Socialism Question? - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 06:29 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Socialism Question?

Taxation has always been about obtaining revenue from a certain group of people or business in order to keep the government and all of its functions running. Unless you're an extreme Libertarian, most people agree that the government has a role in providing certain services to the public; these services are approved by state and federal lawmakers, whom are all elected by the people to make these decisions on their behalf. It is debatable how much government should provide services to the people, as well as how much funding government should provide to these services, but the truth is that socialism does have an important role in improving the lives of everyday Americans and maintaining a certain quality of life. Take the following services, for example, many of which we could hardly do without and take for granted: the postal service, social security, medicaid/medicare, funding for firefighters and police, funding for our veterans, maintaining a strong military, public libraries, our public infrastructure- roads, highways, bridges, the electric grid, dams, protected lands and parks, the development of the space program and development of nuclear power. Even tax cuts for a certain group of people must be funded somehow. Providing tax cuts for the wealthy and the powerful corporations comes at the expense of hard-working everyday middle and lower class Americans, yet somehow this doesn't get called "socialism." Government has, for decades, bailed out large corporations, yet this rarely gets called "socialism." Now that our next potential president, Barack Obama, wants to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire in order to give tax cuts to the middle and lower class, many everywhere are calling this "socialism." To be quite honest, most people have no idea what "socialism" is. Most people have been spoon-fed for decades that socialism is somehow anti-American; this comes from the days of the cold war when socialism became equated with communism, but these two ideals are nowhere near the same. If that were true, then your local postman is a communist, and so are the policemen and firefighters on which you depend everyday for help and security. I'm not here to promote the idea that America should become a socialist-welfare state at all but I just have one question..

How is it not called socialism when George W. Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations (which McCain was originally against but now supports), but when Barack Obama wants to let these tax cuts expire and give these tax cuts to the hard-working middle class, it's called socialism? In my opinion, it's a trade off. Please discuss.
99MustangGT is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 06:32 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
Taxation has always been about obtaining revenue from a certain group of people or business in order to keep the government and all of its functions running. Unless you're an extreme Libertarian, most people agree that the government has a role in providing certain services to the public; these services are approved by state and federal lawmakers, whom are all elected by the people to make these decisions on their behalf. It is debatable how much government should provide services to the people, as well as how much funding government should provide to these services, but the truth is that socialism does have an important role in improving the lives of everyday Americans and maintaining a certain quality of life. Take the following services, for example, many of which we could hardly do without and take for granted: the postal service, social security, medicaid/medicare, funding for firefighters and police, funding for our veterans, maintaining a strong military, public libraries, our public infrastructure- roads, highways, bridges, the electric grid, dams, protected lands and parks, the development of the space program and development of nuclear power. Even tax cuts for a certain group of people must be funded somehow. Providing tax cuts for the wealthy and the powerful corporations comes at the expense of hard-working everyday middle and lower class Americans, yet somehow this doesn't get called "socialism." Government has, for decades, bailed out large corporations, yet this rarely gets called "socialism." Now that our next potential president, Barack Obama, wants to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire in order to give tax cuts to the middle and lower class, many everywhere are calling this "socialism." To be quite honest, most people have no idea what "socialism" is. Most people have been spoon-fed for decades that socialism is somehow anti-American; this comes from the days of the cold war when socialism became equated with communism, but these two ideals are nowhere near the same. If that were true, then your local postman is a communist, and so are the policemen and firefighters on which you depend everyday for help and security. I'm not here to promote the idea that America should become a socialist-welfare state at all but I just have one question..

How is it not called socialism when George W. Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations (which McCain was originally againt but now supports), but when Barack Obama wants to let these tax cuts expire and give these tax cuts to the hard-working middle class, it's called socialism? In my opinion, it's a trade off. Please discuss.
No previous tax cut, or expiration of said bill has resulted in the wealthy (including yourself) paying taxes that result in payment to citizens that do not pay taxes to begin with - that is socialism - wealth redistribution. The argument is incorrectly stated if you assume the chief complaint is people are getting back more of their money than they use to.
CJ is offline  
post #3 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 06:37 PM
Lifer
 
Hmbre97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hutto, TX
Posts: 1,198
Yep, if Obama gets elected, he's going to be mailing out checks to people who do not pay any income tax at all; all on your dime.

