Obama a Marxist......what is going on in this interview?

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87


His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I keep hearing this... How can anyone make 18k per year and pay no taxes? When I was young and just starting out I made 10, 12, 15k per year the first 3 years and I paid a couple thousand in taxes, most of it federal.

Serious question: Who are these people that reportedly pay zero tax and where is the proof that they dont pay? I mean I hear it, but see nothing that proves its real.

My sister and her husband don't pay any income tax. they actually get more money back from filing federal tax returns than they paid in federal income taxes.
4 kids, she doesn't work, he works as a church camp director(making jack squat).

Know why I know? I've done their taxes... I do it for free but they have to sit through my lecture on how it's wrong they get more than they pay in. I am a big believer in "NET ZERO" for income taxes.

I guess that makes sense... when I was young and made jack squat, I was single, no dependants and no deductions. Ya, I dont like the idea of giving a $500 credit to these people, if they paid nothing.

Obama's entire tax plan revolves around a half dozen 'credits' to people who pay nothing.


"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. " - Winston Churchill

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
You give the rich more money and it doesn't go back into our economy. It goes straight into off-shore bank accounts.

So the solution is to raise taxes on the rich and force more money into offshore bank accounts....ok!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Of course I did. But a lot of people around here think that if you take a different stance than they do, you must not have "heard it right" or you somehow overlooked something.

He's far more liberal than he's letting on, and it's thoroughly evidenced throughout his entire public past.

Now, I still think he's a better choice than McCain, but that doesn't mean I'm not really fucking pissed about it .

Welcome to my world.

I also suspect that Obama is personally much more liberal than he has let on during his campaign, but he's still the best choice we have... McCain blew his shot the moment he picked Palin.

Yep. The "OMG libuhral!" cries fall flat on their face IMO when you look at Palin's ultra-right extremism.
Even more disconcerting to me has been the filthiness of the miserable McCain/Palin campaign.
I felt early on that McCain was not the right choice for this country, and he has done nothing but prove me right every step of the way.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87


His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I keep hearing this... How can anyone make 18k per year and pay no taxes? When I was young and just starting out I made 10, 12, 15k per year the first 3 years and I paid a couple thousand in taxes, most of it federal.

Serious question: Who are these people that reportedly pay zero tax and where is the proof that they dont pay? I mean I hear it, but see nothing that proves its real.

Lucky duckies

 

[theeedude]

After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^Yes. I know Obama is for giving the Middle Class a chance with new tax breaks by rolling back unnecessary tax cuts that were enacted for the wealthy who don't need them, I agree with that. But what he's talking about here is something I don't agree with if I'm understanding it correctly.

His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I am still on the fence over this idea. It isnt as much about taking the money from peter to pay paul, which I dont like either. But will hooking the middle class on the same failed govt intervention principles as the poor help them or hurt them in the long run?

Here's a question.

If you're trying to stimulant an economy, which class is more likely to spend? In other words, who should we give money to in order to stimulate the economy?
The rich?
The middle class?
The poor?

Going by the numbers, the rich save the most (as a percent of total income) and are therefore less likely to spend any of a tax cut. Scratch them off the list Any free money they're given is going into an off-shore bank account for safe keeping. The members of the fortune 500 freely admitted this when Bush gave them tax cuts the last time. Even the bailout is being saved by many banks. This is proof that cutting taxes for the rich does nothing but freeze wealth.

The middle class are a fine choice, but they also tend to save. They don't save as much as the rich, but they save nonetheless. Still, dropping taxes here can fuel spending more than the rich.

The lower class consist of people living from paycheck to paycheck. OF COURSE they'll spend the tax cut. They'll spend every last penny of that check.

We have a consumer-driven society. As an economic stimulus plan, reducing taxes on the middle and lower classes makes the most sense.

This is entirely true. Of course, the best situation is one with plenty of jobs for anyone who is willing and able to work, which pay enough to at minimum live without being just a parking ticket or hospital visit away from not being able to pay their rent or feed their kids.

