Yeah - I think everyone's getting a little uppity. Maybe we should all just cocktail it for the next week. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

I'd say Elizabeth Hasselbeck introducing Gov. Palin is about as shrill as it gets.
:eek:

When it comes to redistributive solutions, what you just said is not necessarily what is being talked about.

And as I said, we all support redistributive policies, we just disagree on which ones. After all, I'm assuming you would not remove from the X% of people who pay no federal taxes all access to federal services.

Here's what I think Obama meant in his discussion of the civil rights movement. Two points: First, separate but equal was not overturned overnight. Thurgood Marshall litigated a number of cases that overturned a number of segregationist schemes by showing that--surprise--they were not, in fact, equal. Second, Marshall & co. scrupulously avoided all entreaties by socialists, communists and the like who claimed that the worker's struggle was also the black man's struggle. Thus, I think that Obama was lamenting that the civil rights movement did not do--or could not have done--more to ensure that black schools, whether segregated de facto or de jure were, in fact equal. I assume that if the issue is phrased as "everyone should be able to go to good schools" rather than as "redistribution" that you do not object even though it amounts to the same thing.

A yapping poodle introducing another yapping poodle?;)

I suppose it does depend on how one defines redistribution of wealth. I am not one who regards access federal services as redistribution. Driving on an interstate, for example, I suppose could be regarded as some sort of strange redistribution of wealth considering those who pay no taxes still drive on them, but services are not what I am referring to, nor do I believe it is what Obama was referring to.

I am talking about taxes paid from the upper income families and giving that money directly to lower income families in the form of a redefined tax cut. He refers to this as a tax cut, but it isn't a tax cut. They have paid no taxes.

Is anyone besides me, feeling a bit encouraged at the massive rallies? I find it inspiring that 70,000-100,000 people turn out for one of these things. To sound trite, it does give me a sense of hope.

You can say that now, but they have always been called tax cuts in the past so it is disingenuous to now say that they aren't. Yes, some tax credits result in cash payouts when the tax liability is reduced to lower than zero. You can disagree with this philosophically but such increasing these credits has always been rhetorically placed under the umbrella of tax cuts to whomever supports them (just as with John McCain's proposed $5000 tax credit for medical insurance which will be paid even if the user owes no taxes).

Also, it is possible to cut taxes for a person who doesn't pay any. If you have a tax obligation of $750 dollars and qualify for $750 in tax deductions you don't pay any taxes. But it is entirely possible for new tax policies to reduce your obligation from $750 to $500. Your tax obligation was cut, your tax deductions still reduce what you owe to zero.

Finally, you have used this formulation several times "Obama says that 95% of people will receive a tax cut but 40% of people don't pay any income tax, how can that then be true." (That isn't a direct quote but I think it accurately reflects and I don't want to go look for the direct quote; I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong).

Two things. Obama almost always say "95% of working families" which is different from 95% of everybody and is essentially true (independent sources say 91-94%). However, I'm sure examples can be found of saying simply "95% of people" by Obama or campaign surrogates. When this is said, it is misleading.

However, you do something rhetorically in your formulation of the question that is also misleading. You change the units of measure. From "taxes" to "income taxes." Income taxes do not include the entirety of a persons tax burden as you well know. Even people who end up paying no income taxes still (if they have any legitimate income at all) end up paying payroll taxes. And part of Obama's plan is a tax credit against payroll taxes. So, even if that doesn't bump it up to 95% of all people, this is another way you get people who pay no federal income tax still getting a tax cut.

You are accurate in your assessment of what I'm saying, but I don't follow your logic on this point. How is it true when he says "95% of working families" vs. "95% of all people"?

What are payroll taxes for? The vast majority is for social security. I don't regard these in the same category because it is (theoretically) a retirement account to which one should be required to pay in if they are going to get something out.