Slashdot Mirror
Gov't Computers Used to Find Info on "Joe the Plumber"
After Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio gained fame as "Joe the Plumber" in the course of the current presidential campaign, it seems that he's drawn more than idle curiosity from people with access to what should probably be confidential information. An anonymous reader writes with a story from The Columbus Dispatch that "government insiders accessed Joe the Plumber's records soon after the McCain-Obama debate. 'Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate. Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.' Welcome to 1984."
This stuff isn't just happening in the UK.
Anybody? I'd think that the personal data of just about any news figure is combed over. This is certainly unfortunate but hardly surprising.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Welcome to 1984, or welcome to a world (just like 2007, 2006, and 2005) where curious people with access to confidential information sometimes abuse it without meaning harm?
I don't think there's any reason to assume malice here, I think stupidity is good enough. This kind of thing happens all the time when famous people check into hospitals and medical residents think it would be clever to pull their file.
This seems more likely to be plain old stupidity than it does evil government influence.
This is what happens when you "speak truth to power" to a Republican. Oh wait, never mind...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
That those who would have afforded the Bush administration total power would suddenly wince when that power is used against them.
This is my sig.
As interesting (and also not surprising at all) is the quote from the article,
The LEADS system also can be used to check for warrants and criminal histories, but such checks would not be reflected on the records obtained by The Dispatch
Why anyone would trust any online system with anything that could cost them a job, impact their credit, prevent them from receiving health insurance, prevent them from being considered from a job, put-your-privacy-concern-here, etc.... is beyond me.
Sure it will be secure, sure it will....
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.
I still don't understand why they keep bringing this guy up. He lied in his question to Obama about being in a position to buy his boss' company. His boss' company also doesn't make the level of income that would trigger a new tax under Obama's plan. Joe himself would get a tax cut under Obama's plan. Joe owes back taxes as it is. He's against Social Security. He's not a licensed plumber. Oh, and did I mention his first name isn't even Joe?
"Joe the Plumber" is kind of a lie on a lie. Joe has a fantasy about himself as Mr. Up-And-Coming-Businessman (he's not) being held down by the Man (he's not) who will get screwed by Obama (he won't). And that self-deception has been magnified by McCain into yet another mass Republican Cognitive Dissonance(TM)-- a national party lie standing on the shoulders of one small man's lie.
Good luck in November, guys.
Did Joe the Plumber make over 250k last year? Will Obama be giving him a tax break, totally invalidating McCain's point about Obama raising JoeThePlumber's taxes?
That wasn't the point of Joe's question. Joe stated he wanted to buy a business and hoped that his hard work would bring in more than 250K. Obama stated that he wanted to take that success and spread it to people that made less than Joe hoped to make with his business acquisition and hard work.
It's one thing to say you want to "tax the rich" to fund the government, it's another when you want to do it to give other people the money, i.e., "Spread the Wealth".
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
No, I read he made about 40K. I think Joe & McCain's point was that if you work hard, and do manage to make 250K+ you should be able to keep the fruits of your labors instead of "spreading the wealth".
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
If a small business owner employs people who make less than 250k a year, then tax breaks for his employees essentially translates into that the boss doesn't need to pay as much to keep them on board. So tax breaks for workers do help the small business owner.
God spoke to me.
Seriously, this insanely stupid "It's against our freedoms to be taxed" idea is insane.
You live in a country that has a government that provides services. Roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc.
These things need to be funded. The people who benefit from said things should fund them with some of their earnings because they are able to earn the money in the first place due to the services provided by said country.
And don't start that 'Well I don't use X or Y services, so why should I have to pay for it?' bullshit. If only the people who used X service paid for it when they used it, well... how the hell would social security work? You can't well pay for that when you need it, because you don't have the money in the first place.
People like you, and Joe the Plumber are either seriously selfish and don't see the common good in everyone being helped in a prosperous nation, or seriously dense in that you just don't get how it's fair, and instead just see the simpleton's equation of: I earn money, it's mine, not yours.
Or both.
Seriously, grow up, stop saying anything you don't like is 'Infringing on your freedoms', because it's not, you're just being selfish.
Either 1984 has become so diffuse that all it means is badness+database, or the summary is badly confused. 1984 was all about a scenario where the state had ubiquitous control(with force of law) over information, which was used against everybody all the time. The state in 1984 was oppressive, and not one I would consider legitimate; but it ran "by the book" as it were. In this case, we have a much more prosaic example of certain individuals illegally accessing a celebrity's records, against policy, on an ad-hoc basis.
