Spread the wealth

[Weyoun]

Right Bob. An ebbing tide lowers all ships. We don't need any growth in this country as long as the government is getting it's share. Did ANY of that make any sense to you? Think it all the way through.....

Taxes buy services, flock. They buy regulations that maintain a level playing field, which in turn engenders confidence in the markets. They buy enforcement of those regulations as well. Those services may well be worth more than the cost of the taxes. If you think these things lack value (even to honest businesses that don't need to be told to be honest), try selling baby formula made in China right now.

I think that the American people (at least, those who aren't ideologically opposed to all regulation, all the time) are starting to viscerally understand the value of intelligent regulation in a way that, prior to the current financial crisis, they may not have before. --Bob

Absoutely, but I am also left wondering why the current regulations didn't work.

Besides, the amount in tax dollars needed to pay for such regulations is a drop in the bucket compared to what our tax dollars actually go toward - it's equivalent to arguing for or against changing the foreign aid to Egypt by 10%.

[Weyoun]

I don't necessarily agree with Obama's ideas on executing it, but anyone who thinks "spread the wealth" is unAmerican socialism is not a student of American history. Not that very many people are, any more.

I don't agree with this at all, if only because we've not even had an income tax for half of our nation's history.

[Jeemie]

I don't necessarily agree with Obama's ideas on executing it, but anyone who thinks "spread the wealth" is unAmerican socialism is not a student of American history. Not that very many people are, any more.

I don't agree with this at all, if only because we've not even had an income tax for half of our nation's history.

MrK is correct, in a way, though...Americans have recognized the perils of wealth imbalance....and that a strong middle class is needed for stability.

Whether or not you agree with "share the wealth", or whether or not you think that government should be the one doing that, it is an undisputed fact that the disparity between the upper income earners and the rest of the earners in this country is higher than at any point since the 1920s.

The policies we have been following since the 1980s have concentrated more and more of the nation's real wealth in the hands of those top 1%.

This isn't "class warfare rhetoric"...it's factual. It's also factual that such wealth disparity inevitably leads to economic instability.

Now- I agree Obama's policies are not the answer to help rescue the middle class, but neither is a continuation of what we have been doing.

[Rexer25]

I don't necessarily agree with Obama's ideas on executing it, but anyone who thinks "spread the wealth" is unAmerican socialism is not a student of American history. Not that very many people are, any more.

I don't agree with this at all, if only because we've not even had an income tax for half of our nation's history.

MrK is correct, in a way, though...Americans have recognized the perils of wealth imbalance....and that a strong middle class is needed for stability.

Whether or not you agree with "share the wealth", or whether or not you think that government should be the one doing that, it is an undisputed fact that the disparity between the upper income earners and the rest of the earners in this country is higher than at any point since the 1920s.

The policies we have been following since the 1980s have concentrated more and more of the nation's real wealth in the hands of those top 1%.

This isn't "class warfare rhetoric"...it's factual. It's also factual that such wealth disparity inevitably leads to economic instability.

Now- I agree Obama's policies are not the answer to help rescue the middle class, but neither is a continuation of what we have been doing.

I'm curious now, Jeemie, what do you think our policies should be?

[Jeemie]

I don't agree with this at all, if only because we've not even had an income tax for half of our nation's history.

MrK is correct, in a way, though...Americans have recognized the perils of wealth imbalance....and that a strong middle class is needed for stability.

Whether or not you agree with "share the wealth", or whether or not you think that government should be the one doing that, it is an undisputed fact that the disparity between the upper income earners and the rest of the earners in this country is higher than at any point since the 1920s.

The policies we have been following since the 1980s have concentrated more and more of the nation's real wealth in the hands of those top 1%.

This isn't "class warfare rhetoric"...it's factual. It's also factual that such wealth disparity inevitably leads to economic instability.

Now- I agree Obama's policies are not the answer to help rescue the middle class, but neither is a continuation of what we have been doing.

I'm curious now, Jeemie, what do you think our policies should be?

Oh, that's a tough question.

In general, I do not have a problem with a progressive tax structure.

However, taxation ought to be about paying for essential government services, and not for social reasons.

Beyond that, I'd really have to think about it more...but whatever new policies we implement have to find some way of restoring the social contract between business, labor, and government that we had in this country for many years following World War II that helped make the middle class what it became.

