The Audacity of Socialism.

[2centsworth]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/series_obama.jpg


Barack Obama has styled himself a centrist, but does his record support that claim?

In this series, we examine Senator Obama's past, his voting record and the people who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years. We'll show how the facts of Obama's actions and associations reveal a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.


Obama's Global Tax (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302222641317480)
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302222641317480
Election '08: A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551)
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

[Mr. Peabody]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/series_obama.jpg


Barack Obama has styled himself a centrist, but does his record support that claim?

In this series, we examine Senator Obama's past, his voting record and the people who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years. We'll show how the facts of Obama's actions and associations reveal a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.


Obama's Global Tax (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302222641317480)
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302222641317480
Election '08: A plan by Barack Obama to redistribute American wealth on a global level is moving forward in the Senate. It follows Marxist theology — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551)
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

That's funny. On The Daily Kos, the posters there always complain that Obama's record doesn't show enough of a commitment to a liberal agenda. I guess it all depends on the perspective you use.

[clambake]

thanks 2cents! that frank marshall davis is an amazing guy! i think you might be opening up, just a bit!

[2centsworth]

That's funny. On The Daily Kos, the posters there always complain that Obama's record doesn't show enough of a commitment to a liberal agenda. I guess it all depends on the perspective you use.

The left believes he's a socialist, but not a commie. The right believes he's a commie. I guess that makes him a socialist. Hence, the title of the editorial.

[2centsworth]

thanks 2cents! that frank marshall davis is an amazing guy! i think you might be opening up, just a bit!

I respect people who can admit who their heros are, so I have an increased respect for you. Obama on the other hand is cowardly and will throw his pastor and grandmother under the bus to get elected.

[clambake]

I respect people who can admit who their heros are, so I have an increased respect for you. Obama on the other hand is cowardly and will throw his pastor and grandmother under the bus to get elected.

:lmao @ hero! why don't you donate to the pastor if it really bothers you, and try to explain racism to his grandmother. i think you might be the perfect choice for her race education.:lmao

[2centsworth]

:lmao @ hero! why don't you donate to the pastor if it really bothers you, and try to explain racism to his grandmother. i think you might be the perfect choice for her race education.:lmao

i didn't expect you to be able to read.

[clambake]

I respect people who can admit who their heros are, so I have an increased respect for you. Obama on the other hand is cowardly and will throw his pastor and grandmother under the bus to get elected.

i had no problem reading this.

1. calling this guy my hero.
2. your concern for the pastor and grandma is genuine.:lmao
3. that always fresh "under the bus" was brilliant.

seriously, thanks for the frank marshall davis thing. he certainly had a clear discription of life during his time.

[Wild Cobra]

The left believes he's a socialist, but not a commie. The right believes he's a commie. I guess that makes him a socialist. Hence, the title of the editorial.

Nope.

He and his followers are "Obamunists!"

[Cry Havoc]

Nope.

He and his followers are "Obamunists!"

Yes.

Because what Obama stands for is SO much worse and more evil than Bush/Cheney's idea of helping the rich and dumping on the poor, and making excuses and bailouts for massive corporations while the hurting American public falls farther into debt.

I'd rather have a communist for a President than a President-acting-CEO who actively seeks to widen the income disparity between the wealthy and the middle to lower classes.

[2centsworth]

Yes.

Because what Obama stands for is SO much worse and more evil than Bush/Cheney's idea of helping the rich and dumping on the poor, and making excuses and bailouts for massive corporations while the hurting American public falls farther into debt.

I'd rather have a communist for a President than a President-acting-CEO who actively seeks to widen the income disparity between the wealthy and the middle to lower classes.

More communist talk. The poor people in the country are considered rich around the world because of Capitalism. China's growing middle class is because they have opened their markets to capitalist. The socialist drivel will just lead us to a fascist state.

cry havoc, it's late so excuse my lack of patience, but your post makes me sick to my stomach.

[Anti.Hero]

The left believes he's a socialist, but not a commie. The right believes he's a commie. I guess that makes him a socialist. Hence, the title of the editorial.

Commies are just socialists in a hurry.



Top 10% of income tax wage earners pay for 40% of the country. Top 25% pay for 80%. Bottom 50% pay for 3%.

But life still isn't fair. The dems will continue to enforce class envy on the ignorant. Dems will still make you hate whitey. We need more redistribution of wealth. And oh, it's coming. :toast

[clambake]

Commies are just socialists in a hurry.



Top 10% of income tax wage earners pay for 40% of the country. Top 25% pay for 80%. Bottom 50% pay for 3%.

But life still isn't fair. The dems will continue to enforce class envy on the ignorant. Dems will still make you hate whitey. We need more redistribution of wealth.

now we have to bail out the big 3 and pay to re-tool their factories so they can maintain their wealth and still deliver a "for shit" product.

this is corrupt.

[Anti.Hero]

I'd rather have a communist for a President than a President-acting-CEO who actively seeks to widen the income disparity between the wealthy and the middle to lower classes.

Dude. Do you not realize Obama's policies won't even help the "middle class".

All this garbage they will use to "attack whitey" only hurt the hard working middle class dude trying to use the same tactics to gain wealth. Capital gains tax increase, dividends tax increase, etc will not hurt the rich guy nearly as much as it will a 20/30 yr old trying to start up some wealth through investments. It's like, let's take away the Bush Cuts and a family's $2500 and give them back $1000 from the oil companies. Fuck the math, we are killing Bush's evil plan and attacking the evil oil companies. Yes We Can.

The secret is the dems are just as elitist as the repugs, but the dems do not want others to get on their level. They keep the people weak and controllable. Anyone who looks at their policies and the actual affects can see this. The repugs don't give a shit as long as they are getting theirs.

They've got all these people brainwashed, and 30 years from now when they are still working at wall-mart they will still be too ignorant to see what is going on.


It really is amazing to see how the dems have achieved this illusion that they are the class "for the people." The American Dream: start from nothing and make it big, but not too big or else you'll be demonized, guilt ridden, and hated.

[Anti.Hero]

now we have to bail out the big 3 and pay to re-tool their factories so they can maintain their wealth and still deliver a "for shit" product.

this is corrupt.

Definitely.

Kind of like legislature forcing loan companies to give out loans to people who can not really afford them.

It's idiotic on both sides, I do not disagree with this. Probably not idiotic though, they just don't give a fuck. It's just tax money.

[Spurminator]

Capital gains tax increase, dividends tax increase, etc will not hurt the rich guy nearly as much as it will a 20/30 yr old trying to start up some wealth through investments. It's like, let's take away the Bush Cuts and a family's $2500 and give them back $1000 from the oil companies.

Obama's capital gains tax increase would only apply to individuals making over $250K.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006

[FromWayDowntown]

What I'm really interested in is electing a President who will claim for himself unprecedented executive power while manifesting a willingness to defy both legislative and judicial acts with radical and untenable legal arguments for vesting incredible amounts of unchecked power into the White House. Truly, I think of "electing" a President as being my quadrennial chance to pretend as though I have some say in who shall serve as King.