Such situations are bad, and I hope the perps will be punished, and they are (yet another) reason to oppose the creation of Giant Exploitable Databases(tm); but they have very little to do with 1984. If you simply must have a dystopian cultural reference, try Brazil.
Your points regarding "Joe's" outright lies and inaccuracies born of his daydreams are to my experience very common among the self employed. They see the most successful among their business acquaintances, and see that as a realistic goal... if only were the local/state/government to stop regulating/taxing them at whatever level they're currently regulated/taxed.
Basically, they're harboring the same sort of dreams that keep hundreds of thousands of young men banging away at amateur sports, even though the odds of making the cut are similar. It's this sort of dream that has the positive result of driving working people to succeed, but also the mixed results from overwhelming supporting the national GOP, whose policy goals use - but do not help - these grassroots supporters.
Luke, help me take this mask off
because Mr. Wurzelbacher has his name misspelled in the Social Security database, it would be assumed that he misspelled his name on his voter registration form. In Ohio, people that misspell their names or addresses, or have lost their homes and failed to update, or list a place that does not qualify as a "legal residence" in legalese like a dormitory, may be sent provisional ballots. These usually are not counted in the general election.
The Supreme Court had ruled against Ohio GOP measures, but on technical grounds or something, and now the Attorney General of the Department of Justice is probing whether or not they should be sent those provisional ballots. It's sad that Mr. Wurzelbacher had his privacy invaded, but in reference to the Republican argument, he did have something to hide.
So at 40k per year income, Joetheplumber could actually make six times as much as he makes now and still get a tax cut from Obama. SIX TIMES. Is six times a plumber's income rich? Well, almost according to Obama, and I would agree. Seven times a plumbers income -IS- rich.
It's one thing to say you want to "tax the rich" to fund the government, it's another when you want to do it to give other people the money, i.e., "Spread the Wealth".
"Funding the government" does "spread the wealth"; it's not like the government throws money in holes. The money goes to gov't employees, contracts, social security, medicare, farming subsidies, corporate bailouts, etc. All of which "spread the wealth" to some segment of the population; it's just a question of what part of the population and under what guise the money is spent.
"IT Test account". Shared by a bunch of different offices. Looks like whoever did the search was smart enough to muddy the waters a bit.
Indeed. And the fact that such a "test account" even exists should result in some seroius headrolling.
That particular bunch of assholes is pretty cavalier with our personal info, that's for sure. Not that they're alone in that.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
It's reasonable to assume the purpose of these unauthorized accesses were to try and dig up dirt on Joe. Since Joe's comments have noticeably harmed Obama and/or helped McCain, it's reasonable to assume those doing so were Obama supporters or surrogates hoping to find evidence with which to smear Joe. Joe supports McCain, thus I don't expect any public outcry at all over this at all.
Now if the tables were turned and it was an Obama supporter who was having his/her info illegally accessed...well, I don't have to describe the media orgy that would occur, do I?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I have no problem with a higher tax rate kicking in above $250K/yr of my income, as long as the money is spent properly (i.e. NOT on bailouts, wars, etc).
Furthermore, it is a marginal tax increase. That means it doesn't apply to any of the $250K that you took as income in order to get to the $250K point. At roughly 3% it really is quite minor in absolute dollars for anything under $300K or so - roughly $1,500 extra taxes on $300K than now.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The point wasn't the question - however dishonest the man who asked it.
It was the answer. And, by proxy, how those who dare to ask a question can expect to be treated by the press and, apparently, the government, under an Obama administration.
Hope and change indeed.
I've always been a believer in opt-in economy. Just mark huge swaths of land as "government-free" counties. No government means: no roads, bridges, water treatment, fire stations, EMTs, hospitals, or regulated utilities. You buy the land, you move there, you're on your own.
Then, all of the libertarians declaring that government is intrinsically evil can negotiate with utility companies to run power lines, open restaurants without any health inspections, and do their work without OSHA or fire regulations. After a few decades you would find that they had done something remarkable, and that is formed their own government with exactly the same rules.
A kid dies from salmonella poisoning from the burger joint - now health inspections are mandatory. Four men die in a fire in a building that had no fire suppression system, and now that's a requirement. The company firehouse is done away with because they bungled their badging system, and let someone's business burn to the ground who was actually a member. A local court system developed after blood feuds threatened to throw the whole county into chaos, and it's now illegal to conceal firearms after a judge was assassinated. Voting regulations have been established after the banker buys four consecutive elections, which resulted in all road construction projects benefitting his new housing development... I could elaborate, but you probably get the point.
