Vee haff vays...

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:15 pm

Obama campaign cuts off WFTV after interview with Joe Biden
posted by halboedeker on Oct 24, 2008 11:12:15 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXcImQfubM

WFTV-Channel 9's Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Sen. Joe Biden on Thursday. A friend says it's some of the best entertainment he's seen recently. What do you think?

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.

"Are you joking?" said Biden, who is Obama's running mate. "No," West said.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president. She wondered if the Delaware senator was saying America's days as the world's leading power were over.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."

Here's a link to the interview: http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html.

WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."

Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.

"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions."

Jordan added, "I'm crying foul on this one."

What did you think of the interview?

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:23 pm

Well Terri what do you think about "spreading the wealth"?

Do you think those who dont pay income tax should get a "rebate" on taxes they don't pay?

Or is that "socialism"?

Or "welfare"?

Or is it just good policy if it's one of your republican cronies?

Or is it, as I believe, good public policy to provide working class people with at least a minimal standard of living, whether Dem or Republican?

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:27 pm

sodbuster wrote:Well Terri what do you think about "spreading the wealth"?

Do you think those who dont pay income tax should get a "rebate" on taxes they don't pay?

Or is that "socialism"?

Or "welfare"?

Or is it just good policy if it's one of your republican cronies?

Or is it, as I believe, good public policy to provide working class people with at least a minimal standard of living, whether Dem or Republican?

If Dems believe in spreading the wealth--why don't they just contribute more? I am not a betting man; however, I would bet that I pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than Jay Rockefeller, Ted Kennedy or John Kerry. (Did you know that John Kerry was a Vietnam veteran?)

by **ohio county** Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:53 pm

John Kerry? You mean the haughty, French-looking United States Senator from Massachusetts?

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:57 pm

And if I was a betting man, I would bet I pay more than you.

But you dodged the question about spreading the wealth.

Do you think it is ok for those who pay no tax to get a rebate?

Do you think it's ok for those who have even less to get a little bit too?

Or should it be law of the jungle, every man for himself?

by Keli Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:00 pm

sodbuster wrote:And if I was a betting man, I would bet I pay more than you.

But you dodged the question about spreading the wealth.

Do you think it is ok for those who pay no tax to get a rebate?

Do you think it's ok for those who have even less to get a little bit too?

Or should it be law of the jungle, every man for himself?

Obama is going to give a tax break to those who do not pay taxes.

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:12 pm

"Obama is going to give a tax break to those who do not pay taxes."

Yes, I know.

And I support that.

Please tell Mike and Stephanie.

(and maybe others on here who benefit)

by **ohio county** Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:18 pm

I'm pretty sure they both know that. (The others, too.)

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:24 pm

Well OC I hate to differ, but Mike has been saying just the opposite.

He says Obama will raise his taxes.

by **ohio county** Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:27 pm

Obama will raise his taxes.

I know you get all righteous and I believe your aim is truly to help your neighbors and those less fortunate than you. You've never attempted to explain to me (in fact have ignored any questions I've asked) how taking the fruits of your neighbor's labor and giving it to the needy constitutes charity. Okay, let's not say charity. How can that be the right thing for the government to do?

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:29 pm

Ask those who benefit.

I am certainly not righteous.

And have not claimed to be.

by **ohio county** Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:34 pm

But you are the one who is asking everybody else if they support it.

Yes, I know.

And I support that.

Is it your position to support it or are you trying to get others to come around to your way of thinking? And just what is your way of thinking?

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:43 pm

Yes it is my position to support it.

I have said so numerous times, including in my previous post.

And yes I wish others would support it too.

And I wish those who do benefit would not resent those who are even less fortunate getting a little bit too.

It seems those who resent poor peoiple the most are those who are not far from it themselves.

Do you know that Kris Kristofferson song Jesus was a Capricorn?

http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/K/kriskristoffersonlyrics/kriskristoffersonjesuswasacapricornlyrics.htm

Seems like everyone needs someone to look down on.

by **ohio county** Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:46 pm

Maybe. I'm not sure how you keep missing my point that confiscatory taxation and redistribution of wealth does not constitute charity. Can you maybe address that sometime? Are you not one of those fellas who wants to keep church and state separate?

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:52 pm

ohio county wrote:Maybe. I'm not sure how you keep missing my point that confiscatory taxation and redistribution of wealth does not constitute charity. Can you maybe address that sometime? Are you not one of those fellas who wants to keep church and state separate?

Well then dont call it charity.

I never said it was charity.

Matter of fact I dont even think it is charity.

I just think it is right.

