Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Read between the lines, the redistribution of wealth is implied. Adam Smith did mention that the rich should shoulder the larger burden of the government expenses as compared to the poor. Same way that the constitution never explicitly states a separation of church and state, but it is interpreted as so.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. "

It is pretty obvious to me that Smith is talking about a progressive income tax.

btw, progressive income taxes are a widely used method of income redistribution, or a means of wealth redistribution.

Just because they can be used in that way, does not mean that's what Smith is saying. If a progressive tax is socialist, then you're right Smith is a socialist, but I don't believe that fits the definition of socialist for most people. And under that definition our founding fathers were socialists.

[aurik]

The definition of unemployment is when a person is available to work and currently seeking work, but the person is without work. So if you're a full time student, you won't be included in that 6%. Matter of fact, if you're fully eligible/able to work, but you're not looking for work, you still won't be included in the stats.

Add to this, you need to have been recently employed as well. If you've been unemployed for long enough, you're no longer considered to be unemployed, even if you are still available and seeking work.

[aurik]

Just because they can be used in that way, does not mean that's what Smith is saying. If a progressive tax is socialist, then you're right Smith is a socialist, but I don't believe that fits the definition of socialist for most people. And under that definition our founding fathers were socialists.

And yet, people accuse Obama of having a socialist agenda primarily because he's a proponent of making taxes more progressive than they currently are. Yet that method of wealth redistribution was exactly what Smith, the founder of capitalism, proposed.


Also, still waiting for that Sarah Palin interview link.

[kuronosan]

Just because they can be used in that way, does not mean that's what Smith is saying. If a progressive tax is socialist, then you're right Smith is a socialist, but I don't believe that fits the definition of socialist for most people. And under that definition our founding fathers were socialists.

Our founding fathers acted sort of socialist in the beginning, until Washington was out of office and Adams took office.

[Valisk]

My beef is with the people in the world who are making millions of dollars a year and doing what? nothing. An example would be Actors/Actresses. Being paid more money per film, than you would ever spend in a lifetime is absolutely insane. This is the type of situation where I feel they could easily take 10% of their money for themselves and put the rest of the money where it is needed.

I disagree with this entirely. Actors/Actress/Athletes/Celebrities are paid based on a percentage of what they can generate as a whole. If Will Smith is making $20M a movie, it's because his movies are generating $100M+ in revenue. I think it's perfectly fine to be paid a percentage of money you can generate.

I was recently having a debate about Alex Rodriguiz's salary and someone mentioned something similar. That no one deserves that much money. I beg to differ because what the Yankees are paying him, they are generating 4 times as much with jersey sales, memorabilia, ticket sales, etc. It's also an investment. He wouldn't be getting paid that much if they didn't believe in his ability to better the team resulting in playoff births, world series titles, etc. which then results in more revenue for the team. Now you can make the argument that they should get paid AFTER they perform, but like stock market investments, you don't get dividends before risking dollars.

I personally consider myself a Republican but I "reached accross the aisle" and voted for Obama 2 days ago during early voting.

My Republican counterparts (i.e. SwampdonkeyPLD, Remyo) on this forum are making us look like a bunch of inhumane, greedy savages. I don't like the picture those two have painted of Republicans.

P.S. - aurik is wise

[_chuchu]

Tried to search a few pages back, but couldn't find this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122511432019071771.html

WASHINGTON -- A federal jury found Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens guilty Monday of accepting and concealing tens of thousands of dollars in free home renovations and other gifts, a felony conviction that may spell the end of the powerful Republican's political career.

Sen. Stevens's conviction on all seven counts boosts Democrats' hopes of capturing his seat in next week's election and achieving a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate. The 84-year-old senator is seeking his eighth Senate term against Democrat Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, and polls have showed a tight race.
[Ted Stevens] Getty Images

Sen. Ted Stevens at the courthouse.

Senate Democrats have poured more than $2.2 million into the contest, drawing attention to the corruption case with a stream of television ads.

In a statement, Sen. Stevens said he will continue his campaign. He said he is innocent and will fight the verdict, which he attributed to the "unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial."