I'm also interested in electing a King, errrrr President who can ensure that the nation incurs incredible expenses through actions that create more problems than they solve. Frankly, who doesn't want to live in a nation that is so burdened by a spending deficit that its currency is steadily weakening against the world market and whose people have seen nearly-unprecedented increases in the costs of things that have largely become essential to their lives? I think of electing a President as a means to ensure that the income I'm allowed to keep goes less and less far with each passing year.

Finally, I'm interested in electing a President who does little more than instill grave skepticism a large portion of the populous. Really, what fun would life be without intense divisiveness with a large group of people questioning the government and another large group contending vociferously that the first large group has no basis to question the President's motives or the results of his actions? I think of electing a President as a means to ensure that the political gulf in the country will be exploited and expanded for purely political gain.

Screw "socialist" candidates -- it's really about ensuring that the American President lives up to the legacy of the Administration that came before it and will boldly take on the foregoing issues in a way that past Administrations have been unwilling to!

[herzlman]

I only wish Obama was actually as liberal as the right thinks he is.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I only wish Obama was actually as liberal as the right thinks he is.

You mean like proposing to give every American $1000 like he did today, taking the money from the oil companies?

[clambake]

What I'm really interested in is electing a President who will claim for himself unprecedented executive power while manifesting a willingness to defy both legislative and judicial acts with radical and untenable legal arguments for vesting incredible amounts of unchecked power into the White House. Truly, I think of "electing" a President as being my quadrennial chance to pretend as though I have some say in who shall serve as King.

I'm also interested in electing a King, errrrr President who can ensure that the nation incurs incredible expenses through actions that create more problems than they solve. Frankly, who doesn't want to live in a nation that is so burdened by a spending deficit that its currency is steadily weakening against the world market and whose people have seen nearly-unprecedented increases in the costs of things that have largely become essential to their lives? I think of electing a President as a means to ensure that the income I'm allowed to keep goes less and less far with each passing year.

Finally, I'm interested in electing a President who does little more than instill grave skepticism a large portion of the populous. Really, what fun would life be without intense divisiveness with a large group of people questioning the government and another large group contending vociferously that the first large group has no basis to question the President's motives or the results of his actions? I think of electing a President as a means to ensure that the political gulf in the country will be exploited and expanded for purely political gain.

Screw "socialist" candidates -- it's really about ensuring that the American President lives up to the legacy of the Administration that came before it and will boldly take on the foregoing issues in a way that past Administrations have been unwilling to!

:lol aah, utopia, and to insure there are enough grapes for the poor to feed me! what could four more years hurt?

[FromWayDowntown]

You mean like proposing to give every American $1000 like he did today, taking the money from the oil companies?

The government should really handle financing such payments.

They could be called "economic stimulus" checks or something like that.

[clambake]

You mean like proposing to give every American $1000 like he did today, taking the money from the oil companies?

"thou shalt spred the american oil under our american feet so that we, too, can wade through it's glorious treasures." (any spoken discord will transfer their share to the poor, if there is, in fact, any poor.)......

[T Park]

socialism has failed at every attempt. But hey!he's young has great soundbites and says all the right cool things!!!!!!!!!

[LocosPorJuana]

remember the story of christ and the prince who wanted to enter the kingdom of god? Jesus asked the prince to give all his riches to the poor, the prince just turned away an ran.

[FromWayDowntown]

socialism has failed at every attempt. But hey!he's young has great soundbites and says all the right cool things!!!!!!!!!

Apparently, bundling up a candidate in a nice philosophical box that will appeal to the lowest common denominator in the electorate remains a winning strategy.

[Trainwreck2100]

remember the story of christ and the prince who wanted to enter the kingdom of god? Jesus asked the prince to give all his riches to the poor, the prince just turned away an ran.

I don't remember that story.

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m

[2centsworth]

What I'm really interested in is electing a President who will claim for himself unprecedented executive power while manifesting a willingness to defy both legislative and judicial acts with radical and untenable legal arguments for vesting incredible amounts of unchecked power into the White House. Truly, I think of "electing" a President as being my quadrennial chance to pretend as though I have some say in who shall serve as King.

I'm also interested in electing a King, errrrr President who can ensure that the nation incurs incredible expenses through actions that create more problems than they solve. Frankly, who doesn't want to live in a nation that is so burdened by a spending deficit that its currency is steadily weakening against the world market and whose people have seen nearly-unprecedented increases in the costs of things that have largely become essential to their lives? I think of electing a President as a means to ensure that the income I'm allowed to keep goes less and less far with each passing year.

Finally, I'm interested in electing a President who does little more than instill grave skepticism a large portion of the populous. Really, what fun would life be without intense divisiveness with a large group of people questioning the government and another large group contending vociferously that the first large group has no basis to question the President's motives or the results of his actions? I think of electing a President as a means to ensure that the political gulf in the country will be exploited and expanded for purely political gain.

Screw "socialist" candidates -- it's really about ensuring that the American President lives up to the legacy of the Administration that came before it and will boldly take on the foregoing issues in a way that past Administrations have been unwilling to!

From my blackberry, so ill keep it short. What's ur argument counselor? Obama is a socialist, but beTter than the alternative? Obama isn't a socialist? These seem like str8 forward questions that can be answred y or n.

[clambake]

From my blackberry, so ill keep it short. What's ur argument counselor? Obama is a socialist, but beTter than the alternative? Obama isn't a socialist? These seem like str8 forward questions that can be answred y or n.

i think you could have left it at "yes".

[FromWayDowntown]

From my blackberry, so ill keep it short. What's ur argument counselor? Obama is a socialist, but beTter than the alternative? Obama isn't a socialist? These seem like str8 forward questions that can be answred y or n.

The notion that Obama is a socialist is a red herring; aside from being little more than a convenient broad stroke that is an inflammatory proxy for real thinking about the policy differences between the candidates, the label is insignificant because there is zero chance that even a President who was truly a socialist could enact purely socialistic policies (though the notion of an imperial presidency, as advocated for by the current Administration, might actually make that more possible than it has ever been).

Ultimately, my point is that mischaracterizations and irrelevant labels aside, even a socialist couldn't do as much harm as the anti-socialist administration currently in power has done. So, yes, I'd honestly probably prefer a socialist to a President who purports to be something else but consistently pursues policies and activities that subvert the founding principles of the nation and the best interests of its citizens.

[clambake]

2cents.......you are becoming an "unstable alarmist".

[Cry Havoc]

socialism has failed at every attempt. But hey!he's young has great soundbites and says all the right cool things!!!!!!!!!

Please show me an example of a successful "democracy". Thanks for playing.

[2centsworth]

The notion that Obama is a socialist is a red herring; aside from being little more than a convenient broad stroke that is an inflammatory proxy for real thinking about the policy differences between the candidates,

that has to be one of the most wussified answers I've ever heard. :lol Inflammatory. I didn't want to hurt your feelings. This election is about Obama and figuring out who he is. At this point he's a closet communist and at best a hard socialist per the IBD editorial.



the label is insignificant because there is zero chance that even a President who was truly a socialist could enact purely socialistic policies (though the notion of an imperial presidency, as advocated for by the current Administration, might actually make that more possible than it has ever been). Imperialist, how inflammatory. I'm offended.:lol



Ultimately, my point is that mischaracterizations and irrelevant labels aside, even a socialist couldn't do as much harm as the anti-socialist administration currently in power has done.