-Herb-
03 Torch Red Mach 1
Hmbre97 is offline  
 
post #4 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 06:51 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
No previous tax cut, or expiration of said bill has resulted in the wealthy (including yourself) paying taxes that result in payment to citizens that do not pay taxes to begin with - that is socialism - wealth redistribution. The argument is incorrectly stated if you assume the chief complaint is people are getting back more of their money than they use to.
It is true that taxes for the middle/lower class have not increased significantly to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy (which I am NOT as you presume). Instead George W. Bush has allowed our national debt to soar into trillions of dollars and borrowing money from China in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy (which the people of America will eventually have to pay back.) To deny this is to be blissfully ignorant. Taxation has always, in one aspect or another, been about "redistributon of wealth." My question is why haulting the tax cuts for the wealthy, making them pay their fair share, and giving tax cuts to the working middle-class, who DO pay taxes and are the backbone and engine of the economy, is suddenly called socialism?
99MustangGT is offline  
post #5 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:00 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
It is true that taxes for the middle/lower class have not increased significantly to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy (which I am NOT as you presume). Instead George W. Bush has allowed our national debt to soar into trillions of dollars and borrowing money from China in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy (which the people of America will eventually have to pay back.) To deny this is to be blissfully ignorant. Taxation has always, in one aspect or another, been about "redistributon of wealth." My question is why haulting the tax cuts for the wealthy, making them pay their fair share, and giving tax cuts to the working middle-class, who DO pay taxes and are the backbone and engine of the economy, is suddenly called socialism?
I read your post to mean that taxes are a zero-sum game. That someone has to pay it, be it rich people or poor people. Problem is their are not enough rich people to pay the taxes. Mathematics can prove that one. The majority of the taxes, in bulk, come from the middle class. The republo-crats keep everyone worried about the rich and poor, why they squeeze to death the middle class.

The problem I have with the federal government is that it is doing things that it should not be doing. We have a form of government called federalism, which a multi layer government where each layer does what it does best. All 50 states could not have different treaties with other countries and the federal government is not best suited at running schools. If the federal government only did what it should only be doing it would not need $2trillion a year. Look to the source document, the constitution, on what is the limits of the federal government.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
post #6 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:02 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
It is true that taxes for the middle/lower class have not increased significantly to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy (which I am NOT as you presume). Instead George W. Bush has allowed our national debt to soar into trillions of dollars and borrowing money from China in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy (which the people of America will eventually have to pay back.) To deny this is to be blissfully ignorant. Taxation has always, in one aspect or another, been about "redistributon of wealth." My question is why haulting the tax cuts for the wealthy, making them pay their fair share, and giving tax cuts to the working middle-class, who DO pay taxes and are the backbone and engine of the economy, is suddenly called socialism?
You're speaking for a biased left point of view and it's quite evident. You completely ignored what I said. You pay taxes, correct? Then yes, a percentage of your tax money will go to people that pay no taxes at all. Taxation has *never* been redistribution of wealth. You fundamentally don't understand the term - redistribution of wealth is when money from the more fortunate is given to the less fortunate for no other reason then their economic standing. Taxes are money taken from an individual and given to the government to spend in the federal budget.

You wanted an answer to your question, and what you did is ignore the correct and understandable answer, and then restated it. If you remain ignorant you will never get an answer to your question. Please, re-read what I stated initially, and respond to that.

I am not giving you an opinion this way or what way, I'm stating fact and basing it on the exact definitions of the terms you questioned. Wealth redistribution IS socialism, there is no arguing that because it is the exact function of socialism in its most factual form. And when money is received by the less economically fortunate from the more economically fortunate you have, by definition, wealth distribution - or socialism.
CJ is offline  
post #7 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:02 PM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
It is true that taxes for the middle/lower class have not increased significantly to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy (which I am NOT as you presume). Instead George W. Bush has allowed our national debt to soar into trillions of dollars and borrowing money from China in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy (which the people of America will eventually have to pay back.) To deny this is to be blissfully ignorant. Taxation has always, in one aspect or another, been about "redistributon of wealth." My question is why haulting the tax cuts for the wealthy, making them pay their fair share, and giving tax cuts to the working middle-class, who DO pay taxes and are the backbone and engine of the economy, is suddenly called socialism?

read the previous rebuttal(sp?) to your previous post.

what we call socialism is giving a damn check to someone who doesnt pay into the system to begin with. hence wealth redistribution and hence socialism.

you now have three answers to your question please dont ask it a third time.

