OBAMA is a socialist!!!!
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
Here is the article I read yesterday...take it for what it's worth...I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.
-
StangerBanger96;244226 wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html
Here is the article I read yesterday...take it for what it's worth...He has only stated that he will allow the taxes to reset on those above 250,000, those under that amount would stay the same AND have new tax cuts for those below $250,000 (actually, below $200,000...the $200,000 to $250,000 stay the same).
-
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/ is his calculator...if the plans go through.
I still contend that if you tax the middle class less, it will improve overall spending, thereby creating demand and ultimately more jobs.
-
and a big thank you to google for helping me find this link as well.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
-
People (especially Jim, who is smart enough to know better) shouldn't confuse socialism and communism. Most european nations are "socialist" in the sense that the needs of society (defined by the government) are prioritized over the needs and rights of individuals.
Socialism doesn't imply or require collective ownership of capital & labor, doesn't imply or require the government to set wages, etc.
Socialist nations tend to feature very high taxes, very heavy regulation, and heavy redistributionist policies.
There is no credible argument that Obama doesn't plan to take us further towards the socio-economic style of european socialism. It is NOT UP FOR DEBATE that he thinks it is appropriate to take more money from the wealthy to pay for services, programs, and outright handouts for the less wealthy. He wants this in the name of "social justice" and for "the good of society". He feels that the good of society is more important than the rights of a specific individual.
Again, this is not up for debate. And this is essentially the definition of socialism -- prioritizing society over the individual.
Furthermore, Obama is NOT someone who is satisfied with the US constitution. You can find his 2001 speech on civil rights, where he laments that the Constituion is a negative liberties document. He complains that the civil rights movement didn't do enough to transform the role of government in the US into a "equality of outcome" and "social justice" instrument.
Everyone between FDR and Reagan, and everyone after Reagan, has allowed for creeping progress of the progressive/socialist agenda in the US. That doesn't mean that there aren't different Degrees of progress (well, regression IMO).
For anyone that is on the fence about this or doesn't understand why smart people are so afraid the changes Obama hopes to bring, I can chat with you in person or PM you or whatever. I can also loan you my personal copies of "Free to Choose, "The Road to Serfdom", or "Capitalism and Freedom" -- books which will help you understand why what Obama wants, and why his general worldview -- is so dangerous to our prosperity and ultimately our freedom.
It is my opinion that Obama is the most authoritarian-socialist leaning candidate for president we have ever had. The nastiest part about it is that he seems to be happy to ignore or work outside the law and even his own promises to acheive his goals. That concerns me a lot.
-
weshole;244243 wrote:
Chucks on a roll fellas. LOOK OUT!!! I love what I started. My lil thread has blossomed.Oh BTW. Obama is still a Socialist. A Nazi too.
and he wants to be sworn in on the Quran...it's true, I got an email on it the other day so it has to be true...right?
-
thrash;244245 wrote:
People (especially Jim, who is smart enough to know better) shouldn't confuse socialism and communism. Most european nations are "socialist" in the sense that the needs of society (defined by the government) are prioritized over the needs and rights of individuals.Socialism doesn't imply or require collective ownership of capital & labor, doesn't imply or require the government to set wages, etc.
Socialist nations tend to feature very high taxes, very heavy regulation, and heavy redistributionist policies.
There is no credible argument that Obama doesn't plan to take us further towards the socio-economic style of european socialism. It is NOT UP FOR DEBATE that he thinks it is appropriate to take more money from the wealthy to pay for services, programs, and outright handouts for the less wealthy. He wants this in the name of "social justice" and for "the good of society". He feels that the good of society is more important than the rights of a specific individual.
Again, this is not up for debate. And this is essentially the definition of socialism -- prioritizing society over the individual.
Furthermore, Obama is NOT someone who is satisfied with the US constitution. You can find his 2001 speech on civil rights, where he laments that the Constituion is a negative liberties document. He complains that the civil rights movement didn't do enough to transform the role of government in the US into a "equality of outcome" and "social justice" instrument.
Everyone between FDR and Reagan, and everyone after Reagan, has allowed for creeping progress of the progressive/socialist agenda in the US. That doesn't mean that there aren't different Degrees of progress (well, regression IMO).
For anyone that is on the fence about this or doesn't understand why smart people are so afraid the changes Obama hopes to bring, I can chat with you in person or PM you or whatever. I can also loan you my personal copies of "Free to Choose, "The Road to Serfdom", or "Capitalism and Freedom" -- books which will help you understand why what Obama wants, and why his general worldview -- is so dangerous to our prosperity and ultimately our freedom.
It is my opinion that Obama is the most authoritarian-socialist leaning candidate for president we have ever had. The nastiest part about it is that he seems to be happy to ignore or work outside the law and even his own promises to acheive his goals. That concerns me a lot.
Sorry, your wrong. I am smart enough to not confuse socialism and communism.
Socialism is defined as: Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
Communism is defined as: Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian,** classless society **based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.
Obama is neither a socialist, nor a communist. I'm not sure how your defining socialism, but it is widely accepted (and the actual basis of) socialism as defined above.
-
must
find
popcorn
emoticon
-
Jim,
Read the whole summary block from the Wikipedia article you took the "definition" from. Which one of these points do you think Obama isn't for? Explain why.
-
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society
-
All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly
-
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.
Furthermore, state ownership is NOT a feature of many scandanavian and european countries, yet everyone agrees that they are social democracies and are for all intents and purposes "socialist". Why is there a lengthy discussion of the various european states in the very article you cite? If you want to base your entire argument on the accuracy of 1 of 2 or 3 clauses of the first definition in the Wikipedia article, that's fine.
