15
   

Obama/Biden Tax Plan - Can you say SOCIALISM??

 
 
Woiyo9
 
  5  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 06:09 am
@kuvasz,
Let me explain something to you and all your partisan friends.

I expect politicians to make decision based upon their beliefs, not because a bill is "veto proof". What you suggest is that President Clinton had no balls and caved into the Senate. He could have vetoed the bill and force Congress to over-ride it. If he did that, he would have demonstrated a characteristic that few politicians (except those like McCain) possess, and that is breaking from the majority to vote their conscience.

So take your arrogant sentiments and stand in line with all the other sheep who are unable to think for themselves and have to follow, because you are too stupid to think and act for yourself.
revel
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 06:28 am
@Woiyo9,
Quote:
If he did that, he would have demonstrated a characteristic that few politicians (except those like McCain) possess, and that is breaking from the majority to vote their conscience.


Like McCain, please. Maybe the McCain of old, this McCain has went back on every single maverick vote or belief he has ever had to get the GOP vote including his tax stance. Plenty of evidence to back that statement up, just google in McCain and flip flops.

Woiyo9
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 06:37 am
@revel,
That is really not th e point of the response. However, how many times has McCain gone against his party as compare to Obama?
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 06:56 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

That is really not th e point of the response. However, how many times has McCain gone against his party as compare to Obama?

I think the point is that McCain has personally repudiated all of his previous efforts to go "against his party" and promised he won't do it anymore.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 07:07 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:
What you suggest is that President Clinton had no balls and caved into the Senate. He could have vetoed the bill and force Congress to over-ride it. If he did that, he would have demonstrated a characteristic that few politicians (except those like McCain) possess

And that would have achieved what, exactly? Congress would have overridden the veto, as they clearly had a large enough majority, and nothing would have been changed except that we would have been able to watch some posturing unfold.

Politics is not about just showing where you stand, it's about actually achieving things. If Clinton had vetoed that bill and Congress had then easily overridden that veto, nothing would have been achieved. You may call that "having balls", I just call it empty posturing.

A President should reserve his vetoes to the cases where it can actually makes a difference. Throwing vetoes around even if you know in advance that it achieves nothing just weakens the power of them, submits them to inflationary erosion. I can do without the huffing and puffing of symbolic gestures. They dont have to prove that they have "balls", thank you. Just get on with the job and focus on the things you can change.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 07:11 am
So some basic tax philosophy questions:

1) Is is patriotic to pay higher taxes in time of war? Should all Americans be expected to contribute to the war cause, either in terms of directly supporting the war effort (soldiers, etc) or paying for the expenses of war?

2) Should the US strive to take in enough money to cover its spending obligations?

3) Should we have a progressive tax system? Is it reasonable to ask the "rich" to pay more than the "poor"?

4) Should we tax inheritance at a high rate in order to reduce the overall tax rate?
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 07:24 am
@engineer,
My answers:

engineer wrote:

1) Is is patriotic to pay higher taxes in time of war? Should all Americans be expected to contribute to the war cause, either in terms of directly supporting the war effort (soldiers, etc) or paying for the expenses of war?

IMO, absolutely. A declaration of war or of any sustained action that most people would call war should immediately put in place a tax to pay for it. If you have any patriotic leanings at all, you should be willing to pay to support our troops and their success. If you are not willing to do this, you can't make any claim to patriotism in my book.

engineer wrote:

2) Should the US strive to take in enough money to cover its spending obligations?

Yes. Deficit spending may be necessary on occasion, but our spending should be constrained by our income and our tax rate should be set based on our spending.

engineer wrote:

3) Should we have a progressive tax system? Is it reasonable to ask the "rich" to pay more than the "poor"?

Yes. For reasons well stated by others, a fixed tax rate hurts the poor much more than the rich. A progressive tax system allows everyone to contribute to some degree but recognizes that those at the top can contribute more than those at the bottom. My personal take is that those at the top also benefit more from a stable government than those at the bottom. I'm sure some will scream that social programs support the poor at the expense of the rich, but there are many programs to support trade and grow businesses that primarily benefit the upper classes in society, even if they trickle down to the masses.

engineer wrote:

4) Should we tax inheritance at a high rate in order to reduce the overall tax rate?