Electing a hard core socialist is irrelevent? In what country? Maybe in Cuba.



So, yes, I'd honestly probably prefer a socialist to a President who purports to be something else but consistently pursues policies and activities that subvert the founding principles of the nation and the best interests of its citizens.

fiscally your preference will be devestating.

[2centsworth]

2cents.......you are becoming an "unstable alarmist".

watch the following link and discuss, and then maybe I'll think of you as more than a sheep.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

[FromWayDowntown]

that has to be one of the most wussified answers I've ever heard. :lol Inflammatory. I didn't want to hurt your feelings. This election is about Obama and figuring out who he is. At this point he's a closet communist and at best a hard socialist per the IBD editorial.

Hmmmm. I didn't realize that the election was about a single candidate. I had this silly, surely-outdated notion that the election was about discussing pressing national problems and trying to find solutions to those problems through weighing the relative virtue of the policy initiatives of two or more candidates, and not just about deciding how best to characterize one guy's political philosophy.

Oh, and I don't really give a damn about the labels that you use -- my point is that it's a base political strategy that has little to do with any foundation in absolute truth. Republicans refer to troubling Democratic candidates as socialists/communists; Democrats refer to troubling Republican candidates as racists/elitists. Neither description is actually correct in any real political sense, but each is useful in attempting to lure voters to one side or the other of the political debate.

I guess that I should also start taking the conclusions of editorial writers -- never biased in any manner, of course -- as gospel in assessing that single candidate.

I assume, since the election is about Obama, that you're presuming an Obama victory?


Electing a hard core socialist is irrelevent? In what country? Maybe in Cuba.

You show me the laws that a President is able to pass without the assistance of Congress. It's awfully difficult to impement a socialist agenda, which would necessitate significant changes in statutory law, without the indulgence of Congress. Until the President is able to enact laws without Congressional assistance, I'm not terribly concerned with the possibility that the divisive political discourse of the day has his opponents labelling Obama with tags grounded in hot rhetoric that is aimed solely at the lowest common denominator in the electorate.


fiscally your preference will be devestating.

Well, I see the decision to elect a conservative Republican has done wonders for the American economy in the last 8 years.

[clambake]

watch the following link and discuss, and then maybe I'll think of you as more than a sheep.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml

thanks for advising me to read what i already know. i don't feel there are that many people in this political forum who aren't aware of our current situation. you do, however, tend to avoid the reasons and cause of such a dramatic plunge in the state of the union.

calling obama, or anyone else a socialist is clearly an unstable alarmist retort.(minus the wit).

i, for one, would be willing to have a tax hike on my dividends, distributions, and capitol gains to go directly to a national healthcare system. it will be less painful if we all do it together.

but you are fixated on the people who receive medicare or have any general medical needs that they can't afford. (and i'm guessing it's because you are not one in need) why don't you man up and do something for your fellow americans. they are part of the country as well.

[2centsworth]

Hmmmm. I didn't realize that the election was about a single candidate. I had this silly, surely-outdated notion that the election was about discussing pressing national problems and trying to find solutions to those problems through weighing the relative virtue of the policy initiatives of two or more candidates, and not just about deciding how best to characterize one guy's political philosophy.

Economics is of the upmost importance IMO. Being a closest communist is very important!!



Oh, and I don't really give a damn about the labels that you use -- my point is that it's a base political strategy that has little to do with any foundation in absolute truth. Republicans refer to troubling Democratic candidates as socialists/communists; Democrats refer to troubling Republican candidates as racists/elitists. Neither description is actually correct in any real political sense, but each is useful in attempting to lure voters to one side or the other of the political debate.

Again, when discussing economic policy whether someone is a socialist is extremely relevent.



I guess that I should also start taking the conclusions of editorial writers -- never biased in any manner, of course -- as gospel in assessing that single candidate.

I assume, since the election is about Obama, that you're presuming an Obama victory?

accepting conclusions, no, but discussing the points instead of dismissing them as inflamatory. The editorial isn't diversionary in economic circles.




You show me the laws that a President is able to pass without the assistance of Congress. It's awfully difficult to impement a socialist agenda, which would necessitate significant changes in statutory law, without the indulgence of Congress.

This is an thread about economics. I know you feel more comfortbale discussing other topics, but just try.


Until the President is able to enact laws without Congressional assistance, I'm not terribly concerned with the possibility that the divisive political discourse of the day has his opponents labelling Obama with tags grounded in hot rhetoric that is aimed solely at the lowest common denominator in the electorate.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, ECONOMICS!


Well, I see the decision to elect a conservative Republican has done wonders for the American economy in the last 8 years.[/quote]

[clambake]

Economics is of the upmost importance IMO. Being a closest communist is very important!!



Again, when discussing economic policy whether someone is a socialist is extremely relevent.



accepting conclusions, no, but discussing the points instead of dismissing them as inflamatory. The editorial isn't diversionary in economic circles.




This is an thread about economics. I know you feel more comfortbale discussing other topics, but just try.


I don't want to sound like a broken record, ECONOMICS!


Well, I see the decision to elect a conservative Republican has done wonders for the American economy in the last 8 years.[/QUOTE]

wow. my previous post in this thread was spot on regarding your motives.

[clambake]

the more i think about it, the more i find your sig..........fu*k it. nevermind.

[2centsworth]

thanks for advising me to read what i already know. i don't feel there are that many people in this political forum who aren't aware of our current situation. you do, however, tend to avoid the reasons and cause of such a dramatic plunge in the state of the union.

calling obama, or anyone else a socialist is clearly an unstable alarmist retort.(minus the wit).

i, for one, would be willing to have a tax hike on my dividends, distributions, and capitol gains to go directly to a national healthcare system. it will be less painful if we all do it together. you could do a 1 year 100% tax on all income and assets and it still wouldn't be enough.



but you are fixated on the people who receive medicare or have any general medical needs that they can't afford. (and i'm guessing it's because you are not one in need) why don't you man up and do something for your fellow americans. they are part of the country as well. medicare will bankrupt our country if nothing is done to fix a broken system. I'm maning up for for my kids. You can continue making believe you're doing something.

[2centsworth]

the more i think about it, the more i find your sig..........fu*k it. nevermind.

say it, because you're obviously a "man":lol.

[FromWayDowntown]

Economics is of the upmost importance IMO. Being a closest communist is very important!!

Oh, I see. So the fact that economics is of the utmost importance to you necessarily means that it is of the utmost importance to the electorate and really the only issue in this campaign?

See, my point in responding to this thread was to suggest that it's pretty silly to make the choice to vote for a particular candidate about a single issue, such as economics. As my original post suggested, voting with economics in mind can (most decidedly) lead to a number of other problems. Curiously, among the problems arising from the last presidential elections is a growing economic problem . . . .


Again, when discussing economic policy whether someone is a socialist is extremely relevent.