Government is a necessary evil, but not all governments are evil. The only thing that turns a state into a negative entity is when concentrated power, economic chaos, or external military invasion takes the power away from the population, which does occur much of the time. The solution is not to take the resources of the nation place it outside the grasp of it's population, but exactly the opposite. In my experience, I've had much better relationships with local (albeit small) government utilities than I have with AT&T or any other large corporation, mainly because the top of the chain ends within a few miles of my business - I can go talk to (or berate) the person in charge. The top of the chain of any large corporation is simply unreachable, and the AT&T rep doesn't really care if my phone service is reliable or not - where else am I going to go? And if we have four phone companies running lines, how long before three are swallowed by the one with the most money? And if you regulate the monopolies, what's the difference between local governmental control (notice I didn't say federal) besides greasing the pockets of useless executive boards?
People like Joe the Plumber don't understand that part of the infrastructure of the united states is the working population. If those workers have a safe neighborhood, reasonable pay, and voluntarily pay extra taxes to socialize industries that perform poorly under free markets, the whole economy is better for it. Not only because the basics of the western world will be less expensive, but because entrepreneurs will be incentivized to tackle new ideas, instead of swindling money out of decades old problems that have already been solved. If corporations weren't busy creating inefficient markets for the sake of making more money, we'd still have many things that europe has kept - functioning mass transit systems, lots of investment in education, low poverty rates, more equal distribution of wealth -- that is a measure of the health of an economy, by the way -- and the right to organize in unions.
Or, you can be concerned by paying an extra 4% of tax, only on money earned over 250,000 per year.
By the way, where is Fred the Accountant, asking McCain why he supported Roe v. Wade in 2000? Or why he wants the Federal Government to legislate what marriage is? Or why Falwell was no longer an agent of intolerance? Or why he said in 04 that taxing the wealthy a bit more was okay? The truth is, Joe the Plumber wouldn't be able to get close enough to ask McCain or Palin a question. Anyone perceived as someone other than a die hard supporter is turned away, or threatened with arrest for carrying signs that say: "McCain = Bush."
By charging the business that employees the low income people, and the business that the low income people buy things from, higher taxes. Can you spot the flaw in the plan?
There are some things you left out, which are tactics of not just the Left, but also the Right:
- the never-ending war to constantly justify intrusion upon private citizen's lives
- the changing of enemies (from Nazis to Communists to Saddam Hussein to Kosovo to Terrorists) to justify maintenance of a Corporate-Industrial Military
- and also to always keep citizens afraid & dependent upon "daddy government" to protect them.
Another tactic which Orwell did not think of is the "protect the children" argument which apparently justifies everything, even the taking-away of freedom of speech on the internet (kill Usenet discussion forums, censor nudist websites, censor Japanese anime/comics, block so-called racist books like Huckleberry Finn).
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
"Welcome to 1984"? Where have you been? 1984 has been with us for quite a while already.
Liberal: A conservative who has been falsely arrested...
Yes, but in all the examples you mention someone actually used the information. It should be illegal to look it up "out of curiosity" where no further use is made of the information.
Actually, 1984 can be seen as more of a broader commentary on totalitarianism, rather than any specific critique on socialism or communism.
As for your parallels, it feels like you're missing some important points.
Ministry of Truth - this was a wide-spread attempt by the government to control the publics knowledge. Thus it has nothing to do with individuals in the media screwing up (unless you're claiming all media is controlled by a single source)
Newspeak and political correctness are not the same thing - one is the government controlling language and thought of the populace. The other is social norms changing to not offend people, particulalry when those changes don't actually change anything (except perhaps promote tolerance) at least for the most part.
DoubleThink -is about individuals holding mutually exclusive ideas, not society. There's few people that believe homosexuality is both something you are born with and that it's a choice. Rasicm is always wrong vs affirmative action also then depends on whether or not you consider affirmative action reverse racism (and I think reasonable arguments could be made both ways).
ThoughtCrime was about punishing thoughts contrary to the government. Punishing planning (as in you can show that it was serious planning) to commit a crime like violence or serious theft, is something else.
There's certainly parallels that can be made, but you have to be reasonable - people claiming Western societies are like 1984 come off like chicken little.
>>>This wealth will allow them greater buying power which will mean more customers for Joe.
Imagine if NOBODY paid income taxes unless they earned 1 million dollars (the real rich people). They'd still pay all the other taxes (sales, electric, phone, cell, gasoline, natural gas), so they'd be contributing to society, but not income tax. That would REALLY give customers more money to spend.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Where questioning The One is flamebait.
Gone are the days when dissent was the highest form of patriotism, I assume.
