Jump to content

NObama: Marxist Ideology in America?


Toggle3

Recommended Posts

Let's see this editorial: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...305420655186700

Investor's Business Daily seems to be an advocate of capitalism with few governmental restrictions. I can see why the newspaper is against many of Obama's proposals as the newspaper feels they go against free trade. Please keep in mind that this is an editorial, and I found some parts of it that I feel weren't explained enough.

The editorial, "Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals," talks about the group using "threats, pressure, tension and confrontation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Crunch, here we go with your "Humvees and Tanks rolling down your street", thing again. Do you truly believe that "The Patriot Act" was aimed at YOU , or any law abiding citizen in this country ? Just for giggles, in your mind, who was the Patriot Act structured towards ?

Laws are "aimed" at anyone and everyone. They change some law abiding citizens into law breaking citizens, and vice versa. The Patriot Act changed a law breaking government into a law abiding government by taking away that government's citizen's rights. Do you think there's some exclusion for Crunch in the text?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the Founding fathers wanted America to be like the last eight years. The Founding Fathers were all for change why do you think we are not apart of England any more? Did you watch the debate tonight? All Obama wants for this country is the very best. Obama has a family, Wife ,and children and saying he is like Karl Marx and other lies is one of the reason people are going around saying things like kill him and other horrible comments. I think it is wrong to spreed lies that could have the potential to harm someone and frankly I think it is beneath America. -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crunch, here we go with your "Humvees and Tanks rolling down your street", thing again. Do you truly believe that "The Patriot Act" was aimed at YOU , or any law abiding citizen in this country ? Just for giggles, in your mind, who was the Patriot Act structured towards ?

The Patriot Act is not 'aimed' at anyone. However, it includes everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cotton, is that any more enlightening than McCain supporters...even on this forum...railing against socialism, when McCain is proposing to buy up home mortgages at full price from lenders and renegotiating them according to their ability to pay? You know, "...to each according to need".

Is it any different than McCain supporters railing against 'out of control spending' when McCain's fiscal policies would increase the National Debt 50% more than Obama's?

Dude, I never said I *liked* McCain (although I am going to have to vote for him), I just said that I think a lot of Obama's support is for vapid and unserious reasons.

Going back to the plumber quote ("spread the wealth around"), the fact that Obama starts from the assumption that "the people behind you" are unable to succeed on their own is antithetical to my personal beliefs and should be to anyone who has studied the history of this country and understands the reasons its economic success over the years. This country is different BECAUSE we don't have an institutionalized upper class or a landed gentry and success is available to anyone. Not everyone is going to succeed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent everyone from succeeding by redistributing the results of their labor.

Here is the full quote:

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance at success, too."

This is AMERICA. By definition everyone already has an equal chance at success. Inequality of outcome does not mean that not everybody had an equal "chance" so why does the outcome need to be changed? I'm not saying that there isn't more that can be done to improve everyone's chances, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of someone else's outcome. This is what bothers me about the whole trend in this country, recently in my personal perspective but really historically since the end of the Civil War, of attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK. There's a very good book about that very subject.

I will be the first to agree that a massive percentage of the electorate, perhaps 90% or more, is comprised of morons voting strictly on the letter at the end of the candidates' names. This is every bit as true for the GOP as the Democratic Party.

Probably so, but I'm not talking about parties, I am talking about Obama. I would argue that to blindly support a party, you would at least have to have some idea about the party's ideology and found something - however tenuous - that you agree with to gain your support. My argument about Obama is that there are many people who simply see having a young black president as a desirable thing, regardless or politics or ideology. I'm not saying that they don't desire his election for no reason or unthinkingly, just that they support him for reasons not relating to the more legitimate issues that should be considered when choosing a president.

Nor am I saying that all of Obama's supporters feel this way, I just get the feeling based on poll results and Obama's relative popularity compared to older white Democrat politicians with similar politics that a very large portion of his support is for reasons other than his ideology.

I don't think this is necessarily the same thing as voting for Tom Delay or Rick Perry just because they're Republicans. It's similar, but not the same.

This thread is exhibit number 1. But, just as the GOP cannot rely on true conservatives to get elected, neither can the Dems rely on intelligent liberals or centrists. There are simply too few intelligent and principled voters on either side to gain a majority of the vote. So, what do they do? The GOP tries to lure the greedy rich with promises of tax breaks, and fills in the gaps with with morality plays on abortion, gays, 'evil doers' and religion. The Dems try to paint the middle class and poor as victims of the rich.

Depending on the climate, the moderates will identify with one group or the other. This year, it is hard not to feel significantly more poor than in past elections. McCain, and other Republicans, are hard pressed to paint themselves as friends of the middle class when they've been as such fiends of the rich in the past. Given the percentage of voters who do not research the issues and candidates, but instead get their info from cable news and talk radio, neither candidate can expect to win on the truth. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the Dow is a better predictor of the winner than the debates.

The fact that morons are also voting for Obama does not does not dilute the research that I have put into my vote. The fact that morons are voting for McCain does not dilute your decision to vote for McCain. They simply make the forum more fun to read.

I dunno. I hear what you're saying, but it still bothers me that we treat voting so flippantly in this country under the ironic pretense that it's a sacred "right" that cannot be abridged so we do nothing to protect it: not asking for ID, making it as easy as possible to register (multiple times, even), and tripping over ourselves to encourage the least informed and uneducated among us to participate. Yes, there are thoughtful people on both sides, but this system we have is screwed up because we end up having to pander to ignorant people who shouldn't have a vote in the first place. Granted, McCain is a special case this year among Republicans (which isn't the same thing as being conservative), but if you are so uninformed and/or ignorant to not have a clear preference this late in process, then your vote isn't going to be a thoughtful one. Why should that vote still be as valuable as that of someone who actually does care enough to have a formed a thoughtful opinion over time?

Why do we have to pander to these people by promising to give them things they haven't earned or playing to their religious and moral beliefs?

I guess we are saying the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama has a family, Wife ,and children and saying he is like Karl Marx and other lies is one of the reason people are going around saying things like kill him and other horrible comments. I think it is wrong to spreed lies that could have the potential to harm someone and frankly I think it is beneath America. -_-

I must also add that there are different schools of Marxism that mean different things. I highly doubt that there is any significant political support for a USSR-like economy and lack of private ownership in the United States. We like our private property in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Marxist takeover folks are funny. I get a kick out of reading them. My Dad is one of y'all too! He built a safe room in his house... in the middle of nowhere Texas!

