The final warning of an Obama Presidency

245

Comments

  • Mrs.Vedder78Mrs.Vedder78 Posts: 4,585
    digster wrote:
    I sincerely doubt many, if any, conservative commentators or posters here were calling Obama a socialist before this past month.


    I don't think so either.... all this crap started when Sarah Palin quoted out of all people joe "the plumber" at one of her rallies suggesting that he was correct in calling Senator Obama a socialist....

    It's sad to see that so many people that go out and cast a vote to change the course of this country can not think for themselves but need a head of the pack to tell them what to do, what to say and what to think.
    "Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Just to add something else to this discussion. If Obama's tax plan was so radically socialist then why are there well known conservatives backing his plan?
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    The best possible solution would be to reduce spending significantly so that we can cut taxes across the board for all income levels, but since neither McCain or Obama are going to do that then what is the next best plan. We need to do something. Tax cuts are not the answer because we are already in the whole for trillions of dollars eventually this debt is going to drive up inflation and then that extra money we got to keep under McCain's plan will be worth less. Under Obama's plan we do run the risk that it may adversely effect small business, but that is not certain.

    I agree we need to cut spending. I don't agree that tax cuts can't increase tax revenues, however. Incentives would be the reason for this. Some firms will leave for other low cost environments, but would stay if taxes remained where they are. Also, I know that I will try to not make $250 K while Obama is in office. If I could squeek out $249 great... but no more. And that's "if" his plan actually remains as is.... which mark my words,.... I bet it won't.

    No. It will also raise taxes on big business, not just small business. So, it's going to adversely effect all business... hence the private sector. Meanwhile, you are increasing spending and increasing taxes... enlarging gov't... this is movement towards socialism.
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173


    Probably because he's running against an African American candidate. That's why.

    So, why did the Communist Party of USA support Obama?
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    Come on man. You can't help who throws there support behind you. The KKK endorsed Ron Paul, does that mean that Ron paul is a racist or a supporter of the KKK.



    They have to have a reason. One can certainly speculate as to why.
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    Just to add something else to this discussion. If Obama's tax plan was so radically socialist then why are there well known conservatives backing his plan?

    First, I never used the word "radical", you did.

    Second, you should ask them.
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    Probably because he's running against an African American candidate. That's why.

    So, why did the Communist Party of USA support Obama?

    Because he's a member of the liberal party. And communism, among many other forms of government, is liberal.
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    Because he's a member of the liberal party. And communism, among many other forms of government, is liberal.


    Why don't they nominate and support their own candidate?
  • wcsmithwcsmith Posts: 165
    saveuplife wrote:
    They have to have a reason. One can certainly speculate as to why.

    "one" does not have to speculate, you can find out why here:

    http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/

    The CPUSA seems more interested in dismantling the right wing than touting Obama's presidency. "A lesser of two evils" approach. Kind of like John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and James Dobson endorsing McCain, in my honest opinion...
    "I'll ride the wave where it takes me"
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,500
    I still don't get how giving tax cuts is a redistribution of wealth. Granted, they are disproportional in terms of income, but taxes have always been since our progressive tax system has been in place.

    Pretty simple really. If the "rich" are paying more than the same % as the "middle class" etc, then it's a redistribution of wealth. And the gap between the % the "rich" and the "middle class" pays shows an increased focus on a redistribution of wealth.

    It is what it is. No matter what the definition of is, is.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    I agree we need to cut spending. I don't agree that tax cuts can't increase tax revenues, however. Incentives would be the reason for this. Some firms will leave for other low cost environments, but would stay if taxes remained where they are. Also, I know that I will try to not make $250 K while Obama is in office. If I could squeek out $249 great... but no more. And that's "if" his plan actually remains as is.... which mark my words,.... I bet it won't.

    No. It will also raise taxes on big business, not just small business. So, it's going to adversely effect all business... hence the private sector. Meanwhile, you are increasing spending and increasing taxes... enlarging gov't... this is movement towards socialism.