If Sen. Stevens is re-elected, the Senate eventually will hold hearings to decide if he should be expelled, but it is likely to wait until he has exhausted any appeals. If he is elected and later steps down, his successor would be chosen by special election under Alaska state law.
video
Sen. Stevens Found Guilty in Corruption Trial
70:00

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican, was found guilty of failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts from from an oil-services executive and other friends. Video courtesy of Reuters. (Oct. 28)

During a four-week trial, prosecutors claimed Sen. Stevens received more than $250,000 of free home renovations and gifts from an oil-services executive and other friends, and never reported the items on Senate disclosure forms. They said Veco Corp. and its founder, Bill Allen, spent tens of thousands of dollars transforming Sen. Stevens's once-modest Alaska cabin into a stylish home with a new first floor, wraparound deck and other amenities. They also said Mr. Allen and others gave Sen. Stevens furniture, a gas grill, tools and other gifts.

Denying all wrongdoing, Sen. Stevens said he paid every renovation bill he received, contending that he exercised little oversight on the project because his wife was in charge. Sen. Stevens said he had no idea Mr. Allen was paying for part of the project.

The senator took the stand but struggled to explain himself. He said some items that he received and had in his home for years weren't gifts.
More on the Case

* Wash Wire: What's Next for Stevens
* Law Blog: Should Stevens Have Testified?

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, said Veco's influence on the state "was part of the culture of corruption I was elected to fight." She called it a "sad day for Alaska" but didn't say whether she thinks Sen. Stevens should step down.

Gov. Palin didn't endorse the senator in his re-election bid this year, but she featured his endorsement in campaign ads during her 2006 gubernatorial run. She has worked with Sen. Stevens to secure federal funds for Alaska.

Alaska Democrats called for Sen. Stevens's resignation. "He knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyway and lied to Alaskans about it," said Patti Higgins, chairwoman of the Alaska Democratic Party.

Alaska Republican state Rep. Jay Ramras disagreed. "I think we saw a jury that showed geographic bias," said Mr. Ramras. "He should have been tried in Alaska.

Alaska Rep. Don Young, an 18-term Republican, is facing his own corruption investigation involving Veco. Rep. Young, who hasn't been charged, barely won his party's primary and is trailing his Democratic challenger.

Sen. Stevens may have several issues to pursue on appeal, particularly related to what he called "repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct." During the trial, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan criticized prosecutors for withholding information favorable to Sen. Stevens's defense and for introducing other evidence they knew to be false. But he rejected a defense request for a mistrial or dismissal of the charges.

Given his age, clean record and history of public service, Sen. Stevens is unlikely receive a long prison sentence, and may not serve any time, observers said. Judge Sullivan said he will consider motions on Feb. 25 and set a sentencing date after that. Sen. Stevens remains free on personal recognizance.

Longest serving Republican in the Senate right now amirite?

Edit: Palin issued a statement urging Stevens to step down AFTER McCain did it. Monkey see monkey do, etc.

[Dimmauk]

Yup and McCain and Palin both asked for him to resign. He is also running against a Dem for his seat too. Looks like the Dems might get another seat.

[GRT]

In Alaska? Blasphemy!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

And yet, people accuse Obama of having a socialist agenda primarily because he's a proponent of making taxes more progressive than they currently are. Yet that method of wealth redistribution was exactly what Smith, the founder of capitalism, proposed.


Also, still waiting for that Sarah Palin interview link.

They're accusing him of being a socialist because his refundable tax credits would outweigh the taxes they pay, unless he changed that. And then there's the comments.

And I was mistaken, they weren't interviews of her, they were questions they posed of other people, not her directly.

[0ni0n]

They're accusing him of being a socialist because his refundable tax credits would outweigh the taxes they pay, unless he changed that. And then there's the comments.

And I was mistaken, they weren't interviews of her, they were questions they posed of other people, not her directly.

Isn't McCain also giving $5,000 healthcare credits to the majority of americans?

[kuronosan]

Isn't McCain also giving $5,000 healthcare credits to the majority of americans?

That's blasphemy! He would never do such a thing!

[Jaybar]

The definition of unemployment is when a person is available to work and currently seeking work, but the person is without work. So if you're a full time student, you won't be included in that 6%. Matter of fact, if you're fully eligible/able to work, but you're not looking for work, you still won't be included in the stats.

To add to this, 78 million people are not included in the labor force. That includes the ages of 16 to 55+.

