[Vision2020] Obama cancels interview with a Free (not in the tank) Press

[No Weatherman]

Paul:

We need to make distinctions between "the war" and the "tanking
economy" and the "crackheads and welfare queens."

Obama wants to end the war, grease his homeboys on Wall Street, and
reward the crackheads and welfare queens in ACORN, and he wants the
middle class to pay for it.

It's immoral, however, to argue that the "rich" have to pay for these
things because they "stand to lose more without facing hunger or
eviction or having their power turned off."

Where do you get off playing with other people's money? Would you
appreciate it if I had the power to take money from you because I
think you can afford the hit?

It's called theft.

If you believe society has a moral obligation to help others out, then
you can go to work in a soup kitchen after you give all your money to
the Salvation Army.

And don't complain because you can afford it. I know this because I deemed it.

How does it feel now?

Once answer this question, we can begin discussing the merits and
necessities of various social programs. But if we let the majority
decide they want to loot the minority's wealth, we'll be forced to
ask, "Who is John Galt?"



On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No Weatherman wrote:
>>
>> Chas:
>>
>> Ummmm.
>>
>> It's always easier to play poker with someone else's chips.
>>
>> Someday, if you're ever rakin in the dough, you'll resent the
>> government confiscating your hard earned money to finance crackheads
>> and welfare queens.
>>
>
> Is it somehow better for the middle class to finance the "crackheads and
> welfare queens"?  That's what it comes down to.  Someone has to pay for this
> war and the after effects of a tanking economy.  Who does it make more sense
> to tax more?  The richest of the bunch who can stand to lose more without
> facing hunger or eviction or having their power turned off, or the majority
> of people that are just trying to make it from paycheck to paycheck?
>
> I think the system is better when it tries to help people who are down on
> their luck, despite the fact that some people abuse the system.  Not
> everyone believes that having wealth means you're any better of a person
> than not having it.  You're just luckier.  When fate deals you a rotten
> hand, even temporarily, it's in society's best interests to help you through
> it.
>
> Of course, no one knows even remotely how much you make and which financial
> camp you fall in, because no one knows who you are.
>
> Paul
>
>>
>> On 10/25/08, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 17:07, No Weatherman <no.weatherman at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  > West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber,
>>>  > about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama
>>>  > isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> We already spread the wealth.  It's called taxes.  Obama is merely
>>>  proposing spreading the wealth more equitably.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.                 http://www.fsr.net
>>                              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
>