Sure. But, again, he could be all that you claim him to be -- something I'd dispute because I think that label is too easily applied in circumstances where it is wholly inappropriate -- but that wouldn't make any difference if Congress won't pass laws reflecting that economic philosophy. And, ultimately, I suspect that the majority of Congress will resist the enactment of laws that are truly socialist in nature out of pragmatism, if nothing else.


accepting conclusions, no, but discussing the points instead of dismissing them as inflamatory. The editorial isn't diversionary in economic circles.

I am discussing the point -- I'm saying: (1) the use of the label "socialist" is inflammatory because it's not actually correct; and (2) the term is a diversion inasmuch as it divisively suggests to voters that Obama doesn't warrant their consideration because he's going to (I'll paraphrase) create the Union of American Socialist Republics. With that, while economic policy is undoubtedly an important issue, it's hardly the only issue in a presidential election.


This is an thread about economics. I know you feel more comfortbale discussing other topics, but just try.

Interesting non sequitor. You want me to talk about generalized descriptions of the economic policies of a presidential candidate and think that it's irrelevant to that discussion to note that a president cannot enact laws to change economic policy? It seems pretty clear that the only acceptable response from anyone to your thread is: "You're right, 2centsworth. Nobody should vote for Obama."


Well, I see the decision to elect a conservative Republican has done wonders for the American economy in the last 8 years.

With all of your concern for economics, it's fascinating to me that you chose to avoid that point.

[2centsworth]

Oh, I see. So the fact that economics is of the utmost importance to you necessarily means that it is of the utmost importance to the electorate and really the only issue in this campaign?

See, my point in responding to this thread was to suggest that it's pretty silly to make the choice to vote for a particular candidate about a single issue, such as economics. As my original post suggested, voting with economics in mind can (most decidedly) lead to a number of other problems. Curiously, among the problems arising from the last presidential elections is a growing economic problem . . .

what economic problems and how are they the fault of the current administration? I'm not suggesting there aren't problems, but I would like to know how this can be blamed on Bush or the Republicans?




Sure. But, again, he could be all that you claim him to be -- something I'd dispute because I think that label is too easily applied in circumstances where it is wholly inappropriate -- but that wouldn't make any difference if Congress won't pass laws reflecting that economic philosophy. And, ultimately, I suspect that the majority of Congress will resist the enactment of laws that are truly socialist in nature out of pragmatism, if nothing else.

We will have a liberal congress, what's to stop Obama the socialist?




I am discussing the point -- I'm saying: (1) the use of the label "socialist" is inflammatory because it's not actually correct;

Let's see, he wants to redistribute wealth, enanct the windfall tax, introduce a global welfare tax...hmmm doesn't sound socialist to me, yeah right.
and



(2) the term is a diversion inasmuch as it divisively suggests to voters that Obama doesn't warrant their consideration because he's going to (I'll paraphrase) create the Union of American Socialist Republics. With that, while economic policy is undoubtedly an important issue, it's hardly the only issue in a presidential election. he absolutely is trying to make it the socialist republic and with that comes a whole list of evils.




Interesting non sequitor. You want me to talk about generalized descriptions of the economic policies of a presidential candidate and think that it's irrelevant to that discussion to note that a president cannot enact laws to change economic policy? It seems pretty clear that the only acceptable response from anyone to your thread is: "You're right, 2centsworth. Nobody should vote for Obama." you're wrong on the first count counselor, but I can't argue the second:lol




With all of your concern for economics, it's fascinating to me that you chose to avoid that point. did you not read the article? Plus, do a quick search under my name and you'll find plenty of specific economic opinions and policies.

[ElNono]

We will have a liberal congress, what's to stop Obama the socialist?

Do you use liberal and socialist interchangeably?
Do they mean the same to you?
Do you believe all liberals are socialist?
Do you actually believe most liberals are socialists?
What do you know about socialism?
How would you describe the 'economic stimulus' checks in a capitalist context?
Would bailing out failing companies with tax money be a socialist action?

I need to know more about the fallacies you believe in before actually going deeper in the discussion.

[FromWayDowntown]

what economic problems and how are they the fault of the current administration? I'm not suggesting there aren't problems, but I would like to know how this can be blamed on Bush or the Republicans?

This could certainly should be the end of the discussion.

Those massive deficits the government is running aren't economic problems? The declining value of the dollar is not an economic problem? The reduction of spending power for Americans relative to their salaries is not an economic problem?

Or do you dispute that the President and those in his party are significantly responsible for those problems?


Let's see, he wants to redistribute wealth, enanct the windfall tax, introduce a global welfare tax...hmmm doesn't sound socialist to me, yeah right.

Yeah, doesn't sound like broad generalizations to me, yeah right.


he absolutely is trying to make it the socialist republic and with that comes a whole list of evils.

Please provide me with concrete examples -- not "he's going to redistribute wealth" or "he's going to enact the windfall tax" (which, even if true, he couldn't do without Congressional support) -- something specific that would mark his administration as an effort to wholly socialize America.


did you not read the article? Plus, do a quick search under my name and you'll find plenty of specific economic opinions and policies.

Okay, great. That should make it very easy for you to concisely state for me how it is that the economy is better today than it was in 2000 or even 2004 because Americans elected a conservative republican who eschews socialist policy.

[FromWayDowntown]

Do you use liberal and socialist interchangeably?
Do they mean the same to you?
Do you believe all liberals are socialist?
Do you actually believe most liberals are socialists?
What do you know about socialism?
How would you describe the 'economic stimulus' checks in a capitalist context?
Would bailing out failing companies with tax money be a socialist action?

I need to know more about the fallacies you believe in before actually going deeper in the discussion.

It seems quite clear that the answer to each question is "Yes." Which has been a significant aspect of my point, all along.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

socialism has failed at every attempt. But hey!he's young has great soundbites and says all the right cool things!!!!!!!!!

Come on. It worked in the USSR. No wait. It's worked in Cuba. No wait. It's worked in Venezuela. No wait. It's worked in North Korea. No wait...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The notion that Obama is a socialist is a red herring; aside from being little more than a convenient broad stroke that is an inflammatory proxy for real thinking about the policy differences between the candidates, the label is insignificant because there is zero chance that even a President who was truly a socialist could enact purely socialistic policies (though the notion of an imperial presidency, as advocated for by the current Administration, might actually make that more possible than it has ever been).


With a Democratic Congress in tote, how can you say that?




Ultimately, my point is that mischaracterizations and irrelevant labels aside, even a socialist couldn't do as much harm as the anti-socialist administration currently in power has done. So, yes, I'd honestly probably prefer a socialist to a President who purports to be something else but consistently pursues policies and activities that subvert the founding principles of the nation and the best interests of its citizens.

The fuckups of the Bush Administration shouldn't give Obama a free run at fucking over our country in a marxist fashion.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Republicans refer to troubling Democratic candidates as socialists/communists;

Obama's talking about taking profits from big oil and giving everyone a big welfare check. How is that not socialist? Particularly on an industry that already pays three times more in income taxes than it makes in profit, and pays 1/3 of all corporate income tax in this country?

Obama wants to kill capitalism. Period. For all his talks about bemoaning class warfare and the like, he sure seems hellbent on propagating it.