Yes. I like the current system where there is a reasonable exemption on inheritance and then a high tax rate. Higher estate taxes enable lower taxes on the living. This makes more sense to me than assuming someone has a right to money just because he parents were rich. I do favor some common sense rules around protecting non-liquid assets like farmland and small businesses.
candidone1
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 09:42 am
@Woiyo9,
I see....one man's opinion, enforced through a veto, should be given primacy over the collective will of Congress?
Why do you hate democracy so much????
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 04:33 pm
@Woiyo9,
I expect politicians to make decision based upon their beliefs, not because a bill is "veto proof". What you suggest is that President Clinton had no balls and caved into the Senate. He could have vetoed the bill and force Congress to over-ride it. If he did that, he would have demonstrated a characteristic that few politicians (except those like McCain) possess, and that is breaking from the majority to vote their conscience.

So take your arrogant sentiments and stand in line with all the other sheep who are unable to think for themselves and have to follow, because you are too stupid to think and act for yourself.


i respect you not because i identityfy with above English or your political assessment.
This forum is to enliven the thinking people like you to see the reality.
This is also a forum to educate some idiots ill-informed persons like me..
Abusing the English to score a point should not be the norms of A2K.
I had addressed a pertinent question to yconascience.
How about bestowing your valuable time to preach or teach me to correct myself?
0 Replies
 
Parker Cross
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 10:38 pm
I think its too bad that Democrats don't have the cojones to come out and use the "s" word instead of trying to trick Americans. Obama should just come out and say "I support a socialist medical system, a socialist tax structure, and a socialist welfare bureaucracy." He is not many ideological breaths from being a socialist, why not admit it and put the cards out in the open. He does support a free market economy, but only as long as it supports a socialist system and agenda. Does anyone else see a paradox?
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 10:49 pm
@Parker Cross,
Nope, just you.

So glad you decided to bless us with yer alter-ego, mister cross...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 10:53 pm
@candidone1,
Quote:
I see....one man's opinion, enforced through a veto,
should be given primacy over the collective will of Congress?

YES


Quote:
Why do you hate democracy so much????

IF u really CARE,
just read the Constitution. Its not hard.





David
0 Replies
 
barackman28
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 11:05 pm
@Woiyo9,
It is obvious to me that many of the attacks on Senator Obama are based on covert racism. It is well known that Senator Obama, while he worked as a Community Organizer and in the Illinois Legislator, did a great deal to help his constituents in the inner city of Chicago. It to Senator Obama's credit that there are many more children in the inner city who are not going hungry!
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 08:07 am
@candidone1,
I do not support people who do not vote their conscience.

I call them "pussies" and since you do not support this common sense approach, you too must be a "pussie".
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 09:30 am
@Woiyo9,
Ok Woiyo, what is your tax philosophy?
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 09:35 am
@engineer,
http://able2know.org/topic/122904-1
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 02:40 pm
So why does the free market rule until a bank looks like collapsing?

Isn't your current government nationalising lenders a form of socialism?

I love the idea that socialism is bad because it starts with an 'S'.

For you guys it seems labels have more currency than ideas.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 08:36 am
@Parker Cross,
Parker Cross wrote:

I think its too bad that Democrats don't have the cojones to come out and use the "s" word instead of trying to trick Americans. Obama should just come out and say "I support a socialist medical system, a socialist tax structure, and a socialist welfare bureaucracy." He is not many ideological breaths from being a socialist, why not admit it and put the cards out in the open. He does support a free market economy, but only as long as it supports a socialist system and agenda. Does anyone else see a paradox?


The day the republicans admit they are fascist is the day the democrats will reveal they are socialist.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
barackman28
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 01:29 pm
@Parker Cross,
Why don't the Republicans quit telling lies about Senator Obama? He is not a Socialist. The character assassins are laughable. They try to tie Senator Obama's compassionate work among his people in Chicago to Saul Alinsky. What they don't tell you is that Saul Alinsky died in 1972. Senator Obama was nine years old! Just what is Socialistic about helping poor children to get food to eat? Just what is Socialistic about helping poor people navigate the maze of welfare bureaucracy? Just what is Socialistic about getting good housing for poor downtrodden black people who have never had a chance?

Socialism--a smear word!!! McCarthy did the same thing in the fifties only he used Communism as the scare word.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 01:34 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Ok Woiyo, what is your tax philosophy?

"Philosophy" is a a word used by the elite and intellectuals. How dare you accuse him of being either.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

"Makers" vs. "Takers" - Discussion by DrewDad
Begin the Kansas brain-drain - Discussion by DrewDad
Albany Tax Deal to Raise Rate for Highest Earners - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
MCCAIN-ONOMICS -- MORE SUPPLY SIDE - Discussion by Advocate
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/05/2021 at 01:42:15