The final warning of an Obama Presidency

24567

Comments

  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    blackredyellow wrote:
    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.


    Our system is progressive. And he wants to increase the "progression". Therefore, it redistributes MORE wealth from the wealth to the less fortunate. It is promoting redistribution of wealth. Why doesn't Obama just say, "yes it is. I don't have a problem with that." That would be really refreshing IMHO.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    polaris wrote:
    although obama may promote a plan that has socialist leanings - there is no way he can be called a socialist by any stretch ...

    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.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    You would agree that this is not 1993, right? I mean the economic environment is completely different. We are in a much bigger economic downturn than what was experienced in early 90s. Moreover, we may not have a "mixed" congress like was the case in the 90s. It appears the Dems will have full control. Lastly, the 90s harbored the knowledge boom. Computers and the internet took off. This increased efficiency and boosted productivity.

    It wasn't a mixed Congress in the early 90s. Clinton worked under two full years with a Democratic House and Senate. It wasn't until January 95 that Republicans retained control.
  • Mrs.Vedder78
    Mrs.Vedder78 Posts: 4,585
    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.


    So you started beating this drum before or after Sarah Palin started suggesting this at her rallies? :rolleyes:

    Some people need to get a brain of their own around here....
    "Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
  • wcsmith
    wcsmith Posts: 165
    What I find fascinating with the direction this campaign has taken is the fact that this seems to be a battle between Roosevelt democrats and Reagan republicans. If FDR were running today on a New Deal platform, the charges of socialism would be even more prominent. And, imho, Reaganism, so-called, has a lot to do with the situation we currently find ourselves in.

    In all, this is a fascinating conversation, IF people would calm down about how Obama is going to destroy the country, kill your children, make you convert to Islam (is he a Marxist/Communist or an Islamofascist? And, yes, those two are mutually exclusive), etc.

    I am an Obama supporter, but more to the point, I'm fascinated with the history of American political movements. I also like to think about historical causality (the FDR-Reagan battle being an example; also, part of what we're dealing with in terms of foreign policy, is the fallout from the Great Wars in Europe in the first half of the last century; domestically, especially in my native south, we are dealing with the fallout of the Civil War: reconstruction, Jim Crow, and Civil Rights were all attempts to heal from the rupture of the Civil War and that attempt continues)

    Anyway, just some random thoughts...
    "I'll ride the wave where it takes me"
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:
    So you started beating this drum before or after Sarah Palin started suggesting this at her rallies? :rolleyes:

    Some people need to get a brain of their own around here....

    I sincerely doubt many, if any, conservative commentators or posters here were calling Obama a socialist before this past month.
  • Mrs.Vedder78
    Mrs.Vedder78 Posts: 4,585
    digster wrote:
    It wasn't a mixed Congress in the early 90s. Clinton worked under two full years with a Democratic House and Senate. It wasn't until January 95 that Republicans retained control.


    That what republicans are hoping people miss, but they are very adament in stating that under the Bush Administration it is all the democrats fault because they have been in charge for the last 2 years... talk about hypocrisy...
    "Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    You would agree that this is not 1993, right? I mean the economic environment is completely different. We are in a much bigger economic downturn than what was experienced in early 90s. Moreover, we may not have a "mixed" congress like was the case in the 90s. It appears the Dems will have full control. Lastly, the 90s harbored the knowledge boom. Computers and the internet took off. This increased efficiency and boosted productivity.

    So, the reason I'm scared. We are in a shit storm econonomic environment right now. IMHO, this is way worse then the typical "recession" like 92 or 01. And in this environment we are going to increase taxes on the entire private sector? And We are going to raise spending? On top of that, we don't have a new technology that is going to help us increase efficiency. I just don't think his plan is smart economic policy. But, we'll have four years to debate that.

    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.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    It's ridiculous to label his plans as socialist. Do parts of his plans have socialism in them? Yes, quite simply because he is left of center and socialism is the extremist leftist position. So, by nature his plans would have socialistic aspects because he's not a conservative. He's a liberal. But making the wide leap to socialism from being a liberal is as unsubstantiated and ludicrous as saying that because of Republican's use of the military and nationalism that they are therefore fascist. Why not? The logic we've used for Obama is that we define his policies by the most extreme language available in the entire leftist ideology. So, from now on, every time McCain stresses "Country First" he's a fascist. It sounds ridiculous then, and it's ridiculous in regards to Obama as well..

    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.
    digster wrote:
    I'm wondering if people who are calling Obama and his plans socialist have ever really met socialists or been to a country operating under a quasi-socialist government. Obama is far right compared to the modern socialist/extreme leftist. It's just the same basic inflammatory language that we never would've even heard if Obama and McCain were neck-in-neck in the polls.

    Why did the communist party of America support Obama?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    saveuplife wrote:
    Why did the communist party of America support Obama?


    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.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Mrs.Vedder78
    Mrs.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
  • mammasan
    mammasan 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
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife 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.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    why does the kkk support mccain?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i68a8yDXefI&feature=related


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

    So, why did the Communist Party of USA support Obama?
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife 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.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife 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.
  • digster
    digster 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.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife 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?
  • wcsmith
    wcsmith 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"
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    blackredyellow wrote:
    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

Categories