NCAAbbs

Subject: Redistribution Plan may take a while

Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys
in that area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."

Once in the Doe's my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him
while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel
he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth.
I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed
more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and
angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter
inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy
looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution
experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not
earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did
earn.

Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to
catch on, with those doing the work.

jackass

That's awesome.

mixduptransistor Wrote:jackass

Why? He just did what Obama has been proposing on a much larger scale. Just when it happens like this, it makes it more personal to the individual. But it's the exact same concept.

mobileblazer Wrote:Subject: Redistribution Plan may take a while

Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys
in that area, with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."

Once in the Doe's my waiter had on a "Obama 08" tee shirt.

When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him
while he had given me exceptional service, that his tee shirt made me feel
he obviously believes in Senator Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth.
I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed
more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in disbelief and
angrily stormed away.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter
inside, as I had decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy
looked at me in disbelief but seemed grateful.

As I got in my truck, I realized this rather unscientific redistribution
experiment had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not
earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did
earn.

Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to
catch on, with those doing the work.

That was uncalled for and didn't make any sense. Chances are that server is poor. And is working to try and better himself. And you taking from the poor to give to the poor is retarded. I'd like yo see you try and relate that to anything Barak Obama wants to do. You guys take Douchebaggery to new heights.

LightEmUp70 Wrote:

mixduptransistor Wrote:jackass

Why? He just did what Obama has been proposing on a much larger scale. Just when it happens like this, it makes it more personal to the individual. But it's the exact same concept.

You couldn't be anymore wrong. You are both full of .

Rich and poor is all relative.

It was the same thing, just on a much smaller scale.

Ask the homeless guy if the waiter is wealthy and he'll say yes. Ask the waiter if the restaraunt owner is wealthy and he'll say yes. Ask the restaraunt owner if the franchise owner is wealthy and he'll say yes.

I wonder how many people will vote to try and get the handout, but aren't willing to share what surplus they have.

Well, the plus side is the next time you're in that diner, you'll get bonus service!

In seriousness..
It's completely disrespectful to treat someone like that in a business setting based on their political beliefs. If you called or came to my place of business, I'm going to give you good service and treat you respectfully no matter what, I don't care if you're wearing a Pat Buchannan for President shirt. I guess I'm just a stupid Godless socialist though.

Why don't you two try to dispute it instead of just getting angry and calling people names? Plus, I think Mobile just passed this along from an e-mail (judging from the "Subject:" line) so stop taking it out on him. Obama wants to take from people who work hard to give it to people who don't. If you can't make the connection, you are either stupid or in denial of what your savior actually stands for. I'd guess the latter.

mixduptransistor Wrote:Well, the plus side is the next time you're in that diner, you'll get bonus service!

In seriousness..
It's completely disrespectful to treat someone like that in a business setting based on their political beliefs. If you called or came to my place of business, I'm going to give you good service and treat you respectfully no matter what, I don't care if you're wearing a Pat Buchannan for President shirt. I guess I'm just a stupid Godless socialist though.

I personally feel the same way as you, but I think we are in the minority. Everyone is so polarized right now that they have forgotten that we are all still one. I lean more towards the republican line of thinking, but I can still carry on a civil conversation with people who think otherwise.

Honestly, the redistribution plan is only one of the reasons that I don't like Mr. Obama. There are many other issues that the vast majority of Americans most likely have no clue about because it hasn't been on MSNBC, FOX News, or CNN. For instance the 3 times that Mr. Obama voted against a ban on induced birth abortions while on the Illinois State Senate. Sure, the first time, maybe he's uninformed but the other two cause me to think that he's okay with inducing labor and leaving the baby on a table to die as a means of abortion. At what point does even the most liberal finally draw the line and say it's murder?

I just hope that everyone who does vote on Tuesday will do so after actually thinking about it and drawing their own conclusions, not ones driven by the media, or office emails, or mom and dad, or, heaven forbid, race. And at the end of the day, whoever wins, is my President. I may not be happy about it, but I'm still a citizen with a voice, I still have representation with my congressman, and I can still make a difference. Our lives as Americans does not begin and end with who sits in the oval office, but in the fact that we are Americans and our government is for the people, by the people. Too many people want to just cast responsibility onto their elected officials, but that's not their jobs...their job is to represent you! You are still the integral part of government. Unfortunately, we think we only have to take part in it when election time rolls around. If we continue to live that way, we will continue to be disappointed by our representatives. They are meant to be our voice, not our rulers! And at the end of the day, I will still respect the office of the President of the United States.