[ElNono]

Obama's talking about taking profits from big oil and giving everyone a big welfare check. How is that not socialist? Particularly on an industry that already pays three times more in income taxes than it makes in profit, and pays 1/3 of all corporate income tax in this country?

Obama wants to kill capitalism. Period. For all his talks about bemoaning class warfare and the like, he sure seems hellbent on propagating it.

Hmm, and using billions of tax dollars to bail out mismanaged companies is capitalism? Is Bush a socialist? And for as much as you like to think you know about socialism, I can tell you're not that well informed. A true socialist wouldn't just tax the Oil Co's profits. True socialism would make the Oil Co's government owned, by basically invoking that the resources belong to the country and it's citizens. For examples, see Mexico and Venezuela. A windfall profits tax would just be a very mild action on a socialist scale.
That is, obviously, if such a tax would pass Congress scrutiny, as FWD correctly pointed out. Some of you forget that Oil Co lobbying doesn't just fill Republican pockets.

And for all of you whining about how this guy would be terrible for our economy, I think it's going to be hard for him to do worse than the current guy, who is going to leave office with the worse deficit any administration has ever left behind, not to mention a weakened currency. So Obama or whoever comes next will have their work cut out for them.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Hmm, and using billions of tax dollars to bail out mismanaged companies is capitalism? Is Bush a socialist? And for as much as you like to think you know about socialism, I can tell you're not that well informed. A true socialist wouldn't just tax the Oil Co's profits. True socialism would make the Oil Co's government owned, by basically invoking that the resources belong to the country and it's citizens. For examples, see Mexico and Venezuela. A windfall profits tax would just be a very mild action on a socialist scale.
That is, obviously, if such a tax would pass Congress scrutiny, as FWD correctly pointed out. Some of you forget that Oil Co lobbying doesn't just fill Republican pockets.


Um, I know what socialism is. I'm sorry you can't comprehend the fact that the liberal doctrine is to creep these policies and actions into our nation's culture. If Obama came out today and said he wants to nationalize big oil, two things would happen:

1) every oil company with HQ in the U.S. would be on the next plane out of country

2) he would get his ass handed to him in the election

I'm just tired of his, Pelosi's, and all the other Demo's bullshit. They don't have a plan other than to villainize the oil companies. That's it. That's their shitty ass energy plan.

* We can't open up any more areas to drilling even though we have a shitload of oil that we know is there. And it wouldn't take 10 years either.

* Can't build new nuke plants, they're *dangerous*

* Gotta rely on ethanol fuels, which provide reduced gas economy and are driving up our food prices

Nope, the democraptic energy plan is to 1) tax big oil and 2) do nothing but wait for this magic bullet of an alternative fuel source that has yet to be discovered, and somehow not only roll it out but do it on an economy of scale that makes it practical as a true energy solution to our country.




And for all of you whining about how this guy would be terrible for our economy, I think it's going to be hard for him to do worse than the current guy, who is going to leave office with the worse deficit any administration has ever left behind, not to mention a weakened currency. So Obama or whoever comes next will have their work cut out for them.

I hate this argument more than any other sorry ass liberal argument. We get it, Bush was a fuck up. I am a conservative (fiscal), and I even acknowledge that.

That has absolutely zero, nada, zip, zilch to do with Obama's policies. Not a fucking thing. So trying to say 'well, Bush was a fuck up, so what if Obama is one too' isn't a legitimate excuse.

The next 10-20 years are going to shape the future of this country, and hell even if we as a nation make all the right decisions I don't know that it will be enough to get out of the hole that Social Security, Medicare, welfare, pork barrel spending, the bank/Wall Street bailouts, etc. have put us in.

But I can tell you one thing, we'd be in an even deeper one if Obama gets elected. His only solutions at this point appear to be cutting checks to Americans on a semi-regular basis (he championed the bullshit stimulus package earlier this year, and now wants to tax big oil and give it to everyone).

Shitty Fed fiduciary policies (namely, bailing out big business the last year) has eroded the value of the dollar significantly, what do you think is going to happen if Obama gets elected and continues sending us all a check a couple of times a year to cope with inflation and random other shit that is going on in our economy?

This guy appears to be as big if not a bigger knucklehead than W. when it comes to economic policy, and he wants to come over the top of said stupid policies with universal health care, etc. that will absolutely bankrupt this country (not that we're not already probably on the death march to that point, but his policies would be the finishing blows).

And as to the weak argument that he would need the assistance of Congress, well just look at what happened today and in recent weeks on our energy issues up in D.C. The Demos, and to a lesser extent the Repubs, politicized the shit out of the discussion with an eye towards the election, instead of giving us something, anything, in the way of a solution.

We need to hit the reset button on a lot of socialistic shit in this country or we're going to be seeing the dollar trade equal with the peso in a couple of years, and the shitty thing about it all is that not one of those idiots (well, there might be a handful) in D.C. has a fucking clue. That, or they do, but they don't give a shit as long as they can continue to line their pockets with handouts from big business and special interests.

At any rate, it sucks, but youv'e gotta call a spade a spade with this latest round of Obama's proposed handouts.

And I'd love to hear him explain what 'windfall profits' are on $11 billion dollars when said company had to cut a check for $32 billion to the federal government for taxes for the same period of time.

Anyone else here paying three times what they made the last three months to Uncle Sam? Somehow, I doubt it.

[2centsworth]

This could certainly should be the end of the discussion.

Those massive deficits the government is running aren't economic problems? The declining value of the dollar is not an economic problem? The reduction of spending power for Americans relative to their salaries is not an economic problem?

talk about generalizations, but answer the following so we might get to some specifics.

Has obama committed to a balanced budget? Are you serious in thinking an all liberal congress and executive will produce balanced budgets?

Please tell me how exactly the declining dollar is Bush's fault?

Please show me where income hasn't kept up with inflation and also why that is bush's fault. What specific policies made that his fault? Also, how will raising taxes solve that problem?



Or do you dispute that the President and those in his party are significantly responsible for those problems?

Deficits yes, because I did enjoy balanced budgets. However, McCain is a hawk when in comes to spending. How is Obama going to solve the out of control spending?




Yeah, doesn't sound like broad generalizations to me, yeah right.

that's all you have given me to work with, but be patient because eventually you will get more specific.




Please provide me with concrete examples -- not "he's going to redistribute wealth" or "he's going to enact the windfall tax" (which, even if true, he couldn't do without Congressional support) -- something specific that would mark his administration as an effort to wholly socialize America.

first read the article, put one example to redistribute wealth is the windfall profits tax.




Okay, great. That should make it very easy for you to concisely state for me how it is that the economy is better today than it was in 2000 or even 2004 because Americans elected a conservative republican who eschews socialist policy.

diversionary. I certainly want to go into all of this further with you.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What about the trillions of dollars Bush is spending in Iraq in order to give those poor souls a better way of life?

[Cry Havoc]

diversionary. I certainly want to go into all of this further with you.

It's amazing how you "go into stuff" with people, which basically consists of you answering exactly zero big questions while berating others for not answering any of your questions sufficiently.

[2centsworth]

It's amazing how you "go into stuff" with people, which basically consists of you answering exactly zero big questions while berating others for not answering any of your questions sufficiently.

give me a question. I'll treat you fairly.

