Money for the Poor?! Blasphemous!

[MC]

CONCORD, N.C./ST. LOUIS (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate John McCain compared Barack Obama to socialist leaders in Europe on Saturday, saying his rival wants to raise taxes on the wealthy to give money to the poor.

McCain, an Arizona senator, tried to erode the advantage Obama has built on the issue of the economy as he spent the day campaigning in traditionally Republican states that are now up for grabs -- North Carolina and Virginia.

Obama, who drew his biggest crowd of the campaign at a St. Louis rally, dismissed McCain's criticism as a misleading attack on a plan that would give tax breaks to workers.

Appearing at the iconic arch in St. Louis before 100,000 people, Obama said McCain was putting the interests of the well-connected above those of waitresses and janitors.

In a radio ad, McCain said Obama would raise taxes on some people in order to give government checks to others.

"Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the (Internal Revenue Service) into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," the Republican candidate said.

"At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama," McCain said.

McCain was referring to Obama's promise of a tax cut to families earning less than $250,000. Some workers who do not earn enough to owe federal income taxes would get a refund on money they contribute in Social Security payroll taxes.

With just over two weeks left before the November 4 election, Obama leads McCain in national opinion polls and in many of the battleground states that will be crucial to the outcome of the race.

The worst financial crisis in a generation has boosted Obama, whose calm demeanor has won over some voters anxious about the economy.

In hopes of overtaking Obama, McCain has focused heavily on the story of an Ohio man dubbed "Joe the Plumber", who raised questions about Obama's tax plans and became an invisible third member in the candidates' last televised debate this week.

"We learned that Senator Obama's economic goal is, as he told Joe, is to 'spread the wealth around,'" McCain told a rally in Concord, drawing loud boos from the crowd.

"Sen. Obama believes in redistributing the wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs and opportunities for all Americans."

In his third and final debate with Obama this week, McCain cited Joe Wurzelbacher as an example of someone who would be hurt under Obama's tax plan. Wurzelbacher said he intended to buy a plumbing business but believed he would receive a tax increase under Obama's economic plan.

Based on what Wurzelbacher has said publicly about his income, the Obama campaign said he would be eligible for a tax cut, not a tax increase, under the Democrat's proposal.

Obama says his tax plan would give a break to 95 percent of all workers and 98 percent of small business owners.

"John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people "welfare," the Democratic candidate said at the St. Louis rally.

"The only "welfare" in this campaign is John McCain's plan to give another $200 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations in America," Obama said.

The St. Louis event was Obama's largest in the United States. The only event he has held of comparable size was in July in Berlin's Tiergarten Park, where throngs of Germans gathered to hear him speak about transatlantic relations.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081018/pl_nm/us_usa_politics

I don't know about everyone else, but I would think "spreading the wealth" is a good thing.

 

[Damaera]

Awesome .

 

[MC]

Awesome .

What's awesome?

 

[Synth]

I don't see why they can't just print a million dollars for everyone.

 

[Pieter Paul Rubens]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4961157.ece

>_> McCain is getting more and more pathetic with each step he takes.

 

[The Deco]

Why his campaign managers let him do this steps?

 

[Chakra-X]

I don't agree with what I'm about to say, but let me play devil's advocate.

I'm filthy ****ing rich. I've worked my ass off to make a small company a giant corporation. I am rolling around in more money than I could need. But why should I give a cent to the poor? This is my money, I've worked my ass off for this, so why should I just give it away to people just because they are in a worse situation?

 

[The Deco]

Simply - because if you got more than what you need, you can help other people by following this new law.

Even though you worked your ass off and you are in a condition that you don't use most of your money because you already got too much, what is better than donating it.

But guys seriously, if rich people gonna pay a bit(even if not a bit) more tax it won't even tickle there nose, it really doesn't matter to them practically, only the principal of the thing.

 

[Brosiris]

I don't agree with what I'm about to say, but let me play devil's advocate.

