Maybe if we weren't sucking 12 billion dollars a month (12 billion dollars it seems we have to loan) into the financial black hole named Iraq there wouldn't be any need to raise taxes and even lower them. But since we seem intent on rebuilding another country (one we destroyed) while our country's infrastucture crumbles....well...it's no small wonder that the Republican brand is so damaged since they are the one who instituted this mess in the first place.
Hmm, that's interesting, because Bill Clinton didn't seem to have any trouble raising taxes in 1993 even though there was no war in Iraq back then. Oh wait, I know, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in cahoots with each other. Clinton knew that Bush would invade Iraq ten years later and he just wanted to give Bush a little help ahead of time. I always knew Clinton was a tricky bastard.
My reason for believing in what I believe in is that I have lived through Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush -- and each year, we get more of the same. Givernment gets bigger, fails miserably, blames each new disaster on the WAY the other guy did it -- as opposed to the true problem which is government is NOT the ay to handle these things -- and each administration it gets worse and we end up with less liberty. The west is red, and this has failed. It's time for change. Time for liberty. Your flawed thinking is thinking there is some way to make government work at doing things it's not good at doing. Government is only effective at those things that are worth shooting people over, since all laws, all government actions, in the end are backed by a gun. Now to your points. 1. Health Care. The problem we have in health care is spraling costs broght about by government mandating it, and bu government purchasing it. These two things alone are the primary causes of the problem. Get the government out of it completely. If people own themeselves, they own their bodies, and therefore government has no business getting involved with such things. They have also failed miserably at it. 2. Energy Spending. It's not the governments business to decide what is the best way for individuals to power that which they own. They have also failed miserably at it. 3. Tax cuts for anyone is a good thing. But tax cuts for capital gains for small business is a moron concept -- that means, if I SELL my business, I get a tax cut on the money I make by SELLING OUT to big business. All other things being equal, this encourages mergers and consolidation, and destroys small businesses. he is not cutting taxes for the middle class, Bush cut taxes for the middle class -- he is ENDING those, and replacing those with smaller tax CREDITS -- thus a net raise in taxes after a few years of Obama. It's a scam. 4. Education. If people own themselves, they own their minds, therefore THEY own their education and the government should have no place. All government ediucation does is produce good little socialists who want more and more and more government cheese. It is time for a wall to be erected between the state and the mind of man. End government education yesterday. More givernment money for education means higher costs for edication, and less effectove results -- this is what has happened for years no matter who is in charge -- everyone puts money into some new plan, and it always fails. Obama has no magic that will work. Middle class America doesn't need government "investing" in it, they just need to the government out of their way. Government has been "investing" in everything for many decades now, and it hasn't made things better.
1. Health Care - Government out of it completely? Who's going to make the companies cover screenings of preventive diseases, or screenings that can lead to finding diseases earlier?
Who's going to step in on limits of who can be covered with existing condiions?
Between Obama and McCain, it seems McCain wants to ween us off employer-based health insurance and have us find it in the open market. But he's taxing us extra when we don't take employer-based health insurance, so that we can receive a tax credit that only "helps pay" for other health insurance.
Then the whole buying across state lines deal, I believe in Obama when he says that'll only lead to companies hording in one place where mandates on screenings and such are less restrictive.
So I don't believe my thinking is flawed in saying Obama's plan is an investment in the American people, if the quality of care goes up, the price down and employer-based coverage spreads.
2. Energy Spending - I don't believe we have a choice but to compete, or be left behind. The US has a chance to lead here in the world when it comes to growing a new economy.
The economic prospects aside, we also have to end dependence on middle eastern oil, it's a national security issue.
So I believe in funding national services geared towards "green jobs", and the whole tax credit deal that encourages auto-makers to make energy-efficient cars.
3. Taxes - Pretty sure Obama's advisors are pitching tax cuts via income taxes.
And the capital gains tax is returning to 20% for those making above $250,000. Isn't that supposed to curtail the investment appetite of big business?
The corporate tax rate is staying at 35% under Obama, and would be cut to 25% under McCain.
In general, Obama's tax plans seem entirely more geared towards small business from the bottom-up, by offering tax cuts for lower-tax bracket investors and other earners of business income, while McCain's offering continued and increased cuts for big corporations and investors at the top.
4. Education - Offering an avenue for the 2 million youngins either not working or going to school sounds like magic to me. Be it national services or doing community work for the tax credit. It's not like this concept is foreign really, AmeriCorps currently does it, and offers more towards tuition.
In general, I get you. You're not a fan of government or either candidate period. Complete lunacy to me, but I respect it. I know you aren't defending McCain, so don't mind my bringing him up. I only do it to explain my Obama vote; even though you dislike him for reasons completely outside the context of the this election.
I'm glad that I'm a minority. When Obama gets in the White House, I'm quiting my job and getting welfare. Why work when rich white people can pay me a check every month just because of skin colors? Isn't America great? Oh, and I'll get a free $300K forclosed home given to me because of Pelosi's Section 8 Bill. Yeah liberals!!!
Amen, brother. Heck, I'm not even a minority and I still plan to get in on the gravy train. Spread the wealth, baby, there's got to be some in there for me somewhere.
Maybe if we weren't sucking 12 billion dollars a month (12 billion dollars it seems we have to loan) into the financial black hole named Iraq there wouldn't be any need to raise taxes and even lower them. But since we seem intent on rebuilding another country (one we destroyed) while our country's infrastucture crumbles....well...it's no small wonder that the Republican brand is so damaged since they are the one who instituted this mess in the first place.
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was Democrats who voted for the war just as much as Republicans. The 2006 Democrats did nothing to get us out of it either.
I believe that this long war we are in, and it's not in Iraq, is necessary, but it is not Republican invention. Both sides are responsible, and really, the Jihad is responsible.
They passed a bill to set a timetable on withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. One more reason to want a Democrat president.
Maybe if we weren't sucking 12 billion dollars a month (12 billion dollars it seems we have to loan) into the financial black hole named Iraq there wouldn't be any need to raise taxes and even lower them. But since we seem intent on rebuilding another country (one we destroyed) while our country's infrastucture crumbles....well...it's no small wonder that the Republican brand is so damaged since they are the one who instituted this mess in the first place.
