Obama the Marxist? Socialist says what?[views:8013][posts:37]_______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:32pm - thuringwethil ""] http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/west.biden.king.qanda/index.html ok, I'm trying to get my head around this. some of you may recall news stories of AIG execs using their bailout money to go on a spa retreat, Exxon Mobil posting record profits this year, Lehman Brothers' Dick Fuld walking away with millions of dollars in severance "speading the wealth" huh I don't see how taxing a bit more for individuals making over a quarter million dollars a year is Socialism. Those guys are currently getting sweet-ass tax breaks. The "socialism" allegation seems closer to Parity, a more even playing field I don't mean reward someone on unemployment for the work some white collar stuffed shirt has done. I am, however, against the corruption we saw recently with AIG. and why has no one suggested that we tax churches yet? That would kill our fucking deficit, and since the church and "family" organizations want to dictate public policy and civil rights, why can't they pay their share like the rest of us? I am genuinely preplexed. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. :shocked: |
| ______________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:38pm - Yeti ""] thuringwethil said:and why has no one suggested that we tax churches yet? That would kill our fucking deficit, and since the church and "family" organizations want to dictate public policy and civil rights, why can't they pay their share like the rest of us? bingo. |
| ___________________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:41pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] "ONE NATION UNDER GOD (non taxable)" |
| _______________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:41pm - aril ""] Tax churches? Take the "t" out of that word and what do you get? "Ax Churches" - sounds like a better solution to me. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:44pm - thuringwethil ""] I'm just wondering why the right is crying "socialism" -- don't they do that every election year? say the democrat is just gonna tax and spend? and how was the surge paid for, exactly? mmm... |
| ________________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:45pm - The_Masked_Man ""] FuckIsMySignature said:"ONE NATION UNDER GOD" Which in its self is highly hypocritical. Separation of Church and State? |
| _____________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:48pm - Josh_Martin ""] You are really wondering that? Really? You haven't noticed that the right will scream and cry and make up anything, that helps them win elections? Since when has truth had anything at all to do with politics? Churches will never get taxed. To many stupid americans beleive in that shit. Whichever politician suggests that can kiss his career goodbye. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:48pm - thuringwethil ""] well all that is deeply rooted in the Constitution and it's probably way TOO LATE for the tax the church proposal to take wing. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 3:50pm - thuringwethil ""] I just wrote anti-religious shit. I am so necr0 |
| __________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 4:03pm - darkwor ""] Yeti said: thuringwethil said:and why has no one suggested that we tax churches yet? That would kill our fucking deficit, and since the church and "family" organizations want to dictate public policy and civil rights, why can't they pay their share like the rest of us? bingo. double bingo |
| ___________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 4:45pm - contagion ""] the tax system in general sucks ass. everyone should pay the same percentage of their paycheck in taxes and not get that money refunded at the end of the year. i dont know how many high school kids makes 5 or 6 grand in a year, take out almost 1000 in taxes then get it all back. same for college and whatever. we all need to pay and if you know youre rate it wont be a surprise when you get your check. not to mention fuck giving out tax breaks for charitable donations and other shit of the like. maybe if people realized making more money wouldnt cause them to pay a bigger chunk of their check in taxes they might be inclined to work harder. i dunno but our current system is not working at all. |
| _________________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 6:31pm - Conservationist ""] thuringwethil said:I don't see how taxing a bit more for individuals making over a quarter million dollars a year is Socialism. Those guys are currently getting sweet-ass tax breaks. The "socialism" allegation seems closer to Parity, a more even playing field I don't mean reward someone on unemployment for the work some white collar stuffed shirt has done. People making over $250,000 get no tax breaks and shoulder a huge amount of the tax burden. Tax them too much, and you kill the goose that laid the golden egg -- they start working offshore, or using other methods to avoid taking US income. A more even playing field wouldn't include affirmative action, and might require an educational system that actually promotes the smartest instead of spending time on the stupidest. The problem, as I see it, with the Obamas of the world is that they want to take money from the wealthiest and use it to subsidize those who aren't going to make it on their own. It's anti-natural-selection and leads to a society overflowing with idiots. |
| ___________________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 6:43pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] they only get taxed for the amount made over 250K according to Obamas plan. |