Last edited by sc281_99-0135; 10-28-2008 at 07:14 PM.
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #8 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:04 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 579
blissfully ignorant......kinda like obama voters? sounds like you been watching too much cnn or obama comercials...make the rich pay "their fair share?". tax breaks for those "evil corporations"?.....lol......
mightyp is offline  
post #9 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:10 PM
Censored
 
big_tiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 3,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
It is true that taxes for the middle/lower class have not increased significantly to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy (which I am NOT as you presume). Instead George W. Bush has allowed our national debt to soar into trillions of dollars and borrowing money from China in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy (which the people of America will eventually have to pay back.) To deny this is to be blissfully ignorant. Taxation has always, in one aspect or another, been about "redistributon of wealth." My question is why haulting the tax cuts for the wealthy, making them pay their fair share, and giving tax cuts to the working middle-class, who DO pay taxes and are the backbone and engine of the economy, is suddenly called socialism?

A true "fair share" is a fair tax plan.

Doors Done Rite
big_tiger is offline  
post #10 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:14 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 479
everyone wants to bash socialism, yet no one bashed the socialism of recent events...ie the gov't bailout of the banks. socialism is when gov't pays for the risk involved in capitalism, not simply giving money to poor people (whom people always seem to forget that many of those who would benefit from wealth dist. are children- no I'm not for handouts, but I'm not for letting children go hungry).

built into a true capital market is the ability to fail, but when that failure is going to affect rich and upper middle class, then the gov't can bail them out. when it involves poor people...watch out, that's bad socialism!

we should just let the rich stay rich with no sacrifice and let the poor stay poor at the expense of the rich.
Joebum is offline  
post #11 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:14 PM
DFWMUSTANGS.NET
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by big_tiger
A true "fair share" is a fair tax plan.

here here!
sc281_99-0135 is offline  
post #12 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:16 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joebum
everyone wants to bash socialism, yet no one bashed the socialism of recent events...ie the gov't bailout of the banks. socialism is when gov't pays for the risk involved in capitalism, not simply giving money to poor people (whom people always seem to forget that many of those who would benefit from wealth dist. are children- no I'm not for handouts, but I'm not for letting children go hungry).

built into a true capital market is the ability to fail, but when that failure is going to affect rich and upper middle class, then the gov't can bail them out. when it involves poor people...watch out, that's bad socialism!

we should just let the rich stay rich with no sacrifice and let the poor stay poor at the expense of the rich.
You will not find a person in here that is supportive of the bailout. The reason the government bailed them out was because of the adverse affects a crashing financial system would have the lower/middle class americans. Rich people rarely go down with their ship, they didn't get there by making bad decisions. Financial institutions provide services to the lower/middle class population - a service that is essential.
CJ is offline  
post #13 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:16 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
You're speaking for a biased left point of view and it's quite evident. You completely ignored what I said. You pay taxes, correct? Then yes, a percentage of your tax money will go to people that pay no taxes at all. Taxation has *never* been redistribution of wealth. You fundamentally don't understand the term - redistribution of wealth is when money from the more fortunate is given to the less fortunate for no other reason then their economic standing. Taxes are money taken from an individual and given to the government to spend in the federal budget.

You wanted an answer to your question, and what you did is ignore the correct and understandable answer, and then restated it. If you remain ignorant you will never get an answer to your question. Please, re-read what I stated initially, and respond to that.


