Something tells me that like me, Joe has never been polled either because the pollsters know our opinion would not match their preset agenda..
He certainly speaks for me and just about everyone who I know, friends and family.

Here in Belgium, the public radio news (which is reliable leftist, to say the least) declared the third debate to be rather good for McCain, since he was able to depict Obama as "a standard left-wing politician", noting that Obama has so far always tried (and to a large extent succesfully so) to avoid that label by projecting a post-partisan image of himself.

Much attention was also spent on the "Ohio plumber", who almost single-handedly forced the real, wealth-redistributing Obama out in the open. The two journalists sounded a bit puzzled as to why Obama thought it to be a good idea to tell a working class guy that he would indeed take his hard-earned money and give it to other people. Being leftists, both gentlemen almost certainly agree with Obama's position, but they admitted that it is political poison to put it that bluntly, especially to someone who cannot possibly be depicted as a card-carrying member of the club of the filthy rich.

The big problem is there are too many people out there who just don't care. I've got a friend who doesn't see any problem with raising people's taxes, "if it helps people." Of course, he is on disability and doesn't actually pay much, if anything, in taxes. He also doesn't really see a problem with socialism, either, so he's going to vote for Obama even knowing many of the problems that'll lead to.

With over 40% of the population not paying taxes and a proposal on the table to not only cut taxes but literally pay those non-taxpayers money taken from the joe the plumbers around the country, how could Obama not get elected? With only a few percent of the country actually paying the way for the rest, there is no way we can stop the looting of our most productive members of society.

Everyone should have to pay something. To buy in, as it were, to the country. To be more than just recipients of other people's efforts and completely uninvolved in paying for the never-ending cascade of benefits. To have created a class of nearly half the country that pays nothing--or worse, gets unearned money back--is a great indicator of how far we have fallen and how completely pathetic the Republicans have become.

First of all, bravo for your hard, honest work in the name of a truly pro-American value system.

Rick C says right: Too many brainwashed, beaten-down, lazy types have simply given in. We lost the battle starting in the '60s; even Reagan's brilliant leadership couldn't keep us going in the right direction. The constant bashing from the Left (while they pathetically, hilariously cry foul at every GOP retort) has poisoned and infiltrated every sector of our society. Instead of a country in which Hollywood stars would drop their careers and go fight in WWII, we have a Hollywood of "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" elitists who are every bit as bad as or worse than the elitists on the right. I still believe in trickle down; we all want and need opportunity, and it's up to each of us to take personal responsibility and make the most of it. Trouble is, this country is enslaved by, held hostage by, a ceaseless reparations mentality: Some people just won't be satisfied until this country is disbanded, given back to hunter-gatherers, and white Europeans treated to a nice little genocidal purge. But then, where will all the creature comforts that these Leftist whiners love disappear to? Once this country's disbanded, who among the Left is going to take up arms/weapons/fists/whatever and forge a path? Or are they simply going to return to loinclothes and eating berries? That would be perfectly socialist: No more wealth, no more possessions, just little animal tribes like back in the "good old days." Pardon me, but fuck that ... I want the chance to make my own wealth and share it — or not — as I see fit. If we don't have a true separatist movement within the next 20 years, any of us with a shred of personal responsibility are going to be hard-pressed to find a land to live in ... unless we wake the hell up, speak the hell up and defend this country from within and without. Pull you kids out of these godawful, pathetic schools one and for all and home school them, as Michelle Malkin appropriately suggests (http://michellemalkin.com). Obama's socialist rant, his wife's newfound "pride" in her country (because "her people" seem to be on the verge of getting their revenge), and the rampant soft-brained idiocy of weak-kneed libs from sea to shining sea are imperiling this country to an unimaginable degree. We HAVE to MAKE THIS STOP.

>Folks, you can't cut taxes, and raise spending during an economic downturn,

No but you can raise taxes on the mega rich and use that income on spending.