    Greater deficit will increase inflation, that is pretty much a given and under Bush's tax cuts which McCain plans to incorporate we would only increase our deficit bring us ever closer to hyper inflation. There is no way we can say with any degree of certainty that Obama's tax plan will hurt businesses. So the question remains do we go with a tax plan that most likely will increase our deficit and bring us closer to steep infaltion or do we go with a tax policy that may or may not hurt business.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    First, I never used the word "radical", you did.

    Second, you should ask them.

    The OP was the one who mentioned radical.

    As for the KKK endorsing Ron paul was because of his stance on Freedom of Speech.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    saveuplife wrote:
    If you are promoting socialist ideals, you can't be called a socialist?

    If I promote capitalist ideals, can I be called a capitalist? I think so, or I wouldnt' be promoting those ideals.

    are you serious? ... so, mccain has no part of his plan that has a socialist ideal? ... are you calling him a socialist??

    let's be real here ... no american president is ever gonna be misconstrued as a socialist ... this is just a catch-phrase label to ensure the partisan peeps on the conservative side stay loyal ...
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    mammasan wrote:
    Greater deficit will increase inflation, that is pretty much a given and under Bush's tax cuts which McCain plans to incorporate we would only increase our deficit bring us ever closer to hyper inflation. There is no way we can say with any degree of certainty that Obama's tax plan will hurt businesses. So the question remains do we go with a tax plan that most likely will increase our deficit and bring us closer to steep infaltion or do we go with a tax policy that may or may not hurt business.


    Wrong. Our economy is slowing. Look at oil prices. Prices are dropping. That's what happens when you have an economic slowdown. Just like if you have rapid growth you typically have an increase in inflation. Your point on the deficit will be outplayed by alterations in aggregate demand and aggregate supply.

    Yes, there is a degree of certainty his plan will hurt busines. Just like tax increases hurt our bottom line, they hurt businesses. Then that increased cost to business filters down to us (in some cases) as they cut workers to cut costs..... OR raise prices.... INFLATION. Tax increases are prevasive.

    Dude, I thought you were a libertarian? You don't sound like one.
  • Mrs.Vedder78Mrs.Vedder78 Posts: 4,585
    mammasan wrote:
    So the question remains do we go with a tax plan that most likely will increase our deficit and bring us closer to steep infaltion or do we go with a tax policy that may or may not hurt business.

    Call me insane but I will go with the second option :D
    "Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    polaris wrote:
    are you serious? ... so, mccain has no part of his plan that has a socialist ideal? ... are you calling him a socialist??

    let's be real here ... no american president is ever gonna be misconstrued as a socialist ... this is just a catch-phrase label to ensure the partisan peeps on the conservative side stay loyal ...


    Like I've said all along. It's a label.... so one can say what they will.

    I will stand by the claim that his tax and spending policy supports socialist ideals. I stand by it because I know for certain that it's true.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    Wrong. Our economy is slowing. Look at oil prices. Prices are dropping. That's what happens when you have an economic slowdown. Just like if you have rapid growth you typically have an increase in inflation. Your point on the deficit will be outplayed by alterations in aggregate demand and aggregate supply.

    Yes, there is a degree of certainty his plan will hurt busines. Just like tax increases hurt our bottom line, they hurt businesses. Then that increased cost to business filters down to us (in some cases) as they cut workers to cut costs..... OR raise prices.... INFLATION. Tax increases are prevasive.

    Dude, I thought you were a libertarian? You don't sound like one.

    I am libertarian hence why I don't agree with either tax plan but I can still make my boring ass do go buy a little quicker by contributing to the debate. Also just because I disagree with both candidate's plans doesn't mean that I can't say which one I believe to be better than the other. I find Obama's plan slightly better than McCain's. It's definitely not great or even that much better that it would sway me to vote for him.

    As I stated in the end the best policy right now would be to drastically cut spending and reduce taxes across all income levels.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • KannKann Posts: 1,146
    ....
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    saveuplife wrote:
    Like I've said all along. It's a label.... so one can say what they will.