I'm sorry but taxation has always been about "redistribution" of wealth, whether that money goes to subsidize farmers or pay for some government project, either way it gets re-distributed. And your point about redistribution of wealth only being when money is taken from the more "fortunate" and given to the hard-working Americans that pay more than their fair share of taxes, is exactly the question at hand. It's a bit hypocritical to say taxing the wealthy (who pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class) to give to hard-working Americans is "socialist," but when tax cuts are given to the wealthy (again, who pay taxes at a lower rate) it's accepted as being okay. It was Warren Buffet, who said, "I was taxed at 17.7 percent on my taxable income of more than $46 million. My receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
99MustangGT is offline  
post #14 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:17 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
Taxation has always, in one aspect or another, been about "redistributon of wealth."
Bull-fucking-shit.

Taxation exists to provide public services and infrastructure of EQUAL value to ALL Americans. However, under the socilaist-fascism that dominates our government today taxation has become an inverse formula of money put in to services reaped; i.e. the more money you put in, the less you get out.

Slowhand is offline  
post #15 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:22 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
I'm sorry but taxation has always been about "redistribution" of wealth, whether that money goes to subsidize farmers or pay for some government project, either way it gets re-distributed. And your point about redistribution of wealth only being when money is taken from the more "fortunate" and given to the hard-working Americans that pay more than their fair share of taxes, is exactly the question at hand. It's a bit hypocritical to say taxing the wealthy (who pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class) to give to hard-working Americans is "socialist," but when tax cuts are given to the wealthy (again, who pay taxes at a lower rate) it's accepted as being okay. Perhaps you should consult with Warren Buffet, who said, "I was taxed at 17.7 percent on my taxable income of more than $46 million. My receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
Again, you ignored my correct reply to your post, and continue to attempt to form an argument you can win.

Taxation is not redistribution of wealth, you are factually incorrect. These are both terms which have precise definitions.

The wealthy do not pay at a lower rate than hard working americans, this is an absolutely disgusting example of your lack of knowledge, and unfortunately it's typical of your political viewpoint - since you don't have the facts, the political views you form seem justified to you.





Now, again, please respond to my initial reply, that is the answer to the question you posed. You're attempting to change the question and argument to justify your ill conceived opinions of politics, but unfortunately the answer you received is precisely what you asked for.
CJ is offline  
post #16 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:23 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Honestly, I think I am getting some great responses, some I disagree with but that's the point of a debate.
99MustangGT is offline  
post #17 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:25 PM
Genetically Blessed
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: An Investment Bank
Posts: 13,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
I'm sorry but taxation has always been about "redistribution" of wealth, whether that money goes to subsidize farmers or pay for some government project, either way it gets re-distributed. And your point about redistribution of wealth only being when money is taken from the more "fortunate" and given to the hard-working Americans that pay more than their fair share of taxes, is exactly the question at hand. It's a bit hypocritical to say taxing the wealthy (who pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class) to give to hard-working Americans is "socialist," but when tax cuts are given to the wealthy (again, who pay taxes at a lower rate) it's accepted as being okay. It was Warren Buffet, who said, "I was taxed at 17.7 percent on my taxable income of more than $46 million. My receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."
When the fuck did you try to grow a brain?
slow99 is offline  
post #18 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:25 PM
Censored
 
big_tiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 3,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joebum
everyone wants to bash socialism, yet no one bashed the socialism of recent events...ie the gov't bailout of the banks. socialism is when gov't pays for the risk involved in capitalism, not simply giving money to poor people (whom people always seem to forget that many of those who would benefit from wealth dist. are children- no I'm not for handouts, but I'm not for letting children go hungry).

built into a true capital market is the ability to fail, but when that failure is going to affect rich and upper middle class, then the gov't can bail them out. when it involves poor people...watch out, that's bad socialism!

we should just let the rich stay rich with no sacrifice and let the poor stay poor at the expense of the rich.
I bitched about it! The people that work for us, (in the gov.) are rich so they might have a little bias. They just don't want shit to fall apart when they are in control; prolong the fall so they can say "we tried."