That's Obama's plan and it's a good one and it worked for America when Clinton did it.

Actually, what Clinton did what cut military spending and use that money for his pet causes. Of course, that left us scrambling a bit when we got attacked and had to go on the offensive. But yeah, other than that it worked just swell.

Salvage,

Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great. Unfortunately these same people believe that it's wrong to tax trust fund babies, thereby creating a permanently wealthy class.

Interestingly Obama is the very picture of an American success story. Born to modest means, he rose through dedication and brains to be President of the Harvard Law Review, perhaps the highest honor among his class of lawyers. Instead of taking a salary well into six figures he worked with the poor.

What saddens me is how the Repubs have lost their way on the issue of personal initiative and rewarding merit and fiscal sanity. Since Reagan the Republican party platform is: "Cut taxes on the wealthy. Throw the religious right and values voters enough meat to keep them from voting Dem. Respond to international friction with war."

This has left the Democrats with double duty: their traditional concerns plus being the adults financially. Look at deficit spending under Reagan, Bush I, and worse of all Bush II, then consider that Clinton left a surplus. Bush II has smashed all records:

"The White House just asked the national debt ceiling be raised another $700 billion, for the proposed financial-sector bailout. If that happens, in 2008 alone, $1.5 trillion will have been added to the national debt: every penny borrowed from your children and their children. Stated in today's dollars, in 1979 the entire national debt was $1.5 trillion. George W. Bush and Congress have in a single year added an amount equal to the entire national debt one generation ago. And the year's not over!"
--Gregg Easterbrook

Fiscal conservatives should flock to Obama over McCain.

Incidentally every poll I've seen shows a solid win for Obama in last night's debate.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html):

The top 1 percent received 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income.

So, the top 1% earned 21.8 of income, but paid 40% of income tax. Seems like they paid their share, and other shares, too.

I agree that Obama's moment of honesty with Joe the Plumber about "spreading the wealth" could indeed make this a race. Joe the Plumber's plight is a simple narrative of a man trying to obtain the American Dream, yet it is Obama's tax and spend policies that may prevent him from achieving them, not to mention the disastrous consequences during an economic downturn. It's an opportunity that McCain has seized upon and can now put Obama on the defensive. He should continue to pound this relentlessly from now until Election Day.

I'm guessing because those programs all are under the Defense Department umbrella, and that wouldn't help feed the other "facts" he's pushing.

euro bookies are already paying off on the election according to Drudge. McCain is not going to win Americans are electing Obama

"The White House Plumbers" were the undoing of Richard Nixon,wouldn't it be great if a real Plumber were the undoing of Barak "The One" 0bama??!! Dare to dream

"I agree that Obama's moment of honesty with Joe the Plumber about 'spreading the wealth' could indeed make this a race. Joe the Plumber's plight is a simple narrative of a man trying to obtain the American Dream, yet it is Obama's tax and spend policies that may prevent him from achieving them, not to mention the disastrous consequences during an economic downturn"

First, a tax and spend policy is way better than Bush's spend and don't tax policy. GHW Bush at least had the stones to raise taxes when he saw a shortfall. Bush borrowed about 5 trillion so far, as much as all the other presidents combined. So put a sock in it.

Second, Joe turns out not to be a licensed plumber and he's not registered to vote anyway.

Third, Joe is complaining about Obama being a socialist when Bush just oversaw the most socialist program in living memory with the government taking equity positions in the banks.

Luther Tines,

Bush isn't running this term, is he? Cutting taxes and cutting spending as a policy works for Joe the Plumber. You can cut taxes and actually increase tax revenue in certain conditions. And don't disregard the current Congress' role in authorizing the deficit and expanding entitlements. Many of these fiscal libertines are coming back to rape taxpayers further. Bank on that.

It must also be stressed that one of the primary tenets of Black Liberation Theology is spreading the wealth around. Making everyone pay their share. I guess a lot more of Wright is in Obama than he would be willing to admit.