I pay taxes in the highest tax bracket. I should personally be concerned about this supposed "class jihad" being waged by Obama. But, I am not. Quite frankly, a Marxist takeoever might actually help my portfolio compared to the last 2 weeks of our "free market" system. All joking aside; Obama is no more a Marxist than Bush/McCain are true capitalists. We've been a socialist country for many decades. That's the truth. Wrap your head around it and deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must also add that there are different schools of Marxism that mean different things. I highly doubt that there is any significant political support for a USSR-like economy and lack of private ownership in the United States. We like our private property in the US.

.......and Obama wants to give some of your private property that YOU worked so hard and paid for, to the guy that decided to not work so hard, get a govt. check and go blow his money on indian food and video games. Obama's reasoning being, "Hey, you can afford just a little bit, look how much you got here, SPREAD THE WEALTH ,Comrade."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cottonmather, I understand your point but I don't think the paragraph really attacks Obama's argument.

I think a start would be to say "Mr. Obama, we already have an equality of chance because of a lack of an established political elite, X, Y, and Z" - This would contradict Obama's statement - it may help to look around for more context to see who he is speaking to and what he uses to support his argument. Attack these support columns and address them.

You said: "attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK." - Are you referring to the "When they came for the A, I said nothing because of X. When they came for the B, I said nothing because of Y. When they came for me, nobody spoke up for us." ?

Which voting sites do not require ID? I think ALL ought to require ID. Voting is sacred and therefore we must ensure that people do not use ID to exclude people, but we should also ensure that as few people as possible try to cheat the system.

This is AMERICA. By definition everyone already has an equal chance at success. Inequality of outcome does not mean that not everybody had an equal "chance" so why does the outcome need to be changed? I'm not saying that there isn't more that can be done to improve everyone's chances, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of someone else's outcome. This is what bothers me about the whole trend in this country, recently in my personal perspective but really historically since the end of the Civil War, of attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK. There's a very good book about that very subject.

Probably so, but I'm not talking about parties, I am talking about Obama. I would argue that to blindly support a party, you would at least have to have some idea about the party's ideology and found something - however tenuous - that you agree with to gain your support. My argument about Obama is that there are many people who simply see having a young black president as a desirable thing, regardless or politics or ideology. I'm not saying that they don't desire his election for no reason or unthinkingly, just that they support him for reasons not relating to the more legitimate issues that should be considered when choosing a president.

Nor am I saying that all of Obama's supporters feel this way, I just get the feeling based on poll results and Obama's relative popularity compared to older white Democrat politicians with similar politics that a very large portion of his support is for reasons other than his ideology.

I don't think this is necessarily the same thing as voting for Tom Delay or Rick Perry just because they're Republicans. It's similar, but not the same.

I dunno. I hear what you're saying, but it still bothers me that we treat voting so flippantly in this country under the ironic pretense that it's a sacred "right" that cannot be abridged so we do nothing to protect it: not asking for ID, making it as easy as possible to register (multiple times, even), and tripping over ourselves to encourage the least informed and uneducated among us to participate. Yes, there are thoughtful people on both sides, but this system we have is screwed up because we end up having to pander to ignorant people who shouldn't have a vote in the first place. Granted, McCain is a special case this year among Republicans (which isn't the same thing as being conservative), but if you are so uninformed and/or ignorant to not have a clear preference this late in process, then your vote isn't going to be a thoughtful one. Why should that vote still be as valuable as that of someone who actually does care enough to have a formed a thoughtful opinion over time?

Why do we have to pander to these people by promising to give them things they haven't earned or playing to their religious and moral beliefs?

I guess we are saying the same thing.

Edited by VicMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best part of the Debate last night was Obama QUICKLY changing the subject to "who he hangs out with now." As if it doesn't matter who or what his past is about. Maybe that's the CHANGE Obama has been spewing about ? Obama wants to CHANGE the subject if he isn't projected in a good light ?

Edited by TJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vines, he could send his kids to public school... in DC, Maryland, or Virginia.

The last presidential child to attend public school was Amy Carter, who went to a middle school in DC.

the real question that will show what Obama really is

will Obama send his two daughters to the total ghetto hell holes that are DC public schools or will Obama go the private school route

I have no doubt that Obama will send HIS "chilwren" to private schools and you will hear all kinds of BS excuses about security and not wanting to disrupt other "chilwerns" educations, but we (as in anyone with a brain) will know that is totally 100% BS and that Obama thinks his kids are too good for ghetto DC indoctrination while no one else needs to bother to have a vocher for choice for their kids because the ignorant leftist will take care of indoctrinating them just fine in failed ghetto hell hole schools

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vines, he could send his kids to public school... in DC, Maryland, or Virginia.

The last presidential child to attend public school was Amy Carter, who went to a middle school in DC.

wait you are kidding me....you mean the clintons would not send precious chesely to DC public hell hole schools

why would Obama send his daughters to DC or Maryland......what excatly would be wrong with the wonderful public schools in DC that would make Obama want to CHOOSE another area to send his kids....yet deny anyone else that choice.....sort of like the clintons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vines: Yeah - the Clintons sent Chelsea to private school.

The Clintons could have sent Chelsea to the DC public school serving Georgetown or to Maryland. There's an article written by a guy who wanted the Clintons to send Chelsea to public school: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m131...v24/ai_13251712 - When she was in Arkansas (incl. when Clinton was governor) Chelsea went to public school.

If Obama goes Maryland, all Obama needs to do, Vines, is that he could ask the Maryland school district to accept a limited number of transfers from Washington DC. The transfers would have to maintain good grades and not get into trouble. As Obama is a former university professor, I am sure that he will have no problem ensuring his kids do well in school.

wait you are kidding me....you mean the clintons would not send precious chesely to DC public hell hole schools

why would Obama send his daughters to DC or Maryland......what excatly would be wrong with the wonderful public schools in DC that would make Obama want to CHOOSE another area to send his kids....yet deny anyone else that choice.....sort of like the clintons

Edited by VicMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, there's so much nonsense and fearmongering in this thread, I had to jump in.