Doors Done Rite
big_tiger is offline  
post #19 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:29 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Her question is about socialism, and why do we call Obama's tax plan socialism. The reason is wealth redistribution - income derived directly from tax payers going directly to those who do not pay taxes. This is wealth redistribution - which is a pillar of socialism. What she *thinks* is that we call Obama socialist because he wants to give more of a tax break to lower income families, and then tax the higher income brackets more.
CJ is offline  
post #20 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:30 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Calm the fuck down. You're arguing with yourself. I haven't once responded to YOU. Thanks though. You can disagree with me all you want, that's fine, but I am not going to respond to you if you can't even communicate rationally.
99MustangGT is offline  
post #21 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:30 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
How is it not called socialism when George W. Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations (which McCain was originally against but now supports), but when Barack Obama wants to let these tax cuts expire and give these tax cuts to the hard-working middle class, it's called socialism? In my opinion, it's a trade off. Please discuss.
Everyone should get the tax cuts.

Tax cuts aren't about socialism.

Thanks.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #22 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:30 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
All I've gotten out of this is that 99MustangGT doesn't think that the wealthy have worked hard to earn their money.

Slowhand is offline  
post #23 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:31 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
Her question is about socialism, and why do we call Obama's tax plan socialism. The reason is wealth redistribution - income derived directly from tax payers going directly to those who do not pay taxes. This is wealth redistribution - which is a pillar of socialism. What she *thinks* is that we call Obama socialist because he wants to give more of a tax break to lower income families, and then tax the higher income brackets more.
I am trying to respond to your question, one sec.. But I don't mind going back and forth with you because I do see your points and it make sense (without being a dick), we just don't agree on it.
99MustangGT is offline  
post #24 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:32 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
Calm the fuck down. You're arguing with yourself. I haven't once responded to YOU. Thanks though. You can disagree with me all you want, that's fine, but I am not going to respond to you if you can't even communicate rationally.
Where was he being irrational? I assume you're speaking to 5.0_CJ?

Slowhand is offline  
post #25 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:35 PM
Lifer
 
Hmbre97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hutto, TX
Posts: 1,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
Honestly, I think I am getting some great responses, some I disagree with but that's the point of a debate.
This is not a debate. There is no way to twist it no matter how hard you try.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmbre97
Yep, if Obama gets elected, he's going to be mailing out checks to people who do not pay any income tax at all; all on your dime.
Taking money from one person paying their dues and giving it to another who makes 0% contribution is a redistribution of wealth.

/thread

-Herb-
03 Torch Red Mach 1
Hmbre97 is offline  
post #26 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:35 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOHC
Where was he being irrational? I assume you're speaking to 5.0_CJ?
I forgot what his sn is but I don't see his reply now. He must have erased it or I am over-looking it right now.

I want to make this clear, I am not saying that the wealthy haven't earned their money because they have and there are many poor people that need to get off their asses and earn their own dollar. I am not for hand-outs. I agree with across the board tax cuts or everyone pays the same percentage. But I don't see how Obama is the socialist when I see socialism in Bush, McCain, ect.
99MustangGT is offline  
post #27 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:35 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Obama is socialist when he talks about re-distributing wealth and how the Supreme Court (and a flawed Constitution) failed to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #28 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:36 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
Calm the fuck down. You're arguing with yourself. I haven't once responded to YOU. Thanks though. You can disagree with me all you want, that's fine, but I am not going to respond to you if you can't even communicate rationally.
I think I've certainly been one of the most respectful in this post. You're upset because I'm targeting each one of your incorrect and false statements and providing evidence to disprove them. If you notice my post is followed by 3 posts that are agreeing, and stating the same thing, yet you ignore them.

You can't just pick and chose who you think you can debate with and ignore those that provide answer to the questions you ask. It's incredibly childish and immature - as I stated previously you will never get answers to your questions if you ignore them when they come.
CJ is offline  
post #29 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:37 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
I think I've certainly been one of the most respectful in this post. You're upset because I'm targeting each one of your incorrect and false statements and providing evidence to disprove them. If you notice my post is followed by 3 posts that are agreeing, and stating the same thing, yet you ignore them.

You can't just pick and chose who you think you can debate with and ignore those that provide answer to the questions you ask. It's incredibly childish and immature.

