|
|
Post by kessinger on May 1, 2010 7:50:29 GMT -5
Here is the definition of socialism:
so·cial·ism audio (ssh-lzm) KEY
NOUN:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
You guys like to brand Obama a socialist. SO name me a place where this happened. Before you say Auto bailout. Remember they asked the government for a loan and that loan had strings attached to it. The government did not require hem to take the loan thus the strings attached, so sorry that won't count. GM and Chrysler chose to give oversight to the government. And the government does not have ownership.
Name a place Obama has taken ownership of any means of production.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmer on May 1, 2010 15:47:45 GMT -5
President Barack Obama gave a speech today in front of 100,000 University Michigan students He talked about how partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite "extreme elements" to violence.
Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, Sara Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies being imposed on average Americans. "The fundamental transformation of America is not what we all bargained for," she told 2,000 activists at a forum in Clarkston, sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
In his 31-minute speech, Obama didn't mention either Palin or the tea party movement that's captured headlines with its fierce attacks on his policies. But he took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 3, 2010 17:17:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 3, 2010 17:24:03 GMT -5
Im just putting this one in as a little bonus.
I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
Obama
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 3, 2010 17:31:42 GMT -5
We have got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money.If you had a whole pizze and your friend had none wouldnt you give him a slice.
Obama
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 3, 2010 17:35:26 GMT -5
What is more important is to find a means by which we can redistribute our economic gains to benefit of all.That is governments obligation
Obama
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 3, 2010 17:55:30 GMT -5
I mean really there is tons of stuff out there he has said and the people around him have said that he has put into power.Judge me by the people I put around me he said.He has socialist all around him!
|
|
|
|
Post by hoghead on May 3, 2010 18:16:50 GMT -5
Im not for sure wheather he is a socialist or not.From what he says over and over we need to take from those who have so much and give it to those who dont have so much. How about personal responsibility.You know i didnt go to college so i have to break my body down working in labor that was my choice no one to blame but me.(and Im not complaining about my job i know how lucky i am)Im not looking for someone to give me anything "if i work i get" "if i dont work i dont get" Im not cold hearted I understand some people need a hand now and then, but if your not willing to work when you can (and i believe most can work but chose not to do so)then why is it ok to take from someone who has went to college worked their whole life and move into a position to make alot of money and then give it to slackers The ones who made good choices are being punished for what they have accomplished.If this is the future of America why would people strive to do better for themselves if the government is going to just take it and give it to people who feel they should be taken care of instead of working for what you get.Anything worth having is hard and cost you something. when you give hand outs to able bodied slackers you are teaching people its not important to work hard or move up cause the government will take care of you by taking from the rich and giving to the poor this is the entitlement mentality. you are entitled to freedom not a job not a hand out
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 3, 2010 18:30:19 GMT -5
He also just said I do think at a certain point youve made enough money.
|
|
|
|
Post by reliefman on May 3, 2010 19:19:47 GMT -5
All of our government is controlled by rich lawyers who miraculously get richer while in office, they all suck!
(your subject)
Johnny Silverpoon says "If I make 250g a year and you don't, shouldn't my burrito be taxed at a lower sales tax rate? I mean seriously aren't I taxed enough already?"
Doesn't make any sense there does it?
Hey constipatedservatives! Suck it up, lay in there and get it just like the rest of us!
Doesn't matter how much ya make, flat income tax rate is the ONLY fair way to do it.
Unbalanced rates = feudalism (lords and peasants).
Since none of my co-workers is pulling down a quarter million a year with their careers at Ford, supporting these kool-aid vendors is akin to shooting yourself in the foot.
as always "A blue collar employee voting republican, is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders". and "supporting any lawyer to work for you and to make laws to aid your cause is like asking Hitler to babysit the Jews while you go on vacation."
Unite against this self defeating "divided we fail theory", it's time for action. The tea party was a good idea untill they hit the limelight, and Sarah the Alaskan drive thru governer wandered in.
Think for yourself, go outside the box, step away from the tv and radio, ask yourself, how do we fix this?
|
|
|
|
Post by axleman on May 3, 2010 20:16:28 GMT -5
I agree with a good bit of what reliefman has to say. Lawyers (both Dems and Reps) have ruined our government and made laws that benefit themselves. A "Flat Tax would be the most fair way to tax the people. The more you spend the more taxes you would pay. This in turn would encourage people to save more (which most don't do). The country is bankrupt and more "social programs" like this new health care law won't help that. When the Republicans had control they did nothing! Business as usual. The Dems and Obama at least where honest enough to tell you what they would try to do if elected. The people voted them in and now want to cry about the programs they are passing. They told you what they would do and did it. Don't agree with it but the Republicans never do what they promise. I hope they learned their lesson, they may get another chance soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on May 4, 2010 9:23:46 GMT -5
Reliefman good post.
Marcus,
I agree he talks about "common good" type things alot. That still is not socialism. Socialism is "producing good is controled by the governement". Though he does talk about the government PAYING for healthcare he never says they should RUN healthcare. When the government pays to pave a road that isn't socialism that is the government paying for a road.
Here is why I am ok with common good type things TO A DEGREE. I see this going on now going the other way. Example. We have all seen the billions of dollars companies are now making putting free water into a bottle and selling it. This is just fine by me. But, when those bottles goto the landfills who pays for those landfills or the recycling of the bottles. You and I as taxpayers. When UPS flys plane after plane out of our municiple airport who pays for the runways and air traffic controller? You and I as taxpayers. There are many, many ways that we taxpayers are paying to either clean up after a company or help them make money from us. So if the CEO of Coca Cola makes millions of dollars off filling up landfills with plastic bottles, I am fine with that, I just think you should pay more or the tab on the landfills since you are profiting from them being there.