Luther, you really should get your information from something more reliable than the crazy nest called the Democratic Underground. He is indeed registered to vote (Republican), and you don't need a license unless you do commercial/industrial work (he does residential).

But thanks for showing us your true colors by attempting to investigate and destroy a man who asked a legitimate question that your cult leader flubbed.

But thanks for showing us your true colors by attempting to investigate and destroy a man who asked a legitimate question that your cult leader flubbed.

No surprise here. Anyone that dares speak against The Obamamessiah must be destroyed.

If ya think it's bad now, wait and see what happens if he's actually elected.

"Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great."

And how does that work?

Seriously. Explain yourself.

How does stock ownership, even massive stock ownership, by 2% prevent people from rising through their god-given and developed talents?

This age-old line about 5% of the nation owing 90% of the wealth in the country used to influence me, when I was a teen, but as I gained years and experience and maturity, I realized what hogwash I was being asked to swallow.

I grew up in a poor, working class family and could remember the 1970s and especially the way things were in Carter's economy.

Then in the 1980s, the media kept telling me about this "growing divide" between the "haves and have nots" and the 5% and so on....

...but what I saw was the nation getting richer and the standard of living rising overall.

Then in Clinton's era, you didn't hear nearly as much about this "growing divide" because of how much the media was trumpeting continued economic growth.

But, with Bush, it was back to the growing divide taking up the vast majority of the headlines......but I had long understood it was just propaganda.

When business in this nation grows and prospers, the nation prospers - all of it - the bottom as well as top.

Crippling business through taxation to provide a higher standard of living for the lowest economic strata of the society --- only ends up pushing more people into that strata.

I am not against Welfare. I believe if the government has the right to pass laws that impact on my life, has the right to police and jail me, and has the right - at times - to create a draft and send me off to war --- it has a minimal right to create a safety net for me as well.

But the key word is "minimal" in my believe in Welfare.

Trying to take away more and more of the 5%'s money will end up hurting business and will end up dragging the entire nation down.

Everywhere in the world --- the more wealth distribution has been tried - the lower the resulting overall standard of living.

That is a historical fact.

Why the bleeeeeeppppp can't well-educated intellectuals understand something so irrefutable?

On the silencing --- it predates Obama.

Look at Paula Jones as an example.

Look at the drive to restart The Fairness Doctrine.

The realization that they are being successful in putting in power such a weak-backgrounded candidate, with all those radical connections, who is also such a strong liberal --- has them extra giddy.

Which means we can expect a beefed up Fairness Doctrine - and God only knows what else if Obama wins and the Dems gain in Congress....

ReginaldL:

"Cutting taxes and cutting spending as a policy works for Joe the Plumber."

Sure, that's a coherent political position. No argument here.

"You can cut taxes and actually increase tax revenue in certain conditions."

I agree. For instance Britain had I believe a 95% tax bracket during the sixties and no doubt it discouraged entrepreneurship.

"And don't disregard the current Congress' role in authorizing the deficit and expanding entitlements."

True, but what I was getting at is that since at least Reagan's time, Repub presidents have spent like drunken sailors and Dems (well, Clinton) worked it off. The GOP is in critical need of reform. We're supposed to be able to look to the GOP for fiscal conservatism, but they've proven less responsible than dems over the thirty years.

CY: "He is indeed registered to vote (Republican)"

You're right, I got bad info. Turns out his name is spelled wrong in the registration role. However, "An official at Local 50 of the plumber’s union, based in Toledo, said Mr. Wurzelbacher does not hold a license. He also has never served an apprenticeship and does not belong to the union." He obviously does practice as a plumber so honestly I don't see what difference it makes anyway. I shouldn't have brought it up.

usinkorea: annyonghaseyo! thanks for the thoughtful reply.

'Exactly, 2% of the population owns 50% of the common stock in this country. Such a ratio hinders the meritocracy which has made this country great.'

And how does that work?


Seriously. Explain yourself.

How does stock ownership, even massive stock ownership, by 2% prevent people from rising through their god-given and developed talents?

This age-old line about 5% of the nation owing 90% of the wealth in the country used to influence me, when I was a teen, but as I gained years and experience and maturity, I realized what hogwash I was being asked to swallow.

First, I said 'hinder', not 'prevent'. Wealth concentration certainly affects opportunities for the populace. Think about Russia. They have a handful of billionaires and no one else has a chance of joining the club. Granted we're much freer in the US, but the principle remains the same: the more capital there is in the hands of the elite, the less there is for you and me to start businesses. For decades the rich have grown richer while middle class wages have fallen when you account for inflation. Social mobility has shriveled in this country, google for it if you don't believe me. That's probably the best barometer for the meritocracy.

If you look down the list of the 100 richest people, many of them are Waltons, Marses, etc, people who were born incredibly wealthy and aim to stay that way. Rewarding merit is what makes this or any other country great. What if the next Thomas Edison is stuck working on diesel engines right now because he can't put together enough money to pursue his dreams?

Then in Clinton's era, you didn't hear nearly as much about this "growing divide" because of how much the media was trumpeting continued economic growth.

Right. Social mobility fell under Clinton, too. This isn't a dem/repub thing so much as it is rich vs. middle class.

When business in this nation grows and prospers, the nation prospers - all of it - the bottom as well as top.

No, during the last years middle class wages have stagnated.

Trying to take away more and more of the 5%'s money will end up hurting business and will end up dragging the entire nation down.


Everywhere in the world --- the more wealth distribution has been tried - the lower the resulting overall standard of living.

That is a historical fact.

Why the bleeeeeeppppp can't well-educated intellectuals understand something so irrefutable?

I hope you can come to see that it's not that clear-cut.

It certainly IS clear-cut that the feel-good redistribute-at-gunpoint ideologies have FAILED every single time in history. And many times left oceans of blood in their historical wake.

Further, simply repeating an untruth over and over does not make it so. While this would apply to so MANY things said by the self-styled 'progressives', in this case I refer to the ludicrous claim that Clinton 'lowered gov debt'.

No, HE did not. The shift in gov-revenue wasn't of his making. Multi-trillion dollar economies are like ocean-liners...they take time to stop, turn around, etc.. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to understand that each president INHERITS an economic-situation that was YEARS in the making before they got into office.

In other words, Clinton 'rode' the wave/cycle that was already in progress.

The number-one reason for even 'liberals' to vote against Obama is how he's going to change SCOTUS; and the way he's going to SHRED the constitution.

So-called Liberals have been making a lot of noise lately about 'unconstitutional' actions by the fed-gov. Which is why I'm dumbfounded by their rapture over Obama. He's the very WORST in that regard of all the choices they had.

One appointment from Obama of an 'interpretive' justice, and we may never have a chance again to reverse course and begin returing some of that awful concentration of power in DC back to the citizens.

McCain is a terrible candidate, and socialist-lite; but he's likely to install the right type of "stick to the law" justice. And I'd FAR rather have 4 years of muddle and gridlock in DC than 4 years of a freaking JUGGERNAUT of 1-party radical madness passing bill after ill-conceived bill.

I'm libertarian, not dem or rep, and agnostic; but I'll be pulling the "Not Obama" lever this year; solely for the SCOTUS reason.

I urge every other libertarian and independent to do the same. Again, solely for the SCOTUS reason; it's that critical to us.

If we can save the court, we'll have a 2-yr breathing space to bust ass and get at least a few Constitution party reps into CONgress....and if the gods are willing, maybe even a senator.

THAT'S where our 3rd-party fight needs to be fought....in the mid-terms 2 yrs from now. Not in this prez-race; because of the VERY critical juncture we're at with SCOTUS. Think about 'Hiller', and how easily it could've been otherwise; and imagine a future where EVERY decision goes against the Constitution...

With the giant wake-up call about the major parties that the entire population got this year, when the criminals passed the Failout in the face of such outrcy, we finally have a real chance to build the Constitution party.

But NOT if Obama has a chance to appoint just ONE non-strict-constructionist judge in the next couple years. ALL the amendments are going to be ignored; not just the 2nd. He'll kill the 1st just as quickly (yes liberals, he will...look at the so-misnamed 'fairness doctrine' and THINK...EXTRAPOLATE)

So, no matter your party, when you get into the booth, and suddenly that very frightening wave of HUGE responsibility hits you right in the gut....choose wisely, please.

"While this would apply to so MANY things said by the self-styled 'progressives', in this case I refer to the ludicrous claim that Clinton 'lowered gov debt'."

All right, he left office with a budget surplus. Reagan, BushI, and BushII all ran up debt far more quickly than Clinton...

Oh hell I'm going to bed. You're kind of a nut. Sorry.

Luther needs to go to bed and think about the facxt that it is th CONGRESS that writes the spending/budget bills. And who was it that controlled the Congress during the Reagan,
Bush and Clinton years? Oh my gosh, I believe it was the democrapic party.

And don't forget also that when the one lets the BUSH tax cuts expire, YOUR taxes(and everybody's - except for those who get EIC)are going to go up.

In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, "What a Maroon."

Again, I've been told my whole life this "rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer" --- that "the middle class is shrinking more and more and it is getting dangerous" and this quote of how much richer the Bill Gates have gotten while the rest of the nation has gotten poorer my whole life.

And what I have witnessed is --- during periods of economic growth, the standard of living for the nation as a whole has grown - not shrunk.

If making Bill Gates stock portfolio explode upward is what it takes to raise the standard of living --- Long Live Bill Gates.

And back to the stock point, I think you are confusing capital with stocks: Bill Gates, or even George Soros, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the stock market and businesses is not "taking away" from my potential or my own earnings.

If they are investing smartly --- meaning the companies they invest in are growing -- and the overall economy is growing --- gee golly --- they will indeed get richer.

And the economy will be creating more jobs and unemployment will be lower and the standard of living the nation will rise.

Before industrialization and the rise of international trade, you had serfs tied by birth to families who owned the land/wealth by birth.

The only other places on earth since the rise of industry and trade (capitalism) have been socialist hellholes like North Korea and the USSR and China.

When China has started over the last couple of decades to realize socialism is poverty and misery and started to move toward capitalism - and reap its rewards...

....are so many Americans willing to reverse history?

"Luther needs to go to bed and think about the facxt that it is th CONGRESS that writes the spending/budget bills. And who was it that controlled the Congress during the Reagan,
Bush and Clinton years? Oh my gosh, I believe it was the democrapic party"

BushII had six years of one-party rule and doubled the indebtedness of this country. He has borrowed as much as all other presidents combined. You are depressingly ignorant.

usinkorea: You misunderstand. I have no problem with entrepreneurs. I worked for Gates and I appreciate his efforts more than you can know. Warren Buffet is a fine fellow. Ditto for Jobs, Ellison, Page and Brin, etc.

The problem I address is twofold. First, our tax system is regressive, thus the wealthy tend to pay proportionately less sales tax, have more vehicles such as 401K's to shelter funds from tax, and derive more of their income from capital gains, which are taxed lower than wages. Why on earth should the rich pay a LOWER tax rate than the poor? The folks on this forum call in "income redistribution", but really it's increased fairness. Buffet has complained that it's wrong for his tax rate to be lower than his secretaries, and he's right. You all are muddying the waters by calling a fix for this state of affairs "income redistribution". Similarly, the "death tax" is an imminently fair way to make those that enjoy the fruits of this country without contributing anything otherwise to pay their share.

I cited stock ownership only as a proxy for wealth. The more that wealth is concentrated in the hands of the elite, the less capital there is available for the lower classes. It's simple math. As you point out, a rising tide can lift all boats, but that's not what's happened over the last decades. The wealth of the rich has exploded while the middle class has stagnated. The middle class can no longer get by with a single wage earner. That's all the proof you need.

This study
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1579981
shows that "By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults" (in the past the US was a leader in this area). In other words, the best and brightest in the US often end up stuck in jobs that are beneath them. He who could be the next Warren Buffet might be flipping burgers as we speak.

I think Luther has taken over Nunaim's position.

For those of you unfamiliar with Nunaim, see this thread where he tries to argue about the size of a standard-size door.

You may be right, CCG.

LT - you say:

The problem I address is twofold. First, our tax system is regressive, thus the wealthy tend to pay proportionately less sales tax, have more vehicles such as 401K's to shelter funds from tax, and derive more of their income from capital gains, which are taxed lower than wages. Why on earth should the rich pay a LOWER tax rate than the poor? The folks on this forum call in "income redistribution", but really it's increased fairness. Buffet has complained that it's wrong for his tax rate to be lower than his secretaries, and he's right.

I'm going to break your statement down into things I agree with and things I don't (with a statement or three).
1) I agree our tax system is regressive.
2) I disagree that the wealthy pay less SALES tax (though, proportionally I do agree).
3) I agree the rich have more vehicles to 'hide' their wealth from the tax man.
4) I agree the rich have more potential sources of income.
5) The rich currently pay higher income tax rates than poor people - so your 'why' question is moot.
6) You claim what we call 'income redistribution' is simply "increased fairness". Increased Fairness = Income Redistribution. What the bleep has any 'poor' person done to be given rights to any 'rich' person's wealth? Answer - NOTHING!

As for Mr. Buffet - perhaps if he didn't have a huge staff of accountants/lawyers to find all those nice little vehicles to hide his wealth he would actually 'pay his fair share'. The man complains that he isn't...why then does he not simply DONATE his money to Uncle Sam? Answer - because he's rich and employs a huge staff of accountants to help him hide his wealth. (gotta love circular logic sometimes)

Excellent explanation, Mark.

Now, for all those who wish the tax system to be "fair," what's fairer than a flat tax, where there are either no or very few loopholes, and everyone pays exactly the same rate no matter what their income is?

What could be fairer than me paying, say (just for the sake of the argument), 20%, Joe the Plumber paying 20%, CY paying 20%, Mark paying 20%, and Bill Gates paying 20%?

C-C-G-: I'm sorry if you're still sore from me pointing out that Thomas Paine is not what you had figured, and that you used an egregiously tautological argument. That's life, I'm merely the messenger. If you don't wish to hear things like that then, well, work harder. As for your latest: "I think Luther has taken over Nunaim's position", you're making a schoolyard taunt. You said you're a lay preacher? It's doubly unfortunate that you should fancy yourself worthy to lead others on moral issues.

Mark:

1) I agree our tax system is regressive.
2) I disagree that the wealthy pay less SALES tax (though, proportionally I do agree).

But I said proportionally, so you agree with me. Why not just say that?

3) I agree the rich have more vehicles to 'hide' their wealth from the tax man.
4) I agree the rich have more potential sources of income.
5) The rich currently pay higher income tax rates than poor people - so your 'why' question is moot.

No, they don't. You just said our tax system is regressive. You are contradicting yourself. Stocks pay almost no dividends now because cap gains are taxed at 20%. Basically it's rich people that take capital gains.

6) You claim what we call 'income redistribution' is simply "increased fairness". Increased Fairness = Income Redistribution. What the bleep has any 'poor' person done to be given rights to any 'rich' person's wealth? Answer - NOTHING!

You're confused. You said that we have a regressive tax system, yet the rich pay a higher proportion of tax. That's contradictory.