Hmm, that's interesting, because Bill Clinton didn't seem to have any trouble raising taxes in 1993 even though there was no war in Iraq back then. Oh wait, I know, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in cahoots with each other. Clinton knew that Bush would invade Iraq ten years later and he just wanted to give Bush a little help ahead of time. I always knew Clinton was a tricky bastard.
And the U.S. enjoyed 7 years of prosperity that I know I enjoyed and I'll be a month salary you did too. So quit your bellyaching about Clinton. Is that the default position that all neo-Conservatives fall back on when someone rubs their face in the mess they made? The state of the country is the fault of the GOP in general and George W. Bush in particular because HE occupied the White House and The GOP had a 6 year majority in the Congress which gave Bush a rubber stamp for any whacked out idea he wanted passed. BUSH and his handlers were the ones in charge of the country for the past 8 years, HE and his handlers were the ones who squandered not only our budget surplus AS WELL as our good name in the World. HE was the one who started a war that goals went from "spreading democracy in the Middle-east" to just hoping for stability in Iraq so we can get out. Let's also consider the wasted time, resources, money and lives (both American and Iraqi). Anyone else who didn't "go with the program" got either bulldozed over or strong-armed into complying. And THAT is something that the voters of the country will remember when they go to vote on Tuesday and no amount of spin or no amount rationalization will change that.
My reason for believing in what I believe in is that I have lived through Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush -- and each year, we get more of the same. Givernment gets bigger, fails miserably, blames each new disaster on the WAY the other guy did it -- as opposed to the true problem which is government is NOT the ay to handle these things -- and each administration it gets worse and we end up with less liberty. The west is red, and this has failed. It's time for change. Time for liberty. Your flawed thinking is thinking there is some way to make government work at doing things it's not good at doing. Government is only effective at those things that are worth shooting people over, since all laws, all government actions, in the end are backed by a gun. Now to your points. 1. Health Care. The problem we have in health care is spraling costs broght about by government mandating it, and bu government purchasing it. These two things alone are the primary causes of the problem. Get the government out of it completely. If people own themeselves, they own their bodies, and therefore government has no business getting involved with such things. They have also failed miserably at it. 2. Energy Spending. It's not the governments business to decide what is the best way for individuals to power that which they own. They have also failed miserably at it. 3. Tax cuts for anyone is a good thing. But tax cuts for capital gains for small business is a moron concept -- that means, if I SELL my business, I get a tax cut on the money I make by SELLING OUT to big business. All other things being equal, this encourages mergers and consolidation, and destroys small businesses. he is not cutting taxes for the middle class, Bush cut taxes for the middle class -- he is ENDING those, and replacing those with smaller tax CREDITS -- thus a net raise in taxes after a few years of Obama. It's a scam. 4. Education. If people own themselves, they own their minds, therefore THEY own their education and the government should have no place. All government ediucation does is produce good little socialists who want more and more and more government cheese. It is time for a wall to be erected between the state and the mind of man. End government education yesterday. More givernment money for education means higher costs for edication, and less effectove results -- this is what has happened for years no matter who is in charge -- everyone puts money into some new plan, and it always fails. Obama has no magic that will work. Middle class America doesn't need government "investing" in it, they just need to the government out of their way. Government has been "investing" in everything for many decades now, and it hasn't made things better.
1. Health Care - Government out of it completely? Who's going to make the companies cover screenings of preventive diseases, or screenings that can lead to finding diseases earlier?
Who's going to step in on limits of who can be covered with existing condiions?
Between Obama and McCain, it seems McCain wants to ween us off employer-based health insurance and have us find it in the open market. But he's taxing us extra when we don't take employer-based health insurance, so that we can receive a tax credit that only "helps pay" for other health insurance.
Then the whole buying across state lines deal, I believe in Obama when he says that'll only lead to companies hording in one place where mandates on screenings and such are less restrictive.
So I don't believe my thinking is flawed in saying Obama's plan is an investment in the American people, if the quality of care goes up, the price down and employer-based coverage spreads.
2. Energy Spending - I don't believe we have a choice but to compete, or be left behind. The US has a chance to lead here in the world when it comes to growing a new economy.
The economic prospects aside, we also have to end dependence on middle eastern oil, it's a national security issue.
So I believe in funding national services geared towards "green jobs", and the whole tax credit deal that encourages auto-makers to make energy-efficient cars.
3. Taxes - Pretty sure Obama's advisors are pitching tax cuts via income taxes.
And the capital gains tax is returning to 20% for those making above $250,000. Isn't that supposed to curtail the investment appetite of big business?
The corporate tax rate is staying at 35% under Obama, and would be cut to 25% under McCain.
In general, Obama's tax plans seem entirely more geared towards small business from the bottom-up, by offering tax cuts for lower-tax bracket investors and other earners of business income, while McCain's offering continued and increased cuts for big corporations and investors at the top.
4. Education - Offering an avenue for the 2 million youngins either not working or going to school sounds like magic to me. Be it national services or doing community work for the tax credit. It's not like this concept is foreign really, AmeriCorps currently does it, and offers more towards tuition.
In general, I get you. You're not a fan of government or either candidate period. Complete lunacy to me, but I respect it. I know you aren't defending McCain, so don't mind my bringing him up. I only do it to explain my Obama vote; even though you dislike him for reasons completely outside the context of the this election.
I answered this post, but the answer shows up on the page before this one. Weird.
Maybe if we weren't sucking 12 billion dollars a month (12 billion dollars it seems we have to loan) into the financial black hole named Iraq there wouldn't be any need to raise taxes and even lower them. But since we seem intent on rebuilding another country (one we destroyed) while our country's infrastucture crumbles....well...it's no small wonder that the Republican brand is so damaged since they are the one who instituted this mess in the first place.
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was Democrats who voted for the war just as much as Republicans. The 2006 Democrats did nothing to get us out of it either.