[eyégor]

Arriving late to the party, I think this thread's original quote needs to be looked at in context.

Thanks to Marc Ambinder at "The Atlantic"

Fox and Friends's Steve Doocy tossed to a sound bite featuring Barack Obama chatting with a man identified as a plumber -- who last night jumped into our consciousness as "Joe The Plumber" -- who had asked the candidate whether his new tax plan "is gonna tax people."

Obama responds: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everyone who is beyond you has a chance at success too."

Then the video jumps a bit.

Obama: "I think that, when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

The Fox director cuts back to Doocey: "Did ya hear that last part... Spread the wealth around.."

Ok -- so did Obama just admit that he wanted to redistribute wealth? Did he speak in socialist code?

Here's the context from the pool report from Fox's (excellent) producer on the ground, Bonney Kapp.

Turns out that the second sound bite -- the spread the wealth around part -- comes later in the conversation, when the plumber said that it seemed like Obama would support a flat tax.

We can wade into Obama's answer in midstream. First he discusses a technical point about the flat tax. Then he says:

"And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who's things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, its gonna be good for everybody."

"If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off it you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now I think everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. "

He's simply restating support for a progressive income tax, not making a larger statement about the economy.

[silverscreenselect]

He's simply restating support for a progressive income tax, not making a larger statement about the economy.

Any time that a Democratic politician uses the phrase "spread the wealth" or "share the wealth," no matter what context it's in, it's bad for Democrats because to many people that phrase is a code word for socialism.

Joe Biden made things worse today by saying that he didn't know any plumbers in his neighborhood who made $250,000. Actually Joe Plumber never said he made $250,000; he said he hopes to be able to build his business some day so he can make $250,000. And there are small plumbing contractors who do gross $250,000, which doesn't mean that their disposable personal income is $250,000.

Now the Obama hit squads are out trying to claim Joe Plumber doesn't have a plumber's license (which isn't required in Ohio for residential work) and dig up other dirt on the guy. Unless this guy is secretly a child molester or an ax murderer, these attempts to trash him are not going to go over well with the millions of voters in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana that Obama is claiming to be looking out for. Here's a clue. You're not looking out for someone when you throw him under the bus at the drop of a hat.

[mellytu74]

According to the Toledo Blade, Lucas County DOES require licenses.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 18/-1/NEWS

Here's the link from the New York Times.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... tlight/?hp

and the AP story (via Yahoo).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_ ... he_plumber

If the reporters found that the guy hasn't paid taxes or isn't licensed or has absolutely no idea how he is actually going to buy the business from the guy he works for, HOW EXACTLY is that the doings of the Obama campaign?

Find a story. Report it. It's what reporters DO.

[earendel]

According to the Toledo Blade, Lucas County DOES require licenses.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 18/-1/NEWS

Here's the link from the New York Times.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... tlight/?hp

and the AP story (via Yahoo).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_ ... he_plumber

If the reporters found that the guy hasn't paid taxes or isn't licensed or has absolutely no idea how he is actually going to buy the business from the guy he works for, HOW EXACTLY is that the doings of the Obama campaign?

Find a story. Report it. It's what reporters DO.

I'm sure that SSS or someone else will say that the reporters are digging into "Joe the Plumber's" background because the Obama campaign suggested they should.

[JBillyGirl]

I'm sure that SSS or someone else will say that the reporters are digging into "Joe the Plumber's" background because the Obama campaign suggested they should.

Then he would be wrong. Everyone should know by now that it's Rexer's fault.

[silverscreenselect]

According to the Toledo Blade, Lucas County DOES require licenses.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 18/-1/NEWS

Here's the link from the New York Times.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... tlight/?hp

and the AP story (via Yahoo).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_ ... he_plumber

If the reporters found that the guy hasn't paid taxes or isn't licensed or has absolutely no idea how he is actually going to buy the business from the guy he works for, HOW EXACTLY is that the doings of the Obama campaign?

Find a story. Report it. It's what reporters DO.