What right do the offspring of Mars and Walton, who have never worked a day in their lives, to be fabulously wealthy? If you're happy with that, fine, but I think it's rotten, and it prevents the cream from floating to the top. Since when is doing what's right for the US a bad thing?

Obama wants to tax the top 5% more. That's completely fair, they should pay at least as high a rate as everyone else. If you wish to keep subsidizing their lifestyle, fine, but call it what it is.

Buffet is a great guy and uncommonly charitable. He's giving almost all his wealth the the Gates Foundation. The importance of what he said is that there's a problem if his tax rate is lower than his secretary's.

No matter what tax policy you choose (except for a flat tax), you are "redistributing wealth". We have to put country first and make the fat cats pay their fair share.

C-C-G: "Excellent explanation, Mark." No, it was muddled. Again I can only encourage you to work harder to inform yourself.

Incidentally I'm not opposed to a flat tax.

Luther, as I've pointed out multiple times here and elsewhere, we on the right don't deify our leaders. I can easily say that McCain makes errors (campaign finance, immigration reform), Bush makes errors (Harriet Miers, immigration reform), Reagan made errors, Lincoln made errors, and even Paine may have made an error or two.

See, conservatism isn't built on the infallibility of its members... in fact, if anything, it understands better than any other political philosophy that people are fallible, and takes that into account when formulating its policies.

Lefism/liberalism, on the other hand, considers that its standard-bearers are always perfect and can never ever be wrong, even when they are demonstrably proven wrong... such as, say Obama's ties to ACORN, and Biden's numerous lies, including the one where he was "forced down" in Afghanistan.

Enjoy life in your little lefty bubble. It will be popped sooner or later, and, ironically, I believe that if the Obamamessiah is elected, it will be sooner rather than later.

C-C-G: I will merely point out for the record that your response is to change the subject, again. You have an unreasonable expectation that I should engage you on a new front until you explain how I am mistaken in the numerous ways I claim you are wrong.

I can't resist clarifying one thing though. I'm far, far more fiscally conservative than Reagan or BushII, so I take exception to you calling me a liberal.

Luther, I was replying to this statement:

I'm sorry if you're still sore from me pointing out that Thomas Paine is not what you had figured

Might I recommend reading comprehension classes?

Oh, by the way, you're sounding more and more like Nunaim all the time. Is that you, under a different name after Bob banned you?

The majority of your post that you quoted was a simplistic rant, unrelated to any specific argument of mine except the remark about Paine. You seemed to be mentioning him peripherally.

You are trying to save face with your comments about Paine. He believed you and your kind to be charlatans and your religion to be a modernized sun worship. You are debasing yourself to call this "a couple of mistakes". Paine would have regarded you as an enemy of the State.

Luther,

For your elucidation:
Regressive: decreasing in rate as the base increases (a regressive tax)

Via Merriam-Webster online: 3rd definition

Your understanding of the word regressive is incorrect.

The current income tax system is basically a pyramid scheme wherin the top of the pyramid pays the highest rate and the bottom the lowest. The current lowest rate is less than ZERO thanks to EIC and such give-aways.

Okay, Nunaim, drop the new moniker, I know it's you.

Mark,

No, regressive tax system is one that affects the poor disproportionately, and progressive tax system is one that affects the wealthy disproportionately. Those terms are common and have been around for as long as I can remember.

"The current income tax system is basically a pyramid scheme wherin the top of the pyramid pays the highest rate and the bottom the lowest."

Your have your terms wrong again. A pyramid scheme is something different. Again, overall Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The wealthy are the least affected by income tax.

C-C-G: No, not Nunaim, I'm not familiar with that person. If it's important to you to verify this, I suggest you check with the proprietor. He might have a list of the IP addresses or geographical regions for his various contributors.

With that, so long fellas.

"Luther," as a certified computer tech, I am very familiar with IP address... quite possibly more familiar than you are.

I am also familiar with ways of changing or faking your IP address, in order to get around an IP address based ban, including proxy servers, or just changing your ISP.