[2centsworth]

What about the trillions of dollars Bush is spending in Iraq in order to give those poor souls a better way of life?

Entitlements are the 800 pound gorilla. btw, there no trillions being spent in Iraq, but the money that is being spent is dwarfed by what is spent on entitlement programs. Spending the money would be ok if banckruptcy wasn't in our immediate future.

[2centsworth]

This could certainly should be the end of the discussion.

Those massive deficits the government is running aren't economic problems? The declining value of the dollar is not an economic problem? The reduction of spending power for Americans relative to their salaries is not an economic problem?

I've asked you questions in return, but I'll be a little more specific. The decline in the dollar ultimately boils down to one thing, our financial stability. When analyzing two seperate companies for investments which one has more value, company A with a positive net worth or company B with a negative net worth? The USA has a negative networth when you include off balance sheet debts. The recent passing of the Medicare part D plan was severly irresponsible and made us go $20 trillion deeper in the hole. That my friend lies the core of the problem. The liberals at the Brookings Institute would agree whole-heartedly with that assesment except that they have narrowed the problem down to Medicare/healthcare. This sinking hole that we're in was not caused by Bush, but Bush certainly didn't do a much to fix it. In fact, he made it worse with Medicare Part D.

This entitlement time bomb will make the Sub-Prime crises look like a late CPS bill. Obama has absolutely zero plan to get us out of this crises except pander to the socialist with a windfall proftis tax and plans to further tax the american people to cure world poverty. Obama describes himself as a light from heaven, but he's more like a deer caught in the headlights.

As far as McCain, this guy isn't much better than Obama except that McCain has been very outspoken against pork barrell spending. Plus, and to McCain's credit, he did not want the 2003 tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending. Of course the Repbulicans tried to spin it as he was anti-tax cuts, but that was a half-truth. The democrats on the other hand are clueless. They usually will vote affirmative for any spending programs and tax hike, anything else requires too much thinking and not enough feeling.

I do not want Obama win because there's an outside chance he doesn't give me enough time to accumulate the money and assets that I will need
to live through the next depression which I predict will happen in 15 years, but with Obama could happen much sooner. You want to see the Dollar take a nose dive elect Obama.




Or do you dispute that the President and those in his party are significantly responsible for those problems? absolutely. The problem is the democrats denial about the root cause of the problem, entitlements. In fact, democrats propose more and more programs.









Please provide me with concrete examples -- not "he's going to redistribute wealth" or "he's going to enact the windfall tax" (which, even if true, he couldn't do without Congressional support) -- something specific that would mark his administration as an effort to wholly socialize America.

Remember this guy has 150 something days of congressional experience, so we have to base our assumptions on his rhetoric. IBD did a fantastic job of examining this guys socialist rhetoric. As far as enacting policy, we will have a democrat congress, so it will be much easier. Additionally, Obama just came out with his windfall tax idea. Again, the guys rhetoric is hardcore socialist.





Okay, great. That should make it very easy for you to concisely state for me how it is that the economy is better today than it was in 2000 or even 2004 because Americans elected a conservative republican who eschews socialist policy.

The economy in 2000, before Bush, was hit with a finanical tsunami called the High Tech Bubble and the stock market crashed. I'm not going to blame that on any politician though you will find people on both sides of the aisle blaming each other. IMO, it was a natural market correction much like the sub-prime crises. Nevertheless, Bush inherited a recession and 9 months later was hit with 911. Then some of the outfall of the stock market crash was the discovery of corporate curruption like in the case of WorldCom. This can't be blamed on Bush, but he can be given a huge amount of credit for having the balls to rely on Private Industry to pull us out of crises mode by passing tax cuts. Yes, private industry softened the blow and in fact tax receipts are much higher than they were before the tax cuts. Now we are still facing daunting financial challenges. We as citizens are going to have to solve them. We need to significantly grow our ecomony and make tough spending cut decisions. Obama, is a joke with no idea of what it will take except try to pit poor people against capitalist. btw, poor people do pretty well in this country.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Entitlements are the 800 pound gorilla. btw, there no trillions being spent in Iraq, but the money that is being spent is dwarfed by what is spent on entitlement programs. Spending the money would be ok if banckruptcy wasn't in our immediate future.

we're inching closer every month to the trillion dollar mark. yeah--a trillion dollars.

[Mr. Peabody]

we're inching closer every month to the trillion dollar mark. yeah--a trillion dollars.

Freedom isn't free, Oh, Gee!!.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Freedom isn't free, Oh, Gee!!.

some analysts are saying we might hit the 2 trillion dollar mark if the "war on terror" goes on another couple of years.

[Mr. Peabody]

some analysts are saying we might hit the 2 trillion dollar mark if the "war on terror" goes on another couple of years.

The terrorists aren't going to give us a discount Oh, Gee!!. If we start pinching pennies, the terrorists win.

[herzlman]

Remember this guy has 150 something days of congressional experience, so we have to base our assumptions on his rhetoric. IBD did a fantastic job of examining this guys socialist rhetoric. As far as enacting policy, we will have a democrat congress, so it will be much easier. Additionally, Obama just came out with his windfall tax idea. Again, the guys rhetoric is hardcore socialist.


Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't understand how Obama or his windfall profit tax idea are socialist.

Could you humor me and explain?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Global Poverty Act of 2007
Directs the President, through the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.
Requires the strategy to contain specific and measurable goals and to consist of specified components, including:
(1) continued investment or involvement in existing U.S. initiatives related to international poverty reduction and trade preference programs for developing countries;
(2) improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate;
(3) enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate;
(4) mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses and public-private partnerships;
(5) coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals; and
(6) integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

Sets forth specified reporting requirements. Directs the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator who will have primary responsibility for overseeing and drafting the reports, as well as responsibility for helping to implement recommendations contained in the reports.

full text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2433

[2centsworth]

some analysts are saying we might hit the 2 trillion dollar mark if the "war on terror" goes on another couple of years.

$2 trillion pays for one year of medicare part D. Also, who are "some" analysts. Liberal analyst will add in all sorts of ancillary cost, but you could do the same thing with anything and inflate numbers. Hard Cost have not reached $1 trillion, but again, as far as our fiscal concerns the money spent on Iraq is comprable to my monthly telephone bill.

[2centsworth]

The terrorists aren't going to give us a discount Oh, Gee!!. If we start pinching pennies, the terrorists win.

So spending $0 in Iraq would solve our problems? Would it even make a dent? No, but you're obviously clueless to that fact.

[Oh, Gee!!]

$2 trillion pays for one year of medicare part D.

But this thread was intended to attack Obama for wanting to spend our money on people in other countries. My point is that we're spending shitloads in that department already. So, what's the BFD?

[Mr. Peabody]

But this thread was intended to attack Obama for wanting to spend our money on people in other countries. My point is that we're spending shitloads in that department already. So, what's the BFD?

The BFD is that the trillion in Iraq is to spread freedom and democracy. Any other money spent on the rest of the world is part of a Marxist plan.