Obama's history and background is SOAKED in Marxism. Redistribution of wealth, pandering to other dangerous world leaders, unilateral nuclear disarmament, unlimited abortion and ILLEGAL immigration, snide remarks about gun owners and talk radio (which cuts to the core of freedom of speech), etc. But...that doesn't seem to matter to his loyal minions who are brainwashed with the "hope and change" mantra.

Redistribution of wealth: False. It's absurd to call Obama a socialist based on his tax policy. The United States has been using a progressive income tax since the inception of the modern income tax. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported various progressive income tax models. The top tax bracket has been as hight as 94%, and Obama's plan to restore it to 39.6%, which is less than it was even under most of the Reagan administration. You may prefer calling it redistribution of wealth, but you can't pin this on Obama. The progressive income tax has been around for nearly a century.

Pandering to other dangerous world leaders: False. Obama has never claimed nor alluded to a policy of pandering to dangerous leaders. This was McCain putting words in his mouth. Obama has merely stated that he'd be willing to open diplomatic relations in order to deal with issues like national security and trade. President Bush has recently begun following Obama's lead and doing just that.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament: False. Obama has stated that he wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles, not unilaterally disarm. Seems like a good idea to me.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/562/

Unlimited abortion and ILLEGAL immigration: False and False. The unlimited abortion claim is a bogus one that Palin has been spreading during campaign rallies. Obama has even stated publicly that he believes the state can restrict late-term abortions. The idea that Obama prefers illegal immigration is also absurd. Here is his immigration plan.. Here is a statement by Obama on illegal immigration from 2006.

Snide remarks about gun owners and talk radio: Ok, so he may have hurt a few feelings when he suggested that some people cling to guns when they feel bitter. That's not the most elegant statement he's made, but it's probably true. Consider the context...Obama comes from a city rife with gun violence.

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/06/...im-stunned.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/chicago_loses_mor...to_gun_violence

And can you blame Obama if he ever made snide remarks about talk radio? These are the people making false claims like

Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born outside the U.S....raised in a foreign school for Islamic extremists...now residing here with his anti-American wife as a sleeper terrorist...working in collaboration with domestic terrorists...he intends to raise everybody’s taxes.
So, if Obama has made a snide comment regarding the people who make these claims, more power to him.
.......and Obama wants to give some of your private property that YOU worked so hard and paid for, to the guy that decided to not work so hard, get a govt. check and go blow his money on indian food and video games. Obama's reasoning being, "Hey, you can afford just a little bit, look how much you got here, SPREAD THE WEALTH ,Comrade."

Again, are you just complaining about the progressive income tax? You should spread that blame with every President since Woodrow Wilson.

Edited by barracuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought up where LIBERAL politicans send their kids to school because I believe that teachers unions and ignorant leftist have killed public education in America and I am a strong proponent of vouchers for choice

yet every leftist fool is against vouchers, but when push comes to shove and it is time to put up they always send THEIR "chilwren" to private schools because they know the very systems they champion are failed and suck

and no some contrived plan to send kids to Maryland and let a few others come with them does not impress me....how about giving ALL parents a voucher and letting them making a choice that is best for their "chilwren" and or children

it is amazing some fight so hard for "choice" on abortion then they are so opposed to choice once the child is born

it is all part of marxist "theology"....tell everyone what is best for them then do the opposite for you and yours

again why would Obama need to make some deal with Maryland.....why would he just not send his "chilwren" right to the closest DC public school.....is there something wrong with them?

Edited by TexasVines
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought up where LIBERAL politicans send their kids to school because I believe that teachers unions and ignorant leftist have killed public education in America and I am a strong proponent of vouchers for choice

I can see why you are angry. Public schools have clearly failed you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, there's so much nonsense and fearmongering in this thread, I had to jump in.

Redistribution of wealth: False. It's absurd to call Obama a socialist based on his tax policy. The United States has been using a progressive income tax since the inception of the modern income tax. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported various progressive income tax models. The top tax bracket has been as hight as 94%, and Obama's plan to restore it to 39.6%, which is less than it was even under most of the Reagan administration. You may prefer calling it redistribution of wealth, but you can't pin this on Obama. The progressive income tax has been around for nearly a century.

Again, are you just complaining about the progressive income tax? You should spread that blame with every President since Woodrow Wilson.

There is no falsehood, there. It was socialist policy when it was implemented, it has been socialist policy supported by both parties, it is socialist policy today, and it will be socialist policy when it is contorted by Obama such as he proposes. There is no question as to what it is or that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan political support. The point of contention as it pertains to this particular presidential election is whether it should be a milder form or more extreme form of socialist policy.

Your counterargument seems to address semantics and provides some history; it fails to address the crux of the matter. In fact, by my reading, it looks like you're saying "It is absurd to call Obama a socialist because he's only more extreme of a socialist than the other candidate." That's pretty weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redistribution of wealth: False. It's absurd to call Obama a socialist based on his tax policy. The United States has been using a progressive income tax since the inception of the modern income tax. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported various progressive income tax models. The top tax bracket has been as hight as 94%, and Obama's plan to restore it to 39.6%, which is less than it was even under most of the Reagan administration. You may prefer calling it redistribution of wealth, but you can't pin this on Obama. The progressive income tax has been around for nearly a century.

No, it IS redistribution of wealth. And I most certainly CAN pin it on Obama and the larger Democratic party. As for the Obama tax cut: It's a LIE. There's no way he can pay for all those socialist programs he wants without raising taxes and he knows that. Again, Democrats and higher taxes are like peanut butter and jelly. Bill Clinton promised a tax cut during his campaigns and it didn't happen. In fact, again...in true Democrat form...he raised them. Nevertheless, taxing the so-called "rich" who make $250,000 a year is only going to help crash the economy. Companies WILL lay people off if the Marxist Obama goes after them...and when they do, it will be OBAMA's fault -- not businesses. Joe the plumber was quite correct about Obama and his tax scheme.

Pandering to other dangerous world leaders: False. Obama has never claimed nor alluded to a policy of pandering to dangerous leaders. This was McCain putting words in his mouth. Obama has merely stated that he'd be willing to open diplomatic relations in order to deal with issues like national security and trade. President Bush has recently begun following Obama's lead and doing just that.