This of course is not the world we live in, and to have this money going into their hands and recirculating in domestic business coffers is far better than it continue to accumulate without limit into the hands of the already-rich elites.

Compare executive salaries in 1980 to today, and contrast it with the average worker. No matter which way you slice it, the super-rich are only continuing to accumulate more and more of the total national wealth.

I have no problem with the super rich, but when you have someone making $50m/year, and you're worried that they only get to keep 32m/year instead of 30m/year, that gets kind of wacky.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
^Yes. I know Obama is for giving the Middle Class a chance with new tax breaks by rolling back unnecessary tax cuts that were enacted for the wealthy who don't need them, I agree with that. But what he's talking about here is something I don't agree with if I'm understanding it correctly.

His tax plan for the middle class isnt just rolling back taxes for the wealthy. It gives refundable tax credits to households under 250K in income. Refundable means if I make 18K a year and effectively pay 0 in income tax I get a check for 500 bucks from the govt.

I am still on the fence over this idea. It isnt as much about taking the money from peter to pay paul, which I dont like either. But will hooking the middle class on the same failed govt intervention principles as the poor help them or hurt them in the long run?

Here's a question.

If you're trying to stimulant an economy, which class is more likely to spend? In other words, who should we give money to in order to stimulate the economy?
The rich?
The middle class?
The poor?

Going by the numbers, the rich save the most (as a percent of total income) and are therefore less likely to spend any of a tax cut. Scratch them off the list Any free money they're given is going into an off-shore bank account for safe keeping. The members of the fortune 500 freely admitted this when Bush gave them tax cuts the last time. Even the bailout is being saved by many banks. This is proof that cutting taxes for the rich does nothing but freeze wealth.

The middle class are a fine choice, but they also tend to save. They don't save as much as the rich, but they save nonetheless. Still, dropping taxes here can fuel spending more than the rich.

The lower class consist of people living from paycheck to paycheck. OF COURSE they'll spend the tax cut. They'll spend every last penny of that check.

We have a consumer-driven society. As an economic stimulus plan, reducing taxes on the middle and lower classes makes the most sense.

Ill propose my thoughts below as a counter to your idea that giving money to the poor is the best way to stimulate an economy. This is iseperate of the idea of whether or not transfer of wealth is something we want the IRS doing.

There is a reason why Keynesian policies were drifted away from in the 1970's. It really didnt deliver the goods like you claim. That stimulus check that was sent out in June. How much good did it really do? If you take from the rich, give to the poor, that in turn give back to the rich. Did the rich gain anything? Did the economy gain anything? Did the poor gain anything? There are opportunity costs in taxing one person to give to another.

Stadiums are a great example of this. People often cite the economic uptick that stadiums bring to big cities. What they fail to mention is the public costs(taxes) that are sunk into them to attain these economic upticks. Does sinking 600 million into a stadium pay for itself over the long term vs letting that 600 million stay in the wild and generate wealth on its own? I havent heard a study give a resounding yes.

Secondly when the rich save, they save in banks, or they invest. That money goes back into the economy to stimulate investment at some level which in turn creates wealth and employment.

btw the lower classes dont pay taxes. What we are now doing is giving them money for the sake of being poor.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

Hey, MY Congressman voted against it. Unfortunately 'pubs like Mike Pence are few and far between.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

As a state without registered affiliation, I can accurately say that I am NOT a Republican. Yes, it was a socialistic move. No, I dont like it. It doesnt change what socialism is...

Relativism is one of the biggest evils in society and politics. While I would agree that perfect is sometimes the enemy of good, I also think we toss fair for shit because we didnt like fair, and dont always recognize shit when we step in it.

Yes... ranting lunacy. I recognize that... but you dig through the shit and I am sure there is a pony in there somewhere

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

Hey, MY Congressman voted against it. Unfortunately 'pubs like Mike Pence are few and far between.