I believe that this long war we are in, and it's not in Iraq, is necessary, but it is not Republican invention. Both sides are responsible, and really, the Jihad is responsible.
They passed a bill to set a timetable on withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. One more reason to want a Democrat president.
I don't know why they keep calling it socialist. They should call it what it really is, fascist. Its more accurate and alot more damning since nearly every single fascist government has been horrific. I mean Obama's entire campaign has shown signs of fascism. Class warfare, patriotism through means of paying taxes, spreading the wealth, larger government, and more regulations.
It is clear a lot of people have no idea what their taxes do, if they believe spreading the wealth.. Ie paying your taxes is socialism.
There are far too many stupid adults in the US, it is disheartening.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
Joe the Plumber worries about tax policies for money that he does not have - and never will. lol.
Ya cause some Democrats want to put him behind bars for asking a question.
The thing is we don't even need to pay income taxes. If we have the central government do what it was meant to do under the constitution, then we can drop the budget to a level there is no need for income taxes. I don't even know why they are fighting on who will pay less for income taxes when we don't even need to pay them.
Thats a question you should be asking. They are going to tax the top 5% more. Who is that top 5%? It obviously isn't the ones you mentioned because they dodge taxes. That top 5% are people who earned getting there through hard work. Nearly all of the rich in the US are first generation rich.
I don't know why they keep calling it socialist. They should call it what it really is, fascist. Its more accurate and alot more damning since nearly every single fascist government has been horrific. I mean Obama's entire campaign has shown signs of fascism. Class warfare, patriotism through means of paying taxes, spreading the wealth, larger government, and more regulations.
Well, fascism is a form of socialism. Socialism is any socio-political-economic system or outlook where the means of production are either owned ir controlled by the state. In Fascism, the means of production are technically owned by pricate individuals, but controlled by the state. In pure socialism, they are owned outright by the state. Welfare state socialism is where the state takes income from one person or groups and transfers it to another.
I generally use the Austrian definitions from Ludwig von Mises' classic 'socialism," because I find they are the best descriptive definitions.
Now, in terms of Obama, he is a big mix if fascism (government regulation of business, the fairness doctrine; health care); socialism (his tax plan).
When I say socialist I am including his fascist elements in general, BUT I am more referring to his "negative income tax" system he is advocating. His desire to use income tax credits as a means of income redistribution is pure welfare state socialism.
All that being said, you are right, he's more of a fascist than a socialist, technically speaking.
In Fascism, the means of production are technically owned by pricate individuals, but controlled by the state.
In fascism, the state does not have control over the means of production. The supply-siders control the government, similar to the bail-out law.
Communism., however, is where the means are product are "technically owned by private individuals, but controlled by the state."
Fascism is politics. It is powerful corporations controlling government. Communism is politics. Communism is the government controlling the corporations.
Edit: communism and socialism tend to go hand-in-hand and fascism and capitalism tend to go hand-in-hand. But not always, and there are always variations.
Socialism is where you have no private property; capitalism is where you have private property.
What is "property" ?
Edit
The brilliance of the banker bail-out is that it appears to be socialism, but:
Bankers control the U.S. Treasury;
Bankers control the program;
Bankers wrote the program;
Bankers control the federally chartered banks; and
Bankers go back-and-forth from banking to government.
5,000.
5,000 is the number of banks that failed in the Great Depression.
Today, we are not helping small banks, we gave the MAJOR banks FREE money (YOU are VERY, VERY generous, taxpayer) to buy the smaller banks.
It will centralize economic planning to the greatest extent in U.S. history.
A lot of power is concentrated in the hands of bankers. He who controls the gold (money) makes the rules: Hence, the banker bail-out. It is going to lead to a worldwide depression unless the public demands 26,000 calls to 1 that the bankers RETURN the money to the U.S. Treasury.
In Fascism, the means of production are technically owned by pricate individuals, but controlled by the state.
In fascism, the state does not have control over the means of production. The supply-siders control the government, similar to the bail-out law.
Communism., however, is where the means are product are "technically owned by private individuals, but controlled by the state."
Fascism is politics. It is powerful corporations controlling government. Communism is politics. Communism is the government controlling the corporations.
Edit: communism and socialism tend to go hand-in-hand and fascism and capitalism tend to go hand-in-hand. But not always, and there are always variations.
Socialism is where you have no private property; capitalism is where you have private property.
What is "property" ?
Edit
The brilliance of the banker bail-out is that it appears to be socialism, but:
Bankers control the U.S. Treasury;
Bankers control the program;
Bankers wrote the program;
Bankers control the federally chartered banks; and
Bankers go back-and-forth from banking to government.
5,000.
5,000 is the number of banks that failed in the Great Depression.
Today, we are not helping small banks, we gave the MAJOR banks FREE money (YOU are VERY, VERY generous, taxpayer) to buy the smaller banks.
It will centralize economic planning to the greatest extent in U.S. history.
A lot of power is concentrated in the hands of bankers. He who controls the gold (money) makes the rules: Hence, the banker bail-out. It is going to lead to a worldwide depression unless the public demands 26,000 calls to 1 that the bankers RETURN the money to the U.S. Treasury.
I would advise looking up what I was speaking of. The Austrian definitions are far superior to the ones you are using. Mine is more in line with Mussolini's.
Corporatism is a form of fascism, so I have no issue with what you are saying on that score. Only your contradictory definitions at the beginning.
Corporatism is a form of fascism, so I have no issue with what you are saying on that score.
Really, corporatism is fascism. Edit: or fascism is corporatism.
Typically the war profiteering is enormous.
Syria
Pakistan
Russia (invaded by freaking Georgia, and we sent naval ships with "aide")
Iran
At war:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Korea (only a cease-fire)
Terrorism
This is out-of-control, folks. Totally, completely, unambiguously out-of-control.
Which is why we shouldn't be voting the Republicrats back in, and telling them we want "more of the same."
This is merely taking YOUR arguments to their final, inevitable conclusion.
You must choose at least one -Democrat or Republican- or you will get black-balled.
You can get elected and modify, perhaps even change parties, but you need to, while young (younger the better, unless you have personal wealth or clout) declare allegiance.
