That comparison doesn't make a lot of sense though. Most of the middle class are middle class and do not fall lower because they are more responsible than the poor. Combining that responsibility with a bit of financial tax relief can go a long way in this country.
That comparison doesn't make a lot of sense though. Most of the middle class are middle class and do not fall lower because they are more responsible than the poor. Combining that responsibility with a bit of financial tax relief can go a long way in this country.
Yes. You are 100% correct. Until everyone pays for the services they receive (something that wont happen and I dont expect or think SHOULD to happen) then we will have a redistribution of wealth. Even with EVERYONE paying the exact proportion of their income as everyone else (true flat tax), it would STILL be redistributive... but it wouldnt necessarily be Marxist.
Yes and no. We can argue over specific social programs to help the poor. 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. This is where we part ways. We have already started down that slope (social security, food stamps, welfare, medicaid, medicare, department of education, etc.), but I prefer to put a stake in the ground and go no further while finding a way to scale back up the kill, rather than pouring oil on the hill and sliding it down it faster than Clark W. Griswold on a saucer sled. If I am successful, I should NOT be punished for it.
I ignore you here. You really dont have a point here other than to rail on Haliburton.
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:
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
Extraordinary sad, yes. I willfully voted for a man who goes against almost every grain of belief in my body because McCain can barely tie his shoes in the morning without springing a leak.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
So Bill Clinton and the Senate were also a bunch of socialist / marxist / terrorist because of his tax plan in the mid-90s? You realize Obama's proposal is basically to bring taxes back in line with how they were a decade ago?
I'm sorry, but it is not Marxism. That's like saying every time a corporation gets help from the government it is fascism. Since rich people pay more into a road than poor people do, are public roads Marxism? How do you explain this when progressive taxation and such things long predated Marx?
I have no idea why you would ignore the Halliburton comment. I simply used them because they are a well known corporation that has gotten quite a bit of money from the government. That is wealth redistribution to the rich, yet that sort of wealth redistribution gets a pass from the right for the most part. What people don't seem to get is that while the rich pay more into government, they also gain more from government. It represents their interests to a far larger degree than it does any poor person's.
Obama is simply espousing the same thing that the vast majority of Americans believe, but through loaded terms it is being turned into something that people would say they oppose. If you ask the average American if the rich pay their fair share in taxes, 2/3rds say they pay too little and should be taxed more. Similarly they think the middle class need a tax cut. So with these issues framed that way, Obama's ideas have overwhelming support. If you turn around and call them Marxism then suddenly there's a problem.
This is far more of a question of framing bias than actual ideological problems.
Did you guys not listen to what he said? He said the civil rights movement focused too much on the courts when they should've focused their attention on the legislature. This is common sense. You want something done, it is better to form a caucus that is strong enough to advocate your beliefs, not by simply suing. What's better is that the legislative route is the most democratic. Blacks should've made themselves better economically and politically, that would've transferred to more representation in the political-economy. Their representation would've gone much further than paying their taxes and getting shitted on in return.
But I guess people are going to hear what they want to hear.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Perhaps it's just easier to accept ROW when the recipients are those who are directly involved in the defense of our nation? Perhaps, psychologically, it's simply a matter of the return being more tangible...?
Try using an example that doesn't tie so directly to a constitutionally mandated function of the Federal Government... that might help you make your otherwise valid point.
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
.Listened to the entire interview.
The youtube clip I posted was just a snippet of what they were talking about. Taken into context, what Obama was saying is not really that out of line.....even if I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions.
The youtube clip I posted was just a snippet of what they were talking about. Taken into context, what Obama was saying is not really that out of line.....even if I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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 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.
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
Since when did liberalism become a curse-word? I really want to know this because, although I'm from Texas, I live in NYC and the people here are far more interesting than what we had in Texas. Even better, I get to interact with other people and pick up new ideas. I consider myself conservative when it comes to social and economic matters but the only people who I will impose that on will be my future family (and I don't expect anyone to impose their beliefs on me). So, tell me exactly what is wrong with liberalism.
I suppose it's not surprising that a tech board is filled with so many politically uninformed and unaware people, but to take a discussion about Supreme Court decisions and trying to meld it into something about Marxism is just laughably stupid. If anything, this interview was the opposite of Marxist.
Is it really that hard to learn stuff before barking?
Is it really that hard to learn stuff before barking?
What were his conclusions in your opinion? From what I saw, he basically implied that people should be more involved in the political-economy. You can't influence the legislature without any type of political-economic influence. That basically means blacks being integrated fully into American society and having their own tax dollars go further for them rather than paying taxes and getting sub-human treatment instead.
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.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
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.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Actually, the Constitution expressly forbids standing armies, so I think spy's point is pretty valid.
ROW is a big reason why people throughout history formed govts in the first place. It's hardly original to Marx. The real political questions are how much ROW and for what purposes. Roads? Schools? Military? And I think this is where the right has lost its way and its credibility, because in recent decades they have advocated significant ROW and big govt, but only so long as little as possible goes to the poor. That's not only hypocritical and unjust, but has become economically damaging, and we're starting to see that fallout today, both economically and politicially.
All I'm looking for is some restoration of balance.
Regardless, comments from the interview are being taken out of context here, and even in entirety it is obviously going way over the heads of most here. What happened to the blacks in this country was unjust, I don't see how anyone can argue against that.
This country is going to need a hard steer to the left after what the Republicans have done. I'm all for re-building our economy from the ground up.
You give the rich more money and it doesn't go back into our economy. It goes straight into off-shore bank accounts. You give the middle class and lower income families more money and it goes right into things like gas, food, bills, etc. In other words, it goes directly into our economy.
Warren Buffet would not endorse Obama's economic plan if he felt Obama was a Marxist or a Socialist.
You give the rich more money and it doesn't go back into our economy. It goes straight into off-shore bank accounts. You give the middle class and lower income families more money and it goes right into things like gas, food, bills, etc. In other words, it goes directly into our economy.
Warren Buffet would not endorse Obama's economic plan if he felt Obama was a Marxist or a Socialist.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter