Now the truth (starts to) comes out on Obama

[luckytxn 2,265]

Of course though when we have tax cuts and the economic spur comes we do exactly what shouldn't be done. We increase our spending to more than the increase tax revenues bring us. So when Bush brought in the prescription plan and increase of the Government that brought a huge unwieldly bureacracy (Homeland security, etc) and mandates to the states and that brings huge deficits. The huge deficits are a huge tax increase believe it or not. We have to pay for them down the line eventually and now just paying the interest is taking up a huge part of the budget.

Also the war is eating up a huge part of the budget. Believe it or not though we pay more to take care of our supposed obligations around the world that places American soldiers in far off places. We still have a huge military presence in Europe that should definately be brought home. Europe is wealthy and does not need our troops. We should pull all our troops out of Japan and Korea also. They are now wealthy and all we are doing is subsidizing these countries so they can use their wealth to give their citizens exactly what we want here. Socialized policies.

If we were to bring all our troops back home and reduce the military a lot and decrease the Government non essential payouts (Subsidizing farmers and corporations) then we would have a huge surplus that we can start reducing the deficit and then talk about what Social programs we want.

Edited October 29, 2008 by luckytxn

[Danno 1,228]

ALC is that you? Been there, done that.

Is that the best dodge you can do?

My friend you need to pull up some Barack debate clips and see how a pro does it.

[HAL 9000 96]

ALC is that you? Been there, done that.

Is that the best dodge you can do?

My friend you need to pull up some Barack debate clips and see how a pro does it.

DO a forums search instead. Pick your key words: US Constitution, Bill of Rights. Et Al.

And do... get over it- if that's your definition of a dodge.

[luckytxn 2,265]

So the overwhelming majority of US Taxpayers will not receive a bigger rebate under Obama than with McCain? Man I've been lied to!!

Imagine that. You actually believe any politician. Obama looks good and smart huh?

To be fair Obama the Socialist said he would wait to recind the Bush tax cuts as the economy is weak right now. When the economy is stronger it will be able to withstand the hit that a tax increase would do.

Reagan was a Socialist too, based on your logic. In fact, we haven't had a non-socialist President, ever...according to your line of thinking. Shocking isn't it?

Reagan could not and would not have been allowed to make the tax system more fair He did try though. Have to remember he was trying to undo many years of Socialism by the time he came to office. Here is a couple of links

http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm

On the Earned Income Tax Credit - which essentially gives money to the poor even if they end up not paying any federal taxes, Reagan said this...

Ronald Reagan heralded it as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."

Now tell me that's not socialism...according to your logic.

Of course you would ignore all the evidence that disproves he was no Socialist but he was reducing the tax burden further to the poor. I agree though. Lets take back that earned income credit and let them start paying taxes. As the link I put in before showed that they not only do not pay taxes but receive money from Government then I say lets tax them so we can be fair to all. Why should they get off so easily? But we know it is because we are buying their vote.

[nowhereman 1]

What 'you guys'?

But you're right about one thing- I imagine you haven't completely considered that we've had an imposition of religious views even to this day through the attempt of subverting education with doctrine of one particular flavor by religious fanatics. To be honest I would love for public schools to have a curriculum that actually taught world religions consistently instead of forcing moments of prayer and played to some sensibilities about over-celebrating one religion over another- which is what I got to see as an actual teacher not too long ago.

I see the opposite. I see the constant push of atheism, which is a belief in itself. From the number of teachers I know they are basically not allowed to celebrate anything Christian for example any more. Whereas you find me how many other countries around the world have this sort of attitude towards education. If it is Christmas, they celebrate Christmas; as the celebrate other pagan traditions such as Halloween. If it is Ramadan they celebrate with the Muslim students and other are welcome to join the festivities and so forth. This is what multiculturalism and diversity is all about. You should travel to places like Australia and see it in action some time.

I will never agree with a system which seeks to silence and suppress the peaceful beliefs of others. And then has the audacity to call this diversity and freedom. The history of America's fascination with separation of church and state is, as your pal SVRT would call it, EPIC FAIL.