Suggesting people join a third-party might make matters worse because third-parties are utterly powerless, and if they were to gain power, they would get destroyed. Literally.
To succeed, a third-party necessarily has to play ball as the two dominant parties do.
A third-party, then, would be the same on the issues that impact our lives:
Patriot Act
Bail-outs (finance)
Wars
In other words, a third party will not make a difference.
Corporatism is a form of fascism, so I have no issue with what you are saying on that score.
Really, corporatism is fascism. Edit: or fascism is corporatism.
Typically the war profiteering is enormous.
Syria
Pakistan
Russia (invaded by freaking Georgia, and we sent naval ships with "aide")
Iran
At war:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Korea (only a cease-fire)
Terrorism
This is out-of-control, folks. Totally, completely, unambiguously out-of-control.
Which is why we shouldn't be voting the Republicrats back in, and telling them we want "more of the same."
This is merely taking YOUR arguments to their final, inevitable conclusion.
You must choose at least one -Democrat or Republican- or you will get black-balled.
You can get elected and modify, perhaps even change parties, but you need to, while young (younger the better, unless you have personal wealth or clout) declare allegiance.
Suggesting people join a third-party might make matters worse because third-parties are utterly powerless, and if they were to gain power, they would get destroyed. Literally.
To succeed, a third-party necessarily has to play ball as the two dominant parties do.
A third-party, then, would be the same on the issues that impact our lives:
Patriot Act
Bail-outs (finance)
Wars
I've never felt "black-balled" in my life. You can vote for more of the same if you want to though. After all, I believe in freedom.
I never suggested that people join a third party. There you go again with your misrepresentation of your opponent to create a straw man you can argue with...
I've never felt "black-balled" in my life. You can vote for more of the same if you want to though. After all, I believe in freedom.
That is because you are not running for office, pursuing a high-level government job, or seek an appointed position (that requires Congressional approval).
Try to "participate" and be a third-party member. Try to serve the public as a civil servant (elected or appointed, not low-level hired) and see how far you can get.
Young people should choose an allegiance, and early on. And show you are a loyal party member by participating in campaigns. Volunteer.
I've never felt "black-balled" in my life. You can vote for more of the same if you want to though. After all, I believe in freedom.
That is because you are not running for office, pursuing a high-level government job, or seek an appointed position (that requires Congressional approval).
Try to "participate" and be a third-party member. Try to serve the public as a civil servant (elected or appointed, not low-level hired) and see how far you can get.
Young people should choose an allegiance, and early on. And show you are a loyal party member by participating in campaigns. Volunteer.
Sorry, that sounds like fascist thinking to me. I have chosen an allegiance -- to America.
I've never felt "black-balled" in my life. You can vote for more of the same if you want to though. After all, I believe in freedom.
That is because you are not running for office, pursuing a high-level government job, or seek an appointed position (that requires Congressional approval).
Try to "participate" and be a third-party member. Try to serve the public as a civil servant (elected or appointed, not low-level hired) and see how far you can get.
Young people should choose an allegiance, and early on. And show you are a loyal party member by participating in campaigns. Volunteer.
Sorry, that sounds like fascist thinking to me. I have chosen an allegiance -- to America.
You can be on the side of America and be a party member.
If you love America, then you join a party and work your way up to make a difference.
You cannot make a difference by, sitting on the sidelines, never getting in office, never participating, never making decisions in the system.
You need to get in there to help this country. To get in, you need to be either a Democrat or a Republican.
I've never felt "black-balled" in my life. You can vote for more of the same if you want to though. After all, I believe in freedom.
That is because you are not running for office, pursuing a high-level government job, or seek an appointed position (that requires Congressional approval).
Try to "participate" and be a third-party member. Try to serve the public as a civil servant (elected or appointed, not low-level hired) and see how far you can get.
Young people should choose an allegiance, and early on. And show you are a loyal party member by participating in campaigns. Volunteer.
Sorry, that sounds like fascist thinking to me. I have chosen an allegiance -- to America.
You can be on the side of America and be a party member.
If you love America, then you join a party and work your way up to make a difference.
You cannot make a difference by, sitting on the sidelines, never getting in office, never participating, never making decisions in the system.
You need to get in there to help this country. To get in, you need to be either a Democrat or a Republican.
Sorry that is simply not the case. tell that to the Communist party. History proves you wrong.
Maybe if we weren't sucking 12 billion dollars a month (12 billion dollars it seems we have to loan) into the financial black hole named Iraq there wouldn't be any need to raise taxes and even lower them. But since we seem intent on rebuilding another country (one we destroyed) while our country's infrastucture crumbles....well...it's no small wonder that the Republican brand is so damaged since they are the one who instituted this mess in the first place.
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was Democrats who voted for the war just as much as Republicans. The 2006 Democrats did nothing to get us out of it either.
I believe that this long war we are in, and it's not in Iraq, is necessary, but it is not Republican invention. Both sides are responsible, and really, the Jihad is responsible.
They passed a bill to set a timetable on withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. One more reason to want a Democrat president.
Actually that would be one more reason to vote republican, because they don't undermine us in time of war, but I still probably won't do that because I value our liberty more than that.
Yet the Iraqi Government and Bush have negotiated a timeline anyway. It was inevitable, but now we've dragged feet, and we have a candidate McCain who's bucking both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to this. Who knows what conditions McCain wants for the war to be "won".
It was a Republican president who told me the war was won years ago anyway. He doesn't seem capable of bringing the troops home or willing to go after the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
I want the president with ideas about preventing al-Qaeda from crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan back and forth, dissuading Afghan farms from the poppy trade that supports terrorist activity and so on; sounds better to me since Iraqis can use their own money for their own infastructure.
Maybe if we weren't sucking 12 billion dollars a month (12 billion dollars it seems we have to loan) into the financial black hole named Iraq there wouldn't be any need to raise taxes and even lower them. But since we seem intent on rebuilding another country (one we destroyed) while our country's infrastucture crumbles....well...it's no small wonder that the Republican brand is so damaged since they are the one who instituted this mess in the first place.
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was Democrats who voted for the war just as much as Republicans. The 2006 Democrats did nothing to get us out of it either.
I believe that this long war we are in, and it's not in Iraq, is necessary, but it is not Republican invention. Both sides are responsible, and really, the Jihad is responsible.
They passed a bill to set a timetable on withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. One more reason to want a Democrat president.
Actually that would be one more reason to vote republican, because they don't undermine us in time of war, but I still probably won't do that because I value our liberty more than that.
Yet the Iraqi Government and Bush have negotiated a timeline anyway. It was inevitable, but now we've dragged feet, and we have a candidate McCain who's bucking both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to this. Who knows what conditions McCain wants for the war to be "won".
It was a Republican president who told me the war was won years ago anyway. He doesn't seem capable of bringing the troops home or willing to go after the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
I want the president with ideas about preventing al-Qaeda from crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan back and forth, dissuading Afghan farms from the poppy trade that supports terrorist activity and so on; sounds better to me since Iraqis can use their own money for their own infastructure.
yes, they negotiated a timeline, but nothing like the hardline surrender that the democrats wanted.
The war was won in about three weeks of fighting. that is not an argument to telegraph to the insurgency, while we are rebuilding and consolidating, that we surrender.
I don't support McCain, but Obama is not even on Earth for this issue. He completely ignores what is going on, all so that he can get power.
I want a president who understand we are fighting a much bigger war than the one in Iraq, and it is not against some petty little terrorist group. Obama is clueless on that.
Originally posted by Fishermage 1. No one needs to take a gun, put it to people's heads, and force people to provide health care for anyone under any circumstance. If YOU feel it is important, YOU pay for people's needs. If not, no need to use the gun of state to do it. That's just plain immoral. If YOu want people to be covered by pre-existing conditions, by all means, go do so. that's no reason to point a gun to people's heads and MAKE them do it. 2. Nothing you are saying justifies pointing guns to people's heads and using government ths way. If you feel "we" have to compete, by all means start a company and do so. 3. Obama is pitching taxe credits and calling them tax cuts, while at the same time allowing the tax CUTS we are already getting to expire. That's a net tax increase. Obviously you don't know what a capital gains tax is. The corporate tax rate is way to high -- everyone's taxes are. Obama's tax plans are geared towards more big government, and against everyone in favor of big government. His big spending programs will hurt everyone. 4. For decades we have been doing the same thing with government education, under democrats, republicans, and it fails. Why will more of the same work THIS time? what magic wand does obama have that will make that which fails always everywhere at all times and places work THIS time? I keep hearing this for the last twenty years and it's always been bull. If you want people to have a better edictaion -- GIVE THEM ONE -- no reason to take the gun of the state, take people's monet by force and do more of what has failed for generations now. How man generations need to be lost before you realize that it is government that doesn't work with these things? Oh, and the reasons I dislike Obama is because he is a LIAR, on the subject of socialism I merely dosagree with him. I dislike him because he is a classic sleazy politician and claimed to be something different. It has nothing to do with his policies. I LIKE Bill clinton, because I know what I get with him. He never lied to the Americian people the way Obama did (even if he lied under oath he is more honest). I also disagreed with Bill clinton although I always liked him. Like and agree or disagree are not the same thing to me. I also don't like Bush and disagree with him on some things.
1. Sure there is. It's the solution to a problem. Not everyone in the country is so scared of government that they feel its pointing a gun to their head. I feel it's government working for us rather than working for big business.
2. Because again, I see it as government investing in the American people for once, and not favoring the American elite.
3. Obama's only allowing PARTS of the Bush tax cuts expire. Thus the whole $250,000 and above argument.
So on the contrary, tax cuts on the middle-class are being made permanent, and that's where we have tax cuts in ADDITION to the tax credits you bring up. Except those are only temporary measures of relief that're supposed to ebb back once our economy picks up.
If you don't believe I understand capital gains taxes, state why. The accusation alone doesn't make a good argument. I just don't agree with your doomsday scenario.
I also don't agree that Obama's "big spending plan" will hurt everyone. Bush cutting domestic programs in order to fund Iraq hurts everyone. A renewal of domestic programs and ending of the Iraq war sounds like the exact change we need.
4. Again with the gun thing, I don't see how that relates to creating new avenues for a college education.
Tell me, how much government do you think should exist? Should we be knitting police uniforms? Putting out California hill fires ourselves? Would militias have sufficed instead of the creation of homeland security?
I also don't buy that Obama's a liar. I see no reason to believe that.
Comments
Hmm, that's interesting, because Bill Clinton didn't seem to have any trouble raising taxes in 1993 even though there was no war in Iraq back then. Oh wait, I know, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in cahoots with each other. Clinton knew that Bush would invade Iraq ten years later and he just wanted to give Bush a little help ahead of time. I always knew Clinton was a tricky bastard.
1. Health Care - Government out of it completely? Who's going to make the companies cover screenings of preventive diseases, or screenings that can lead to finding diseases earlier?
Who's going to step in on limits of who can be covered with existing condiions?
Between Obama and McCain, it seems McCain wants to ween us off employer-based health insurance and have us find it in the open market. But he's taxing us extra when we don't take employer-based health insurance, so that we can receive a tax credit that only "helps pay" for other health insurance.
Then the whole buying across state lines deal, I believe in Obama when he says that'll only lead to companies hording in one place where mandates on screenings and such are less restrictive.
So I don't believe my thinking is flawed in saying Obama's plan is an investment in the American people, if the quality of care goes up, the price down and employer-based coverage spreads.
2. Energy Spending - I don't believe we have a choice but to compete, or be left behind. The US has a chance to lead here in the world when it comes to growing a new economy.
The economic prospects aside, we also have to end dependence on middle eastern oil, it's a national security issue.
So I believe in funding national services geared towards "green jobs", and the whole tax credit deal that encourages auto-makers to make energy-efficient cars.
3. Taxes - Pretty sure Obama's advisors are pitching tax cuts via income taxes.
And the capital gains tax is returning to 20% for those making above $250,000. Isn't that supposed to curtail the investment appetite of big business?