I love how the liberal responses to this story can be summed up as "you meanie!" They can't refute the fact that what occurred is a smaller example of what they and Obama believe. Obama wants to give tax credits to people who don't pay taxes, which is the same as giving the homeless man the waiter's tip. One guy worked for the money, but the other guy was given the money. A perfect analogy for Obama's redistribution plans.

dfarr Wrote:I love how the liberal responses to this story can be summed up as "you meanie!" They can't refute the fact that what occurred is a smaller example of what they and Obama believe. Obama wants to give tax credits to people who don't pay taxes, which is the same as giving the homeless man the waiter's tip. One guy worked for the money, but the other guy was given the money. A perfect analogy for Obama's redistribution plans.

so when you walk onto my property, even though you aren't an immediate threat, does that mean I can shoot and kill you? I mean, it's the perfect analogy of the Bush/McCain military doctrine.

iam4uab Wrote:Rich and poor is all relative.

It was the same thing, just on a much smaller scale.

Ask the homeless guy if the waiter is wealthy and he'll say yes. Ask the waiter if the restaraunt owner is wealthy and he'll say yes. Ask the restaraunt owner if the franchise owner is wealthy and he'll say yes.

I wonder how many people will vote to try and get the handout, but aren't willing to share what surplus they have.

It is not the same thing. Not at all. Obama wants to redistribute wealth from the wealthy. The very wealthy. Not from someone who probably makes less than $20k/yr, assuming they are even a full-time employee. You're taking it the wrong way.

BlazerFan11 Wrote:Why don't you two try to dispute it instead of just getting angry and calling people names? Plus, I think Mobile just passed this along from an e-mail (judging from the "Subject:" line) so stop taking it out on him. Obama wants to take from people who work hard to give it to people who don't. If you can't make the connection, you are either stupid or in denial of what your savior actually stands for. I'd guess the latter.

Well he certainly didn't try and make it known that it wasn't his personal experience.

Suede27 Wrote:

iam4uab Wrote:Rich and poor is all relative.

It was the same thing, just on a much smaller scale.

Ask the homeless guy if the waiter is wealthy and he'll say yes. Ask the waiter if the restaraunt owner is wealthy and he'll say yes. Ask the restaraunt owner if the franchise owner is wealthy and he'll say yes.

I wonder how many people will vote to try and get the handout, but aren't willing to share what surplus they have.

It is not the same thing. Not at all. Obama wants to redistribute wealth from the wealthy. The very wealthy. Not from someone who probably makes less than $20k/yr, assuming they are even a full-time employee. You're taking it the wrong way.

It's all about perspective, as someone else already pointed out. To the bum the waiter probably is wealthy. I know servers who make more than I do.

$200K isn't "the very wealthy." $250k for a couple isn't "the very wealthy." My parents combined probably pull in $150k-$180k depending on how my dad's firm does from year to year. Comfortable, yes. Very wealthy, no. They own a house and a couple cars. Add in 3 sons which they helped (or will soon help as is the case with my little brother) through college, and they're firmly middle class. And they live in Opelika, AL where the COL is pretty low. Imagine them living here in Birmingham, Atlanta, Nashville, or God forbid NYC, San Fran, LA, or Chicago.

mixduptransistor Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:I love how the liberal responses to this story can be summed up as "you meanie!" They can't refute the fact that what occurred is a smaller example of what they and Obama believe. Obama wants to give tax credits to people who don't pay taxes, which is the same as giving the homeless man the waiter's tip. One guy worked for the money, but the other guy was given the money. A perfect analogy for Obama's redistribution plans.

so when you walk onto my property, even though you aren't an immediate threat, does that mean I can shoot and kill you? I mean, it's the perfect analogy of the Bush/McCain military doctrine.

