HUAC persecuted people who were convicted of nothing, but who were turned in by individuals like yourself. Many were persecuted not for their alleged views, but for their alleged association with alleged undesirables.
Dave, you would have fit in very well lin Nazi Germany.
Advocate wrote:HUAC persecuted people who were convicted of nothing, but who were turned in by individuals like yourself. Many were persecuted not for their alleged views, but for their alleged association with alleged undesirables.
Dave, you would have fit in very well lin Nazi Germany.
No. Socialism is anathema to me.
Hitler demanded:
"authority from the top down, obedience from the bottom up"
I am a libertarian-individualist.
I believe that government shud ( domesticly ) amount to little more
than the product of a flatulent sparrow, in the life of the average American.
That is inconsistent with Hitler 's vu point.
The National Socialists ( as the name implies ) were collectivist-authoritarians.
Hitler held individualism ( i.e., MY vu ) in abhorence and said so.
I believe that the nazis and commies were equally despicable
( fit well together in the Hitler-Stalin Pact, until June 22, 1941 );
however, one thing, the only thing,
that I like and admire about Hitler is
his idea of how to handle commies.
( The Indonesians also had some very good ideas
on that subject in October of 1965. ).
The name of the Nazi party was a misnomer. The members were anything but socialists and, in fact, murdered socialists whenever possible. The members were similar to those connected to HUAC.
Halfback wrote:I contend we have a flawed tax system that needs fixing. You ask for "for instances". I give you a possibility and you write it off as "stupid". That doesn't sound as if there is much room for negotiation. You didn't even suggest a counter offer. Nice!
A flat tax would bring a massive transfer of money from the working and middle classes (who would see their taxes rise) to the upper middle class and especially the rich (who would see their taxes slashed). No thank you.
Here's my proposal: keep a progressive tax system in place. Undo Bush's tax cuts for the richest. Instead, apply a more generous system for basic income over which no taxes should be paid, and/or low incomes which should be exempt from income tax. Close the manifold loopholes. Actually start policing tax evasion again. And massively simplify the byzantine system of exemptions and deductions.
Thats my offer.
Not gonna happen as long as there's a Republican President though.
OmSigDAVID wrote:For my part, I 'd like the 16th Amendment to be repealed [..]
That is fair, because the poor will stop screwing the middle class n the rich, and getting a free ride for themselves. [..]
the poor were not supposed to be able to use democracy as a weapon in support of parasitical dependence upon the middle class & the rich.
OmSigDAVID wrote:I once toyed, however fleetingly, with the idea of killing Gus Hall, because it wud have been so EZ; like taking a rotten apple.
OmSigDAVID wrote:Quote: [The Nazis], in fact, murdered socialists whenever possible.
That just goes to show that
NO one is
ALL bad.
Wow.
You really are a piece of work, huh.
Maybe it is just that Dana Perino is a moron. But it is much deeper.
Opinion
All NYT
Opinion
Op-Ed Columnist
Charge It to My Kids
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 7, 2007
Every so often a quote comes out of the Bush administration that leaves you asking: Am I crazy or are they? I had one of those moments last week when Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, was asked about a proposal by some Congressional Democrats to levy a surtax to pay for the Iraq war, and she responded, "We've always known that Democrats seem to revert to type, and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything."
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Go to Columnist Page »
Yes, those silly Democrats. They'll raise taxes for anything, even ?- get this ?- to pay for a war!
And if we did raise taxes to pay for our war to bring a measure of democracy to the Arab world, "does anyone seriously believe that the Democrats are going to end these new taxes that they're asking the American people to pay at a time when it's not necessary to pay them?" added Ms. Perino. "I just think it's completely fiscally irresponsible."
Friends, we are through the looking glass. It is now "fiscally irresponsible" to want to pay for a war with a tax. These democrats just don't understand: the tooth fairy pays for wars. Of course she does ?- the tooth fairy leaves the money at the end of every month under Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's pillow. And what a big pillow it is! My God, what will the Democrats come up with next? Taxes to rebuild bridges or schools or high-speed rail or our lagging broadband networks? No, no, the tooth fairy covers all that. She borrows the money from China and leaves it under Paulson's pillow.
