Socialism, McCain, Palin & Hypocrisy

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
  • On Sunday, October 19, 2008, Sarah Palin drew huge cheers at an airport hanger rally in Roswell, New Mexico when she insisted that Barack Obama’s infamous comments to Joe the Plumber meant that Barack Obama would initiate a socialist economic plan. “Senator Obama said the wants to ‘spread the wealth,’” Palin said. “What that means is he wants government to take your money and dole it out however a politician sees fit.”






<font size="5">But,</font size>








`
 
I honestly don't have a problem with the socialism. The problem comes in when you have untrustworthy people running the system and it becomes corrupt.
 
I honestly don't have a problem with the socialism. The problem comes in when you have untrustworthy people running the system and it becomes corrupt.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I have a HUGE problem with Socialism. It is nothing but tyranny, as you cannot have without the permission of the masses. It inevitably penalizes excellence while subsidizing mediocrity. And, as the saying goes, what you subsidize, you get more of. Anyway, an article on class warfare (since that is all Socialism is, IMO)

From WBAL.com

The Politics of Envy
Friday, October 17, 2008 - Ron Smith


If Barack Obama blows this election, it will be because of his remarks to “Joe the Plumber,” about “spreading the wealth around.” There it was, out in the open. The junior senator from Illinois, a man whose own wealth has more than quintupled since he stood before the Democrats in convention four years ago, spoke eloquently and thereafter reaped immense profits from the sales of his two books, wants to take from the productive and give to the “less fortunate.” Obama wants to play Robin Hood, folks, and he can’t really disguise it after his off-the-cuff comment to Joe.



As Scott Johnson points out in the Christian Science Monitor, this kind of reliance on class warfare is nothing new in American politics. It is a repeatedly sounded theme, an appeal for the support of the many by promising them booty from the few. The poor are always far greater in number than the rich. It is, as Johnson says, the reason the founders of this nation made it their first priority to protect personal property from unjust confiscation.



The rich already pay the lion’s share of income taxes. The top one percent of filers paid as much as the bottom 95 percent. What is government other than organized theft, anyway? The economic journalist Frederic Bastiat summed it up succinctly: “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”



Still, there is a stubborn resistance among Americans to this grand theft – in fact, the nation was founded in reaction to unjust taxation. Democrats seeking national office have had to temper their calls to the party’s core constituencies to seize what belongs to the rich, because the vast middle-class here harbors millions who believe if they work hard and smartly, they will themselves be rich.



If there was any doubt, we have learned from the current economic crisis that we cannot borrow ourselves to prosperity. There must be savings invested in means of actual production in order to have sustained economic growth. In an Obama presidency, coupled with a Democratic congressional majority, we would likely learn another painful lesson: that we cannot tax ourselves to prosperity either.


WBAL Radio - Baltimore
http://wbal.com/
 
I honestly don't have a problem with the socialism. The problem comes in when you have untrustworthy people running the system and it becomes corrupt.

I have to respectfully disagree with you. I have a HUGE problem with Socialism. It is nothing but tyranny, as you cannot have without the permission of the masses. It inevitably penalizes excellence while subsidizing mediocrity. And, as the saying goes, what you subsidize, you get more of. Anyway, an article on class warfare (since that is all Socialism is, IMO)

To Like socialism or dislike socialism, <u>that</u> <u>is</u> <u>not</u> the question. LOL.

The questions is: If Barack's plan to give a tax break to people earning less
than 250K is socialism or redistribution of wealth; is not McCain and Palin
BOTH already guilty of practicing socialism/re-distribution of wealth ???


QueEx
 
To Like socialism or dislike socialism, <u>that</u> <u>is</u> <u>not</u> the question. LOL.

The questions is: If Barack's plan to give a tax break to people earning less
than 250K is socialism or redistribution of wealth; is not McCain and Palin
BOTH already guilty of practicing socialism/re-distribution of wealth ???


QueEx

Socialism CALLS for re-distribution of wealth. It is theft, pure and simple.
 
thank god for capitalism that retirement plan looking sprightly right about now

A. This is supposed to be a free market economy, not a capitalist. Know the difference.

B. My retirement looks good, as well as anybody who invested with any good sense.

C. Where is it written that the market OWES you a retirement in the first place ?
 
  • On Sunday, October 19, 2008, Sarah Palin drew huge cheers at an airport hanger rally in Roswell, New Mexico when she insisted that Barack Obama’s infamous comments to Joe the Plumber meant that Barack Obama would initiate a socialist economic plan. “Senator Obama said the wants to ‘spread the wealth,’” Palin said. “What that means is he wants government to take your money and dole it out however a politician sees fit.”