[Cry Havoc]

$2 trillion pays for one year of medicare part D. Also, who are "some" analysts. Liberal analyst will add in all sorts of ancillary cost, but you could do the same thing with anything and inflate numbers. Hard Cost have not reached $1 trillion, but again, as far as our fiscal concerns the money spent on Iraq is comprable to my monthly telephone bill.

Dear god, you're right. A flubbed attempt to provide health care for our citizens is SO MUCH WORSE than continuing to occupy a foreign country that doesn't want us and killing civilians and our own troops.

For the record though, very accurate figures you present:

As of January 2008, total Medicare spending for prescription drug benefits was projected to drop from $40.5 billion in 2007 to $36 billion in 2008.

Oops. Perhaps you should do a little research before delving into hyperbole.

[Ignignokt]

Dear god, you're right. A flubbed attempt to provide health care for our citizens is SO MUCH WORSE than continuing to occupy a foreign country that doesn't want us and killing civilians and our own troops.

For the record though, very accurate figures you present:

As of January 2008, total Medicare spending for prescription drug benefits was projected to drop from $40.5 billion in 2007 to $36 billion in 2008.

Oops. Perhaps you should do a little research before delving into hyperbole.

This democrat elected government of iraq seems to talk out of both sides of it's mouth if they want us.

Nobody is talking about not providing healthcare for citizens, they're talking about making cuts and making it run more efficiently. Money is not the awnser to everything.

[ElNono]

$2 trillion pays for one year of medicare part D. Also, who are "some" analysts. Liberal analyst will add in all sorts of ancillary cost, but you could do the same thing with anything and inflate numbers. Hard Cost have not reached $1 trillion, but again, as far as our fiscal concerns the money spent on Iraq is comprable to my monthly telephone bill.

At least Medicare was budgeted for. The war keeps costing more than what was projected in the budget, thus being covered with debt and debt alone. To the tune of 12 billion dollars a month(!).
Debt, is what's devaluing the US currency at a historical pace. Now what you need to answer is why when a completely Republican government spent money like liberals 4 years ago you STFU, and now demand the next-to-be President to fix the problem.

I'm not saying we don't have to find a solution to Medicare. But we need to plug all the big black holes that are sucking the money up.

[xrayzebra]

Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't understand how Obama or his windfall profit tax idea are socialist.

Could you humor me and explain?

Companies are suppose to make a profit. That is how they stay in business and hire people. Government is entitled to it? I don't think so.
Besides who determines what is "windfall" profits. At what point does profits become "windfall"? Or better still what is "windfall"? Isn't it something gained for no effort, like found. How is a company, any company, who invest/take a chance, and is in business to make money guilty of "windfall" profits.

Should government be punished for running a surplus. Is Government reaping a "windfall" profit? Or should that money be returned to the taxpayer.

[FromWayDowntown]

Curiously, the windfall profits tax on revenues derived by oil producers was in effect for almost all of the Reagan Administration -- the noted socialist Ronald Reagan, that is.

[ElNono]

Curiously, the windfall profits tax on revenues derived by oil producers was in effect for almost all of the Reagan Administration -- the noted socialist Ronald Reagan, that is.

He was a marxist... BIG difference...

[PixelPusher]

the noted socialist Ronald Reagan, that is.

Don't forget effete, cosmopolitan "citizen of the world" (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42644) Ronald Reagan.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Companies are suppose to make a profit. That is how they stay in business and hire people. Government is entitled to it? I don't think so.
Besides who determines what is "windfall" profits. At what point does profits become "windfall"? Or better still what is "windfall"? Isn't it something gained for no effort, like found. How is a company, any company, who invest/take a chance, and is in business to make money guilty of "windfall" profits.

Should government be punished for running a surplus. Is Government reaping a "windfall" profit? Or should that money be returned to the taxpayer.

qft.

The day legislation is passed concerning windfall profits taxes, every oil company headquarted in the continental U.S. picks up shop and moves out of country, and takes 1/3 of all the corporate taxes collected in the U.S. with it.

How's Obama going to make up for THAT loss in revenue?

[Cry Havoc]

Companies are suppose to make a profit. That is how they stay in business and hire people. Government is entitled to it? I don't think so.

So if the farmers of the country got together and decided to make all fresh vegetables and fruits $1000 a pound, you'd be fine with it?


Besides who determines what is "windfall" profits. At what point does profits become "windfall"? Or better still what is "windfall"? Isn't it something gained for no effort, like found. How is a company, any company, who invest/take a chance, and is in business to make money guilty of "windfall" profits.

See above. Exxon just posted record profit margins. If they wanted to jack oil prices to $8/gallon, what, exactly, would you do about it? You the individual might be okay with taking public transit. That simply isn't true for many people. I hail originally from a town of 600 people in a very rural, agrarian community. Public transit does not exist, and making a quick trip to get groceries involves 80+ miles of driving.

If CPS energy decided to raise the electricity in SA by 2,000 times it's current cost, would you still wave the flag of "oh they're just making a profit?"

That's fallacy. They're making a profit on a product that is completely necessary to the consumer. Exxon made record profits last year and you think they're entitled to it all? They could quintuple gas prices. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. You're just going to sit there and take it and praise business for how shrewd they are.

[ElNono]

Chevron reports record profit of $6 billion
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chevron2-2008aug02,0,1215222.story

Exxon posts record $11.68 billion profit
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073110

[Oh, Gee!!]

I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world. I come with the heartfelt wishes of my people for peace, bearing honest proposals and looking for genuine progress.

Pussy. He never overthrew a government.

[2centsworth]

Curiously, the windfall profits tax on revenues derived by oil producers was in effect for almost all of the Reagan Administration -- the noted socialist Ronald Reagan, that is.

very misleading thank you. I see you're changing your position. Obama wasn't going to propose this according to you and now he has but ok because Reagan what?

Carter signed the law with the help of a liberal congress in 1980! Just before Reagan. Reagan can't unilaterally change a law, but was strong enough to persuade the liberal congress to draft a bill to eliminate the tax and of course Reagan signed that. At least I thought you could be honest.

[FromWayDowntown]

very misleading thank you. I see you're changing your position. Obama wasn't going to propose this according to you and now he has but ok because Reagan what?

Carter signed the law with the help of a liberal congress in 1980! Just before Reagan. Reagan can't unilaterally change a law, but was strong enough to persuade the liberal congress to draft a bill to eliminate the tax and of course Reagan signed that. At least I thought you could be honest.

There you go again with those assumptions. All I noted was that for most of the Reagan presidency, a windfall profits tax was imposed upon oil producers. There's nothing misleading about that -- it's a fact.

Your subsequent paragraph simply proves the point that I've made throughout this thread -- it doesn't really matter what the President's economic policies are or how they can be characterized; what matters is whether Congress will enact laws giving effect to those policies.

Moreover, I never said Obama was or wasn't going to propose it and I never said it would be good or bad because of any relationship to Ronald Reagan. What I said was that the windfall profits tax was in existence during a large portion of Reagan's administration. I implied that if overseeing the imposition of such a tax amounted to socialism, then there would be an interesting discussion concerning the "socialist" policies in existence during the Reagan Administration. This goes to my other overarching point, which is that characterizing someone as "socialist" because of the effect of isolated policies is erroneous -- that there may be socialistic underpinnings to policies advanced by a particular candidate does not make that candidate a socialist.