Those people that aren't included are:

• Do not want a job now (1)
• Want a job (1)
• Did not search for work in previous year
• Searched for work in previous year (2)
• Not available to work now
• Available to work now (see link for reasons)

(1) Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job.
(2) Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched since the end of that job.
(3) Includes believes no work available, could not find work, lacks necessary schooling or training, employer thinks too
young or old, and other types of discrimination.


This is all from here

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Isn't McCain also giving $5,000 healthcare credits to the majority of americans?

I don't think they're refundable.

[aurik]

And I was mistaken, they weren't interviews of her, they were questions they posed of other people, not her directly.

My point precisely. Sarah Palin hasn't faced nearly any unprofessional questions, and certainly none as bad as the ones asked of Biden in that interview--she's faced very few questions period.

Many conservatives have convinced themselves to believe otherwise, and they're wrong.

[Zosi]

I don't think they're refundable.

I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care. I want to double the dividend, from $3,500 to $7,000, for every dependent child in America. I know that the worst thing we could possibly do is to raise taxes on anybody.

Sup.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

My point precisely. Sarah Palin hasn't faced nearly any unprofessional questions, and certainly none as bad as the ones asked of Biden in that interview--she's faced very few questions period.

Many conservatives have convinced themselves to believe otherwise, and they're wrong.

It's still disgusting whether or not they were directly asked to her or not.

Zosi: McCain's a socialist then I suppose. Maybe that's why he could only get 70% of the vote when he had 0 competition.

Edit: To add a bit, either McCain doesn't know his own tax plan, or all the conservative columnists who have commented on it can't read it. None of them read it as refundable. Either way kinda messed up.

[aurik]

It's still disgusting whether or not they were directly asked to her or not.

OK, but that's not the point.

The point is that conservatives have deluded themselves into actually believing that Palin was asked anything even remotely as unprofessional as that Biden interview.

[Olo401]

Did you not read what I posted? Where in that quote is Smith talking about redistribution of wealth? A progressive tax in and of itself is not socialist. If you're referring to Marx, he said a progressive income tax. I don't see Smith talking about a progressive income tax. Unless he goes on to say that the funds from that tax should fund the poor then I must be reading something different.

Just because they can be used in that way, does not mean that's what Smith is saying. If a progressive tax is socialist, then you're right Smith is a socialist, but I don't believe that fits the definition of socialist for most people. And under that definition our founding fathers were socialists.

http://www.womenforjohnmccain.com/wp...lm-300x259.jpg

I give up.. I really really do. When you figure it out, put an X on your window and I'll get back to you (get it? "I WANT TO BELIEVE"?)

Yes. I'm a stalker. Ooga booga.

[ZarakiKujata]

Yup and McCain and Palin both asked for him to resign. He is also running against a Dem for his seat too. Looks like the Dems might get another seat.

Begich had been narrowly ahead in polls for a while now; if anything this verdict just means that the Dems can reduce the money they are spending on Stevens and focus on McConnell or Mississippi or NC or Georgia.

[Plow]

I disagree with this entirely. Actors/Actress/Athletes/Celebrities are paid based on a percentage of what they can generate as a whole. If Will Smith is making $20M a movie, it's because his movies are generating $100M+ in revenue. I think it's perfectly fine to be paid a percentage of money you can generate.

I was recently having a debate about Alex Rodriguiz's salary and someone mentioned something similar. That no one deserves that much money. I beg to differ because what the Yankees are paying him, they are generating 4 times as much with jersey sales, memorabilia, ticket sales, etc. It's also an investment. He wouldn't be getting paid that much if they didn't believe in his ability to better the team resulting in playoff births, world series titles, etc. which then results in more revenue for the team. Now you can make the argument that they should get paid AFTER they perform, but like stock market investments, you don't get dividends before risking dollars.

I personally consider myself a Republican but I "reached accross the aisle" and voted for Obama 2 days ago during early voting.

My Republican counterparts (i.e. SwampdonkeyPLD, Remyo) on this forum are making us look like a bunch of inhumane, greedy savages. I don't like the picture those two have painted of Republicans.

P.S. - aurik is wise

The problem with that argument about atheletes is that it's raw greed, hundred to thousand dollar tickets because the atheletes want a bigger percentage and the owners aren't about to give up their own profits to provide it (when they do it's made into a big deal about how cool they are) are dumb as hell.