    I will stand by the claim that his tax and spending policy supports socialist ideals. I stand by it because I know for certain that it's true.

    hahaha ... way to not answer the question!

    it's cool - i know ... sarah palin has more executive experience than obama ... got it ... ;)
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    hahaha ... way to not answer the question!

    it's cool - i know ... sarah palin has more executive experience than obama ... got it ... ;)

    Technically she has more executive experience than Obama, Joe Biden and McCain together.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    Here's the problem:

    Fascism requires an autocratic or dictorial control. It doesn't make any sense that that is what the Republican party is seeking, especially when they overthrowing dictators and promoting democracy.

    Meanwhile, Obama is promoting exactly what needs to occur in order to turn a country into a socialist state.


    Wrong. The Republican Party, particularly in the past twenty-odd years, has espoused a policy and mindset of "love it or leave it," willing to consider the military as a first option, and the continued criticism of those who disagree as being 'unpatriotic'. Unconstitutional searches and seizures, illegal wiretaps, torture, etc...the Republican Party has certainly and undeniably been putting into place the policies and mindsets that could lead to a fascist state.

    I don't think my reasoning above is logical. In fact, I think it is completely asinine. The point is that the reasoning that brings someone to consider Obama a "socialist" or that his policies are "socialist" when they are simply liberal are just as ludicrous.

    First, I wonder; if you and other conservatives are so concerned with Obama's socialist policies, why have we only heard about them being "socialist" policies in the past months? If this is truly the case, why wasn't this being shouted from the rooftops by conservatives throughout the nation from the moment Obama received the nomination? Especially if, according to you, it's so obvious, why is it that the talk of socialism didn't seem to begin until the word escaped the lips of McCain and Palin? Not that it's political ploy or anything, of course.

    Secondly, considering the economic and political policies of our past leaders, by your benchmarks it seems like we've had an awful lot of conservatives in our nation's history. My God, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Franlin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt...seems like almost every time a Democrat wins the White House, they must be socialist. Considering how you consider Obama's progressive income tax plan 'socialist', all these presidents must be socialist as well.
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    I think there are many socialists in the world that would laugh at the notion that Obama's policies are 'socialist.' In many cases, they are not even in the same ballpark.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Technically she has more executive experience than Obama, Joe Biden and McCain together.

    yeah ... and that actually has how much significance? ... i would say less than zero if that was possible ...
  • OpenOpen Posts: 792
    With the distribution of wealth so out of whack in this country, if you call Obama's plan socialism, then that is what we need.

    The argument can be made that with the savings going to the middle class then they will have more to spend at those businesses. It's sad that scare tactics are the only thing they some people have to resort, too.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    prytoj wrote:
    Barack Obama speaking on the Chicago public radio station 91.5 FM, WBEZ, on the program “Odyssey” in 2001:

    ...But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

    And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the CONSTITUTIOTN AS A CHARTER OF NEGATIVE LIBERTIES. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to BRING ABOUT REDISTRIBUTIVE CHANGE. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

    ..Obama: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y'know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

    ...The court's just not very good at it, and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. .....

    There's more. Listen for yourself

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

    An Obama Presidency is INSANE in the fn MEMBRANE

    yikes...thanks for the warning, I'm guessing it won't be a final warning, but thanks none the less...


    I still want to know what McCain is going to do for me...all I know, based on his campaign, is that he wants to make sure those making a quarter of a million don't get a tax increase, that Obama is a Socialist, Marxist, and Communist, that Obama once knew W. Ayers, and that there a real parts of America and fake parts of America...
  • Mrs.Vedder78Mrs.Vedder78 Posts: 4,585
    polaris wrote:
    yeah ... and that actually has how much significance? ... i would say less than zero if that was possible ...


    I'm not sure if he meant it that way but I think that that sole statement proves how ridiculuos and laughable is the argument the McCain campaign wants to make about Palin having more excecutive experience than Senator Obama.
    "Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
  • saveuplifesaveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    Wrong. The Republican Party, particularly in the past twenty-odd years, has espoused a policy and mindset of "love it or leave it," willing to consider the military as a first option, and the continued criticism of those who disagree as being 'unpatriotic'. Unconstitutional searches and seizures, illegal wiretaps, torture, etc...the Republican Party has certainly and undeniably been putting into place the policies and mindsets that could lead to a fascist state. .