Ehh, lets see here. Hussein shot at our planes, deliberately flew in no-fly zones, and kicked UN weapons inspectors out of the country. I'd say that's a bit more than walking on the lawn. Oh, and he also crapped on our lawn for about 11 years.

dfarr Wrote:I love how the liberal responses to this story can be summed up as "you meanie!" They can't refute the fact that what occurred is a smaller example of what they and Obama believe. Obama wants to give tax credits to people who don't pay taxes, which is the same as giving the homeless man the waiter's tip. One guy worked for the money, but the other guy was given the money. A perfect analogy for Obama's redistribution plans.

Wrong.

A smaller example would be to tax ONE very rich man, and pass it on to a poor man.

Taking money from someone earning less than average income, and giving it to a homeless man is not the same at all. Not to mention that homeless man probably doesn't pay any taxes, so he wouldn't be able to get any tax credits. He would only be able to get money from the rich man if the rich man wanted him to have it.

Suede27 Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:I love how the liberal responses to this story can be summed up as "you meanie!" They can't refute the fact that what occurred is a smaller example of what they and Obama believe. Obama wants to give tax credits to people who don't pay taxes, which is the same as giving the homeless man the waiter's tip. One guy worked for the money, but the other guy was given the money. A perfect analogy for Obama's redistribution plans.

Wrong.

A smaller example would be to tax ONE very rich man, and pass it on to a poor man.

Taking money from someone earning less than average income, and giving it to a homeless man is not the same at all. Not to mention that homeless man probably doesn't pay any taxes, so he wouldn't be able to get any tax credits. He would only be able to get money from the rich man if the rich man wanted him to have it.

People who don't pay any taxes are going to be able to get the credits under Obama's plan. 40% of Americans don't pay any federal taxes, yet will still receive a check from the IRS under Obama's plan. Try to spin it any way you want, but the analogy still fits. It's taking money from a person who puts into the economy and giving it to someone who doesn't.

dfarr Wrote:Oh, and he also crapped on our lawn for about 11 years.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must've missed the news reports when the Iraqi Army or Air Force invaded sovereign United States territory.

mixduptransistor Wrote:

dfarr Wrote:Oh, and he also crapped on our lawn for about 11 years.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must've missed the news reports when the Iraqi Army or Air Force invaded sovereign United States territory.

Look, the blame for that can't be placed squarely on the shoulders of George Bush. Whether you beleive in the war or not, the fact is that nearly everyone voted for it, based on the intelligence that was given at the time. The problem is that by the time we figured out that it was bad intelligence, it was too late to just leave. We had to try and fix things, that's not been going to well, but that's what we do, it's what we've always done.

It seems that everyone else wanted to high-tail it out of there after we threw the baseball through the window and let the owners clean up our mess.

For the love, why is it so hard for you lefties to understand that at the root of the waiter story is what Obama wants to do: take money from those that have earned it and simply give it to those who did not. The rich/poor arguments are just qualifiers and do not change the underlying premise of the plan. Slice it and spin it how you want to but it still remains the same: redistribution of wealth.

BlazerFan11 Wrote:Why don't you two try to dispute it instead of just getting angry and calling people names? Plus, I think Mobile just passed this along from an e-mail (judging from the "Subject:" line) so stop taking it out on him. Obama wants to take from people who work hard to give it to people who don't. If you can't make the connection, you are either stupid or in denial of what your savior actually stands for. I'd guess the latter.

Yes, the email was forwarded from my email account...
Just so you dems will have better thoughts about me, I bought lunch for one of my doc offices today and tipped the Ruby Tuesday's bartender 23%......

I think you oversimplify the economic problems the next President will be faced with when you say "Take from those who work hard and give to those who don't (or won't ) work "Hard". There are millions of Americans who "work hard", but don't make a living wage. $20,000 per year is generally conceded to be "Poverty income" for an average family. That is about $10 per hour for a 40 hour week. Lots of workers make less than $10 per hour and work part-time jobs because that makes it easier for their employer.

