Last time I looked, Uncle Sam was "us". Another "out of one pocket, into another" proposal.

Uncle Sam Can Fund Retirement - Obama

quote:

To encourage low- and moderate-income people to stay in the plan, Obama would provide a federally-funded match for families earning less than $75,000 who set aside money in a retirement account at work or on their own. The government match - 50% of up to $1,000 in savings - would be a refundable tax credit directly deposited into an IRA.

"Federally funded" => "Taxpayer funded"

Sounds kinda like the tax credits for health insurance McCain wants to hand out.

quote:

A tax credit to help individuals and families buy health insurance is at the heart of a health care proposal Sen. John McCain unveiled Tuesday.

Link.

Tax credits for the poor => "Taxpayer funded"

Oh and how about those credits the congress is giving to big business..... Link.

Tax credits for the poor big business => "Taxpayer funded"

Yes WS everyone wants to give away our hard earned money.

Good! Drag equivalence in again. Fine by me since I don't particularly like McCain's health insurance plan either and I've long been opposed to tax credits for big business. Some of them (big oil's) would be gone now if Democrats quit linking elimination of them to implementing "cap and trade". The recent Ag bill was yet another election year gift to farmers large and small.

But ... I thought Obama was about change, not more of the same.

You put Obama's name in the post. Trying to act like a you are in some way nonpartisan just does not work.

Oh and he is about change, too bad it is not the change you are looking for. You had eight years. Step aside.

LOL. Funny man. Pretty hard not to put Obama's name in the post since it is his plan and his name is all over the article. In fact, I used the title exactly as CNN-Money titled it. I figure Obama's change will be about like that of Pelosi's/Reid's and the Democrats' campaign promise in 2006 to eliminate earmarks. Hollow.

Nothing hallow about it.

I don't see how could you possibly bring in Pelosi/Reid into this particular debate when they are not even related to this topic, except for their party affiliation. Further I don't think I have ever heard a post of yours criticize what was done over the period Lewis/Stevens were in charge. Talk about pork.

In the end you sure seem like a republican hack to me. I see you throw a few token "I don't like McSame" when you get called on it.

LOL LOL LOL. Speaking of party hacks ...

I didn't say I didn't like McCain. I said I didn't like his stance on a particular issue. I could name others, McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold for example, where I disagree.

Seems to me that if I, with my relatively moderate conservative stance, qualify as a RNC hack, you must be a charter member of Daily Kos and the moonbat crowd.

Repubs did well on pork, no question about it. I opposed it then as I opposed it now. Have belonged to CAGW for over 5 years and one of the upsides to a Democrat-run Congress was the unkept promise of "no pork". That's an issue, not an ideological position.

By the way, you are correct. There is "nothing hallow about it" ... but I suspect it IS "hollow".

I have never tried to hide my party affiliation. I am currently a registered democrat after many years as a republican. Bush cured me.

Still you talk about equivalence, you do it all the time and then try to play your self off as an open minded independent.

quote:

Repubs did well on pork

Oh and they still are if you haven't noticed, those from both the legislative and executive branches.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
I have never tried to hide my party affiliation. I am currently a registered democrat after many years as a republican. Bush cured me.

Still you talk about equivalence, you do it all the time and then try to play your self off as an open minded independent.

No Sir! I have never claimed independent status. I leave that to my husband. I have been and remain a Republican, albeit moderately, not hard line, conservative.

The only thing I "play myself off as" is issue-centric within my moderate conservatism - and that's because I am.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
I have never tried to hide my party affiliation. I am currently a registered democrat after many years as a republican. Bush cured me.

Still you talk about equivalence, you do it all the time and then try to play your self off as an open minded independent.

No Sir! I have never claimed independent status. I leave that to my husband. I have been and remain a Republican, albeit moderately, not hard line, conservative.

I'll have to look back and see.

quote:

Still you talk about equivalence, you do it all the time and then try to play your self off as an open minded independent.

ok moderate republican....who uses equivalence all the time...or are you going to deny that?

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

Still you talk about equivalence, you do it all the time and then try to play your self off as an open minded independent.

ok moderate republican....who uses equivalence all the time...or are you going to deny that?

Yep.

Do I get to quote you on your other names?

Oh and I have got over 138 matches to Clinton alone.....when the topics were related to stuff Bush has or is doing.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
Do I get to quote you on your other names?

You can quote me on Jade_Gate. That is the only other name I have used on this board. I "resigned" when military.com took down ITN on 1 June and my account was closed by customer service the same day. I rejoined when ITN was restored and will resign again if it gets taken down a second time. So feel free to quote Jade_Gate til the cows come home.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
Oh and I have got over 138 matches to Clinton alone.....when the topics were related to stuff Bush has or is doing.

Feel free to quote anything that shows a drawing of equivalence. Won't say it never happened but certainly don't do it very often, much less "all the time".

quote:

Won't say it never happened but certainly don't do it very often, much less "all the time". Wink

LOL

OK. So if you "didn't do it often", but did it at all, why is it wrong for me to do it???

Just curious.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

Won't say it never happened but certainly don't do it very often, much less "all the time". Wink

LOL

OK. So if you "didn't do it often", but did it at all, why is it wrong for me to do it???

Just curious.

I'm waiting for your examples of where I did it even a few times. By now I'm sure you've found the threads that have not yet archived where I declared myself as Republican and conservative (Strike 1) and have had a chance to look at some of those 128 or whatever Clinton-Bush comments without finding equivalence. What now?

Equivalence is a common argument so I guess there is nothing inherently wrong with using it but, IMHO, it is a rather lame argument. Using one "bad" to justify another "bad" doesn't move the ball forward or occupy the high ground. A weak defense at best but, when that's all you've got, I guess you use it.

Why is it?.....what crazy mindset? If your earnings are just above the poverty line....suddenly liberals feel you should have some strong desire to support the impoverished....the junkies...and all ne'er-do-wells of society.

Is that f'n socialism or what?

Instead of giving someone a handout.....give them a packet of seeds and tell them to get to work.

I'm retired on a limited income......yet the politicians and other's have designs on what I've worked hard for all my life to earn.

The world don't owe you s-hit, Jack! You owe it to yourself to earn and provide for your family.

Give a man a fish and he can survive for a day.........teach a man to fish and he trys to steal your tackle box!

Dang, I was waiting for someone to bust the arguement between uber-liberal and the newbie (who turned out not to be).

Y'all should get a room. Get a little foursome going.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
Oh and he is about change, too bad it is not the change you are looking for. You had eight years. Step aside.

Horsescheisse. Change right back to collectivist idiocy of the past. Nothing new, just more transfer from those who sacrifice and come by their advantages honestly, to those who could do more for themselves but fail to push and discipline themselves, since demagogue polytishuns like Nobama promise to bail their *sses out of their self-imposed problems.

Reid and Pelosi belong, since the underlying collectivist, loser philosophy that weak, deluded, and greedy folks see and like in Nobama runs rampant through their ineffectuality, as well.

And the jackasses brayed in the WH eight years before George Bush set foot in it. All they did is fail to take aggressive steps to preclude the likes of 9/11 and leave the economy in a downward spin that it only came out of after Bush's tax cuts helped turn things around into positive territory.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty: Last time I looked, Uncle Sam was "us". Another "out of one pocket, into another" proposal.

"Federally funded" => "Taxpayer funded"

The only way trhat peopel begin to make smart choices is when the money is theirs to do with as they choose, no guvmint intrusion and arm-twisting. Applies whether retirement or medical.

The whole matter is easily fixed, if people are just allowed to keep more of what they earn. Instead, the collectivist control freaks want to first take the money people make; run it through a bureaucracy that scrapes off 25% just to sustain the bureaucrats and their overheads; then give it back in programs that are tardy and inaccurate in providing timely, necessary support, whether for retirement or medical purposes. KISS. Leave the money people make in THEIR OWN hands. Cuts down on bureaucrats who add no value and only suck up resources; enables people to react more quickly and accurately to what THEY KNOW they need; encourages people to work harder, since they get to keep more of what they sacrifice to create.

But, naw, the greedy, intrusive, freedom-mocking leftists never saw another man's money they didn't want. . . fricking thieves, hiding behind bullsh*t rationalizations to justify their corrupt ideas--the same contemptible failures as the Soviets and other Warsaw Pact regimes, who led their people down the road to serfdom.

quote:

Originally posted by I_M_Qwerty:

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:

quote:

Won't say it never happened but certainly don't do it very often, much less "all the time". Wink

LOL

OK. So if you "didn't do it often", but did it at all, why is it wrong for me to do it???

Just curious.

I'm waiting for your examples of where I did it even a few times. By now I'm sure you've found the threads that have not yet archived where I declared myself as Republican and conservative (Strike 1) and have had a chance to look at some of those 128 or whatever Clinton-Bush comments without finding equivalence. What now?

Equivalence is a common argument so I guess there is nothing inherently wrong with using it but, IMHO, it is a rather lame argument. Using one "bad" to justify another "bad" doesn't move the ball forward or occupy the high ground. A weak defense at best but, when that's all you've got, I guess you use it.

I have no time nor inclination to prove something you have already admitted. Still you have a rather lame statement about change:

quote:

But ... I thought Obama was about change, not more of the same.

Well there you go, thinking. It in fact does represent change. The current administration has been about consumption (consume after 9/11, consume to escape the recession, big government spending, etc.), Obama wants to encourage savings. Figured people like you would listen to people like Governor Bobby Jindal and get back to your republican roots.

quote:

The current administration has been about consumption (consume after 9/11, consume to escape the recession, big government spending, etc.), Obama wants to encourage savings. Figured people like you would listen to people like Governor Bobby Jindal and get back to your republican roots.

Nothing wrong with encouraging savings. In fact, I applaud it. Everyone should have a Roth IRA. His plan, even the "opt out" vs "opt in" part that many would object to, was ok by me until I got to the part about dipping into other schmucks' pockets to match savings up to $500 for folks making less than $75K a year. That's income redistribution no matter how you slice the lemon.

Don't you get a bit tired of using phrases such as "people like you"? You seem to be degenerating into ad hominem comments much more frequently of late.