The state of Ohio does not require a plumber's license for residential work.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4740

Joe's employer has a state and a city plumber's license and does residential work. City and county contractor's licenses are more revenue generating measures than any test of competence. I worked for a satellite contractor and I know that the vast majority of small contractors don't get licenses in every single jurisdiction in which they do a single job because the total they would pay in fees would make their work unprofitable. Who's going to pay $100 for a license on a job that you may gross $200 for? So they go in and out and unless they get caught, they keep going. If they do get caught, what usually happens is they apologize and buy the license, because most counties don't have the time or manpower to go around policing that sort of thing on a regular basis. I suspect that as a result of this mess, Joe's boss is going to have to get a county license. Also, the county license only applies to those parts of the county which are not part of any municipality or township. If I had to guess (and if someone lives in Toledo they may know) the vast majority of Lucas County is either in the city limits of Toledo or one of the other townships and there may be a few unincorporated areas wehre it is very possible to go a year or more without getting a single job.

Even if Joe's employer was in violation of the law, how is that impugnable to him? Is everyone required to check to see if their employer has all the city, county and state licenses required to do business before they make a political comment? And how does that (or whether he has a tax lien on his house) in any way affect the validity or invalidity of what Joe says?

Joe never said he owned his plumbing business. He said that he hoped to be able to buy out the business in a few years if all goes well and he felt that Obama's tax plan made that more difficult.

If people want to debate that, that's fine. But if they want to attempt to destroy this guy and his employer by dragging out every little bit of dirty baggage about him (while they have cavalierly ignored Obama's failings), that's something else. I'm not sure exactly how having a tax lien on his house (which he might have been unaware of since there was a problem in contacting him) is big news.

Frankly, I hope the Obama campaign and its reporter flunkies does continue to try to tear this guy down. Because there are a lot of people who know what it's like to work for a small contractor who may or may not have every single city and county license in creation (and I'd guess that about 95% of small contractors don't). And they may have a tax lien or an adverse judgment or something that's not perfect in their job or financial history. And what they see is the guy who claims to be looking out for them out to tear them down for having the nerve to say something about Obama's economic plans.

[flockofseagulls104]

Right Bob. An ebbing tide lowers all ships. We don't need any growth in this country as long as the government is getting it's share. Did ANY of that make any sense to you? Think it all the way through.....

Taxes buy services, flock. They buy regulations that maintain a level playing field, which in turn engenders confidence in the markets. They buy enforcement of those regulations as well. Those services may well be worth more than the cost of the taxes. If you think these things lack value (even to honest businesses that don't need to be told to be honest), try selling baby formula made in China right now.

I think that the American people (at least, those who aren't ideologically opposed to all regulation, all the time) are starting to viscerally understand the value of intelligent regulation in a way that, prior to the current financial crisis, they may not have before. --Bob

Two words that make all the difference: INTELLIGENT REGULATION. The regulation that we have is all to often geared to protect one interest that endears itself to the regulators heart by money or some other consideration (IE Bribery or blackmail), or is imposed on businesses or other entities by regulators with a personal agenda (IE Environmental extremists).
There is a line of thought that the current financial crisis was, if not caused, but exacerbated by too much regulation of the wrong kind. Specifically the requirement to lower loan standards to 'protected' groups. (Namely those who could not qualify based on generally accepted loan standards). This 'regulation' produced a lot of loan paper that was not worth the paper it was printed on. Is this one of the causes for the current situation? I don't know, but that's the kind of regulation we would be better off not having. It was not intelligent, it was another case of do-gooderism gone bad. The unforeseen conseqences of good intentions.

[Bob78164]

There is a line of thought that the current financial crisis was, if not caused, but exacerbated by too much regulation of the wrong kind. Specifically the requirement to lower loan standards to 'protected' groups. (Namely those who could not qualify based on generally accepted loan standards).

I'm not aware that any regulation required anyone to lower their loan standards. The only regulations that I'm aware of the could be construed as requiring lending prohibit discrimination on the basis of protected status, such as race. In other words, companies aren't allowed to turn you down for a mortgage because you're black. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

There is a line of thought that the current financial crisis was, if not caused, but exacerbated by too much regulation of the wrong kind. Specifically the requirement to lower loan standards to 'protected' groups. (Namely those who could not qualify based on generally accepted loan standards).

I'm not aware that any regulation required anyone to lower their loan standards. The only regulations that I'm aware of the could be construed as requiring lending prohibit discrimination on the basis of protected status, such as race. In other words, companies aren't allowed to turn you down for a mortgage because you're black. --Bob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

[Bob Juch]

There is a line of thought that the current financial crisis was, if not caused, but exacerbated by too much regulation of the wrong kind. Specifically the requirement to lower loan standards to 'protected' groups. (Namely those who could not qualify based on generally accepted loan standards).