I think it is a legitimate function of government.

We should help people through hard times and do what we can to help them become productive citizens.

Not ridicule them and try to hold them down.

by **ohio county** Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:57 pm

We should help people through hard times and do what we can to help them become productive citizens.

Ten weeks? Six months? Is there a term on that?

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:05 pm

I would say at least 18 years.

Maybe 20 or 22 if they stay in college and make good progress.

by **ohio county** Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:10 pm

I've heard it said that a good welfare program's primary goal is to make itself unnecessary. With your plan there is no incentive to get off welfare. We shouldn't encourage a kid to find a part-time job?

by **ohio county** Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:18 pm

Well, okay. You think about that for a while. I gotta go wash my hair...

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:46 pm

jebnhhgc ftg jhy6t Embarassed

hhbvbv hsu3hywger4444444444444444444444444444444444444 Sleep

gy6tt8zzzzzzzzzzzzsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssggggguiiiiiiiiiiiiii monkey

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:20 pm

wELL THAT WAS MY GRAND DAUGHTER'S RESPONSE.

Guess I will have to start logging off... Very Happy

by sodbuster Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:24 pm

ohio county wrote:I've heard it said that a good welfare program's primary goal is to make itself unnecessary. With your plan there is no incentive to get off welfare. We shouldn't encourage a kid to find a part-time job?

Well I suppose that's a reasonable suggestion.

But I will let you broach that subject with Stephanie.

I have already used up all my Capital.

Plus ziggy's, I guess.

I dont know if I can go through another identity crisis.

by **Stephanie** Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:31 pm

Stephanie's view of the EIC her family received last year is this:

When my family was struggling financially, including the weeks we had no income, we didn't go to the government asking for a handout. We muddled through. I didn't request food stamps, although for about 3 months we were probably eligible. My husband quit his job the last week of May because his paychecks were bouncing. No sense working at a place that can't pay you.

He found a part time job that he took temporarily within a couple of weeks. Over the course of that time he did manage to get his last two paychecks cashed, btw. By the time he found a full-time position, 3 months had elapsed. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that had we applied, I could have gotten my children enrolled in CHIPS or Medicaid or whatever they give out now, food stamps, and that oh-so-popular clothing voucher for my daughter. I can't say for sure, because we didn't ask for any assistance. Oh, and I'd bet she could have gotten free lunch & breakfast every school day too.

Even though he was only working part time and supporting a family of four, the government continued to withhold social security and Medicare. The city of Charleston didn't care whether or not he could afford to feed his children, they still took their buck a week and at the end of the year we still owed the state of WV money.

So we filed for the EIC and my husband got all of that back plus a little more. Good for him. The man has been working and paying into SS and Medicare since he was 14 years old. He's 30, that's 16 years. Nobody in their right mind has the expectation Social Security will survive another 40 years for him to collect on 56 years of paying into the system. I'm happy he got a little something back this year.

It is unlikely to be repeated. Too bad too, because when you consider all the other taxes we pay, he should get a rebate every year.

by sodbuster Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:25 am

Well there should be no stigma for participating in programs created for that purpose.

I am sorry you feel that there is.

I am also sorry if I hurt your feelings by bringing it up.

Social Security is taking in more than it is paying out.

There is a projected shortfall in the future, but that can be easily addressed by closing the loophole that lets those with incomes over 100K have a free ride.

Matter of fact, we should be able to exempt the first 20K from payroll tax if we take the exemption off the upper income bracket.

So dont believe that nonsense about Soc. Security not being there for you.

All that being said, there are others in much worse circumstances than you were in.

And there should be no stigma attached to their acceptance of government benefits either.

With the economy, and especially the health care system, the way it is anybody can find themselves in bad shape pretty quick.

Even if they do have health insurance, which many people don't.

by **SheikBen** Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:34 am

Sherman,

You've never addressed the issue of why it is I SHOULD get money from you. You've wagered that you pay higher taxes than Mr H, so tell me, Sherm, why SHOULD I benefit from the fruits of your labor?

Further, offering basic income grants to all at the expense of people who make a lot of money (as opposed to those who already have it--this is a key distinction) will encourage more people to lay back and get the basic income grants and fewer people to keep working above a certain salary.

And that is a disaster for an already disastrous economy. Of course, much of the blame for our presently disastrous economy came from the liberal practice of giving loans to people who could not afford them (you may be surprised that business sense does not encourage loans that cannot be repaid, and that the banks regularly lose big on the foreclosure wars, as they always have).

by Sponsored content

Vee haff vays...

Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...

Re: Vee haff vays...