Has anything private been released? If not, I don't see a problem. Yes, if you make yourself a public figure, you'll get scrutinized, but so what?
If this guy had had outstanding warrants or was behind on his child support, of course, the responsible agencies should find out about it and do something about it. Can you imagine what kind of headlines they'd get otherwise? "Deadbeat Dad on TV--Bureaucrats Asleep".
BWAHAHAHAHAH! Right On. When the boot is firmly up your ass to the ankle you don't stop and think, "Hey is that the left foot or the right foot?".
"Both sides seem to prefer shutting their eyes and screaming that all the world's problems are the opposition's fault, without daring to question their own policies for fear of being ostracised by their peers"
Exactly. With two sides yelling at each other nothing seems to get done at all with both sides blaming the other for their problems. However, it just seems that way sadly. Rights are disappearing faster and faster regardless of which political party holds the majority in any country. The US, Australia, and the UK seem to be in a frantic race to who can create a nightmarish totalitarian fascist regime first.
The dangers in 1984 come from all directions in government, not just a single political party. The argument itself is designed to polarize and distract us from reality. Illusionists and Politicians have a lot in common when you think about it.
We really shouldn't be surprised by the EU and The Left's fascination with this kind of behaviour. Orwell saw and predicted it nearly 50 years ago.
And The Right is any better? Right wing TV and radio manipulates with the best of them, NewSpeak is enormously popular on The Right, conservative Christianity is a prime example of DoubleThink, The Right has been trying to enact ThoughtCrime legislation, and The Right's support of Israel is, shall we say, rather self-serving.
Welcome to 1984
If this were 1984, then there wouldn't have been much of an election for him so speak out in.
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
Joe was basically a miracle for McCain, resurrecting his campaign in a way McCain's people couldn't have done, putting a face on the people Obama's higher taxes would hurt.
Obama's already dismissed Joe ("I don't know any plumbers who make $250K"), trying to make people forget Joe's whole point (he wants to make $250K but is afraid of doing it because of how he'll be taxed). It isn't working.
I think Obama's minions are trying to get some dirt on Joe to discredit him, just like they tried with Sarah Palin's emails, and failed.
"Joe" was a plant. I have little sympathy for him. He was brought up by McCain to try to be the example he couldn't actually find for some 'small guy' being screwed over by Obama's plan.
He was not a plant. Obama showed up at his house for crissakes. How dare Joe walk outside to see what all the fuss is about, and ask questions about Obama's tax plans, that the media should, but isn't asking. Like, how can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when nowhere near 95% of Americans actually pay net taxes?
Don't you think it's just a tiny bit strange that the one person McCain uses as an example in the last presidential campaign, someone he brings up over and over, lied about everything about his situation?
I think it's strange that the media has done more digging on a plumber (oh my, he doesn't have a permit to be a plumber - oh noes!) than on the presidential candidate the plumber asked a question of. Every fucking story reporting this - other than Fox News, of course - was attacking Joe for not having a permit/license (a revenue-raising device by greedy cities), for owing taxes, rather than actually addressing the merits of the question Joe had the temerity to ask. Real journalism there, don't ask Obama, "yeah, what about your tax plan hurting small businesses?" Instead, the media defends Obama and shoots the messenger!
Obama has been running for president for two years, and some plumber asks a more digging question than any mainstream media reporter has asked the whole time. No wonder you got suspicious. After all, this is supposed to be a coronation, not an actual election.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
You don't mind giving up a larger portion of YOUR property if you had over X amount. Thanks for speaking for everyone else by approving of tax to redistribute wealth.
Here's an idea, if you like higher taxes but don't want to fund things you don't believe in: support a charity or philanthropic organization you DO support. That's your right, since it's your property.
My property is mine. I've been endowed with certain inalienable rights...namely life, liberty and property. Don't sign me up for YOUR redistribution plan.
You know...the world is organized pretty well already. If you like communism (the government deciding what IS yours), there are communist countries. If you like free enterprise, there are free market countries where you can live. Why must Obama and all the leftists insist on spreading socialism worldwide? Because "a communist is someone who has nothing and is eager to share it with you." (Churchill).
Ps. I'm a guy that makes about 11 bucks an hour. I'll succeed and fail on my own hard work, initiative, and ambition. I don't want your entitlements now, and I don't want to compulsorily pay for someone else's entitlements later.
THL phish sticks
I'll grant that sole proprietors get dicked in a variety of ways,
Actually the sole proprietor, along with S-corps, get a pretty wide variety of benefits. Overall, the smart self employed can deduct many things that an employee cannot. The savvy businessman can make much of their mileage tax deductible. Sure you pay both sides of FICA, but you're also getting paid what you "bill", which is a lot more than what wages are (generally 200% to 400%).