No, No not you.. LOL I am trying to respond to you. You've been great, seriously.
99MustangGT is offline  
post #30 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:37 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
This is Obama the socialist:

Quote:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnít that radical,Ē Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

It didnít break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way ó that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states canít do to you, says what the federal government canít do to you, but it doesnít say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasnít shifted.

And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #31 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:39 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
When Obama talks about giving people back tax money who never paid the tax in the first place. He is talking about socialism.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #32 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:40 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOHC
Bull-fucking-shit.

Taxation exists to provide public services and infrastructure of EQUAL value to ALL Americans. However, under the socilaist-fascism that dominates our government today taxation has become an inverse formula of money put in to services reaped; i.e. the more money you put in, the less you get out.
Then why is it that for every dollar paid in taxes by citizens of Alaska in 2005, they received $1.84 in Federal spending, whereas the citizens of Illinois only received $0.75 in Federal spending per tax dollar paid?

That isn't exactly equal, is it? If the citizens of some states benefit from their tax dollars more than citizens of other states, isn't that SOCIALISM? Wow, and this was all under a Republican administration/Republican congress.
Weslie is offline  
post #33 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:42 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weslie
Then why is it that for every dollar paid in taxes by citizens of Alaska in 2005, they received $1.84 in Federal spending, whereas the citizens of Illinois only received $0.75 in Federal spending per tax dollar paid?

That isn't exactly equal, is it? If the citizens of some states benefit from their tax dollars more than citizens of other states, isn't that SOCIALISM? Wow, and this was all under a Republican administration/Republican congress.
My post
----------
Your head.


I'm talking about distribution between socioeconomic classes. I'm talking about $1000 tax credits to people making under 'x' dollars and none to people making over 'x' dollars. I'm talking about the phrase "redistribute the wealth."

Also, to answer your question, Alaska has no sales tax nor do they have an income tax. Illinois has BOTH.

Slowhand is offline  
post #34 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:43 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weslie
Then why is it that for every dollar paid in taxes by citizens of Alaska in 2005, they received $1.84 in Federal spending, whereas the citizens of Illinois only received $0.75 in Federal spending per tax dollar paid?

That isn't exactly equal, is it? If the citizens of some states benefit from their tax dollars more than citizens of other states, isn't that SOCIALISM? Wow, and this was all under a Republican administration/Republican congress.
Duh, ain't no oil in Illinois.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #35 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:43 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weslie
Then why is it that for every dollar paid in taxes by citizens of Alaska in 2005, they received $1.84 in Federal spending, whereas the citizens of Illinois only received $0.75 in Federal spending per tax dollar paid?

Well Weslie that would be correct if you didn't understand that Alaska has huge oil profits and they receive federal rebates to subsidize their economy. Alaskans pay no sales taxes, and no property taxes. Your statement comparing illinois (democrat stronghold) to Alaska (republican stronghold) is precisely evidence proving the point. You've actually managed to prove yourself wrong on a rather impressive scale, democrat economics is dysfunctional. Take a look at states in economic trouble, and then see who is controlling them - you're bound to not post that up.
CJ is offline  
post #36 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:44 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Obama wants to take from the wealthy and give to the non-working people. Redistribution of wealth and all of that. THAT is socialism.

Bush giving tax cuts to the wealthy (hey, I got a tax cut too!) is NOT socialism. It is government simply taking less out of your check each week. The hope is that the extra money will be reinvested into jobs. And as far as I can see, each time tax cuts are enacted this is what happens. Punitive taxes hamper business.

As an employer, obama's tax plan scares me. Our gross revenues are WAY over $250k although our profits are far less than that. We would be a prime candidate for obamas tax increase. And the dems wants to allow bush's tax cuts to lapse. Tax increase there too. You know what? We'll be laying off people. As will other employers. It's that simple.

And another thing - obama claims that his tax increase will not affect 95% of the people. And he is right. But many people work for a business that is large enough that the business itself WILL be affected. There is that tax increase again, and it is going to result in layoffs. Watch and see
mikeb is offline  
post #37 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:48 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
What I've always found humorous is the idea that some people have that a candidate will run as a socialist. Of course a socialist will not run as a socialist, they would never get elected, that's laughable. A true, functional, progressive socialist will hide every bit of it to get elected. Do I think Obama is a socialist? Yes - he has extensive ties to socialist thinkers, authors, college organizations, education, financial assistance, etc. Do I think Obama will turn the US into a socialist country? Of course not - but he will inch it closer and closer.

