BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.
[/youtube]
I'm not sure I understand why this is such a concern.
It boils down to wanting to help people.
You want to talk about redistributive economics?
Let's look at that financial sector bailout again.
95% of all Americans will either be unaffected or pay
less in taxes with Obama's plan. Of the remaining 5%,
a few (like that old socialist Warren Buffett) are totally
supportive. The rest are hopping up and down and
calling him a Commie (wrong), a Marxist (wrong),
and a Socialist (wrong again). This country has a
slew of social programs already in place that are
extremely beneficial. Does that mean we're a
socialist nation? No, of course not.
There's a big difference between a help up (college grants, Job Corps) and a handout (wealth redistribution).
What was it when Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy? Was that not a handout? Was that not wealth redistribution? Don't act like changes to the tax code = socialism. There's a difference.
Speaking as someone who was almost homeless 6 months ago because my parents couldn't afford to pay a double house payment and had two vehicles out on a title loan, I don't think having the wealth redistributed is such a bad idea. I guess helping the people who actually need help by cutting their taxes is too socialist and unAmerican to imagine.
I've got some bills that need paying too. I'll be expecting your check within the week. Thanks.
If I was making over 250,000 dollars a year, I'd be much less stingy about where my money goes. And if that means it goes to the family that has to eat chicken noodle soup every night for a week because they can't afford anything else, then consider me a commie.
What I heard in that video was an intellectual discussion about past failures and Obama's opinion that the courts would not become activists due to the impracticality of enforcing any laws appearing to be written by the courts. This was a discussion of constitutional interpretation not the Marxist boogieman you want to make it out to be.
If discussing opinions of constitutional intent has become frightening to you, then you missed the point of an open and free democratic society.
BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.
[/youtube]
I'm not sure I understand why this is such a concern.
It boils down to wanting to help people.
You want to talk about redistributive economics?
Let's look at that financial sector bailout again.
95% of all Americans will either be unaffected or pay
less in taxes with Obama's plan. Of the remaining 5%,
a few (like that old socialist Warren Buffett) are totally
supportive. The rest are hopping up and down and
calling him a Commie (wrong), a Marxist (wrong),
and a Socialist (wrong again). This country has a
slew of social programs already in place that are
extremely beneficial. Does that mean we're a
socialist nation? No, of course not.
There's a big difference between a help up (college grants, Job Corps) and a handout (wealth redistribution).
What was it when Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy? Was that not a handout? Was that not wealth redistribution? Don't act like changes to the tax code = socialism. There's a difference.
Yeah, letting people keep more of the money they EARNED is a handout.........
Okay, so the tax system in GENERAL is socialism?
No, saying "I'm going to raise taxes on the rich and give that money to the poor" is.
Michael wrote:So any time you raise taxes on the wealthiest you are a socialist?
No, but his Robin Hood ideal is.
God forbid should anyone take money from people who are never going to miss it and give it to the people who are living from paycheck to paycheck.
Here's an idea: Earn more or spend less. Budgets are cool.
Yeah, you're right. Let me go tell my dad that, who has spent over 40 years as a truck driver and knows nothing else, but work has slowed so he's making on average of 150 bucks a week or less. Let me go tell my mom that, who got punched in the face at her job, was refused workers comp, let go 2 weeks later and now has severe sinus issues that require her to wear a CPAC mask every night. Don't act like anybody can just go get a 6 digit income job and just magically spend less on food, electric, gas and water.
BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.
[/youtube]
I'm not sure I understand why this is such a concern.
It boils down to wanting to help people.
You want to talk about redistributive economics?
Let's look at that financial sector bailout again.
95% of all Americans will either be unaffected or pay
less in taxes with Obama's plan. Of the remaining 5%,
a few (like that old socialist Warren Buffett) are totally
supportive. The rest are hopping up and down and
calling him a Commie (wrong), a Marxist (wrong),
and a Socialist (wrong again). This country has a
slew of social programs already in place that are
extremely beneficial. Does that mean we're a
socialist nation? No, of course not.
There's a big difference between a help up (college grants, Job Corps) and a handout (wealth redistribution).
What was it when Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy? Was that not a handout? Was that not wealth redistribution? Don't act like changes to the tax code = socialism. There's a difference.
Speaking as someone who was almost homeless 6 months ago because my parents couldn't afford to pay a double house payment and had two vehicles out on a title loan, I don't think having the wealth redistributed is such a bad idea. I guess helping the people who actually need help by cutting their taxes is too socialist and unAmerican to imagine.
I've got some bills that need paying too. I'll be expecting your check within the week. Thanks.
If I was making over 250,000 dollars a year, I'd be much less stingy about where my money goes. And if that means it goes to the family that has to eat chicken noodle soup every night for a week because they can't afford anything else, then consider me a commie.
What I heard in that video was an intellectual discussion about past failures and Obama's opinion that the courts would not become activists due to the impracticality of enforcing any laws appearing to be written by the courts. This was a discussion of constitutional interpretation not the Marxist boogieman you want to make it out to be.
If discussing opinions of constitutional intent has become frightening to you, then you missed the point of an open and free democratic society.
Sure, he said we couldn't enforce income redistribution through the courts. He said it could be legislated, however. So, by using some deductive reasoning, it's easy to believe that's in his presidential agenda.
letsgocards89 wrote:I've got some bills that need paying too. I'll be expecting your check within the week. Thanks.
The people that are going to see their taxes go up probably have someone to pay their bills for them. The 30 to 40 year old making $75,000 to $125,000 isn't going to "redistribute" anything, as much as they'd like to be considered upper class.
Last edited by Richie Allen on October 27 08, 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.
[/youtube]
I'm not sure I understand why this is such a concern.
It boils down to wanting to help people.
You want to talk about redistributive economics?
Let's look at that financial sector bailout again.
95% of all Americans will either be unaffected or pay
less in taxes with Obama's plan. Of the remaining 5%,
a few (like that old socialist Warren Buffett) are totally
supportive. The rest are hopping up and down and
calling him a Commie (wrong), a Marxist (wrong),
and a Socialist (wrong again). This country has a
slew of social programs already in place that are
extremely beneficial. Does that mean we're a
socialist nation? No, of course not.
There's a big difference between a help up (college grants, Job Corps) and a handout (wealth redistribution).
What was it when Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy? Was that not a handout? Was that not wealth redistribution? Don't act like changes to the tax code = socialism. There's a difference.
Yeah, letting people keep more of the money they EARNED is a handout.........
Okay, so the tax system in GENERAL is socialism?
No, saying "I'm going to raise taxes on the rich and give that money to the poor" is.
So the rich is supposed to just keep all the money they earn and get massive tax cuts, but the poor have to pay more taxes than the rich, despite the fact that they make 200,000 dollars or more less? Capitalism is champion.