Of course, we can pay for the Iraq war without a tax increase. The question is, can we pay for it and be making the investments in infrastructure, science and education needed to propel our country into the 21st century? Visit Singapore, Japan, Korea, China or parts of Europe today and you'll discover that the infrastructure in our country is not keeping pace with our peers'.
We can pay for anything today if we want to stop investing in tomorrow. The president has already slashed the National Institutes of Health research funding the past two years. His 2008 budget wants us to cut money for vocational training, infrastructure and many student aid programs.
Does the Bush team really believe that if we had a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax ?- which could reduce our dependence on Middle East oil dictators, and reduce payroll taxes for low-income workers, pay down the deficit and fund the development of renewable energy ?- we would be worse off as a country?
Excuse me, Ms. Perino, but I wish Republicans would revert to type. I thought they were, well, conservatives ?- the kind of people who saved for rainy days, who invested in tomorrow for their kids, folks who didn't believe in free lunches or free wars.
No wonder The Wall Street Journal had a story Tuesday headlined, "G.O.P. Is Losing Grip on Core Business Vote." It noted that traditional fiscal conservatives were defecting from the G.O.P. "angered by the growth of government spending during the six years that Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress." And no wonder Alan Greenspan told The Journal: "The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize."
Of course, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the Democrat David Obey, in proposing an Iraq war tax to help balance the budget was expressing his displeasure with the war. But he was also making a very important point when he said, "If this war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for."
The struggle against radical Islam is the fight of our generation. We all need to pitch in ?- not charge it on our children's Visa cards. Previous American generations connected with our troops by making sacrifices at home ?- we've never passed on the entire cost of a war to the next generation, said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, who has written a history ?- "The Price of Liberty" ?- about how America has paid for its wars since 1776.
"In every major war we have fought in the 19th and 20th centuries," said Mr. Hormats, "Americans have been asked to pay higher taxes ?- and nonessential programs have been cut ?- to support the military effort. Yet during this Iraq war, taxes have been lowered and domestic spending has climbed. In contrast to World War I, World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam, for most Americans this conflict has entailed no economic sacrifice. The only people really sacrificing for this war are the troops and their families."
In his celebrated Farewell Address, Mr. Hormats noted, George Washington warned against "ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burdens we ourselves ought to bear."
Advocate wrote:Maybe it is just that Dana Perino is a moron. But it is much deeper.
Opinion
All NYT
Opinion
Op-Ed Columnist
Charge It to My Kids
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 7, 2007
Every so often a quote comes out of the Bush administration that leaves you asking: Am I crazy or are they? I had one of those moments last week when Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, was asked about a proposal by some Congressional Democrats to levy a surtax to pay for the Iraq war, and she responded, "We've always known that Democrats seem to revert to type, and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything."
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman
Go to Columnist Page »
Yes, those silly Democrats. They'll raise taxes for anything, even ?- get this ?- to pay for a war!
And if we did raise taxes to pay for our war to bring a measure of democracy to the Arab world,
"does anyone seriously believe
that the Democrats are going to end these new taxes
that they're asking the American people to pay
at a time when it's not necessary to pay them?"
added Ms. Perino. "I just think it's completely fiscally irresponsible."
I withdrew my support for the war when Saddam was arrested.
That 's all we needed.
That war is no longer defensive;
it is now just a GIGANTIC FOREIGN AID PROJECT.
We DID NOT and
DO NOT need
to bring any measure of democracy
to the Arab world;
W is just trying to leave a legacy of that,
to look good in history, at the expense of our troops
and our taxpayers.
Having said that,
referring back to Ms. Perino 's dictum:
we in NYC are still paying a sales tax to finance the Second World War.
The Third World War was over on Christmas Eve of 1991,
and we are now in the Forth World War against the Moslems,
and
we are still paying the sales tax in NYC to finance World War II.
The tax was was increased. As Ms. Perino wud point out,
that war was over 62 years ago,
and we are still paying the tax that was enacted to finance it.
In candor,
I will admit that I approve of sales taxes,
in that it is about the only way to pry some cash out of the poor
to get them to carry some of their own damn weight,
instead of ALWAYS parasitically depending on the middle class and the rich.
In any case, Ms. Perino is correct, based upon known historical fact,
regardless of whether leftist pinkos call her " a moron. "
( The Pinkos
LOVE that word; thay
just LOVE that word.
I won 't say anything about mirrors, or looking in them for morons. )
David
For those of you who were around during the Viet Nam War (and paying taxes), if you remember, we were hit with a one time 10% surcharge on our income taxes.
The way it went down, you figured your taxes as per usual, then your total tax was "taxed" another ten percent. For those of you who haven't had the pleasure of trying to scrape up another month and a half "take home" to meet that "surtax" amount on short notice (it wasn't withheld)...... I found it annoying, at the least.
Nor is it going to "pay for the war". It will go into general funds and be spent accordingly. There is no bank account earmarked "for the war effort".
For those of you who plead the case of passing on the Nation's debt to our children. The only way to do that is to have a "surplus" budget, not merely a balanced budget. Next, one is tasked with the job of making sure that that surplus is used for retiring that debt. "Rainy Day" savings is NOT part of Congress' financial make up.
Even if we could cut the budget to the quick, and focus that surplus toward paying off the National Debt, it would still take generations. Worse, remembering that the Government is one of the largest contributors to the economy as far as cash flow goes, what would a very stingy Government do to the economy? Particularly the large (and growing ever larger) number of citizens who live on the Government dole.
I'm sure, paying off the National Debt gives one a warm and fuzzy feeling but the actual effort to do so, including the increased taxation that would have to be a part of the effort, will not be well received by your average American.
Halfback
P.S. As long as we continue to have a Government that believes throwing money at a problem will solve the problem, or believes that buying votes is a requirement for staying in the hallowed halls of DC, it is never going to change.
Halfback wrote:For those of you who were around during the Viet Nam War (and paying taxes), if you remember, we were hit with a one time 10% surcharge on our income taxes.
The way it went down, you figured your taxes as per usual, then your total tax was "taxed" another ten percent. For those of you who haven't had the pleasure of trying to scrape up another month and a half "take home" to meet that "surtax" amount on short notice (it wasn't withheld)...... I found it annoying, at the least.
Nor is it going to "pay for the war". It will go into general funds and be spent accordingly. There is no bank account earmarked "for the war effort".
For those of you who plead the case of passing on the Nation's debt to our children. The only way to do that is to have a "surplus" budget, not merely a balanced budget. Next, one is tasked with the job of making sure that that surplus is used for retiring that debt. "Rainy Day" savings is NOT part of Congress' financial make up.
Even if we could cut the budget to the quick, and focus that surplus toward paying off the National Debt, it would still take generations. Worse, remembering that the Government is one of the largest contributors to the economy as far as cash flow goes, what would a very stingy Government do to the economy? Particularly the large (and growing ever larger) number of citizens who live on the Government dole.
I'm sure, paying off the National Debt gives one a warm and fuzzy feeling but the actual effort to do so, including the increased taxation that would have to be a part of the effort, will not be well received by your average American.
Halfback
P.S. As long as we continue to have a Government that believes throwing money at a problem will solve the problem, or believes that buying votes is a requirement for staying in the hallowed halls of DC, it is never going to change.
The alternative is the eventual collapse of our economic system.
Sure, we're going to have lean and difficult years paying down the debts that we owe, but the other option - fiscal insolvency - will mean the collapse of our country. Can't have that.
Cycloptichorn
I am far away from the show business of democracy..
I am not qualified to participate or influence anyone's personall choice to select or elect a person .
But may I repectfully quote an American journalist?
His antiwar message is the key to Paul's burgeoning success
The approach the chattering classes have taken to the Ron Paul phenomenon has been classic, rather along the lines of Gandhi's famous aphorism: first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
http://antiwar.com/justin/