Socialism is a dangerous thing, it's much easier to give money to people than it is to take it away. People become dependent on handouts, they will become dependent on those tax rebates they receive. Then, you can't take them away. For a government to truly have power over it's people, it's people must depend on them for survival. Our forefathers specifically and incontrovertibly understood this and made sure our Constitution completely eliminated it. The thought process of a "living breathing constitution" is completely wrong - the constitution has amendments - these are where your changes come in - you amend, or correct, things in the document. If our forefathers wanted us to "interpret" their writings, why would they have written it down? Because, they did not want their writing interpreted - they wanted them to stand on their own, as they are written, so politicians could not alter, or interpret the words to benefit their own agendas. The constitution is what it is - what it says is what they meant for it to say.

Last edited by CJ; 10-28-2008 at 07:57 PM.
CJ is offline  
post #38 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:51 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
Again, you ignored my correct reply to your post, and continue to attempt to form an argument you can win.

Taxation is not redistribution of wealth, you are factually incorrect. These are both terms which have precise definitions.

The wealthy do not pay at a lower rate than hard working americans, this is an absolutely disgusting example of your lack of knowledge, and unfortunately it's typical of your political viewpoint - since you don't have the facts, the political views you form seem justified to you.





Now, again, please respond to my initial reply, that is the answer to the question you posed. You're attempting to change the question and argument to justify your ill conceived opinions of politics, but unfortunately the answer you received is precisely what you asked for.

Do you have these graphs in detailed context? I am trying to figure out why someone would be taxed 85% of their income but then again I am falling asleep at the computer and not sure if I am just not reading this right. Maybe I should wait until the morning to respond.
99MustangGT is offline  
post #39 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:54 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99MustangGT
Do you have these graphs in detailed context? I am trying to figure out why someone would be taxed 85% of their income but then again I am falling asleep at the computer and not sure if I am just not reading this right. Maybe I should wait until the morning to respond.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007...pays-the-taxes
CJ is offline  
post #40 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:54 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01WhiteCobra
Duh, ain't no oil in Illinois.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
Well Weslie that would be correct if you didn't understand that Alaska has huge oil profits and they receive federal rebates to subsidize their economy. Alaskans pay no sales taxes, and no property taxes. Your statement comparing illinois (democrat stronghold) to Alaska (republican stronghold) is precisely evidence proving the point.
True, but there are more examples than just those two.

Alabama - $1.66 per $1.00 paid
California - $0.78 per $1.00 paid
New Mexico - $2.03 per $1.00 paid
Nevada - $0.65 per $1.00 paid

I'm just using it to illustrate a point. Saying that taxes paid = federal spending is inaccurate. And by the way, doesn't socialism as you define it exist under the current administration? I happen to have a no-good family member that sits on her ass having babies, collecting welfare and working just enough to make a few thousand dollars a year. But somehow, every February she gets a fat tax return for $7k or more. How is that possible?

Somebody please inform me on this, as I don't have the energy to look it up, but was the Earned Income Credit introduced under Reagan?
Weslie is offline  
post #41 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 07:57 PM
NEOCON EDUCATOR
 
bullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: CHICAGO S&P PIT
Posts: 1,789
Republicon socialism at it's finest


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...eH4&refer=home
bullet is offline  
post #42 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 08:00 PM
Professional Driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Closed Course
Posts: 6,665
Its not Socialism he wants, it's "Economic Justice"

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...02137342405551
71chevellejohn is offline  
post #43 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 08:01 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weslie
I'm just using it to illustrate a point. Saying that taxes paid = federal spending is inaccurate. And by the way, doesn't socialism as you define it exist under the current administration? I happen to have a no-good family member that sits on her ass having babies, collecting welfare and working just enough to make a few thousand dollars a year. But somehow, every February she gets a fat tax return for $7k or more. How is that possible?
Welfare is socialism. Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weslie
Somebody please inform me on this, as I don't have the energy to look it up, but was the Earned Income Credit introduced under Reagan?
Introduced in 75 and expanded during Reagan, Clinton and Bush. It is the largest socialistic tool the government has in use today.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #44 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 08:02 PM
No Cerveza... No Trabajo
 
01WhiteCobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where's my beer?
Posts: 21,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullet
Republicon socialism at it's finest


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...eH4&refer=home
Yup.

I thought the bailout was ridiculous as well.

My 401K is now a 400K (was 301K)
01WhiteCobra is offline  
post #45 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 08:03 PM
CJ
User may be editing post.
 
CJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 12,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weslie
True, but there are more examples than just those two.

Alabama - $1.66 per $1.00 paid
California - $0.78 per $1.00 paid
New Mexico - $2.03 per $1.00 paid
Nevada - $0.65 per $1.00 paid

I'm just using it to illustrate a point. Saying that taxes paid = federal spending is inaccurate. And by the way, doesn't socialism as you define it exist under the current administration? I happen to have a no-good family member that sits on her ass having babies, collecting welfare and working just enough to make a few thousand dollars a year. But somehow, every February she gets a fat tax return for $7k or more. How is that possible?

Somebody please inform me on this, as I don't have the energy to look it up, but was the Earned Income Credit introduced under Reagan?
Just because a state economy is spending less, or more than it receives in a single fiscal year has no correlation to innaccuracies in federal spending - it is a regular practice for any government to hold a surplus, or run a deficit depending on the circumstances. We fought two wars, that costs money, a deficit is completely normal for our circumstance.

Now, welfare is substantially nerfed in comparison to where it was under Clinton. Like I said earlier, taking money away is much more difficult that handing it out, and the right has done a very impressive job cutting welfare back. The reason she gets tax returns is because the government has a vested interest in populations, they are investing in that child to be given a break so they have the best possible future to become a successful, educated, and higher tax bracket paying unit than their parents. It's all business.

Now transversely, by understanding that republicans want to cut welfare spending, the dependence that the left has placed on them works to benefit the left, the more money they can hand out to the less fortunate the more dependent they become, and the more difficult it is for the right - the slippery slope of socialism.

I'm going to punch out, the woman wants me to carve pumpkins.
CJ is offline  
post #46 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 08:20 PM
Crash Test Dummy
 
Monsoon X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: never never land
Posts: 21,966
My question is this: How many of you have sat and listened to the hour long interview in it's entirety?

______________________________
I'm just a poor negro
Monsoon X is offline  
post #47 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-28-2008, 08:48 PM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
Very shortly: It's taking from the the have's to give to the have not's when it wasn't earned.
Sean88gt is offline  
post #48 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-30-2008, 09:20 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,367
Just thought this was a little interesting coming from a Socialist:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/...videoId=189688
99MustangGT is offline  
post #49 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-30-2008, 09:55 AM
$uper $low
 
Magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Plano
Posts: 5,782
Why is she out of the kitchen again?
There's a perfectly good reason a cook's apron looks a lot like a dress from the front.

Magnus is offline  
post #50 of 103 (permalink) Old 10-30-2008, 10:15 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Denton, TX Home of the Mean Green
Posts: 1,036
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.0_CJ
Again, you ignored my correct reply to your post, and continue to attempt to form an argument you can win.

Taxation is not redistribution of wealth, you are factually incorrect. These are both terms which have precise definitions.

The wealthy do not pay at a lower rate than hard working americans, this is an absolutely disgusting example of your lack of knowledge, and unfortunately it's typical of your political viewpoint - since you don't have the facts, the political views you form seem justified to you.





Now, again, please respond to my initial reply, that is the answer to the question you posed. You're attempting to change the question and argument to justify your ill conceived opinions of politics, but unfortunately the answer you received is precisely what you asked for.
Interesting graphs. I think most people here have differing views on what is considered rich. What is your definition of rich?
The top 10% of earners in the United states have a total household income of $108,000 per year.

2007 SRT8-Grand Cherokee
2008 Cadillac Escalade
Got5onIt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome