It's funny to see the GOP jumping on this bandwagon this week. Aren't taxes a way to spread the wealth around? They make it sound like everything in this country is 100% capitalistic-- forgetting, oh I don't know, the 700B bailout that McCain voted for. The fact that McCain back in 2001 that the wealth should pay more.. Ho Hum..

Not to mention that Palin, as both mayor and governor, oversaw hikes in government spending, requested earmarks from Washington, and taxed oil company profits and then redistributed that money to Alaskan citizens.

Yet she has the audacity to call herself a maverick and a reformer, while at the same time, accusing people who want to cut taxes for nearly all Americans of being "socialist".

I don't think it's possible for the GOP to get any dumber.

TheMeeper Wrote:

>
> I don't think it's possible for the GOP to get any
> dumber.

Joe the plumber is thinking about running for Congress in 2010. You have just been proven wrong.

They're not done yet.


TheMeeper Wrote:

> I don't think it's possible for the GOP to get any
> dumber.

Obommie the Commie & the Redistribution of Wealth:

tame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's funny to see the GOP jumping on this
> bandwagon this week. Aren't taxes a way to spread
> the wealth around? They make it sound like
> everything in this country is 100% capitalistic--
> forgetting, oh I don't know, the 700B bailout that
> McCain voted for. The fact that McCain back in
> 2001 that the wealth should pay more.. Ho Hum..


John McCain was for "socialism" before he was against it...

Non-Communist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Obommie the Commie & the Redistribution of Wealth:


Turns out this has been edited by the Republicans. The original topic of the conversation had to do with proportional school funding, not individuals incomes. I give Republicans a backwards "B" for effort.

I don't have time follow all McCain's speeches. anybody know where I can get some McCain policy dice.

I like to just be able to throw the dice and see where McCain stands on issues today,

Being for taxes, tax increases, plans etc - they are not by definition a redistribution of wealth. Folks keep wanting to point out that McCain was not happy with the Bush tax plan with regards to wealthy folks, that is fine. You can be for or against tax increases - but we need to pay for the Federal Government (including the military) to function. What do you think is going to happen if Barney Frank gets his way and cuts military spending 25%? You think we won't have a bunch more people out of work? And then what, they go on the dole also, performing no useful work, just sucking more money from welfare and food stamp programs since they no longer have work, and the economy is too depressed to provide them one? The Army Core of Engineers is already heavily employed and over stretched - even if they invest in a infrastructure rebuild project where they try to fix the aging highways, they won't employ all the folks out of work by the military cuts.

The Federal Government already spends money on its OBLIGATIONS. Be it defense, welfare, etc. What Obama is talking about now is performing a tax hike to pay for giving checks to other people EXPLICITLY. That audio says it the best, and it is from his own mouth. The Federal Government is performing functions it was never intended to provide - they need to cut government spending, not increase it - yet Obama has plans for everything, and all them costing in the billions of dollars. How is that supposed to work - increase spending by $500B or more, and you can only cut so much out of defense - where is the rest of the money supposed to come from since we are already in a $450B deficit now? I am just amazed at how you folks choose to ignore facts, and just take Obama on his word that somehow he will magically make all these things happen. Bill Clinton ran on this middle class tax cut also, then raised taxes on everyone within 2 years of coming into office.

RV-

First, the audio from Obama has to do with appropriating funds for schools. The Republicans cut it to sound like he was talking about incomes. Anybody who voted for No Child Left Behind is essentially supporting what Obama calls for in this audio.

Second, my problem with McCain is that he is now calling "Socialist" what he himself supported just a few years ago. He can make his case that any tax increases right now would be bad for the economy. That is one thing. But to act like raising the top tax rate by a couple of percentage points is the same as the Communist Manifesto is a cheap political ploy.

Third, it is the Army Corps of Engineers, numbnut, not Core. I guess I know why you relate so well to Palin.