The corporate tax rate is staying at 35% under Obama, and would be cut to 25% under McCain.
In general, Obama's tax plans seem entirely more geared towards small business from the bottom-up, by offering tax cuts for lower-tax bracket investors and other earners of business income, while McCain's offering continued and increased cuts for big corporations and investors at the top.
4. Education - Offering an avenue for the 2 million youngins either not working or going to school sounds like magic to me. Be it national services or doing community work for the tax credit. It's not like this concept is foreign really, AmeriCorps currently does it, and offers more towards tuition.
In general, I get you. You're not a fan of government or either candidate period. Complete lunacy to me, but I respect it. I know you aren't defending McCain, so don't mind my bringing him up. I only do it to explain my Obama vote; even though you dislike him for reasons completely outside the context of the this election.
Amen, brother. Heck, I'm not even a minority and I still plan to get in on the gravy train. Spread the wealth, baby, there's got to be some in there for me somewhere.
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was Democrats who voted for the war just as much as Republicans. The 2006 Democrats did nothing to get us out of it either.
I believe that this long war we are in, and it's not in Iraq, is necessary, but it is not Republican invention. Both sides are responsible, and really, the Jihad is responsible.
They passed a bill to set a timetable on withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. One more reason to want a Democrat president.
Hmm, that's interesting, because Bill Clinton didn't seem to have any trouble raising taxes in 1993 even though there was no war in Iraq back then. Oh wait, I know, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were in cahoots with each other. Clinton knew that Bush would invade Iraq ten years later and he just wanted to give Bush a little help ahead of time. I always knew Clinton was a tricky bastard.
And the U.S. enjoyed 7 years of prosperity that I know I enjoyed and I'll be a month salary you did too. So quit your bellyaching about Clinton. Is that the default position that all neo-Conservatives fall back on when someone rubs their face in the mess they made? The state of the country is the fault of the GOP in general and George W. Bush in particular because HE occupied the White House and The GOP had a 6 year majority in the Congress which gave Bush a rubber stamp for any whacked out idea he wanted passed. BUSH and his handlers were the ones in charge of the country for the past 8 years, HE and his handlers were the ones who squandered not only our budget surplus AS WELL as our good name in the World. HE was the one who started a war that goals went from "spreading democracy in the Middle-east" to just hoping for stability in Iraq so we can get out. Let's also consider the wasted time, resources, money and lives (both American and Iraqi). Anyone else who didn't "go with the program" got either bulldozed over or strong-armed into complying. And THAT is something that the voters of the country will remember when they go to vote on Tuesday and no amount of spin or no amount rationalization will change that.
1. Health Care - Government out of it completely? Who's going to make the companies cover screenings of preventive diseases, or screenings that can lead to finding diseases earlier?
Who's going to step in on limits of who can be covered with existing condiions?
Between Obama and McCain, it seems McCain wants to ween us off employer-based health insurance and have us find it in the open market. But he's taxing us extra when we don't take employer-based health insurance, so that we can receive a tax credit that only "helps pay" for other health insurance.
Then the whole buying across state lines deal, I believe in Obama when he says that'll only lead to companies hording in one place where mandates on screenings and such are less restrictive.
So I don't believe my thinking is flawed in saying Obama's plan is an investment in the American people, if the quality of care goes up, the price down and employer-based coverage spreads.
2. Energy Spending - I don't believe we have a choice but to compete, or be left behind. The US has a chance to lead here in the world when it comes to growing a new economy.
The economic prospects aside, we also have to end dependence on middle eastern oil, it's a national security issue.
So I believe in funding national services geared towards "green jobs", and the whole tax credit deal that encourages auto-makers to make energy-efficient cars.
3. Taxes - Pretty sure Obama's advisors are pitching tax cuts via income taxes.
And the capital gains tax is returning to 20% for those making above $250,000. Isn't that supposed to curtail the investment appetite of big business?
The corporate tax rate is staying at 35% under Obama, and would be cut to 25% under McCain.
In general, Obama's tax plans seem entirely more geared towards small business from the bottom-up, by offering tax cuts for lower-tax bracket investors and other earners of business income, while McCain's offering continued and increased cuts for big corporations and investors at the top.
4. Education - Offering an avenue for the 2 million youngins either not working or going to school sounds like magic to me. Be it national services or doing community work for the tax credit. It's not like this concept is foreign really, AmeriCorps currently does it, and offers more towards tuition.
In general, I get you. You're not a fan of government or either candidate period. Complete lunacy to me, but I respect it. I know you aren't defending McCain, so don't mind my bringing him up. I only do it to explain my Obama vote; even though you dislike him for reasons completely outside the context of the this election.
I answered this post, but the answer shows up on the page before this one. Weird.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was Democrats who voted for the war just as much as Republicans. The 2006 Democrats did nothing to get us out of it either.
I believe that this long war we are in, and it's not in Iraq, is necessary, but it is not Republican invention. Both sides are responsible, and really, the Jihad is responsible.
They passed a bill to set a timetable on withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. One more reason to want a Democrat president.
Answered this one as well. See prior page.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't know why they keep calling it socialist. They should call it what it really is, fascist. Its more accurate and alot more damning since nearly every single fascist government has been horrific. I mean Obama's entire campaign has shown signs of fascism. Class warfare, patriotism through means of paying taxes, spreading the wealth, larger government, and more regulations.
It is clear a lot of people have no idea what their taxes do, if they believe spreading the wealth.. Ie paying your taxes is socialism.
There are far too many stupid adults in the US, it is disheartening.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
Americans Selfish?
Americans are the most generous people on earth to:
Americans have bankrupted themselves to give, and give, and give to these special interests.
Somehow, someway, they think they will "break-in" and "get rich." LOL.
Joe the Plumber worries about tax policies for money that he does not have - and never will. lol.
Ya cause some Democrats want to put him behind bars for asking a question.
The thing is we don't even need to pay income taxes. If we have the central government do what it was meant to do under the constitution, then we can drop the budget to a level there is no need for income taxes. I don't even know why they are fighting on who will pay less for income taxes when we don't even need to pay them.