I've invented a new word called "euro-welfare-statist" that means "most of what the article you quoted talks about but doesn't have an iron-clad reliance on state-ownership, and generally describes most western european economies, and the direction that Obama wants to take us".
Feel better?
-
-
Jim's "definition" of socialism is just one part, here is an interesting snip on the definition....
"As we've learned, socialism is difficult to define because it has so many incarnations. One of the things socialists agree on is that capitalism causes oppression of the lower class. Socialists believe that due to the competitive nature of capitalism, the wealthy minority maintains control of industry, effectively driving down wages and opportunity for the working class. The main goal of socialism is to dispel class distinctions by turning over control of industry to the state. This results in a harmonious society, free of oppression and financial instability"
Now, what Obama wants isn't the actual control of industry by the state, but his plans are basically identical to what the socialists want to do to capitalism.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
thrash;244260 wrote:
Jim,Read the whole summary block from the Wikipedia article you took the "definition" from. Which one of these points do you think Obama isn't for? Explain why.
Furthermore, state ownership is NOT a feature of many scandanavian and european countries, yet everyone agrees that they are social democracies and are for all intents and purposes "socialist". Why is there a lengthy discussion of the various european states in the very article you cite? If you want to base your entire argument on the accuracy of 1 of 2 or 3 clauses of the first definition in the Wikipedia article, that's fine.
I've invented a new word called "euro-welfare-statist" that means "most of what the article you quoted talks about but doesn't have an iron-clad reliance on state-ownership, and generally describes most western european economies, and the direction that Obama wants to take us".
Feel better?
I'm not basing my argument over a few sentences of information Thrash, look, I've read plenty about socialism.
You ramble on about your libertarian view points, books to read so an so forth, but look, anyway that you look at it, Obama is not a socialist.
Does Obama want nationalized health care.... no.
Are Obama's tax plans promoting ACTUAL income reditribution... no.
Are Obama's tax plans promoting levels of taxation anywhere near to the levels of taxes in a "socialist" state? no
Has deregulation of the banking industry helped us? NoSo maybe you can clear things up for me, but how again is Obama a socialist?
-
DaveH;244263 wrote:
Jim's "definition" of socialism is just one part, here is an interesting snip on the definition...."As we've learned, socialism is difficult to define because it has so many incarnations. One of the things socialists agree on is that capitalism causes oppression of the lower class. Socialists believe that due to the competitive nature of capitalism, the wealthy minority maintains control of industry, effectively driving down wages and opportunity for the working class. The main goal of socialism is to dispel class distinctions by turning over control of industry to the state. This results in a harmonious society, free of oppression and financial instability"
Now, what Obama wants isn't the actual control of industry by the state, but his plans are basically identical to what the socialists want to do to capitalism.
Socialist want to force the means of production in to the hands of the working class, none of which Obama has supported or proposed, here is a quote directly from the Socialist party:
"Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth."
-
Jim;244269 wrote:
Does Obama want nationalized health care.... no.Yes. He hates that not everyone gets health care. He's going to steal from me to pay for others to get care. Name one economy anywhere in the world where government forces everyone to have government-paid-for healthcare and then the government itself doesn't directly nationalize or regulate to the point of defacto-nationalization of healthcare. Did you know that private healthcare in Canada is (effectively) illegal ? That doesn't bother you?
Are Obama's tax plans promoting ACTUAL income reditribution... no.
Yes. Furthermore, his tax plans aren't at issue -- his words are. His own words are "we need to spread the wealth around, you need to share with the people behind you". His tax policy is one of the ways he'll do that, but unfortuneately, not the only way.
Are Obama's tax plans promoting levels of taxation anywhere near to the levels of taxes in the so called "socialist" euro states? No
For most of the people who will get handouts? Of course not. They won't pay antyhing.
You probably don't remember this, but prior to Reagan the top income tax bracket was over 50%. Seriously. We're only 30 years away from being as bad as the euro-socialist nations. And our corporate income tax rate is one of the highest in the world, and Obama wants to get more money via corporate income tax. Yet somehow he's going to keep jobs here in the US by increasing the business tax burden?
Has deregulation of the banking industry helped us? No
It's not clear to me that you've tendered a qualified opinion or analysis on this issue. Suggesting that bank deregulation is at fault or even relevant in the current situation when the primary entities involved were all creations of the federal government [which have worked to avoid being regulated] seems dishonest.
-
Jim;244270 wrote:
Socialist want to force the means of production in to the hands of the working class, none of which Obama has supported or proposed, here is a quote directly from the Socialist party:.This is exactly what I said in the quote above. This is the one part of socialism that Obama doesn't claim to be for.
But the large majority of the rest of the socialist platform he "is" for.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
thrash;244271 wrote:
Yes. He hates that not everyone gets health care. He's going to steal from me to pay for others to get care.im sorry but if some kid's life is saved by you NOT super sizing tomorrow then tough shit. stop posting on the interwebs so you can get back to torturing and killing kittens.
if you make 250k+ and the tax hike means you are forced to stop being so wasteful (because thats all it is when you make that sort of money) then i say GOOD if a single mom can raise two kids on 23k a year then you and your quarter mil can suffer and mow your own lawn from now on.
-
So then wtf is the point of working, going to school for a long time and trying to get a high paying job such as a surgeon, lawyer, docter ect, when one can just skip college all together and the government will punish those that worked to get where they are and give me their money?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login