I'm filthy ****ing rich. I've worked my ass off to make a small company a giant corporation. I am rolling around in more money than I could need. But why should I give a cent to the poor? This is my money, I've worked my ass off for this, so why should I just give it away to people just because they are in a worse situation?

Because you got lucky. And not everyone is so lucky. Look at poor people on the street. They can't go to school because they can't. They need to do what they can to survive. They can't get a job, because no one will hire them. They smell bad, they don't have an education. Etc. They can't get off their feet. Is it their fault? Probably, also probably not.

If you have "more money than you could need" then why NOT give it away to make the world a better place? Even if by only a little? I know you don't agree with what you wrote, I'm merely answering your question.

I tell people all the time what I'd do if I won the lottery. I'd keep around 100,000 for myself, enough so I could survive (which this is plenty). The rest would go to my family and friends of course, and then the rest of it after that, the how ever many million after that, would go straight to charity.

I don't need millions of dollars, so why keep it? What am I going to do with it? Nothing. I'd buy a few nice cars, bikes, maybe a house, and put myself through college and the rest do what with? So why not give it away? You don't need it, you're not using it. Put it to good use, and give it to someone who CAN use it. Find a cure for cancer, give a homeless person a chance to live an actual life.

 

[Zeonix]

I'd rather fund outrageous science projects than give it all away to the poor. I'm an ******* like that.

 

[Brosiris]

I'd rather fund outrageous science projects than give it all away to the poor. I'm an ******* like that.

I would too. But there's other people for that. Like you. I love NASA, I love science, hence I'm going to be a science teacher.

 

[Zeonix]

I've talked to Sub a few times about how far we'd be if science didn't adhere to any set of morals. I'm willing to find out using my mountain of cash. I'm willing to temporarily employ the homeless for my experiments, as well.

 

[MC]

It doesn't seem like Barrack Obama's health care plan is any better than John McCain's. McCain's plan calls for a quick death and Obama's calls for a slow death.

 

[DaRkOwNs]

I've talked to Sub a few times about how far we'd be if science didn't adhere to any set of morals. I'm willing to find out using my mountain of cash. I'm willing to temporarily employ the homeless for my experiments, as well.

well, if science didnt abide by a set of morals, we probably wouldnt exist anymore.

not that thats necessarily a bad thing.

 

[sub]

I've talked to Sub a few times about how far we'd be if science didn't adhere to any set of morals. I'm willing to find out using my mountain of cash. I'm willing to temporarily employ the homeless for my experiments, as well.

Temporarily because, you know, they'll probably die from all of the experiments and what not.

I have no problem with taxing the rich. I do have a problem with our welfare system right now, though, which is broken. We're giving money away to people who have no intention of working, who, in order to get more money from welfare, will simply have more kids. Welfare needs to be fixed.

I also have a problem with them taxing the middleclass to give to the poor. A lot of middleclass families, while they are a lot better off than the poor, do still struggle from paycheck to paycheck to keep what they have / feed their family.

I can understand why republicans don't like taxing the rich ("I worked for what I have, anyone else can get to where I am through hard work, why should I give away my money to help someone who doesnt want to help themselves"), but I think they're wrong.

 

[Zeonix]

well, if science didnt abide by a set of morals, we probably wouldnt exist anymore.

not that thats necessarily a bad thing.

Or we'd be immortal. The Nazis were *******s, but they advanced medical technology by quite a bit.

 

[Dokutayuu]

Let's do our current work before starting extra credit work.

 

[Zeonix]

You won't be saying that when the Nazi base in Antarctica decides to start building mechs.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

lol.

to be honest, using "he's gonna rob from the ritch to feed the poor" is just gonna make more poor people vote for the obama.

and there are a lot more poor people than there are wealthy.

 

[sub]

lol.

to be honest, using "he's gonna rob from the ritch to feed the poor" is just gonna make more poor people vote for the obama.

and there are a lot more poor people than there are wealthy.

Right, but the argument is if that's fair or not.