It's separation of church and state... plain & simple. There are very valid reasons for this separation & I support it 100%. That doesn't mean I'm an atheist (I'm not), I just recognize the inherent danger of mixing religion and government. Look throughout history and religion doesn't exactly have a good track record. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing and the Constitution (particularly the First Amendment in this case) has passed the test of time over the past 200+ years.

Quote for me again the Part of the Constitution which says "separation of church at state?

We keep hearing about it but every time we visit D.C. we see the Founders had little reservation

blending faith (in general) and Government.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison talked about separation of church & state and they referenced the First Amendment when doing so.

[Danno 1,228]

ALC is that you? Been there, done that.

Is that the best dodge you can do?

My friend you need to pull up some Barack debate clips and see how a pro does it.

DO a forums search instead. Pick your key words: US Constitution, Bill of Rights. Et Al.

And do... get over it- if that's your definition of a dodge.

"dodge"

If you think that one is good, I did an even better one this morning by starting a thread about

"Barack lynching" only I typed "Barack lunching".

(shrug)

[nowhereman 1]

Of course though when we have tax cuts and the economic spur comes we do exactly what shouldn't be done. We increase our spending to more than the increase tax revenues bring us. So when Bush brought in the prescription plan and increase of the Government that brought a huge unwieldly bureacracy (Homeland security, etc) and mandates to the states and that brings huge deficits. The huge deficits are a huge tax increase believe it or not. We have to pay for them down the line eventually and now just paying the interest is taking up a huge part of the budget.

Also the war is eating up a huge part of the budget. Believe it or not though we pay more to take care of our supposed obligations around the world that places American soldiers in far off places. We still have a huge military presence in Europe that should definately be brought home. Europe is wealthy and does not need our troops. We should pull all our troops out of Japan and Korea also. They are now wealthy and all we are doing is subsidizing these countries so they can use their wealth to give their citizens exactly what we want here. Socialized policies.

If we were to bring all our troops back home and reduce the military a lot and decrease the Government non essential payouts (Subsidizing farmers and corporations) then we would have a huge surplus that we can start reducing the deficit and then talk about what Social programs we want.

Lucky be careful when suggesting that the military be cut... the GWOT is real... it's just the invasion of Iraq that's highly questionable. We do need to protect our interests overseas and have a healthy homeland defense (defense is the DoD side/ homeland security is the government side). In my opinion we do need to make a responsible withdrawal from Iraq, but based on conditions and not a timetable. This may sound like a republican point of view but the difference is I don't think the Bush administration really wants to leave Iraq so they would never consider the conditions right to leave (they've also written a blank check to the Iraqis again & again, never holding them to any sort of standard).

[HAL 9000 96]

ALC is that you? Been there, done that.

Is that the best dodge you can do?

My friend you need to pull up some Barack debate clips and see how a pro does it.

DO a forums search instead. Pick your key words: US Constitution, Bill of Rights. Et Al.

And do... get over it- if that's your definition of a dodge.

"dodge"

If you think that one is good, I did an even better one this morning by starting a thread about

"Barack lynching" only I typed "Barack lunching".

(shrug)

So a no-go for the US Constitution search as well as what nowhereman suggests comes from a very well-known exchange of correspondance between Jefferson and Madison.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Of course you would ignore all the evidence that disproves he was no Socialist but he was reducing the tax burden further to the poor. I agree though. Lets take back that earned income credit and let them start paying taxes. As the link I put in before showed that they not only do not pay taxes but receive money from Government then I say lets tax them so we can be fair to all. Why should they get off so easily? But we know it is because we are buying their vote.

The problem here is not a matter if they are able or not able to pay taxes. It's their inability to perform a job or have a lack of training to do a particular job. Considering that those on public assistance receive around an average of 1000/month with a mother, and child. The necessity of food, shelter, clothing shaved off about 80% of that income. It's a human nature problem that we must attend to in the US. The money isn't enough to give the mother and child enough to live let alone taxing them. And, roughly 7% are on public assistance. The government does a fine job at eliminating homelessness. If we're comparing us to other countries, they have lots of homeless people on the streets. This increase sanitation problems especially in parks, schools, public buildings. Which in turn also increase municipality spending on keeping the streets clean. The US prevented this type of problem which is considered unsafe of families. This reduce crime.