Diplomatic relations with the countries Obama wants to sit down with do not work. An example of that is how Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright pandered to North Korea and a few years later was discovered to have cheated on the agreement and then even tested a nuclear bomb. Bush also resorted to this kind of pandering and it failed for him as well. The reason? These people have their agenda and no amount of begging and pandering will change their agenda. Begging and pandering only gives them more time to develop and test their weapons. Iran should be given an ultimatum -- not the prestige of meeting with a US diplomatic attache and given more time to threaten to wipe Israel off the map (as they've vowed to do almost weekly). This sort of thing will become the norm under Obama -- who will be perceived as weak and will not hold any credibility.

Russia is on the march. NOT because of anything the West has or has not done (or has proposed doing) but because Russia is still the same old Russia. McCain was quite correct when he said he saw a K, a G, and a B when looked in Putin's eyes. Now we have Medvedev, Putin's puppet, but the strategic goals of Russia have never changed. Last weekend they tested THREE ICBMs and landed them in the Pacific (which they had not done since the Cold War "ended").

Obama is naive and weak. Our enemies know that as well as I do. I don't want the guy in there. He'll put us all at risk from a national security standpoint.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament: False. Obama has stated that he wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles, not unilaterally disarm. Seems like a good idea to me.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/562/

It might seem like a good idea to you (it might SOUND good, but it's not reality) -- and to me -- but our enemies will never agree to it -- or at least cheat on it. Russia has never signed a treaty it didn't cheat on. Neither has North Korea as I pointed out above. And this is why Russia would prefer Obama in the White House over McCain. They know McCain will be tougher.

Here's one of Obama's naieve diatribes on disarmament:

Unlimited abortion and ILLEGAL immigration: False and False. The unlimited abortion claim is a bogus one that Palin has been spreading during campaign rallies. Obama has even stated publicly that he believes the state can restrict late-term abortions. The idea that Obama prefers illegal immigration is also absurd. Here is his immigration plan.. Here is a statement by Obama on illegal immigration from 2006.

Some words from Obama on illegal immigration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUDGjchVNtM

McCain is just as bad on this subject, so by no means am I singling out Obama on this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN3ab-dY2E0

Snide remarks about gun owners and talk radio: Ok, so he may have hurt a few feelings when he suggested that some people cling to guns when they feel bitter. That's not the most elegant statement he's made, but it's probably true. Consider the context...Obama comes from a city rife with gun violence.

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/06/...im-stunned.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/chicago_loses_mor...to_gun_violence

And can you blame Obama if he ever made snide remarks about talk radio? These are the people making false claims like So, if Obama has made a snide comment regarding the people who make these claims, more power to him.

We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Period.

There are no excuses for Obama's views on gun ownership...and particularly his condescending comment about the people of Pennsylvania.

There haven't been any false claims about Obama on talk radio. All the claims can be substantiated or at least merit investigation. But, unfortunately, Obama feeds many of these claims himself by avoiding the topics or using deflection -- or providing half-explanations. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Obama seems to have a lot to hide -- particularly with regard to his past associations with rather nefarious individuals. Can you imagine the uproar if McCain had served on a committee or launched his political career from the home of Timothy McVeigh? Such is the nature of Obamas past with Ayers. Definitely of no less import! Or if McCain had spent time hanging out with the KKK. But there have been plenty of bogus false racism claims by the Obama camp with regard to statements by Sarah Palin, etc. Additionally, secret service has said today that his claim that someone at a McCain rally called for "killing Obama" were false or at least unsubstantiated. Bogus claims coming from talk radio listeners are quickly shot down on talk radio...at least by the hosts.

Remember, when Obama cracks down on free speech (as his minions have) with regard to his infamous "truth squads" in Missouri -- it won't be long before the USA under an Obama administration will see things such as the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" implemented. That will be just the beginning. Do you believe free speech should be protected (in ALL instances -- not just when liberals speak.) or not? What you give up now will come back to bite you in the butt later.:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0...h_squads_2.html

Edited by Disastro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no falsehood, there. It was socialist policy when it was implemented, it has been socialist policy supported by both parties, it is socialist policy today, and it will be socialist policy when it is contorted by Obama such as he proposes. There is no question as to what it is or that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan political support. The point of contention as it pertains to this particular presidential election is whether it should be a milder form or more extreme form of socialist policy.

Your counterargument seems to address semantics and provides some history; it fails to address the crux of the matter. In fact, by my reading, it looks like you're saying "It is absurd to call Obama a socialist because he's only more extreme of a socialist than the other candidate." That's pretty weak.

So Adam Smith was socialist before the word "socialism" was invented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progressive taxation has existed throughout history, long before 'socialism' came about.

The Romans created the inheritance tax to fund the military. For some juicy examples read English history circa 15th century.

You may not like the idea of progessive taxation, but don't blame it on the 'socialists.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no falsehood, there. It was socialist policy when it was implemented, it has been socialist policy supported by both parties, it is socialist policy today, and it will be socialist policy when it is contorted by Obama such as he proposes. There is no question as to what it is or that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan political support. The point of contention as it pertains to this particular presidential election is whether it should be a milder form or more extreme form of socialist policy.

Your counterargument seems to address semantics and provides some history; it fails to address the crux of the matter. In fact, by my reading, it looks like you're saying "It is absurd to call Obama a socialist because he's only more extreme of a socialist than the other candidate." That's pretty weak.

On this, we agree Niche!

Look, I think BOTH parties have failed us on this issue...as they have on more than one issue!

I just firmly believe a drastic REDUCTION of taxes at all levels is what is called for to spur economic growth. I've always believed that and it's a simple economic truism that our government REFUSES to accept or impliment.

Cut and eliminate programs (Government just can't give up it's "crack" of sticking it's hand into your wallet!) and go to either a consumption tax or a FAIR and binding flat tax.

I am convinced that's the only way to go, but government has to give up its addiction to YOUR income. They've even got some of our citizens indoctrinated into thinking the government has a right to dip it's paws into our income...that was never the intent of the founding fathers and it's a patently FALSE belief that such a right exists.

We all pay taxes, but we all do so under duress.

Nobody likes it or the current system but nobody seems to want to "kick the habit".