With that, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

C-C-G: I'm a computer programmer retired from MS. You have likely used software I worked on. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

"Faking your IP address" only makes sense when you do not need to get packets back. For instance, if I sent some TCP/IP packets with a forged source address to the server which hosts CY's blog, then I would of course not get any packets back, and thus could post here only with exceeding difficulty.

To be frank, "certified computer tech" would not impress anyone I know in the business. To apply for any technical or non-entry-level job at MS I suggest you leave it off your resume entirely.

I'm curious as to why you think I would go to such great lengths to post here. I'm not Nunaim, and don't know who that is. Anyway my identity doesn't make a difference. Either I'm right or you are, and you are unwilling to contest any particular point. You essentially start a new topic with each post.

"Don't let the door hit ya on the way out." Can you not even pretend to emulated Christ? You seem mean spirited in fact.

Luther, you just proved you know nothing about IP addresses, or how proxy servers work. Go do some research and learn not to make your idiocy apparent to those of us who really do know what we're talking about.

To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address.

Also, you're far far too defensive about not being Nunaim. A truly innocent person wouldn't be that defensive. In short, methinks thou dost protest too much.

And, as for Christian, did you know that Christ called people hypocrites to their face, and described them as "whitewashed tombs" or "a pit of vipers"? He wasn't the pacifistic milquetoast you lefties wanna make Him out to be.

All in all, you've proven that you're a clueless blowhard who, like Joe Biden, wants to claim to be smarter than he really is. And I've just exposed that.

You said you were gone once, will you please leave now?

C-C-G: "To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address."

I was not talking about proxy servers. You have not yet understood what faking an IP address means. It means faking the source IP address in TCP/IP packets. Crackers have done this, but it is very complex as the cracker must figure out in advance the contents of the packets that the target computer will send out in response to your forged packets.

"To put it in a nutshell, for your edification, what you do is surf to the proxy server, then tell the proxy server what URL to go to. It does so, thus giving the web server (for instance, this blog) its IP address instead of yours. You don't lose packets, because the web server (blog) sends packets to the proxy server's IP address, and the proxy server sends the packets to you at your own IP address. The web server (blog) never sees your IP address."

You didn't understand my remark. With a "faked IP address", which I took to mean "IP packets with forged source addr," you never receive any information back from the target machine. The target machine tries to reply to the IP address which you faked.

You meant "anonymous proxy" I think. Proxy servers are common and not at all nefarious. For instance many institutions use them to cut down on bandwidth. For instance if a computer lab has 200 kids requesting the page http://www.google.com, each one can get a cached copy of the Google logo image from the proxy cache, with zero net bandwidth for the lab. Proxies also restrict users in various ways and sometimes log user actions.

Anonymous proxies are proxy servers set up to hide one's IP addresses, not "fake" it. Again, feel free to contact Bob for my IP and you'll see that it's a regular residential IP from CenturyTel, not an anonymous proxy server.

"Also, you're far far too defensive about not being Nunaim. A truly innocent person wouldn't be that defensive. In short, methinks thou dost protest too much."

Balderdash! You brought it up numerous times. I ignored it a couple of times and calmly denied it twice, and did what I could to demonstrate this to you. You still have not told me what is the significance of this person.

"And, as for Christian, did you know that Christ called people hypocrites to their face, and described them as 'whitewashed tombs' or 'a pit of vipers'? He wasn't the pacifistic milquetoast you lefties wanna make Him out to be."

If you believe Jesus was not a pacifist I despair of your understanding anything from the Bible ever. No one said He was a milquetoast.

It's ironic that you mentioned that 'whitewashed tomb' passage. I wonder who He would regard as a whitewashed tomb today? Perhaps someone who crows about being a lay preacher while supporting a war in which hundreds of thousands of innocents have died? Or who supports a president who enjoyed putting people to death in Texas?