It would be nice if you would quit presuming that you know me or what I believe -- or if you would at least quit assuming that any of my beliefs can be nicely characterized into some sort of philosophical or ideological box that fits the archetypes you assign to such things.

[2centsworth]

There you go again with those assumptions. All I noted was that for most of the Reagan presidency, a windfall profits tax was imposed upon oil producers. There's nothing misleading about that -- it's a fact.

you're comparing Reagan to Obama. Obama has proposed the tax and Reagan was against it.



Your subsequent paragraph simply proves the point that I've made throughout this thread -- it doesn't really matter what the President's economic policies are or how they can be characterized; what matters is whether Congress will enact laws giving effect to those policies.

liberal president + liberal congress equal marxist policies like the windfall tax. Your example proves that point.


the rest of your post is a waste because some how you're trying to give obama some credibility by bring up Reagan. Your argument wouldn't stick counselor, but good attempt to confuse and deflect.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Your subsequent paragraph simply proves the point that I've made throughout this thread -- it doesn't really matter what the President's economic policies are or how they can be characterized; what matters is whether Congress will enact laws giving effect to those policies.

Of course, you're also ignorning the fact Reagan had a liberal Congress to work with that was basically his opposite politically.

Obama, should he win, is going to have a bunch of liberal nut jobs like Pelosi lining up to do his bidding.

Come on FWD, you're smarter than this.

[FromWayDowntown]

liberal president + liberal congress equal marxist policies like the windfall tax. Your example proves that point.

No, my example proves that Congress, not the President, sets economic policy. That's true because despite Reagan's opposition of the windfall profits tax, that law remained in effect for a large portion of his presidency. As such, the President can yammer as long as he or she wants about particular economic initiatives, but that yammering makes no difference because Congress retains the final say.

The notion that a Democratic Congress will necessarily enact economic legislation that turns America into a purely socialist state is a huge presumption on your part and it's one that defies any notion of political pragmatism in a world in which the balance of power in Congress is so tenuous. From a purely political perspective, Democratic legislators who hold slim majorities with their constituencies are going to be understandably reluctant to go along with enacting statutes that might net them a socialist label -- it would be political suicide (although this thread reminds me that in public discourse, self-identification as a Democrat is considered to be the functional equivalent of raising a banner that says "I am a socialist -- hell, I'm probably even a communist!" or something of the like).

And speaking of political and philosophical misnomers, it's interesting that windfall profits taxes have gone from being socialist to being marxist -- as if those terms would describe the same policy!


the rest of your post is a waste because some how you're trying to give obama some credibility by bring up Reagan. Your argument wouldn't stick counselor, but good attempt to confuse and deflect.

I'm doing no such thing. If I had any interest in specifically advocating for Obama, my tack in this thread would be very different than it has been.

By the way, you seem to have some strange fascination with my profession.

[smeagol]

2cents, you better be prepared when debating FWD

[2centsworth]

2cents, you better be prepared when debating FWD

what that Reagen and Obama are different? I give credit to the counselor in trying to make that argument seem plausible to deflect attention away from Obama's socialist tendencies.

[2centsworth]

No, my example proves that Congress, not the President, sets economic policy. That's true because despite Reagan's opposition of the windfall profits tax, that law remained in effect for a large portion of his presidency. As such, the President can yammer as long as he or she wants about particular economic initiatives, but that yammering makes no difference because Congress retains the final say.

why do you continue to ignore the fact we have a democrat congress?



The notion that a Democratic Congress will necessarily enact economic legislation that turns America into a purely socialist state is a huge presumption on your part and it's one that defies any notion of political pragmatism in a world in which the balance of power in Congress is so tenuous. The argument is that Obama is a socialist. You want that as the leader of your country, sobeit.




From a purely political perspective, Democratic legislators who hold slim majorities with their constituencies are going to be understandably reluctant to go along with enacting statutes that might net them a socialist label -- it would be political suicide (although this thread reminds me that in public discourse, self-identification as a Democrat is considered to be the functional equivalent of raising a banner that says "I am a socialist -- hell, I'm probably even a communist!" or something of the like).
I wouldn't argue that.






I'm doing no such thing. If I had any interest in specifically advocating for Obama, my tack in this thread would be very different than it has been.

By the way, you seem to have some strange fascination with my profession.

I'm very complimentary of you and would hire you asap. You just try to win arguments instead of just admitting obama has socialist tendencies.

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.webfilehost.com/images/fiscal-policy.php


You just try to win arguments instead of just admitting obama has socialist tendencies.

Tendencies? So he's gone from being a communist to having "socialist tendencies".

Hate to break it to you, bud, but a lot of our presidents have had "socialist tendencies".

[2centsworth]

http://www.webfilehost.com/images/fiscal-policy.php



Tendencies? So he's gone from being a communist to having "socialist tendencies".

Hate to break it to you, bud, but a lot of our presidents have had "socialist tendencies".

to me he's a marxist like his best friend and mentor. The tendencies was a concession for fwd.

[Cry Havoc]

to me he's a marxist like his best friend and mentor.


obama has socialist tendencies.

At least you have your story straight. :lol

[2centsworth]

At least you have your story straight. :lol

I like how you misquoted me. I said at least(at a minimum) admit (you admit) obama has socialist tendencies.

Learn to read.

[xrayzebra]

So if the farmers of the country got together and decided to make all fresh vegetables and fruits $1000 a pound, you'd be fine with it?

Want to talk corn? Funny no one wants to jump on farmers for their windfall profits.




See above. Exxon just posted record profit margins. If they wanted to jack oil prices to $8/gallon, what, exactly, would you do about it? You the individual might be okay with taking public transit. That simply isn't true for many people. I hail originally from a town of 600 people in a very rural, agrarian community. Public transit does not exist, and making a quick trip to get groceries involves 80+ miles of driving.

Not much you or I could do about it. Except, not buy it or buy as little as possible. Me thinks they would soon bring the price down when they had keep most of what they refined. Don't you?


If CPS energy decided to raise the electricity in SA by 2,000 times it's current cost, would you still wave the flag of "oh they're just making a profit?"

Well CPS did just raise their rates. The city council approved that raise. Guess what though, the city also profits, at no expense, by taking their cut. And the city also profits from those OUTSIDE the city who get their power from CPS. What is it 14 percent. Nice, huh?


That's fallacy. They're making a profit on a product that is completely necessary to the consumer. Exxon made record profits last year and you think they're entitled to it all? They could quintuple gas prices. What are you going to do about it? Nothing. You're just going to sit there and take it and praise business for how shrewd they are.

You cited food in the first quote. It is necessary to the consumer. Especially corn. You aren't upset about the "windfall" profit the farmers are making. And once again, I will remind you, we can and did do something about the high price of gasoline, we cut down on using it, it became a problem for the producers, not just Exxon, but all producers, and the President did one thing too, he rescinded his Presidential order on drilling off shore, between the two prices dropped. Get Congress off their butt and change a few laws and you will see a much larger drop. More oil will become available. It is called supply and demand. An old concept, been around since Christ.