per year and he is apparently planning to file his small business taxes as personal taxes doesn't like having to pay more taxes, so clearly it's a bad thing"

I don't like taxes. Period. Full stop. I think that in most cases, the private sector could do a better job than the government can. I am also grown up enough to recognize the inherent naivete in feeling that "wealth redistribution" is bad, regardless of form. Absolutes like that are the bread and butter of zealots and ideologues. Generally speaking, I'd like to see no wealth redistribution. Realistically speaking, some is necessary for a healthy economy and a healthy nation.

Joe doesn't enjoy paying his share... I get that. That doesn't make it socialist, and trying to shove Obama that far to one side merely illustrates how psychotically on the other side you are. Somewhere in the middle is rational government.
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Joe doesn't enjoy paying his share... I get that. That doesn't make it socialist, and trying to shove Obama that far to one side merely illustrates how psychotically on the other side you are. Somewhere in the middle is rational government.


*applause*

Thank you.
[User Picture]
From:reddragdiva
Date: - 0000
(Link)
This is where I get to wear the label "socialist", because I make £40k and pay a whacking share of that in tax (income tax, VAT, council tax) and don't actually object to doing so at all.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Joe doesn't enjoy paying his share...
This is exactly where the problem lies: Obama wants to define "paying his share" as "spreading the wealth". That IS socialist. The problem is not in paying one's share, but in paying others' share.

Obama is a socialist. No matter how vigorously the mainstream media works to cover up that fact, it's still the case. He's condemned himself with his own words - that government should force people to "spread the wealth around", a socialist idea if there ever was one - and people should understand that and either embrace it or else reexamine their choices.

"Wealth redistribution" is not necessarily evil - unless it's done at gunpoint. When an individual does that, it's called "stealing", or possibly "slavery". When a government does that, it's called "taxation" and "spreading the wealth around". It's not theirs to spread.
From:jer_
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I cannot disagree with your position on taxation; it is pretty much how I feel (give or take a bit, that is). My problem is with you using one or two policy elements to paint a person with the Socialist brush. With the same logic, I could certainly paint Bush and McCain with the Fascist brush, and be dead accurate. They have both voted time and again for policies that place the will and survival of the state ahead of those of the citizenry. Fortunately, I am rational enough to see that, while they certainly have adopted some fascist policies, they are not fascists (much).

Likewise, Obama is not a socialist, despite some socialist policies with which I profoundly disagree.

Or we have a choice between the socialist and the fascist... and sadly I have to side with the socialist in that fight... personal freedoms are harder to get back than cash.
[User Picture]
From:kazriko
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Except that Socialism is just another form of restriction of personal freedoms. And the Democrats are leaning towards fascist policies as well with their Fairness doctrine for both radio and internet and other methods of stifling political discourse. (If you disagree with their policies, you're often called a racist by the democrats. If you disagree with raising the income tax, you're unpatriotic.)

We're left with McCain, who is a socialist and a fascist, and Obama, who is a socialist and a fascist. Not much choice there. At this point I would rather pick a random name from the nationwide phone book and make them president.
[User Picture]
From:kazriko
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Ask and you shall receive.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493

They've taken a perfectly legitimate, descriptive term for an economic system and said that it's racist to use that term, just because it was used against a handful of a minority group at one point. I hate to break it to the editorial writer here, but Socialist was used both to describe Maoist China, which has no "black" people at all, and the National Socialist German Workers Party, which has no "black" people at all.

It has nothing at all to do with race but is all about redistribution of wealth, aka "Spreading the wealth around."

No matter what term you use to describe the democrat policies, they're going to find some connection to tie it to racism. Stifling dissent in this manner is a form of fascism.

> go to top
LiveJournal.com