Why?

Progressive taxation has existed throughout history, long before 'socialism' came about.

The Romans created the inheritance tax to fund the military. For some juicy examples read English history circa 15th century.

You may not like the idea of progessive taxation, but don't blame it on the 'socialists.'

Taxation is the means by which the wealth is redistributed, so YES -- I do blame it on the socialists.

Please don't try to muddy up the waters Crunch...

If you can believe tanks are going to roll through the streets I know you can accept this simple concept.

Edited by Disastro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just firmly believe a drastic REDUCTION of taxes at all levels is what is called for to spur economic growth. I've always believed that and it's a simple economic truism that our government REFUSES to accept or impliment.

Perhaps because it is untrue, but don't let that stop you. It hasn't stopped you on any of your other claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps because it is untrue, but don't let that stop you. It hasn't stopped you on any of your other claims.

That post was the equivalent of you putting your hands over your ears and saying "blah! blah! blah! blah! I'm not listening to you" or the ever popular "Liar, liar, pants on fire".

Highly intellectual stuff, that... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this, we agree Niche!

Look, I think BOTH parties have failed us on this issue...as they have on more than one issue!

I just firmly believe a drastic REDUCTION of taxes at all levels is what is called for to spur economic growth. I've always believed that and it's a simple economic truism that our government REFUSES to accept or impliment.

Cut and eliminate programs (Government just can't give up it's "crack" of sticking it's hand into your wallet!) and go to either a consumption tax or a FAIR and binding flat tax.

I am convinced that's the only way to go, but government has to give up its addiction to YOUR income. They've even got some of our citizens indoctrinated into thinking the government has a right to dip it's paws into our income...that was never the intent of the founding fathers and it's a patently FALSE believe that such a right exists.

We all pay taxes, but we all do so under duress.

Nobody likes it or the current system but nobody seems to want to "kick the habit".

Why?

Taxation is the means by which the wealth is redistributed, so YES -- I do blame it on the socialists.

Please don't try to muddy up the waters Crunch...

If you can believe tanks are going to roll through the streets I know you can accept this simple concept.

Firstly, I'd like to distance myself from disastro...especially the bolded statements. I do not agree with what he's getting at. Government spending is not in and of itself a bad thing, insofar as it is managed responsibly.

My chief objection to a progressive income tax is that people who pay more ought to receive a commensurate level of government services. Likewise, those that pay nothing should receive nothing. This is government-enforced charity--which if it were carried out by a private citizen would be considered theft. More importantly, that the government is engaging in theft and redistribution is an indicator that they are adopting a kind of morality to the exclusion of individual opinions. I oppose the redistribution of wealth on the same basis that I oppose them condoning marriage (gay or not), restricting abortion of any sort, or that they would provide any sort of free healthcare to anybody. My position is that it is not their place to make or encourage such decisions that are better left to individuals.

EDIT: But I will give disastro credit...he does advance his position whereas most other people are just make irrelevent quips aimed at deflating his credibility, that are irrelevent to the point, or that are out-and-out personal attacks. In that sense, I've got to respect him...even if I really, really, really disagree with his reasoning.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no falsehood, there. It was socialist policy when it was implemented, it has been socialist policy supported by both parties, it is socialist policy today, and it will be socialist policy when it is contorted by Obama such as he proposes. There is no question as to what it is or that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan political support. The point of contention as it pertains to this particular presidential election is whether it should be a milder form or more extreme form of socialist policy.

Your counterargument seems to address semantics and provides some history; it fails to address the crux of the matter. In fact, by my reading, it looks like you're saying "It is absurd to call Obama a socialist because he's only more extreme of a socialist than the other candidate." That's pretty weak.

What's absurd is to suddenly call out Obama as the socialist when previous administrations have supported far greater disparities in income taxes. If a widely progressive tax code is the simple definition of a socialist President, then Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon and even Reagan were far more socialist than Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That post was the equivalent of you putting your hands over your ears and saying "blah! blah! blah! blah! I'm not listening to you" or the ever popular "Liar, liar, pants on fire".

Highly intellectual stuff, that... :lol:

Knowing that making a simple google search would have flooded your computer screen with studies that show that your incredibly oversimplified statement is incorrect, it is clear to me that you are uninterested in knowing the truth, but rather wish to make ideological statements without regard to their accuracy. I can think of no reason whatsoever why I would wish to waste my time proving it, especially knowing that you would simply not read them. You know where the google button is if you'd rather know the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My chief objection to a progressive income tax is that people who pay more ought to receive a commensurate level of government services. Likewise, those that pay nothing should receive nothing.

The argument can be made that those who pay more in taxes receive MUCH MORE in government services. The $2 Trillion in bailout money is going to pump up banks that are owned by the wealthy, and hold deposits of the wealthy. The bailout is also aimed at calming the stock markets that are invested with wealthy money. The military advances the economic footprint of the US, a bonus to the wealthy. The police protect the wealthy from the poor thieves. In fact, police departments rarely investigate wealthy thieves, for a variety of reasons. The list goes on.

The poor can benefit from some of these same institutions, but at a far reduced level. Some estimates of military spending...direct and indirect...have reached fully ONE-HALF of all federal spending. If the United States were not far and away the wealthiest nation on earth, very little of that military spending would be needed, as we would have little need to expand our economic footprint, and would have few enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's absurd is to suddenly call out Obama as the socialist when previous administrations have supported far greater disparities in income taxes. If a widely progressive tax code is the simple definition of a socialist President, then Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon and even Reagan were far more socialist than Obama.

I could go on for pages on the historical context of each of those presidential administrations but it would all be besides the point. Elections are not (or at least should not be) a referendum on the past.

Going forward, we are faced with a decision to chose either a milder or more extreme proponent of socialist policy.

The argument can be made that those who pay more in taxes receive MUCH MORE in government services. The $2 Trillion in bailout money is going to pump up banks that are owned by the wealthy, and hold deposits of the wealthy. The bailout is also aimed at calming the stock markets that are invested with wealthy money. The military advances the economic footprint of the US, a bonus to the wealthy. The police protect the wealthy from the poor thieves. In fact, police departments rarely investigate wealthy thieves, for a variety of reasons. The list goes on.

The poor can benefit from some of these same institutions, but at a far reduced level. Some estimates of military spending...direct and indirect...have reached fully ONE-HALF of all federal spending. If the United States were not far and away the wealthiest nation on earth, very little of that military spending would be needed, as we would have little need to expand our economic footprint, and would have few enemies.

Red, a weak economy hurts poor people the most. They have very little in the way of savings and end up getting crowded out of the labor market. Check out historical BLS data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it IS redistribution of wealth. And I most certainly CAN pin it on Obama and the larger Democratic party. As for the Obama tax cut: It's a LIE. There's no way he can pay for all those socialist programs he wants without raising taxes and he knows that. Again, Democrats and higher taxes are like peanut butter and jelly. Bill Clinton promised a tax cut during his campaigns and it didn't happen. In fact, again...in true Democrat form...he raised them. Nevertheless, taxing the so-called "rich" who make $250,000 a year is only going to help crash the economy. Companies WILL lay people off if the Marxist Obama goes after them...and when they do, it will be OBAMA's fault -- not businesses. Joe the plumber was quite correct about Obama and his tax scheme.

Either candidate will have a tough time managing the economic mess left in the wake of the Bush administration. They will both have to work with a budget deficit if they want to run the government and even partially implement their spending plans. The increase in income taxes for those making more than $250,000 is not likely to hurt those people. But there are only so many ways to argue this point. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. If I made over $250,000 a year I would be pretty thrilled even though that next level of income was taxed higher.

Diplomatic relations with the countries Obama wants to sit down with do not work. An example of that is how Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright pandered to North Korea and a few years later was discovered to have cheated on the agreement and then even tested a nuclear bomb. Bush also resorted to this kind of pandering and it failed for him as well. The reason? These people have their agenda and no amount of begging and pandering will change their agenda. Begging and pandering only gives them more time to develop and test their weapons. Iran should be given an ultimatum -- not the prestige of meeting with a US diplomatic attache and given more time to threaten to wipe Israel off the map (as they've vowed to do almost weekly). This sort of thing will become the norm under Obama -- who will be perceived as weak and will not hold any credibility.

Russia is on the march. NOT because of anything the West has or has not done (or has proposed doing) but because Russia is still the same old Russia. McCain was quite correct when he said he saw a K, a G, and a B when looked in Putin's eyes. Now we have Medvedev, Putin's puppet, but the strategic goals of Russia have never changed. Last weekend they tested THREE ICBMs and landed them in the Pacific (which they had not done since the Cold War "ended").

Obama is naive and weak. Our enemies know that as well as I do. I don't want the guy in there. He'll put us all at risk from a national security standpoint.

Right. The Bush Doctrine has been a disaster. We have created terrorists where previously there were none. We have let the leader of a terrorist organization that attacked on our own soil get away with it and train more terrorists. A world that once respected and admired the United States now prefers to spit in our face. Our dollar is weak, our economy is crumbling, and our power is beginning to wane. The last thing we need is another Bush style foreign policy which you seem to be advocating. This only deters our allies and strengthens the resolve of our enemies to fight back. Giving Iran ultimatums only encourages to work harder on their nuclear program. Yes, we use our military power, but only when warranted and not preemptively.

We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Period.

There are no excuses for Obama's views on gun ownership...and particularly his condescending comment about the people of Pennsylvania.

Yes, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling confirms that. But this obsession with gun rights just never makes sense to me. Everyone knows this amendment was written for a bygone era, and I don't personally think the right to bear guns deserves a sacred level of protection over the lives of humans. The power and extremist nature of gun advocates and the NRA seems to thwart serious rational discourse on the topic. Besides, it's not a priority for Obama and he's not about to take anyone's guns away, so I wouldn't worry about it.

There haven't been any false claims about Obama on talk radio. All the claims can be substantiated or at least merit investigation. But, unfortunately, Obama feeds many of these claims himself by avoiding the topics or using deflection -- or providing half-explanations. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Obama seems to have a lot to hide -- particularly with regard to his past associations with rather nefarious individuals. Can you imagine the uproar if McCain had served on a committee or launched his political career from the home of Timothy McVeigh? Such is the nature of Obamas past with Ayers. Definitely of no less import! Or if McCain had spent time hanging out with the KKK. But there have been plenty of bogus false racism claims by the Obama camp with regard to statements by Sarah Palin, etc. Additionally, secret service has said today that his claim that someone at a McCain rally called for "killing Obama" were false or at least unsubstantiated. Bogus claims coming from talk radio listeners are quickly shot down on talk radio...at least by the hosts.

I highly doubt that. Many pundits and talk radio personalities walk a fine line between fact and fiction to develop a story. The lies perpetrated by Rush Limbaugh could fill books. But then again, I can't stomach listening to these hateful windbags, so I'll just have to disagree on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, I'd like to distance myself from disastro...especially the bolded statements. I do not agree with what he's getting at. Government spending is not in and of itself a bad thing, insofar as it is managed responsibly.

My chief objection to a progressive income tax is that people who pay more ought to receive a commensurate level of government services. Likewise, those that pay nothing should receive nothing. This is government-enforced charity--which if it were carried out by a private citizen would be considered theft. More importantly, that the government is engaging in theft and redistribution is an indicator that they are adopting a kind of morality to the exclusion of individual opinions. I oppose the redistribution of wealth on the same basis that I oppose them condoning marriage (gay or not), restricting abortion of any sort, or that they would provide any sort of free healthcare to anybody. My position is that it is not their place to make or encourage such decisions that are better left to individuals.

EDIT: But I will give disastro credit...he does advance his position whereas most other people are just make irrelevent quips aimed at deflating his credibility, that are irrelevent to the point, or that are out-and-out personal attacks. In that sense, I've got to respect him...even if I really, really, really disagree with his reasoning.

Niche,

Why would you want to "distance yourself"? The truth is the truth and I don't think we're that far apart on the issues. You may not always agree with my method of delivery or the exact words I choose but I think we are close to agreement on some things. True, we disagree on some though...and at the risk of starting another heated exchange, I will refrain from pointing those out.

Give me a break...I am trying to "reach across the aisle"...are you gonna chop my hand off when I do?

:lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either candidate will have a tough time managing the economic mess left in the wake of the Bush administration. They will both have to work with a budget deficit if they want to run the government and even partially implement their spending plans. The increase in income taxes for those making more than $250,000 is not likely to hurt those people. But there are only so many ways to argue this point. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. If I made over $250,000 a year I would be pretty thrilled even though that next level of income was taxed higher.

I won't defend Bush on the things he doesn't deserve defending on (because, believe me, I am no Bush fan) but I'm not going to sit by and let a Democrat whitewash of the economic situation go unchallenged. We all know Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer had a lot to do with the imposition on financial institutions of granting mortgages and loans to people based on socio-economic status. The practice was put in place to make it easier for lower-income people to get loans. Many of these defaulted as they should never have had loans they were unable to pay. Also, the Democratic insiders at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said all along they fine. Now, either they were lieing about that or incredibly incompetent. Either way, the Democrats were in bed with these people and had the blankets pulled up over their heads.

With regard to income taxes, you seem to be saying "well, they have enough money -- they can afford it". Well, what you don't seem to recognize is the basic fact that it's not the governments business to decide who can afford what and it's not the government's business to dip into our wallets. And it doesn't matter if you make 10K a year or a million a year -- that still holds true. Taking from the so-called rich and giving to the government machine is socialism. And this kind of aggressive pursuit of business owners is going to HURT the economy even more -- again, through layoffs. By no means is this going to stimulate the flow of capital >> which stimulates spending >> which stimulates job creation/growth. Families making $250,000 a year are NOT rich either.

Also, what is not included or considered are geographic factors. $250,000/year in Texas is a lot of money...still not "rich"...but in California it's chickenfeed because money doesn't go as far there. So, how will the "messiah" Obama adjust for these factors?

Right. The Bush Doctrine has been a disaster. We have created terrorists where previously there were none. We have let the leader of a terrorist organization that attacked on our own soil get away with it and train more terrorists. A world that once respected and admired the United States now prefers to spit in our face. Our dollar is weak, our economy is crumbling, and our power is beginning to wane. The last thing we need is another Bush style foreign policy which you seem to be advocating. This only deters our allies and strengthens the resolve of our enemies to fight back. Giving Iran ultimatums only encourages to work harder on their nuclear program. Yes, we use our military power, but only when warranted and not preemptively.

Yeah, as I've said repeatedly since 9/11, why is Bush an S.O.B. for defending this country? You can't defend the national security of the US in a courtroom! Bush took the war to the terrorists (albeit, ineptly in my opinion) and I APPLAUD and CONGRATULATE him on that -- and to hell with any of the other countries that don't like it! Don't give a rat's bottom what they think! And neither should any of us. A LOT of the so-called "lack of respect" comes from subversive agents from Russia, brainless MoveOn.org types and their willing accomplices in the US media (borderline or full-fledged communists who don't even know from whence the their own thinking comes from due to indoctrination) who thrive on generating anti-US propaganda and building anti-US concensus.

American lives come before those in countries that harbor terrorists or even other countries that plot aggression against us. History has proven talking doesn't accomplish anything.

Smack em (terrorist states and others that plot aggression) down and smack em down hard (tactical nukes) at the first sign of trouble, I say...particularly those with a historical record of mischief and aggression.

Whatever it takes to defend and preserve the citizens of the US...and NO apologies for it! If Europe wants to be sitting ducks...that's their business.

Yes, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling confirms that. But this obsession with gun rights just never makes sense to me. Everyone knows this amendment was written for a bygone era, and I don't personally think the right to bear guns deserves a sacred level of protection over the lives of humans. The power and extremist nature of gun advocates and the NRA seems to thwart serious rational discourse on the topic. Besides, it's not a priority for Obama and he's not about to take anyone's guns away, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Well, I'm not a "gun nut" but I recognize the need for them and the right to have them. When the Constitution talks about the right to bear arms, it's not referring to your right to go deer or duck hunting. It is, in part, a kind of built in national security measure for a worst case and unthinkable scenario in which, say, a dictator came to power in the US and the people themselves had to resort to historical measures to end the oppression.

I highly doubt that. Many pundits and talk radio personalities walk a fine line between fact and fiction to develop a story. The lies perpetrated by Rush Limbaugh could fill books. But then again, I can't stomach listening to these hateful windbags, so I'll just have to disagree on this.

Well, as I suspect will become the norm (as has already been displayed in the media recently) in an "Obama era", any criticism or pointing out of record will be considered "hateful". We're seeing that already just during this campaign. Here, we've got John McCain REGULARLY saying he's going to have a respectful campaign (to the point of FAULT in my opinion) and there has been no discussion from either Palin or McCain about race. Obama's past has been pointed out as a matter of discussion. His voting record has been pointed out as a matter of discussion. Etc.

These things are not "hateful". Pointing out a record and past associations is FAIR GAME. As I've said, certainly if McCain had KKK connections (for example) that would be all the rage in the press -- we'd never hear the end of it and McCain would give up his candidacy in shame ("I'm sorry my friends, but because I have friends in the KKK I am unfit to serve as your President -- my friends"). But, this is how the power mad insidiously begin to turn society into an "online forum" with "moderators". This is the same thing that happened in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.

As Goebels said, (paraphrasing) "If you repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth". This is the philosophy and thinking of the far-left, socialist Democrats.

So, knowing this...calling the truth a lie does not change it from being the truth. Nor is the truth a matter of "hate". You may not like what you hear because it's about "your man" but it's not hate and it's not automatically a "lie" -- if there is evidence to support the claims.

At any rate, I've never heard a talk show personality embrace wild-eyed, conspiracy theory nonsense (AM Coast-to-Coast being the exception). All the ones I have heard quickly reject such nonsense. Now, the multi-source stuff with some "meat" on the story are different matters.

I fully expect Obama and his minions to try to snuff out any criticism during his reign -- should he get in there.

Edited by Disastro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, what is not included or considered are geographic factors. $250,000/year in Texas is a lot of money...still not "rich"...but in California it's chickenfeed because money doesn't go as far there. So, how will the "messiah" Obama adjust for these factors?

This is really a numbers game, isn't it? It's totally reasonable for anyone making over $250,000, no matter where they live, to worry about their taxes going up. Whether it's Joe the Plumber (he must be one heck of a good plumber, by the way), or someone in California, or someone who is really, really rich. So sure, they might want to vote for McCain.