| __________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 7:01pm - grizloch ""] [Oct 28,2008 4:45pm - contagion] the tax system in general sucks ass. everyone should pay the same percentage of their paycheck in taxes and not get that money refunded at the end of the year. i dont know how many high school kids makes 5 or 6 grand in a year, take out almost 1000 in taxes then get it all back. same for college and whatever. we all need to pay and if you know youre rate it wont be a surprise when you get your check. not to mention fuck giving out tax breaks for charitable donations and other shit of the like. maybe if people realized making more money wouldnt cause them to pay a bigger chunk of their check in taxes they might be inclined to work harder. i dunno but our current system is not working at all. what? people decide not to take promotions and raises because they dont want higher taxes? repeat that 10 times and see if it still makes sense and if you make more than 5k a year you dont get the whole nut of your taxes back, and it has nothing to do with age or education anymore (at least not for federal taxes) why are you advocating higher taxes for kids (not all of which have parents with enough money to buy them everything-hence having a job)and the few people out there who actually give to charity (which as I recall takes the amount they donated off of their income and makes it unable to be taxed, they don't get that money back)? Im not so much defending the general tax system, but your anger is misplaced sir and affirmative action is a sham EXCEPT when race is the deciding factor in whoever gets the job, which is next to obsolete in most red states, and regardless of what you think Conservationist, welfare and quotas work for SOME people, yes there are 20 scumfucks for every 1 person out there that gets on and off welfare after actually bettering themselves, but that percentage (to some) is enough to continue the practice, it's kind of a killing babies thing, why dont we kill babies? because one of them might grow up to cure cancer (otherwise, target practice) |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 9:05pm - thuringwethil ""] Conservationist said: thuringwethil said:I don't see how taxing a bit more for individuals making over a quarter million dollars a year is Socialism. Those guys are currently getting sweet-ass tax breaks. The "socialism" allegation seems closer to Parity, a more even playing field I don't mean reward someone on unemployment for the work some white collar stuffed shirt has done. People making over $250,000 get no tax breaks and shoulder a huge amount of the tax burden. Tax them too much, and you kill the goose that laid the golden egg -- they start working offshore, or using other methods to avoid taking US income. A more even playing field wouldn't include affirmative action, and might require an educational system that actually promotes the smartest instead of spending time on the stupidest. The problem, as I see it, with the Obamas of the world is that they want to take money from the wealthiest and use it to subsidize those who aren't going to make it on their own. It's anti-natural-selection and leads to a society overflowing with idiots. i must disagree (with conservationist? impossible!) my point of view sees a bunch of rich corrupt fucks who LEECH (yep, just like black people, right?) off of their 55K-annual salary lackeys so they can cry to Henry Paulson HELP US! WE THREW MONEY AROUND RECKLESSLY! MY HOOKERS NEED MANICURES! BAIL US OUT WITH JOE THE PLUMBER'S KID'S COLLEGE FUND! |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 9:08pm - thuringwethil ""] and dude you know trickle-down economics died with Reagan right? |
| _________________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 9:08pm - Conservationist ""] Not all people making the kind of money are corrupt fucks however, and many/most of them generate the jobs others depend on. The people earning 55k/year are in it for low responsibility jobs, relative to owning a business. I agree that "the system" fails to promote many good people, but I see that more as the consequences of basing a capitalist system on the consumer demands of a population that includes many idiots. Does it suck ass that Christina Aguilera gets more than 55k/year? But the guy who owns the local oilfield firefighting biz? Not in my book. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 9:16pm - thuringwethil ""] I agree, dude, there is idiocy abound, rich and poor alike. Perhaps we should all take an IQ test before being allowed to vote but I guess what I like about Obama's plan (and liberals in general) is that they pay SOME attention to the concerns of the unspoken for don't mind me, a life in politics means a life in corruption, both LEFT and RIGHT, but this is just where I'm at, having grown up during the Reagan era. No disrespect intended. I don't think I've disagreed with anyone more, yet heard such a salient and articulate opposing viewpoint on this forum. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 9:18pm - thuringwethil ""] hey, go ahead and laugh folks, but dialogue (rather than flaming, that 90's newbie 'Net relic) is obviously important to keep at the forefront |
| ______________________________________ [Oct 28,2008 10:59pm - AUTOPSY_666 ""] [img] |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 8:54am - thuringwethil ""] or stormfront, if you prefer |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 10:04am - the_reverend ""] the people making 250K+ did it on the backs of public roads, public schools, etc... no reason for them not to bare more for the moneys they make over 250K. Most of the people making over 250K aren't really hard workers or leeches. they are just like you and me. right person, right place or just damn lucky. luck is what keeps a lot of us alive and out of the poorhouse. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 11:15am - JustinSteele ""] I think one of the most profoundly misunderstood things in this country is taxation. The Reverend hit it right on the head when he said wealth is only accumulated because of the access to infrastructure. We, or the government, which ever you prefer, have created that infrastructure in some of the most profound ways imaginable and mostly through the use of tax money/government subsidies (aka taxes). This means that there is a responsibility to give back from those who put you where you are, much like the conditions of a loan. Even more importantly, there is also responsibility to take care of those who do the grunt work. If you look at economics from a bottom up perspective, you realize quickly that without a healthy majority, there quickly develops a gross disproportionate distribution of wealth to the top. Eventually, any system based on greed and selfishness chokes itself to death: if the people have no money to spend, nothing is consumed because nothing is affordable. Here's where the government steps in and "levels the playing field" by saying you have to provide a living wage for your workers and you need to contribute to the society that is creating this wealth for you. Whether you like it or not, there is a necessary amount of reciprocity needed to make capitalism work. This whole Freidman/Regan/Thatcher idea of unfettered free