What he is calling socialist is the explicit voicing that Obama is taxing wealthier Americans to give checks to others. And as has been pointed out, Obama changed their tax plan the other day to say "working" Americans because they knew it was getting traction. So you can spin all you want - McCain was voting for tax issues as related to how the Government pays its obligations - progressive tax systems are not setup just to pay welfare to folks who "don't make enough" on someone's chart.

Yes, my father was in the Corps. Sorry I was typing fast, and sometimes my brain spells the word differently :) You get a feeling of satisfaction in showing how dumb I am? Good for you :) Glad I could add to your happiness for the day.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What he is calling socialist is the explicit
> voicing that Obama is taxing wealthier Americans
> to give checks to others. And as has been pointed
> out, Obama changed their tax plan the other day to
> say "working" Americans because they knew it was
> getting traction. So you can spin all you want -
> McCain was voting for tax issues as related to how
> the Government pays its obligations - progressive
> tax systems are not setup just to pay welfare to
> folks who "don't make enough" on someone's chart.
>
> Yes, my father was in the Corps. Sorry I was
> typing fast, and sometimes my brain spells the
> word differently :) You get a feeling of
> satisfaction in showing how dumb I am? Good for
> you :) Glad I could add to your happiness for the
> day.

This is a moot argument. The problem is that the republicans are ok with giving tax breaks for everyone (though primarily more for the wealthy) at the expense of the federal deficit (Remember when Cheney said, "Reagan proved that the deficit doesn't matter"). That the dems like to balance the budget, the money, generally, needs to come from somewhere.

Anyways, just another attempt at McCain trying to see what will stick.

I remember that it was pointed out in a book that Cheney said that.

We all seem to be willing to let this slide for some reason. You know what I would like to see, a candidate come out and say "I am going to have to raise your taxes so we can pay down the deficit, but we will monitor things closely and if it looks like tax policy might adversely affect business growth or the economy we will make corrections as needed".

Let them get elected for speaking the truth, instead of telling people to vote for them due to tax breaks and credits at the expense of others (the big bad wealthy people that made too much money - and I am not one of them as a note). McCain is actually running on keeping the tax cuts, and possibly creating new ones for businesses as incentives - I doubt he would change his tune on that. Democrats are already talking about raising taxes after Obama is elected - and they won't stop at $250K or more.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2008 03:36PM by Registered Voter.

Palin, the Socialist:

“we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

The deficits run up over the last 8 years are just as damaging to the economy as any tax hike ever implemented. Do not underestimate the effect these deficits are having even now in our current situation. As McSame put it 8 years ago before he sold his soul to the religious right...cutting taxes then was the stupidest thing that could be done...taxes had never been cut before during a time of war! So please....keep your lectures on the horrors of dems increasing taxes to yourself....Dem policy is "pay as you go"...you want to increase spending...find a revenue source..either a cut in another program or new taxes. That sir is responsible governing!

What Palin did in Alaska is NOT socialism.

When a country or state has a resource, and the rights to develop that resource are let out to a business, does it make sense to give the rights to all the mineral wealth to that business? No. As it is today, businesses pay taxes on the money they generate in any case. For natural resources it makes sense to attribute the ownership of that to the citizens of the state to some degree. The oil and gas companies still made a decent profit off those minerals, so everyone wins.

If they open up off-shore drilling in a way that makes sense, the state off which they are drilling should get 15% and the federal government 10% (similar to Alaska taking 25%), to use for paying off debt, or redistribution to the public. That is not socialism.

That is making a deal up front on how a public resource is developed and distributed - much different from just an arbitrary tax on a business or person because they make "too much" money and you want to take it from them and give it to folks that make less.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The deficits run up over the last 8 years are just
> as damaging to the economy as any tax hike ever
> implemented. Do not underestimate the effect
> these deficits are having even now in our current
> situation. As McSame put it 8 years ago before he
> sold his soul to the religious right...cutting
> taxes then was the stupidest thing that could be
> done...taxes had never been cut before during a
> time of war! So please....keep your lectures on
> the horrors of dems increasing taxes to
> yourself....Dem policy is "pay as you go"...you
> want to increase spending...find a revenue
> source..either a cut in another program or new
> taxes. That sir is responsible governing!

The republican Congress is one of the few that actually cut spending when Clinton was in office. Other than that, few democratic Congresses have taken it upon themselves to reduce spending. Most of the time they implement new spending and make up new taxes to pay for them.

This latest batch of republicans under Bush were over the top. Don't lump everyone else in with them since they were idiots. Note most of them were voted out of office for just that reason. So the system worked fine. The prior 40 years when the democrats held the Congress - sure the deficits weren't so bad, but the tax rates went from 1-7% to about 75% on "the rich". Sure, pay as you go. Lol. So responsible of them.

Registered Voter Wrote:
>> it makes sense to attribute the ownership of that to the citizens of the state to some degree.


State ownership of resources = socialism

But if you're a Republican idiot, evidently socialism means the difference between a 35% and 39% tax rate.

No, state ownership of resources does NOT = socialism.

State taxing to redistribute WEALTH to lower class workers is. Making agreements up front on the development of a resource doesn't imply rich or poor, it says everyone benefits. That is not socialism.

Well, the platform of the American Socialist Party clearly states:

"we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources"

And that's what Palin stood for in Alaska.

Meep, use whatever resources help you figure it out.

TheMeeper Wrote:

> But if you're a Republican idiot, evidently
> socialism means the difference between a 35% and
> 39% tax rate.

And that was already debunked in another thread. Being for or against taxes is not socialism. You all would call that "pay as you go" as Vince pointed out in another thread.

Registered Voter Wrote:
>>> Meep, use whatever resources help you figure it out.


Yeah, maybe I should just go see what Rush Limbaugh has to say about it instead.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember that it was pointed out in a book that
> Cheney said that.
>
> We all seem to be willing to let this slide for
> some reason. You know what I would like to see, a
> candidate come out and say "I am going to have to
> raise your taxes so we can pay down the deficit,
> but we will monitor things closely and if it looks
> like tax policy might adversely affect business
> growth or the economy we will make corrections as
> needed".
>
> Let them get elected for speaking the truth,
> instead of telling people to vote for them due to
> tax breaks and credits at the expense of others
> (the big bad wealthy people that made too much
> money - and I am not one of them as a note).
> McCain is actually running on keeping the tax
> cuts, and possibly creating new ones for
> businesses as incentives - I doubt he would change
> his tune on that. Democrats are already talking
> about raising taxes after Obama is elected - and
> they won't stop at $250K or more.


You can't really blame the politicians. The opponents will just beat the crap out of any weakness and they'll spend the entire campaign defending themselves. The people build these monster; they're only reacting to the environment.

I do recall Obama, during the campaign, saying that he'll evaluate the situation and not raise taxes on businesses if it's going to hurt the economy. That said, do multi-billion dollar companies (even 10M?) companies need it? Besides we're talking take home right (after expenses)?

RV...despite the constituional responsibility of congress to pass budgets there is a greater relationship between presidents and budgetary discipline then which party controls congress.

Isn't the medicare presrciption drug coverage for old people spreading the wealth around?

I do know that it is a classic socialist program.

Funny how Bush and the republican controlled congress were responsible for it. The largest entitlement (the old term for a socialist program) since 1973.

bottomline to all this...maybe we need a dose of socialism!

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't the medicare presrciption drug coverage for
> old people spreading the wealth around?
>
> I do know that it is a classic socialist program.
>
> Funny how Bush and the republican controlled
> congress were responsible for it. The largest
> entitlement (the old term for a socialist program)
> since 1973.

Yes, and I can tell you most "people on the street" Republicans were not for this bill. Goes along with the comments of why the republicans lost seats in the next election cycle, and why they are getting trounced today.

BUT - with the cost of medical care going up, retired folks on fixed incomes really have no way to fight this - so something had to give. I may not like this from a spending perspective, but it makes sense for elderly folks to get help with their bills when they cannot make up the difference no matter how much they work.