Here is a fact. EVERYONE is ok with government spending when they benefit from it. We here like our unemployment. Coca Cola appreciates the communist landfills, UPS is glad we have a communist airport system, Pfiser loved Bush's perscription drug benefits, and Renfro loved it when Old man Bush socialized the whore house in Las Vegas (true story we had a government ran whore house in the 80's).
I myself am against welfare and am glad Clinton addressed it.
I feel differently about healthcare. We can all claim its personal responsibility, but you can work out, not drink, eat right and still get cancer. Health is something that is mostly out of your control, you can lower your risk but you can't control it. And that snowballs, you get sick then you lose your job then you lose your insurance.
I bet you Marcus are like me, in my 20's I changed jobs alot and went long stretches without insurance. We got VERY lucky nothing happened to us. I just don't think America should be the land of oppertunity (except for those of you that get ill). It's something beyond your control and I myself have no issue with that particular type of safety net in our country. It also allows you to better yourself. Now, unlike then I couldn't risk those type of job changes. With two kids and a wife I couldn't risk changing jobs and running the first year with no insurance as you have to in most places. So I would have to stay at the job that paid less or was less desirable due to me not being able to cover the insurance gap.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on May 4, 2010 15:47:23 GMT -5
Every house is a whorehouse...no matter if she's loyal to you or not, you are still paying a pretty penny to sleep with your partner.  |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 5, 2010 18:11:13 GMT -5
When he says common good he is talking about taking from one group and giving to another.
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on May 11, 2010 10:18:15 GMT -5
I guess here is my break with a flat tax. I think we all agree people should earn their money. You guys only see that as the poor guy not earning. I also see that as the super rich not "earning" their money. As a CEO the board decides your pay as well as their own. Years ago they had to answer to the shareholder but with mutual funds and other things most shareholders votes are proxy votes. And who deicides which way the proxy votes go? The board. So how much would we all make if we could give ourselves raises?
I guess my point is how many thousands of dollars and hour can you really "earn". That is why i am ok with a progressive tax since it puts a lid of sorts on how many millions you can pay yourself. At what point does a CEO get paid so much that his pay is hurting the business and not helping it?
For example. The CEO of oracle makes 555 million dollars a year. That is 63k an hour 24 hours a day. He makes over 500k each night while he sleeps. So tell me, is this person "earning" that kind of money? Now Mr. Lawrence is the co-founder of oracle and I feel differently about someone who actually starts the business and doesn't just run someone's creation. But, either way 555 million? Really? Could Oracle not invest a lot of that money to make even more money? Or create more jobs?
|
|
|
|
Post by meanjean on May 13, 2010 11:23:59 GMT -5
Every house is a whorehouse...no matter if [glow=red,2,300]she's[/glow] loyal to you or not, you are still paying a pretty penny to sleep with your partner. [/glow] Damn, Scott! Don't usually go there, but that was a bit sexist wasn't it. I have been the bread winner around here for several years now, so does that mean you are calling my husband a whore?  Just curious because I thought when you were married, you share everything, which is what we do around this house.  |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on May 13, 2010 16:38:53 GMT -5
I dont care how much somebody else makes a year as long as we all get taxed the same on it.If he pays 15 percent and I pay 15 I dont care.
|
|
|
|
Post by TonyV on May 14, 2010 1:28:26 GMT -5
meanjean, tell your husband to lay in there and get it! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on May 14, 2010 3:49:02 GMT -5
Every house is a whorehouse...no matter if [glow=red,2,300]she's[/glow] loyal to you or not, you are still paying a pretty penny to sleep with your partner. [/glow] Damn, Scott! Don't usually go there, but that was a bit sexist wasn't it. I have been the bread winner around here for several years now, so does that mean you are calling my husband a whore? Just curious because I thought when you were married, you share everything, which is what we do around this house. Marriages are supposed to be 50/50...but how many actually are? I know nothing about your situation...but I would love to be Mr. Mom. |
|
|
|
Post by meanjean on May 14, 2010 9:09:28 GMT -5
Damn, Scott! Don't usually go there, but that was a bit sexist wasn't it. I have been the bread winner around here for several years now, so does that mean you are calling my husband a whore? Just curious because I thought when you were married, you share everything, which is what we do around this house. Marriages are supposed to be 50/50...but how many actually are? I know nothing about your situation...but I would love to be Mr. Mom. I knew exactly what you were talking about, just trying to stir something up is all. |
|
|
|
Post by fordktpjoe on May 14, 2010 12:56:51 GMT -5
I dont care how much somebody else makes a year as long as we all get taxed the same on it.If he pays 15 percent and I pay 15 I dont care. I gotta agree. 15% of $500,000,000 versus 15% of $60,000. Sounds fair to me. That's $75,000,000 as opposed to $9,000. |
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on May 14, 2010 22:20:24 GMT -5
Marriages are supposed to be 50/50...but how many actually are? I know nothing about your situation...but I would love to be Mr. Mom. I knew exactly what you were talking about, just trying to stir something up is all. You know I don't mind a good stirring...I'm one of the best. |
|
Just curious because I thought when you were married, you share everything, which is what we do around this house. 