<font size="5">But,</font size>








`

This is the only thing I differ from McCain. He should of never signed on that shit. However, Obama do have some socialist tendencies.

My question for the bgol faithful is this. What happens if taxing people who make over 250k a year isn't enough to pay everything Obama is suggesting? What then?
 
this hypocritical shit

may i add...

republicans hem and hah about socialism and taxes as "redistribution of wealth"

colin addressed this beautifully


also...

i find it SO hypocritical that republicans will preach christan values, fight for abortion and gay marriages on the grounds of morality

but when it comes to being required to do the "greatest commandment of all" (Mathew 19:19) they call it all these ugly things (today its socialism...a step away from communism)...jesus said "what you have done to the least of these you have done to me"

according to sarah palin we shouldnt give hand outs:confused:

it amazes me how blissfully ignorant people are...it also scares me
 
this hypocritical shit

may i add...

republicans hem and hah about socialism and taxes as "redistribution of wealth"

colin addressed this beautifully


also...

i find it SO hypocritical that republicans will preach christan values, fight for abortion and gay marriages on the grounds of morality

but when it comes to being required to do the "greatest commandment of all" (Mathew 19:19) they call it all these ugly things (today its socialism...a step away from communism)...jesus said "what you have done to the least of these you have done to me"

according to sarah palin we shouldnt give hand outs:confused:

it amazes me how blissfully ignorant people are...it also scares me


You do know that the rich donates the MOST to charities right?
 
Basically, Palin meant no GOVERNMENT handouts.

keyword GOVERNMENT

Thus, why I brought up charities.

Des, why did you leave out the Government part?
 
Basically, Palin meant no GOVERNMENT handouts.

keyword GOVERNMENT

Thus, why I brought up charities.

Des, why did you leave out the Government part?

my post was about gov't

are you saying that the gov't shouldnt give handouts?...are you saying that is the job of charities?

lets be real...the gov't gives "handouts" to everyone...your education k-12 was free...that stimulus check was free...that freeway u drive on is free

and before u say it...i know u pay taxes...but everyone pays taxes...even that crackhead who buys a budlight at the corner store...he still pays sales tax

hell charities get funding and tax breaks from the gov't

this handout shit is a just another smoke screen from mccain...he wants people to think if you have money you will be forced to give more taxes to people on welfare

welfare is a small portion of what the taxes we pay are for :smh:

also...as far as rich people giving more to charaties...

lemme ask you this...how much sense does it make for rich people to NOT give more to charaties...poor people give the most to poor people:confused::lol:

im still confused why that has relevance in this discussion:confused:
 
my post was about gov't

are you saying that the gov't shouldnt give handouts?...are you saying that is the job of charities?

lets be real...the gov't gives "handouts" to everyone...your education k-12 was free...that stimulus check was free...that freeway u drive on is free

and before u say it...i know u pay taxes...but everyone pays taxes...even that crackhead who buys a budlight at the corner store...he still pays sales tax

hell charities get funding and tax breaks from the gov't

this handout shit is a just another smoke screen from mccain...he wants people to think if you have money you will be forced to give more taxes to people on welfare

welfare is a small portion of what the taxes we pay are for :smh:

also...as far as rich people giving more to charaties...

lemme ask you this...how much sense does it make for rich people to NOT give more to charaties...poor people give the most to poor people:confused::lol:

im still confused why that has relevance in this discussion:confused:

You know you just contradict yourself, but its cool.

The problem with government is that it gives out too many handouts to too many folks. The spending is outrageous right now. Thus, why our deficit is up...

The only way to fix this is to cut spending, not create more spending programs. Meaning, limiting some of the government handouts...

*edit* Charity was brought up because you didn't clarify that Palin was talking about GOVERNMENT handouts. I simply said that to make you clarify what you meant....
 
The problem with government is that it gives out too many handouts to too many folks. The spending is outrageous right now. Thus, why our deficit is up...

The only way to fix this is to cut spending, not create more spending programs. Meaning, limiting some of the government handouts...
You're incredible, you know ???

Washington Post said:
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.

Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.

But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.

But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.

President Bush tried to sell the American people on the idea that we could have a war with little or no economic sacrifice. Even after the United States went to war, Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich -- even though the United States already had a massive deficit. So the war had to be funded by more borrowing. By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_pf.html
 
This is the only thing I differ from McCain. He should of never signed on that shit. However, Obama do have some socialist tendencies.
<font size="3">Does this - or - does this not mean that McCain is just as socialist as the McCain-Palin team accuses Barack Obama of being ???</font size>

actinanass said:
My question for the bgol faithful is this. What happens if taxing people who make over 250k a year isn't enough to pay everything Obama is suggesting? What then?