market system is truly ridiculous. You can't just suggest that the wealthy will adequately govern themselves and look out for their employees. It didn't work in the industrial build up of this country and it isn't working now. Government needs to step in and be a voice for those who do not own the means of production (gasp! a Marxist tenant!). This is how we got lunch breaks, paid vacations, 8 hour work days, safe working conditions and a myriad of other benefits. You can guarantee if the conservatives had their way these would be completely stripped away as fast as possible. Why do you think they go off shore for manufacturing jobs in the first place? The government (i.e. "us") have created a system with rules that you have to follow and the conservative movement in this country has done everything it can to take the power of negotiations out of the hands of the many and into the hands of few. If you don’t understand the basic principal that the representative government is us and is therefore our best representative defense against an oligarchic system, then you simply don’t understand economics. |
| ____________________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 11:25am - FuckIsMySignature ""] the Presidential Nominee for the American Socialist Party was on Colbert last night. I believe he noted that Obama is the farthest thing from being a Socialist. |
| __________________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 11:32am - Conservationist ""] thuringwethil said:Perhaps we should all take an IQ test before being allowed to vote but I guess what I like about Obama's plan (and liberals in general) is that they pay SOME attention to the concerns of the unspoken for I'm down with the IQ test. I guess my group of concern is normal middle-class Americans, who seem to be unrepresented because they're not dramatic. As I've seen it in life, focusing on the "unspoken for" decreases focus on job #1: promoting the good, ignoring the bad. I don't agree with The Rev at all -- most of the people I know making over $250,000 did it by a combination of having brains, having aggressive drive, and luck -- but you make you own luck, and that's why many of them didn't hit the right formula/mode until the appropriate time. I know that, especially in tech, this isn't always true -- I worked for one dude making $250,000 who had no qualification except that he got his MBA. However, his family started out dirt poor and he was proud of that fact. I have worked for people who got into that bracket by being from a protected group, because it surely wasn't for their competence. But others really deserve it -- they made smart moves and worked hard at them, taking more risks than anyone with a job can understand. I respect that. I'd also like them to have more importance in leadership than the homeless, criminal, drug-addled (except Mess), etc. |
| ________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 11:36am - aril ""] The IQ test thing would never fly. Even though it makes sense and would probably be better for the country, it would never fly because Americans are supposed to be "free" and willing to vote for their country. By filtering out people who vote, it would certainly spark a huge debate, as it goes against any "freedoms" that this country represents. The only solution to this problem is to secede from the nation and let natural selection take its course. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 11:41am - JustinSteele ""] This 250k figure is being thrown around like there are soooooo many people making it. Do you realize that 95% of people/homes in this country don't make that much? Neither do 98% of small businesses. Most people in this country will never know "the burden" of being rich. Oh it's just a crying shame that they won't be able to buy another car or house for another year. How about making a sacrifice for the majority of people out there? By the way, from what I can tell, those making 250k will be getting a .5% increase in taxes, that amounts to about another $1250 spread over the course of a year, I think they'll be just fine. There's a two wars and an economic melt down happening. Time to pony up and help out. |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 11:57am - the_reverend ""] looks like I won't be able to get another ivory back scratcher this month. [img] |
| ______________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 1:06pm - the_reverend ""] [img] |
| ___________________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 2:07pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] What say you to that ^ Conservationist? |
| _________________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 3:04pm - Conservationist ""] I say it's intelligent. The people who earn the most FOR THE ECONOMY pay a proportionate rate, a slight reduction. Those who earn little (below $19,000) -- below GDP and not enough that their taxes reimburse the rest for the social services used -- get a small cut but basically stay at the same rate so the rest of us are not excessively subsidizing them. Those earning below $40,000 pay very little in taxes as it is. Those earning above $140k contribute the most. And as Warren Buffet pointed out, the really rich pay low taxes because when you've made it that far, your income is no longer salary -- it's in owning things you can liquidate at will. They pay absurd inheritance taxes and slightly more reasonable capital gains taxes. |
| _____________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 3:52pm - Josh_Martin ""] Obama should send this to Mccain for Xmas [img] |
| ______________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 3:56pm - the_reverend ""] $140k... if anyone makes that and they post on this board, I'm going to come and kick them in the penis (25% less for women) |
| ___________________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 5:33pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich," Obama said. |
| _________________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 5:41pm - Conservationist ""] the_reverend said:$140k... if anyone makes that and they post on this board, I'm going to come and kick them in the penis (25% less for women) Why? About one-tenth of the people in my neighborhood make that yearly. Across the street, it's about 9/10s. Why would you hate on these people? FFS, these are the guys who bail out the sad assess of everyone else! |
| _______________________________________ [Oct 29,2008 11:13pm - the_reverend ""] [img] |