Yeah, I envy you. Pence si the real deal. I have Souder... he voted for it. I gave his office a call and sent an email expressing my displeasure, but at the end of the day it's him or some snot-nosed kid who just moved to the district. Shoot, even the uber-liberal Journal Gazette out of Fort Wayne is endorsing Souder, albeit begrudgingly.

To be perfectly honest, I havent disagreed with Souder on much... this one just happened to be pretty big. One big thing he has going for him is his ultra-transparency of campaign funding, earmarkes, etc. If nothing, he is (for what I can tell) honest.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
About time you open your eyes.

Look at who the guy pals around with.
Ignore the fact that Ayers was a terrorist and look at his other views. Look at the work ACORN does etc etc.

Obama wins and it is the return of big government.

And even if all that were true, he's still a better choice than McCain and the Republican party. Kinda sad isn't it?

Give me a break about the Ayers nonsense, that is bullshit and you know it. Even the ACORN nonsense isn't worth the time of day, he represented them in a court case along with the US government. He isn't responsible for what the employees of ACORN are out there doing. And you do realize he has to deal with Congress if he wants to enact anything?

I just want to know what the fuck he's trying to say here.

Do you have any clue what Ayers stands for beyond the bombings??

Looked at the ideas in his books about criminal justice?
The guy has admitted to be a communist and a marxist.

what does ayers have to do with this again?

 

[kamiller42]

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

The exception does not define the rule. With Obama, socialization is the rule.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

The exception does not define the rule. With Obama, socialization is the rule.

Nonsense. A politician's ideology is defined by his actions, not his rhetoric.

IMO, this is the major failing of the modern Republican party. It habitually elects leaders who act contrary to their rhetoric, yet the party rank-and-file consistently defends these leader's action with their rhetoric. To an outside observer, even a non-partisan one like myself, this is no longer tolerable.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Drudge has this as his top story...

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

But increasing demand doesn't help create more wealth, only devalue our money

this seems pretty counter-intuitive imo. explain yourself.

In my mind increased demand for american goods should increase the value of currency.

furthermore, how does increased demand not lead to greater wealth? More demand => more production => more profits => more wealth?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

Hey, MY Congressman voted against it. Unfortunately 'pubs like Mike Pence are few and far between.

My Congressman voted against it, and he (David Wu) is a leftist Democrat.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Drudge has this as his top story...

Drudge is the reason there was a Monica "scandal" against Clinton. I'd like to hope that America is capable of moving beyond his smallmindedness.

 

[chess9]

We've had a major redistribution of wealth the last 8 years. It's time to change the direction of the flow. Tax policy is a rational means of accomplishing that goal. Regulation of Wall Street is another. Reducing subsidies for large oil companies is yet another. Kapish?

Passing a tax cut for the wealthy is an income redistribution scheme. Giving Exxon billions of dollars in special tax credits is an income redistribution scheme. Collecting taxes to pay for a standing army is an income redistribution scheme.

We have more idiots on this board than should be allowed by statistical chance, particularly right wing ones.

-Robert

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Yes, that is redistribution of wealth, BUT it is Marxist in nature. Sorry. It is. You decrease one person's economic standing to increase anothers, that is Marxism.

no, thats politics.


marxism:

it laid out the League's purposes and program. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian (working class) revolution to overthrow the bourgeois social order and to eventually bring about a classless and stateless society, and the abolition of private property.

there's a little bit of difference there

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
btw the lower classes dont pay taxes. What we are now doing is giving them money for the sake of being poor.

I'm sick of this straw man, Gen. Everyone in this country (who doesn't live alone in a cabin in the woods) pays taxes. Maybe they don't pay federal income taxes, but there are countless other forms of taxation.
Also, keep in mind that about half of that 40% that doesn't pay federal income taxes are elderly living on non-taxable income and students working part-time. So, the figure is about as valid as when the left says 45 million live without health insurance, ignoring that about a third of that number are illegal immigrants.