I hold very little regard for business people who complain about taxes. I run a small business (S-corp), 5 years old, with 4 employees. Yes, taxes suck but guess what - I don't pay all that much. I get to put away over $15k a year into retirement accounts. My wife, who works 10-15 hours a week can put away another $15k. We get the child tax credit even if she doesn't work "enough" because she drives a company car and about 50% of the automotive expenses get put on her W2 as "income".We pay taxes on that...but they really just go to getting the CTC back.
As a bonus, I take a reasonable salary and then everything else that comes in is "profit," taken as an owner's draw and not subject to FICA.
Part of being in business is having someone who can make the right decisions. My wife just so happens to have been an accountant for a decade, and has done some HR. My accountant, who gets $700-$1000 a year from me, makes sure we're paying all the taxes required, and taking all the deductions we are allowed to. Heck, I get to write off $100k a year in capital expenses if I have the income to use. Quite honestly, if I get to the point where I'm making - no, profiting - $250,000 a year after all expenses, I'm not going to be bitching about paying an extra 3-4% of the dollars over $250,000. It's just not something I'm going to waste time worrying about.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Which enemy was this during the 1990's? As far as I know, the United States closed down alot of military installations, drew down alot of its military presence in Europe, and downsized the military over all, hence the United states inability to respond with sufficient force to the war on terror circa 9/11/2001.
For those of you with "tin foil hats" that buy into this kinda basement thing, do a google for BRAC. Then you can also take a look at the size of the US military 1988 versus 1998. You will see that it is substantially smaller.
For those of you who forgot, the United States was ACTUALLY attacked by "terrorists" known as Al Queda. This is not an "imaginary" enemy as many people somehow seem to believe. Real people were really killed, to the tune of 3,000 civilians in a well orchestrated sneak attack. What makes terrorists difficult to deal with is not identifying them per say, its not unjustly targeting the wrong people. Most people tend to think the US is some "new evil empire" in some fanatical quest... to do something... but do your own research on how much military power the US REALLY HAS and you will see an extreme level of restraint.
Of course, this is slashdot and it seems that some people reflect their experiences with high school bullies to the US... but I digress...
20th century Marxism is not progress...
The fact is that Obama is waging his campaign on a platform of class warfare.
Obama's tax plan favors the middle class (i.e people making less than 250K a year), which means probably includes you, certainly me, and certainly also "Joe the plumber". Joe's hypothetical about buying the business he works for would in fact be helped by Obama because his taxes right now would be lowered - he can save more towards his dream. If Joe wants to complain about having his (hypothetical) marginal income above 250K taxed at a higher bracket, then why is he not complaining about having a tax CUT before he gets to that level? He just wants to TAKE relative to the status quo, not give back?
Given that the middle class would do better under Obama than McCain, it's just as valid to refer to McCains tax policy as class warfare, except that under MCain it's the middle class that are suffering relative to the wealthy, rather than vice versa.
Personally I perfer the Obama alternative - give me a tax break now while I'm making less than 250K, and I'll gladly repay it via higher taxes should I be fortunate enough to make it to that income level.
Hate to break it to you, but that's not redistributing wealth. That's basically known as paying one's fair share, The wealthy pay more in taxes yes, but they also get more benefit as well. They stand to lose far more than I do were civil disorder to break out and all possessions be smashed.
Silly argument. Yes, this is the reason government was formed - to protect one's shit. But obviously the role of government has evolved into much different role - an opposite role, to be exact - actually taking your shit away and giving it to someone else. This would be called stealing, but not when the government does it. This is now the government's chief function, considering that of its $3T budget, 60% of its expenditures are on entitlements. So the US government's chief role is now redistribution of wealth. Obama just wants to make it worse.
So while hypothetically government "protects" the wealthy, I'd imagine they'd lose a lot less money by taking their chances with no government stealing from them and building a moat. Meanwhile, the "working poor" take $8 in services for every dollar paid (Heritage Foundation - you want a source, you Google it). So no, the wealthy do not get more for their tax dollar. They get a lot less.
"Fair share" is everyone paying the same flat rate (the poor and middle class would still pay less, but the same proportion). But when the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.6% of the taxes, there is something very unfair about that. At some point, people in the bottom third not only pay no taxes, but get net checks from the government. Is this still fair by your world view? At what point does it get unfair?