<font size="3">Better question: What happens when the overburdened middle class simply collapses. What then ???
</font size>

QueEx
 
You know you just contradict yourself, but its cool.

The problem with government is that it gives out too many handouts to too many folks. The spending is outrageous right now. Thus, why our deficit is up...

The only way to fix this is to cut spending, not create more spending programs. Meaning, limiting some of the government handouts...

*edit* Charity was brought up because you didn't clarify that Palin was talking about GOVERNMENT handouts. I simply said that to make you clarify what you meant....

please elaborate....what exactly are these handouts and how much of it do we spend in comparison to other things?
 
<font size="5"><Center>McCain Banking on a Confederacy of Dunces</font size></center>


By David Sirota
October 24, 2008

Is John McCain stupid, or does he believe we are? That’s the question as he criticizes Barack Obama for allegedly trying to “redistribute the wealth” with a plan to lower taxes on the middle class and raise them on the super-rich.

Of course, the Democrat’s proposal would merely slow down (not fully halt) the less-talked-about redistribution whereby Washington sends middle-class money up the income ladder. Either McCain doesn’t know about this kleptocracy and is the dumbest presidential candidate in history, or he thinks America is too ignorant to recognize theft. Which is it?

I’m guessing the latter, since the evidence is so overwhelming.

In the last eight years, we the little people have been forced to provide more and more of the taxes fueling America’s redistribution machine. As the Congressional Budget Office reports, the $715 billion in tax breaks that President Bush gave to those making more than $342,000 a year began dramatically shifting the overall tax burden from the rich onto the rest of us. Meanwhile, because of lobbyist-crafted loopholes, most corporations pay zero federal income taxes, according to the Government Accountability Office. The result is what Warren Buffett admits: When counting all taxes (income, payroll, property, etc.), billionaires and Big Business often pay lower effective tax rates than their employees.

The output of the redistribution machine is becoming just as regressive. In the age of Halliburton fraud and ExxonMobil subsidies, our government spends $93 billion a year on corporate welfare. (For comparison, that’s roughly three times what it spends on a traditional welfare program like food stamps.) That doesn’t include the recent bailout giving $700 billion to the same banks currently doling out $70 billion in executive pay and bonuses — a scheme the Financial Times says “amounts to a large transfer of resources from lower to higher income earners.”

Thanks to these redistributive policies — policies McCain championed in Congress — the richest 1 percent today owns a larger share of America’s wealth than at any time since before the Great Depression.

The Republican standard-bearer likely knows all this, but his fetish is fact-free fairy tales — the kind presenting seven houses, a beer-industry fortune and lockstep conservatism as mavericky Joe-the-Plumber populism. When it comes to economics, McCain is banking on Americans believing similarly inane myths — specifically, those portraying obscene affluence as the commonplace achievement under royalist rule.

During the indigence and socioeconomic immobility of the 19th century’s Gilded Age, this meme flourished through Horatio Alger stories. Today, one in five American children live in poverty, and authorities from The Economist magazine to The Wall Street Journal note that our country exhibits the least amount of upward economic mobility in the industrialized world — less than even Europe’s supposedly sclerotic socialisms. In light of that, sustaining the “American Dream” narrative requires updated rags-to-riches fantasies like “MTV Cribs,” HBO’s “Entourage” — and now McCain ‘08.

The Arizona senator’s pulp fiction packs an extra-nationalistic punch, however. We are not only expected to support regressive redistribution, but also to believe that stopping such robbery is subversive. McCain implies Obama is backing Soviet conquest by proposing to finance tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers with tax increases on the richest 5 percent. When Joe Biden said it is “patriotic” for millionaires to pay their fair share of taxes, Republicans waved the bloody shirt of Reaganism and attacked him — as if Al Capone-style tax evasion is how aristocrats display their true love of country.

The GOP campaign, in short, is a brew of redbaiting and free-market zealotry, a concoction with a poisonous purpose: resurrecting the everyone-for-themselves pathologies that perpetuate the status quo. And if we revert to selfish form during this economic crisis, then McCain’s cynical calculation is correct: America is a confederacy of dunces.

David Sirota is a senior editor at In These Times and a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was released in May 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations.



http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4007/mccain_banking_on_a_confederacy_of_dunces/
 
Back
Top