I'm not aware that any regulation required anyone to lower their loan standards. The only regulations that I'm aware of the could be construed as requiring lending prohibit discrimination on the basis of protected status, such as race. In other words, companies aren't allowed to turn you down for a mortgage because you're black. --Bob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The Act was intended to reduce discriminatory credit practices against such neighborhoods, a practice known as 'redlining'. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

You have a problem with that?

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm not aware that any regulation required anyone to lower their loan standards. The only regulations that I'm aware of the could be construed as requiring lending prohibit discrimination on the basis of protected status, such as race. In other words, companies aren't allowed to turn you down for a mortgage because you're black. --Bob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The Act was intended to reduce discriminatory credit practices against such neighborhoods, a practice known as 'redlining'. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

You have a problem with that?

As with most liberal policies and ideas, I have no problem with the motivation and intended results, I have a problem with the execution and actual results.

[Jeemie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The Act was intended to reduce discriminatory credit practices against such neighborhoods, a practice known as 'redlining'. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

You have a problem with that?

As with most liberal policies and ideas, I have no problem with the motivation and intended results, I have a problem with the execution and actual results.

There is no indication that banks were pressured to give loans to unqualified applicants.

There is no indication that banks were pressured to drop documentation requirements.

Loans originating from CRA-regulated banks were more stringently regulated and have had a lesser failure rate than loans originating from non-CRA-regulated banks.

In short, the idea that the Dems, through a beefed-up CRA and through their agencies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are the cause of the subprime mortgage crisis and its subsequent fallout into the financial markets, is wholly unfounded.

But I know it's a meme that has spread like wildfire in right-wing circles.

Even if it was true, had this been all that happened, the subprime crisis would have been confined to the housing sector.

Without the development of the derivatives' instruments that allowed this debt to be leveraged so that the capital banks normally had to keep in reserve could be freed up, and the lax oversight of these banks (the government essentially allowed the baks to police themselves regarding the riskiness of these instruments), the subprime mess could never have spread as far as it did.

Both GOP AND Dem had all hands on deck for this one.

[Tocqueville3]

AWESOME!!!

[BigDrawMan]

According to the Toledo Blade, Lucas County DOES require licenses.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 18/-1/NEWS

Here's the link from the New York Times.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... tlight/?hp

and the AP story (via Yahoo).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_ ... he_plumber

If the reporters found that the guy hasn't paid taxes or isn't licensed or has absolutely no idea how he is actually going to buy the business from the guy he works for, HOW EXACTLY is that the doings of the Obama campaign?

Find a story. Report it. It's what reporters DO.

The state of Ohio does not require a plumber's license for residential work.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4740

Joe's employer has a state and a city plumber's license and does residential work. City and county contractor's licenses are more revenue generating measures than any test of competence. I worked for a satellite contractor and I know that the vast majority of small contractors don't get licenses in every single jurisdiction in which they do a single job because the total they would pay in fees would make their work unprofitable. Who's going to pay $100 for a license on a job that you may gross $200 for? So they go in and out and unless they get caught, they keep going. If they do get caught, what usually happens is they apologize and buy the license, because most counties don't have the time or manpower to go around policing that sort of thing on a regular basis. I suspect that as a result of this mess, Joe's boss is going to have to get a county license. Also, the county license only applies to those parts of the county which are not part of any municipality or township. If I had to guess (and if someone lives in Toledo they may know) the vast majority of Lucas County is either in the city limits of Toledo or one of the other townships and there may be a few unincorporated areas wehre it is very possible to go a year or more without getting a single job.


thats bullshit.Licenses are required to keep out the slimeballs and shoemakers who arent able to do a professional job, and are unable to pay for their mistakes.
Joe needs to have his own license in addition to his employer, where one is required.
To get a license, you need to show proof that you have passed either the Journeymans test or the master plumbers.More importantly, you have to show your liability insurance,which shoemaker types never have.
In many areas where a license is not required, anyone can do the work after getting a permit, but it then needs to be inspected by the municipality.

your work for the satellite company didnt seem to eduacte you on plumbing issues for some reason.