At some point, a huge portion of the country doesn't pay taxes, and becomes a "gimme" class instead of a "do something for your country class." Too many in the wagon, not enough pulling. I think all citizens, unless *temporarily* out of work, need to be invested enough in the country that they are outside if the wagon, pulling, and being contributing citizens to the state. Otherwise, they are not fully participating in being citizens.
If you've got more wealth, property etc., you're getting more for your tax dollars and as such should be paying more.
You're getting more because you earned it, not because the government took it from someone else and gave it to you. That's like saying rapists get more sex than married guys. Yeah, technically true, but...
And it would be nice if you didn't go mischaracterizing mr. Buffett's comment. He's well known to oppose the sort of careless tax policies you're advocating. He has definitively stated that he doesn't believe he should be paying a lower tax rate than his employees do.
Buffett might be a good investor, but he is being foolish for his clients and being dishonest about his income. First off, doubling the capital gains rate, as Obama wants to do, would dramatically hurt his clients (both by stifling economic growth, and thus hurting BH's share price, and personally for his clients on tax day). If I owned Berkshire Hathaway at $30K+ per share, I'd be furious Buffett said this.
Secondly, Buffett is rich because he holds stock in his own investment fund. In other words, he doesn't even pay himself a salary. So while it is unlikely, it is possible he could pay less income taxes than his secretary - even while he likely paid tens or hundreds of millions in capital gains taxes. And his income tax rate is higher than his secretary. He just doesn't earn income - he earns capital gains. Nice subterfuge though.
The reality is that businesses are flocking to Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate one half that as the US. Now that's a careless tax policy.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The best part about a democracy is you get your opinion and I get mine. We'll see who wins on the 4th. Best of luck to your viewpoint, but I think there are far more people who are tired of getting fucked then those who make 11 bucks an hour and prefer your view of things.
"Which enemy was this during the 1990's? As far as I know, the United States closed down a lot of military installations, drew down a lot of its military presence in Europe, and downsized the military over all, hence the United states inability to respond with sufficient force to the war on terror circa 9/11/2001."
I'm not sure what you mean by "inability to respond with sufficient force". We could have sent 10x as many soldiers to
Afghanistan as we did but the President and his aids were clueless. We could have sent a lot more troops to Iraq as well (although Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11) but again, clueless.
The so-called "War on terror" was really just an excuse for the President to invade any country he chose to and really had little to do with terrorism. Even if Iraq had had WMDs, they didn't have the intercontinental missiles required to attack the US so it was really a two-level scam.
There are some things you left out, which are tactics of not just the Left, but also the Right:
- the never-ending war to constantly justify intrusion upon private citizen's lives
- the changing of enemies (from Nazis to Communists to Saddam Hussein to Kosovo to Terrorists) to justify maintenance of a Corporate-Industrial Military
- and also to always keep citizens afraid & dependent upon "daddy government" to protect them.
Another tactic which Orwell did not think of is the "protect the children" argument which apparently justifies everything, even the taking-away of freedom of speech on the internet (kill Usenet discussion forums, censor nudist websites, censor Japanese anime/comics, block so-called racist books like Huckleberry Finn).
While you tried to make a good point, I think you failed. Point 1 was a good point. But point 2. Sure changing enemies happen, but that's because we can't concentrate on all of them at the same time. Unfortunately, there are many... only a few get national attention. How many times do we have to get hit for us not to finally retaliate and defend. Point 3. Depending on "daddy government" is exactly what the Left and socialists want from the general population. Granted, this is not just a Left point of view, but the idiotic rhino Republicans are part of it. Point 4. There are some things that youngsters should not be exposed to. Your argument there fails. Granted, people try to block those things from everyone, but do you see any success in that? I don't. Fortunately, parents who are concerned about this sort of anti-social activity have many tools to protect their own children.
Since Joe's comments have noticeably harmed Obama and/or helped McCain, it's reasonable to assume those doing so were Obama supporters or surrogates hoping to find evidence with which to smear Joe
Reasonable if you're a moron, maybe.
Let's think about it. When Joe made his comments he was just some shmoe. It was McCain's campaign, not Obama's, that decided to make this guy into a walking symbol of tax justice. They've literally been calling their campaign the "Joe the Plumber" tour for a week or two. So prior to this all happening (1) Obama had no reason to think the guy mattered much (2) of course McCain's campaign checked the guy out, they'd be nuts not to.
To elaborate on the second point: imagine the McCain campaign didn't check the guy out before they built a campaign around him. And then, god forbid, he turned out to be a tax evader/child molester/check kiter/whatever. Two weeks before the election the negative press could very well have ended the entire campaign. None of those campaign workers would ever get a job again. So yes, they did check him out. They may not have done it this way (illegally)--- perhaps they hired a PI or did a standard criminal background check. But I give them enough credit to assume that they're not total idiots.