There are lots of problems in detail that needs to be examined. It's very easy to say, lets tax these people. However, the side effect is quite detrimental.

[Danno 1,228]

ALC is that you? Been there, done that.

Is that the best dodge you can do?

My friend you need to pull up some Barack debate clips and see how a pro does it.

DO a forums search instead. Pick your key words: US Constitution, Bill of Rights. Et Al.

And do... get over it- if that's your definition of a dodge.

"dodge"

If you think that one is good, I did an even better one this morning by starting a thread about

"Barack lynching" only I typed "Barack lunching".

(shrug)

So a no-go for the US Constitution search as well as what nowhereman suggests comes from a very well-known exchange of correspondance between Jefferson and Madison.

Are you suggesting that we crawl through random correspondence to determine what a well thought out document says?

Here is a little bit inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial, which I had the pleasure to visit just a few months ago.

<<God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.>>

[Niels Bohr 72]

The US founding father really has a grasp on human nature very well. It's like they can see far into the future.

[HAL 9000 96]

ALC is that you? Been there, done that.

Is that the best dodge you can do?

My friend you need to pull up some Barack debate clips and see how a pro does it.

DO a forums search instead. Pick your key words: US Constitution, Bill of Rights. Et Al.

And do... get over it- if that's your definition of a dodge.

"dodge"

If you think that one is good, I did an even better one this morning by starting a thread about

"Barack lynching" only I typed "Barack lunching".

(shrug)

So a no-go for the US Constitution search as well as what nowhereman suggests comes from a very well-known exchange of correspondance between Jefferson and Madison.

Are you suggesting that we crawl through random correspondence to determine what a well thought out document says?

Here is a little bit inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial, which I had the pleasure to visit just a few months ago.

<<God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free. Establish the law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state to effect and on a general plan.>>

No, I suggest you get a better sense of logic before redefining what is proper historical context.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

His campaign has run from the label of wanting to "redistribute wealth".

Is Obama really a socialist leaning kinda guy?

Listen to another unearthed recording of Obama discussing...not "if" we should have been redistributing the wealth.. but how to go about it.... in a radio interview.

In fact he calls it a TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT .

I have always said, Obama is a nice guy but way to liberal for me.

I don't get it. Isn't a progressive tax system a "redistribution of wealth"? Haven't we had that since Roman times? I think your observation shows a lack of historical knowledge.

Redistribution of income is an outcome of a progressive tax system, but redistribution of wealth is something different, The two terms - income and wealth - are not interchangable in the economic lexicon; wealth consists one's net worth: Assets minus liabilities. Income is how much you earn from one or multiple sources. The impact of a redistribution of income in contrast to a distribution of wealth would differ considerably, as could the methodologies involved to achieve them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Redistribution of income is an outcome of a progressive tax system, but redistribution of wealth is something different, The two terms - income and wealth - are not interchangable in the economic lexicon; wealth consists one's net worth: Assets minus liabilities. Income is how much you earn from one or multiple sources. The impact of a redistribution of income in contrast to a distribution of wealth would differ considerably, as could the methodologies involved to achieve them.

Which is why calling Obama's tax policy, socialism via a redistribution of wealth, silly beyond absurd.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Redistribution of income is an outcome of a progressive tax system, but redistribution of wealth is something different, The two terms - income and wealth - are not interchangable in the economic lexicon; wealth consists one's net worth: Assets minus liabilities. Income is how much you earn from one or multiple sources. The impact of a redistribution of income in contrast to a distribution of wealth would differ considerably, as could the methodologies involved to achieve them.

Which is why calling Obama's tax policy, socialism via a redistribution of wealth, silly beyond absurd.

Obama's calling for a distribution of wealth, not just a redistribution of income. That's why he's being called a socialist.