The Audacity of Socialism.

[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 bull . They don't have a plan other than to villainize the oil companies. That's it. That's their ty ass energy plan.

* We can't open up any more areas to drilling even though we have a load 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 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 ing thing. So trying to say 'well, Bush was a 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 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 bull stimulus package earlier this year, and now wants to tax big oil and give it to everyone).

ty 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 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 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 in this country or we're going to be seeing the dollar trade equal with the peso in a couple of years, and the ty thing about it all is that not one of those idiots (well, there might be a handful) in D.C. has a ing clue. That, or they do, but they don't give a 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?

En lements 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 en lement 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 Ins ute 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 en lement 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 ac ulate 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, en lements. 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!!]

En lements 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 en lement 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/bill...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 loads 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 loads 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 en led 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" Ronald Reagan.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Companies are suppose to make a profit. That is how they stay in business and hire people. Government is en led 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?