On the other hand, I have to admit there is a legitimate counterpoint to this argument. After all, McCain didn't check Sarah Palin out at all before they built a campaign around her. So maybe they are that stupid.
Ps. I'm a guy that makes about 11 bucks an hour. I'll succeed and fail on my own hard work, initiative, and ambition. I don't want your entitlements now, and I don't want to compulsorily pay for someone else's entitlements later.
You're already paying for them. In the 1980s the Republicans raised the Social Security payroll tax to be substantially higher than what's needed to pay for existing retirees. Then they massively cut taxes for the wealthy and started spending the extra Social Security tax income to make up for the shortfall. Since SS taxes are only on the first $90k of income, they fall disproportionately on working people, so this is a beautiful way to redistribute wealth from people like you to the wealthiest americans.
Thank god you're not voting Republican this year. Nobody could possibly want that sort of redistribution.
The parent making an accurate point is moded down.
The response, which completely misses the point, is moded up.
The difference? The accurate one is from the right. The inaccurate from the left.
Slashkos. Welcome.
Factcheck.org is a propaganda arm of the Obama campaign. Get real, dude.
But you were hoping enough people would look at your href and say 'huh. that other dude was wrong.'
Shouldn't you be out hassling people with Acorn pamphlets?
* NewSpeak, the changing of language to make certain thoughts impossible (ala the politically correct language redefinition we experienced in the 70s/80s e.g. "differently abled" for "handicapped", in Sweden "husmor" replaced by "hemmafru" or their English cognates "housewife" with "stay-at-home-mom")
1984 was against government control over culture, not just cultural change in general. Changes in the way people express themselves is just part of life - "nigger" became "Negro", which became "colored", and then "black". Until the word "handicapped" is banned in some way, through the legal system, it has nothing to do with 1984.
* The Ministry of Truth, the media manipulation of news and history (ala the recent Reugter's Photoshopping of pictures from the Israel/Lebanon war; Dan Rather's falsification of documents)
Again, if it wasn't part of a government plan to control the population, then it isn't 1984 - "No Ministry, no Orwell" if you will. On the other hand, Bush's staged landing on an aircraft carrier is at least a lot closer to government controlling the news.
* DoubleThink, the simultaneous holding of two or more mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. "homosexuality is something you are born with" and "homosexuality is a personal and private decision"; or "racism is always wrong" and "affirmative action is the right thing to do")
As for the first part I doubt that any one person holds both views, but people with either view can come to the conclusion that it isn't the government business who they hook up with/date/marry. In this way they my become political allies, but there's no doublethink needed.
As for the second part, many people dislike killing, but accept that it's sometimes necessary to protect innocent lives. In the same vein, there's no inherent contradiction in saying that racism is bad, but limited racism to counter racism that already exists is acceptable. (I should point out that I'm against affirmative action - I just don't see blatant cognitive dissonance on the other side.)
* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
Again, where is the government enforcement of this?
* ThoughtCrime, making the mere ability of thinking something a crime. You see this all the time in Hate Crime legislation (what murder wasn't already a crime ... with a life penalty?) and University speech codes (University "Free Speech Zones" are a wonderful example of NewSpeak, DoubleThink, and ThoughtCrime wrapped into one)
You got me there. I can no more defend speech codes than I can defend the movement to put creationism in science classes. On the other hand, finding one parallel in a single context (just speech, just at universities) isn't enough to make a meaningful connection.
* furthermore the mild anti-semitism, the hatred of Goldsteinism, today you see this all the time however this is mostly thinly veiled as an attack on "Zionism"
I have no idea what you're referring to here.
Uh...guys? It's not who's freer, US or UK that varies, it's that both are going down the toilet quickly freedom wise.
Terrorism? I'm far more scared of the government.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Your points regarding "Joe's" outright lies and inaccuracies born of his daydreams are to my experience very common among the self employed. They see the most successful among their business acquaintances, and see that as a realistic goal... if only were the local/state/government to stop regulating/taxing them at whatever level they're currently regulated/taxed.
How many self-employed people do you actually know? I am self-employed, and I attend meeting at my local Chamber of Commerce, and local Apartment Owners Association, so I have met hundreds of self-employed people.
Personally, I do not recall meeting even one self-employed person who complained about an inability to achieve their business goals due to excessive regulation or taxes. I have had countless conversations and attended countless presentations about regulatory compliance, and these types of organizations are great in that capacity. They allow like-minded businesspeople to combine efforts and help each other out.