Thats a question you should be asking. They are going to tax the top 5% more. Who is that top 5%? It obviously isn't the ones you mentioned because they dodge taxes. That top 5% are people who earned getting there through hard work. Nearly all of the rich in the US are first generation rich.
Well, fascism is a form of socialism. Socialism is any socio-political-economic system or outlook where the means of production are either owned ir controlled by the state. In Fascism, the means of production are technically owned by pricate individuals, but controlled by the state. In pure socialism, they are owned outright by the state. Welfare state socialism is where the state takes income from one person or groups and transfers it to another.
I generally use the Austrian definitions from Ludwig von Mises' classic 'socialism," because I find they are the best descriptive definitions.
Now, in terms of Obama, he is a big mix if fascism (government regulation of business, the fairness doctrine; health care); socialism (his tax plan).
When I say socialist I am including his fascist elements in general, BUT I am more referring to his "negative income tax" system he is advocating. His desire to use income tax credits as a means of income redistribution is pure welfare state socialism.
All that being said, you are right, he's more of a fascist than a socialist, technically speaking.
fishermage.blogspot.com
In fascism, the state does not have control over the means of production. The supply-siders control the government, similar to the bail-out law.
Communism., however, is where the means are product are "technically owned by private individuals, but controlled by the state."
Fascism is politics. It is powerful corporations controlling government. Communism is politics. Communism is the government controlling the corporations.
Edit: communism and socialism tend to go hand-in-hand and fascism and capitalism tend to go hand-in-hand. But not always, and there are always variations.
Socialism is where you have no private property; capitalism is where you have private property.
What is "property" ?
Edit
The brilliance of the banker bail-out is that it appears to be socialism, but:
5,000.
5,000 is the number of banks that failed in the Great Depression.
Today, we are not helping small banks, we gave the MAJOR banks FREE money (YOU are VERY, VERY generous, taxpayer) to buy the smaller banks.
It will centralize economic planning to the greatest extent in U.S. history.
A lot of power is concentrated in the hands of bankers. He who controls the gold (money) makes the rules: Hence, the banker bail-out. It is going to lead to a worldwide depression unless the public demands 26,000 calls to 1 that the bankers RETURN the money to the U.S. Treasury.
In fascism, the state does not have control over the means of production. The supply-siders control the government, similar to the bail-out law.
Communism., however, is where the means are product are "technically owned by private individuals, but controlled by the state."
Fascism is politics. It is powerful corporations controlling government. Communism is politics. Communism is the government controlling the corporations.
Edit: communism and socialism tend to go hand-in-hand and fascism and capitalism tend to go hand-in-hand. But not always, and there are always variations.
Socialism is where you have no private property; capitalism is where you have private property.
What is "property" ?
Edit
The brilliance of the banker bail-out is that it appears to be socialism, but:
5,000.
5,000 is the number of banks that failed in the Great Depression.
Today, we are not helping small banks, we gave the MAJOR banks FREE money (YOU are VERY, VERY generous, taxpayer) to buy the smaller banks.
It will centralize economic planning to the greatest extent in U.S. history.
A lot of power is concentrated in the hands of bankers. He who controls the gold (money) makes the rules: Hence, the banker bail-out. It is going to lead to a worldwide depression unless the public demands 26,000 calls to 1 that the bankers RETURN the money to the U.S. Treasury.
I would advise looking up what I was speaking of. The Austrian definitions are far superior to the ones you are using. Mine is more in line with Mussolini's.
Corporatism is a form of fascism, so I have no issue with what you are saying on that score. Only your contradictory definitions at the beginning.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Really, corporatism is fascism. Edit: or fascism is corporatism.
Typically the war profiteering is enormous.
At war:
This is out-of-control, folks. Totally, completely, unambiguously out-of-control.
Really, corporatism is fascism. Edit: or fascism is corporatism.
Typically the war profiteering is enormous.
At war:
This is out-of-control, folks. Totally, completely, unambiguously out-of-control.
Which is why we shouldn't be voting the Republicrats back in, and telling them we want "more of the same."
This is merely taking YOUR arguments to their final, inevitable conclusion.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Really, corporatism is fascism. Edit: or fascism is corporatism.
Typically the war profiteering is enormous.
At war:
This is out-of-control, folks. Totally, completely, unambiguously out-of-control.
Which is why we shouldn't be voting the Republicrats back in, and telling them we want "more of the same."
This is merely taking YOUR arguments to their final, inevitable conclusion.
You must choose at least one -Democrat or Republican- or you will get black-balled.
You can get elected and modify, perhaps even change parties, but you need to, while young (younger the better, unless you have personal wealth or clout) declare allegiance.
Suggesting people join a third-party might make matters worse because third-parties are utterly powerless, and if they were to gain power, they would get destroyed. Literally.
To succeed, a third-party necessarily has to play ball as the two dominant parties do.
A third-party, then, would be the same on the issues that impact our lives:
Patriot Act
Bail-outs (finance)
Wars
In other words, a third party will not make a difference.
Really, corporatism is fascism. Edit: or fascism is corporatism.
Typically the war profiteering is enormous.
At war:
This is out-of-control, folks. Totally, completely, unambiguously out-of-control.
Which is why we shouldn't be voting the Republicrats back in, and telling them we want "more of the same."
This is merely taking YOUR arguments to their final, inevitable conclusion.
You must choose at least one -Democrat or Republican- or you will get black-balled.
You can get elected and modify, perhaps even change parties, but you need to, while young (younger the better, unless you have personal wealth or clout) declare allegiance.
Suggesting people join a third-party might make matters worse because third-parties are utterly powerless, and if they were to gain power, they would get destroyed. Literally.
To succeed, a third-party necessarily has to play ball as the two dominant parties do.
A third-party, then, would be the same on the issues that impact our lives:
Patriot Act
Bail-outs (finance)
Wars
I've never felt "black-balled" in my life. You can vote for more of the same if you want to though. After all, I believe in freedom.