But what seems clear is that most people in this country don't make that much. And they appear (based on polls) to be realizing that they're not benefitting from Republican policies. YOU may be. Or even if you're not, you may ideologically find them more appealing... so, in case you ever do get rich, nobody will try to take your money. Fine, whatever. But you're outnumbered.

I joked a couple of days ago about being "po'", and therefore voting for Obama. True, I am poor, but you don't have to be poor. You just have to make less than 250K. Whether you call that rich or middle class, those numbers are working out for Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really a numbers game, isn't it? It's totally reasonable for anyone making over $250,000, no matter where they live, to worry about their taxes going up. Whether it's Joe the Plumber (he must be one heck of a good plumber, by the way), or someone in California, or someone who is really, really rich. So sure, they might want to vote for McCain.

But what seems clear is that most people in this country don't make that much. And they appear (based on polls) to be realizing that they're not benefitting from Republican policies. YOU may be. Or even if you're not, you may ideologically find them more appealing... so, in case you ever do get rich, nobody will try to take your money. Fine, whatever. But you're outnumbered.

I joked a couple of days ago about being "po'", and therefore voting for Obama. True, I am poor, but you don't have to be poor. You just have to make less than 250K. Whether you call that rich or middle class, those numbers are working out for Obama.

LOL!! Joe doesn't claim to make that much -- he just doesn't think those that do should get taxed by Obama.

Saying it's working out for Obama doesn't make it so...on what do you base this?

Speaking of Obama...he's the guys that thinks a flat tax should be 40% and a SALES tax. This idiot doesn't even know that there's a difference between a flat tax and a consumption tax! :lol::lol::lol:

This is the guy you want to vote for? :lol::lol::lol:

Maybe his running mate who thinks the word J-O-B-S is a three letter word? :lol::lol::lol:

These people are a (frightening, yet somehow amusing at times) joke on every level. I can't believe they aren't at 20% in the polls.

Seriously.

If you are "po"...punishing those with the capital to create jobs is NOT the way to help lower income individuals and families. And don't forget, there's a healthcare factor in this too. Currently, employers provide healthcare. Lose your job...lose your healthcare.

We need to be rewarding corporations and their owners -- not punishing their success. They are the drivers and movers and shakers of the economy -- as they hire and provide bennies.

Edited by editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redistribution of wealth: False. It's absurd to call Obama a socialist based on his tax policy. The United States has been using a progressive income tax since the inception of the modern income tax. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported various progressive income tax models. The top tax bracket has been as hight as 94%, and Obama's plan to restore it to 39.6%, which is less than it was even under most of the Reagan administration. You may prefer calling it redistribution of wealth, but you can't pin this on Obama. The progressive income tax has been around for nearly a century.

The progressive tax is not what I'm scared about when Obama talks about "spreading the wealth around". It's about handing out tax rebates to people that don't pay taxes.

The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability” -- in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

link

If this isn't pure socialism then I don't know what is.

Edited by editor
Edited by Editor for copyright reasons. But it's an interesting read, so follow the link.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I joked a couple of days ago about being "po'", and therefore voting for Obama. True, I am poor, but you don't have to be poor. You just have to make less than 250K. Whether you call that rich or middle class, those numbers are working out for Obama.

Back during Clinton's last run he defined "millionarie" as anyone who makes more than $200k/year.

In this election $250k is the hot button number. I guess it's inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$250,000/year in Texas is a lot of money...still not "rich"...but in California it's chickenfeed because money doesn't go as far there. So, how will the "messiah" Obama adjust for these factors?

What difference does it make? He's already got the state locked up.

Refundable tax credits = food stamps without the bureaucracy. If you don't have any tax liability (i.e. you make less than $12k/yr or so) you could probably use the help. This isn't really a "hot button" issue for these reasons.

Edited by N Judah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference does it make? He's already got the state locked up.

Refundable tax credits = food stamps without the bureaucracy. If you don't have any tax liability (i.e. you make less than $12k/yr or so) you could probably use the help. This isn't really a "hot button" issue for these reasons.

Yeah...I know...

Wait! What's that sound I hear coming from Kali-forn-ia?

"Baaaaa...Baaaaa..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cottonmather, I understand your point but I don't think the paragraph really attacks Obama's argument.

I think a start would be to say "Mr. Obama, we already have an equality of chance because of a lack of an established political elite, X, Y, and Z" - This would contradict Obama's statement - it may help to look around for more context to see who he is speaking to and what he uses to support his argument. Attack these support columns and address them.

You said: "attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK." - Are you referring to the "When they came for the A, I said nothing because of X. When they came for the B, I said nothing because of Y. When they came for me, nobody spoke up for us." ?

Which voting sites do not require ID? I think ALL ought to require ID. Voting is sacred and therefore we must ensure that people do not use ID to exclude people, but we should also ensure that as few people as possible try to cheat the system.

Vic, what I was saying in my sleep deprived / alcohol induced post on Wednesday night was that a vast majority of income taxes in the US are paid by a minority of taxpayers (25% of taxpayers pay 86% of taxes and 10% pay 70% and so on... link), so explicitly promising to raise taxes on the minority to share with the majority is a can't lose proposition for politician who only needs a majority of the votes.

"The type and formula of most schemes of philan-thropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism until an equilibrium is produced by a readjustment of all interests and rights. They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to all the other stuff, calling someone a "Marxist" is a pejorative term and does nothing to help the debate except polarize opinion.

You were cruising along and then you hit "a speed bump". Why?

Why the ridiculous "self-censoring" when it's not even warranted? People need to quit being "respectful" to those who do not deserve it. The terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon were ISLAMIC TERRORISTS (not freedom fighters or misguided and misunderstood souls). And Obama is Marxist. So please, let's get back to calling things what they are.

Why try to deny it? Face it, accept it...embrace it...because "thems the facts".

Obama is what he is. Do you think debating over the shade of blue the sky is a worthwhile thing? Of course not.

Obama's ideas ARE Marxist/Socialist. I've been all through that and there's plenty of evidence online and off to support this claim -- but don't expect me to rehash it. What's more frightening though...is that we do not know the extent or depth of his Marxism...

If he gets in there, we'll find out. Of that I am sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...