That said, there are very real effects of excessive taxation and excessive regulation. There are certain jurisdictions where I refuse to do business because the local governments make it less profitable. For instance, I would never purchase a building in NJ or MA or MD or CA because it's just too much of a headache for me. This is why apartments in those states cost way more than in states next door.
Taking this to the macro level, the United States has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world (second only to Japan). If you are an international corporation, are you going to set up shop in the US and employ US workers if you have to pay high US corporate taxes? Probably not, unless it is absolutely necessary.
There are politicians who complain about US firms shipping jobs overseas while simultaneously ensuring that corporate tax burdens remain excessive. What they don't realize, is that they could induce a lot of business activity into the US if they simply lowered corporate income taxes to be in line with the rest of the world, to take the tax code out of the business decision regarding where to operate.
If that's what you call daydreaming, that's fine. Personally, I think it's just educating those who don't realize that there are undesirable consequences to excessive regulation and taxation. We all have to pay the price in terms of jobs getting shipped overseas, and higher cost of goods and services paid locally. Hopefully others will see the humor in the fact that the very people whose jobs are getting shipped overseas are calling for more of the failed policies that caused the offshoring to occur. Ahh, but people do like to listen to a pleasant-sounding voice.
I've already come to terms with the fact that Obama is going to tax the ever-loving hell out of me (yes, I am part of the unlucky 5%). I'll be smiling, however, when people like you realize that you're next. Obama's writing checks that "the wealthy" simply can't cash.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Uh...guys? It's not who's freer, US or UK that varies, it's that both are going down the toilet quickly freedom wise.
Terrorism? I'm far more scared of the government.
I hear this a lot from the Slashdot crowd when it comes to information privacy and government misuse of information. It puzzles me, though, that many of the same people (not necessarily indicting parent here) fight and argue for expansion of government influence. One thing I'm specifically thinking of is government run health care. I'm just curious as to what these same people that argue against the patriot act think the government is going to do differently when they own their medical records.
It's always good fun toying with my favorite slashdot stalker plasmacutter. He has such a cute passive aggressive name.
Let's see if we can get to the core here:
He has no standing to talk about the 'issues' he raised.
First of all, allow me to thank you for adding much needed, albeit unintentional humor to this election season.
Now, what the hell do you mean by "no standing"? Since when does a person required to have "standing" to ask a politician a question in public? I mean, what the hell do you expect? Should Obama have pulled out the FRCP and cited 12(b)(6) and said, "I'm sorry, Joe, it appears that you have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as you are not, in fact, in possession of a small business nor capable of buying one at this time. As such, your question is dismissed with prejudice until such time as you own a business which has an income over $250k"? I mean, is this what you're talking about when it comes to "standing"?
Should we require the same of reporters? "I'm sorry, it looks like you, a male reporter, asked a question about abortion. I refuse to answer on the grounds that you lack standing as you are not a female. Come back to me after the sex change or whatever." Or, "that's a fascinating question about my healthcare plan, but it looks like you're an able-bodied person. So don't ask me any questions on this because you lack standing."
Joe - or Sam, or whatever - has "standing" by being a human being. Period. Perhaps he though too highly of himself. Perhaps he embellished. But it doesn't matter. If this complaint were going forth in a courtroom, of course it would be tossed out - standing actually, you know, matters there. But it is in the interest of every person to be able to ask a question of a politician in the United States even if there is no direct impact on the questioner. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, the person asking the question does not believe, as a matter of principle, that X should be done because it conflicts with his ideology Y on the matter.
And that's where the firearms question comes from above. It appears to have flown over your head - and boy, was that a shocker. Even a person who does not own firearms retains the right to question Obama about his firearms policies. Hell, even a convicted felon who is legally prohibited from owning a firearm and would never be directly affected (legally, at least) by a ban on high-capacity magazines can ask a question about these policies. Why? Because he has a right to hear an answer from his government or someone who wants to be a leader in the government on this issue.
I can claim that I'm the Queen of Sheba in a political question. It doesn't matter. It's the answer that deserves focus. And shifting the blame on the questioner is a sick, stupid tactic. Now, if you'd like to go through the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code - or, why not, have some fun and go through the FRCP - and find the place where we are required to have proper "standing" to dare ask a politician a question, please, be my guest. (Let me save you some time, though - you won't find it because it's not there.)
The guy asked a fair question. Obama, an unseasoned and untested politician, answered off the cuff in a way that a lot of people didn't like. That's what you get when you bring a minor league politician on board in a major national election. Deal.
standing, n. A party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right - Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 2004