To dismiss the poor by characterizing them as "lazy", "unwilling to work" and other patronizing labels, is very inaccurate. This economy has fathers working two jobs and their wife working at least one and they are still "POOR". Meanwhile they are being criticized because they have "latchkey kids" when they have no one to keep them until the "one job parent" can get home at night. Smug, condescending and self-righteous labeling are common themes in condemning those who have not been as financially successful as "they should have been". "I did it all by myself with no help from anyone , so anyone else can as well". The first part is usually not true and the second certainly isn't always the case.

We are seeing thousands of hard-working good Americans losing their "good jobs" everyday now as cutbacks are being announced by even the best companies. Chances are getting slimmer each day of replacing a "good job" with one of equal or better qualities of pay &/or benefits. By the late spring of 2009 when many say the economy will "bottom out", America will have millions dependent on their savings and retirement accounts just to keep their families fed, clothed and in their homes. Maybe our own "Dust Bowl" days are still a few years in our future. I hope they won't happen at all--after all I have over a dozen grandkids who are coming of age in the next decade.

I think all of us understand the difference between someone who works hard but doesn't make high wages and someone who CHOOSES not to work hard thus makes little/no wages. It is the latter that I have a serious problem with.

I put myself through school and have student loan debt just north of $100K. As a result of my hard work and sacrifice I have a great job that pays me very well but I have debt to cover. So, why should I have money taken away from me and given to the person who CHOOSES not to do what's necessary?

STLouis Blazer Wrote:I think all of us understand the difference between someone who works hard but doesn't make high wages and someone who CHOOSES not to work hard thus makes little/no wages. It is the latter that I have a serious problem with.

I put myself through school and have student loan debt just north of $100K. As a result of my hard work and sacrifice I have a great job that pays me very well but I have debt to cover. So, why should I have money taken away from me and given to the person who CHOOSES not to do what's necessary?

I think that's exactly the point. And we could go back and forth for ever. But saying that someone doesn't have what you have because they haven't tried is ignorant. You just can't say that and be right because you DON'T KNOW.

Did you not read the word I typed in all caps? It wasn't "tried" it was "choose."

Just because they tried and did not succeed doesn't mean I should be punished to compensate them for their lack of success.

It amazes me that people like BlazerUnit, Suede, MUT, etc want everyone to pay for each other's mistakes. There are lots of hard working people out there who try to start their own businesses, fail, and lose everything they have in the process. I'm sorry, but that's the risk that you take. My uncle tried it, and it didn't work. The simple fact that people actually believe in Obama's socialist ideologies boggles my mind. Whatever happened to the American belief in free will and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

But...but... but...that's different!

Barack Hussein Obama discovers a leak under his sink and calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.

Joe drives to Obama's house, which is in a very nice neighborhood where it's clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.

Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. He's shown the room that contains the leaky pipe under the sink. Joe figures it's an easy job that will take less than ten minutes. Obama is standing near the door and asks Joe how much it will cost.
Joe immediately says, "$9,500." "$9,500?" Obama replies stunned. "But you said it's an easy job!" "Yeah, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," responds Joe.

Obama tells Joe there's no way he's paying that much, so Joe leaves.
A week later the leak gets so bad that the Obamas have to put a bucket under the sink, and it fills up every two hours, so they call Joe back. Joe goes back to the Obamas, looks at the leaky pipe, and says "It'll cost you about $21,000." Obama immediately says "A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Joe explains, "Well, a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing we're doing for the people who make less than $250,000 - and I refuse to charge the lesser income people for plumbing work."
Obama tries to straighten out Joe. "But don't you get it? If all the rich people learn how to do their own plumbing and you won't charge the poor people, what will you do for money?"

Joe immediately replies, "Become a Democrat and run for president".

Sorry, but you guys are making it more and more obvious that deep down you just don't want to vote for the black man.

We've seen examples of socialism for years. But Obama does it, and it's "OMG WTF!?"

Suede27 Wrote:Sorry, but you guys are making it more and more obvious that deep down you just don't want to vote for the black man.

We've seen examples of socialism for years. But Obama does it, and it's "OMG WTF!?"

You keep telling yourself that. It's always about race, even though race hasn't been brought up once. It can't be because we don't like his beliefs, policies, or past. It's because he's half black. Seriously guy, get over the black thing. That ain't it. It's attitudes like yours that actually keep minorities down.