    Again, by definition fascism requires a dictator.
    digster wrote:
    I don't think my reasoning above is logical. In fact, I think it is completely asinine. The point is that the reasoning that brings someone to consider Obama a "socialist" or that his policies are "socialist" when they are simply liberal are just as ludicrous..

    His policies support socialistic ideals. How could they support socialist ideals too much more? It's not even slightly ludicrous. Why do you have such a problem with the term socialist/socialism?
    digster wrote:
    First, I wonder; if you and other conservatives are so concerned with Obama's socialist policies, why have we only heard about them being "socialist" policies in the past months? If this is truly the case, why wasn't this being shouted from the rooftops by conservatives throughout the nation from the moment Obama received the nomination? Especially if, according to you, it's so obvious, why is it that the talk of socialism didn't seem to begin until the word escaped the lips of McCain and Palin? Not that it's political ploy or anything, of course..

    I've always thought they supported socialistic ideals. I didn't think it was that big of a deal. Typically, Democratic economics promotes socialistic ideals, so it wasn't a surprise. I don't know why McCain and Palin didn't talk about this in the beginning, ask them.
    digster wrote:
    Secondly, considering the economic and political policies of our past leaders, by your benchmarks it seems like we've had an awful lot of conservatives in our nation's history. My God, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Franlin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt...seems like almost every time a Democrat wins the White House, they must be socialist. Considering how you consider Obama's progressive income tax plan 'socialist', all these presidents must be socialist as well.

    Well, JFK cut taxes. But, yes, as a generalization.... the Democratic economic platform does support socialistic ideals.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    I'm not sure if he meant it that way but I think that that sole statement proves how ridiculuos and laughable is the argument the McCain campaign wants to make about Palin having more excecutive experience than Senator Obama.

    i'm not sure either but i relate it to like this:

    i am the fastest runner on this planet sitting on a blue fitness ball, typing on a pj message board in toronto with no socks on wearing an alaskan sea kayaking t-shirt: FACT
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    Again, by definition fascism requires a dictator.

    His policies support socialistic ideals. How could they support socialist ideals too much more? It's not even slightly ludicrous. Why do you have such a problem with the term socialist/socialism?

    I've always thought they supported socialistic ideals. I didn't think it was that big of a deal. Typically, Democratic economics promotes socialistic ideals, so it wasn't a surprise. I don't know why McCain and Palin didn't talk about this in the beginning, ask them.

    Well, JFK cut taxes. But, yes, as a generalization.... the Democratic economic platform does support socialistic ideals.

    And socialism requires complete government control of all social, protective and legislative services, which is not even close to resembling Obama's plan. Yet you continue to say that the Democratic economic platform supports socialistic ideals. Therefore, I am well within my right to say that the Republican Party platform believes in fascistic ideals. Me saying that is inflammatory, unnecessary and an unfair portrayal of what it means to be a modern Republican, but I'm technicially right. You are technicially right when you say Obama supports socialistic ideals, because he is left. Socialism is left. I simply find it curious that you describe his policies as 'socialist'; why not 'liberal?' Socialism is a loaded word in this country, as is fascism. Your logic is misguided because it does not accurately represent what it means to be a Democrat in this country. So, as you continue to generalize Obama's plans as 'socialist', I will continue to generalize the Republican platform as 'fascist', because those are both defining relatively moderate platforms in the most extreme language available for their respective leftist and rightist ideologies.

    Honestly, Obama would be to the right in any country these days practicing socialism, so this point is pretty much moot as is.
  • inmytree wrote:
    I still want to know what McCain is going to do for me...all I know, based on his campaign, is that he wants to make sure those making a quarter of a million don't get a tax increase, that Obama is a Socialist, Marxist, and Communist, that Obama once knew W. Ayers, and that there a real parts of America and fake parts of America...

    That's what strikes me about this election the most... I live in NY, so we don't get nearly the political ads that swingstates get, but I can't remember one McCain ad being solely about himself or his policies.

    Even in 2004 with the anyone but Bush mentality, Kerry still had some positive ads about his own policies.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
Sign In or Register to comment.