Plus, it's kind of silly to envy the "lucky duckies" who make so little that they don't have to pay federal income taxes, don't you think? That's hardly an enviable position to be in.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Yes, that is redistribution of wealth, BUT it is Marxist in nature. Sorry. It is. You decrease one person's economic standing to increase anothers, that is Marxism.

no, thats politics.


marxism:

it laid out the League's purposes and program. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian (working class) revolution to overthrow the bourgeois social order and to eventually bring about a classless and stateless society, and the abolition of private property.

there's a little bit of difference there

Most of those arguing Marxism/Socialism here would know what it is if it bit them in the ass.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
At face value it is very hard to see what Obama is trying to say here. This is coming from an ardent Obama supporter.

What's so hard about it? He clearly thinks the Warren court didnt go far enough to "balance" racial injustice in the areas of politics and economics. The former I can only gather as some kind of quota or affirmative action for politicians... the latter I can only gather as Marxism... if only for a one-time redistribution. It is unclear whether he believes in Marxism as a form of economic/political structure, or if it is "just this one time."

I liked the part where he definied the consititution as a list of "negative liberties," and then went on to say that while it defines what government cannot do, it doesnt really define what it MUST do. Horse shit. I guess this "constitutional scholar" didnt into the amendments at all? Hello 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not much ambiguity there. If it constitution doesnt say that the federal government CAN do it, then it CANT do it. How freaking hard is that?

He also called himself a Professor... lie. He was never a professor. He was a lecturer... but I will give him a pass and call it "padding the resume."

Pair these remarks with the "Joe the Plumber" remarks, and you have a guy who has been 100% in favor of Marxism for the last 8 years. It cannot be

obama was a senior lecturer at the university of chicago, which is their term for a part time, non-tenured professor, and the university considers it a professorial position. So yes he was a professor.

And as far as marxism/socialism/communism go, if you actually know what those words mean, you would understand that he is clearly not.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: jbourne77
This is the Barack Obama many of already knew.

Did you guys not listen to what he said?

Of course I did. But a lot of people around here think that if you take a different stance than they do, you must not have "heard it right" or you somehow overlooked something.

He's far more liberal than he's letting on, and it's thoroughly evidenced throughout his entire public past.

Now, I still think he's a better choice than McCain, but that doesn't mean I'm not really fucking pissed about it .

Since when did liberalism become a curse-word?

Far more liberal. See the difference? It's called extreme. And yes: I consider extreme anything to be a "curse word".

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
About time you open your eyes.

Look at who the guy pals around with.
Ignore the fact that Ayers was a terrorist and look at his other views. Look at the work ACORN does etc etc.

Obama wins and it is the return of big government.

And even if all that were true, he's still a better choice than McCain and the Republican party. Kinda sad isn't it?

Give me a break about the Ayers nonsense, that is bullshit and you know it. Even the ACORN nonsense isn't worth the time of day, he represented them in a court case along with the US government. He isn't responsible for what the employees of ACORN are out there doing. And you do realize he has to deal with Congress if he wants to enact anything?

I just want to know what the fuck he's trying to say here.

Don't forget to mention that ACORN never did anything wrong: bound by law to report suspicious signatures, which is exactly what they did. absofuckinklutely Ridiculous. The only voter registration fraud that is legit at this moment concerns the GOP in CA, a repeated offender.

 

[kamiller42]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

The exception does not define the rule. With Obama, socialization is the rule.

Nonsense. A politician's ideology is defined by his actions, not his rhetoric.

IMO, this is the major failing of the modern Republican party. It habitually elects leaders who act contrary to their rhetoric, yet the party rank-and-file consistently defends these leader's action with their rhetoric. To an outside observer, even a non-partisan one like myself, this is no longer tolerable.

Not nonsense. It's common sense. What does McCain's voting record mostly reflect, pork spending or spending cuts?