I never suggested that people join a third party. There you go again with your misrepresentation of your opponent to create a straw man you can argue with...
/yawn
fishermage.blogspot.com
That is because you are not running for office, pursuing a high-level government job, or seek an appointed position (that requires Congressional approval).
Try to "participate" and be a third-party member. Try to serve the public as a civil servant (elected or appointed, not low-level hired) and see how far you can get.
Young people should choose an allegiance, and early on. And show you are a loyal party member by participating in campaigns. Volunteer.
That is because you are not running for office, pursuing a high-level government job, or seek an appointed position (that requires Congressional approval).
Try to "participate" and be a third-party member. Try to serve the public as a civil servant (elected or appointed, not low-level hired) and see how far you can get.
Young people should choose an allegiance, and early on. And show you are a loyal party member by participating in campaigns. Volunteer.
Sorry, that sounds like fascist thinking to me. I have chosen an allegiance -- to America.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That is because you are not running for office, pursuing a high-level government job, or seek an appointed position (that requires Congressional approval).
Try to "participate" and be a third-party member. Try to serve the public as a civil servant (elected or appointed, not low-level hired) and see how far you can get.
Young people should choose an allegiance, and early on. And show you are a loyal party member by participating in campaigns. Volunteer.
Sorry, that sounds like fascist thinking to me. I have chosen an allegiance -- to America.
You can be on the side of America and be a party member.
If you love America, then you join a party and work your way up to make a difference.
You cannot make a difference by, sitting on the sidelines, never getting in office, never participating, never making decisions in the system.
You need to get in there to help this country. To get in, you need to be either a Democrat or a Republican.
That is because you are not running for office, pursuing a high-level government job, or seek an appointed position (that requires Congressional approval).
Try to "participate" and be a third-party member. Try to serve the public as a civil servant (elected or appointed, not low-level hired) and see how far you can get.
Young people should choose an allegiance, and early on. And show you are a loyal party member by participating in campaigns. Volunteer.
Sorry, that sounds like fascist thinking to me. I have chosen an allegiance -- to America.
You can be on the side of America and be a party member.
If you love America, then you join a party and work your way up to make a difference.
You cannot make a difference by, sitting on the sidelines, never getting in office, never participating, never making decisions in the system.
You need to get in there to help this country. To get in, you need to be either a Democrat or a Republican.
Sorry that is simply not the case. tell that to the Communist party. History proves you wrong.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was Democrats who voted for the war just as much as Republicans. The 2006 Democrats did nothing to get us out of it either.
I believe that this long war we are in, and it's not in Iraq, is necessary, but it is not Republican invention. Both sides are responsible, and really, the Jihad is responsible.
They passed a bill to set a timetable on withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. One more reason to want a Democrat president.
Actually that would be one more reason to vote republican, because they don't undermine us in time of war, but I still probably won't do that because I value our liberty more than that.
Yet the Iraqi Government and Bush have negotiated a timeline anyway. It was inevitable, but now we've dragged feet, and we have a candidate McCain who's bucking both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to this. Who knows what conditions McCain wants for the war to be "won".
It was a Republican president who told me the war was won years ago anyway. He doesn't seem capable of bringing the troops home or willing to go after the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
I want the president with ideas about preventing al-Qaeda from crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan back and forth, dissuading Afghan farms from the poppy trade that supports terrorist activity and so on; sounds better to me since Iraqis can use their own money for their own infastructure.
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was Democrats who voted for the war just as much as Republicans. The 2006 Democrats did nothing to get us out of it either.
I believe that this long war we are in, and it's not in Iraq, is necessary, but it is not Republican invention. Both sides are responsible, and really, the Jihad is responsible.
They passed a bill to set a timetable on withdrawal. Bush vetoed it. One more reason to want a Democrat president.
Actually that would be one more reason to vote republican, because they don't undermine us in time of war, but I still probably won't do that because I value our liberty more than that.
Yet the Iraqi Government and Bush have negotiated a timeline anyway. It was inevitable, but now we've dragged feet, and we have a candidate McCain who's bucking both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to this. Who knows what conditions McCain wants for the war to be "won".
It was a Republican president who told me the war was won years ago anyway. He doesn't seem capable of bringing the troops home or willing to go after the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
I want the president with ideas about preventing al-Qaeda from crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan back and forth, dissuading Afghan farms from the poppy trade that supports terrorist activity and so on; sounds better to me since Iraqis can use their own money for their own infastructure.
yes, they negotiated a timeline, but nothing like the hardline surrender that the democrats wanted.
The war was won in about three weeks of fighting. that is not an argument to telegraph to the insurgency, while we are rebuilding and consolidating, that we surrender.
I don't support McCain, but Obama is not even on Earth for this issue. He completely ignores what is going on, all so that he can get power.
I want a president who understand we are fighting a much bigger war than the one in Iraq, and it is not against some petty little terrorist group. Obama is clueless on that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
1. Sure there is. It's the solution to a problem. Not everyone in the country is so scared of government that they feel its pointing a gun to their head. I feel it's government working for us rather than working for big business.
2. Because again, I see it as government investing in the American people for once, and not favoring the American elite.
3. Obama's only allowing PARTS of the Bush tax cuts expire. Thus the whole $250,000 and above argument.
So on the contrary, tax cuts on the middle-class are being made permanent, and that's where we have tax cuts in ADDITION to the tax credits you bring up. Except those are only temporary measures of relief that're supposed to ebb back once our economy picks up.
If you don't believe I understand capital gains taxes, state why. The accusation alone doesn't make a good argument. I just don't agree with your doomsday scenario.
I also don't agree that Obama's "big spending plan" will hurt everyone. Bush cutting domestic programs in order to fund Iraq hurts everyone. A renewal of domestic programs and ending of the Iraq war sounds like the exact change we need.
4. Again with the gun thing, I don't see how that relates to creating new avenues for a college education.
Tell me, how much government do you think should exist? Should we be knitting police uniforms? Putting out California hill fires ourselves? Would militias have sufficed instead of the creation of homeland security?
I also don't buy that Obama's a liar. I see no reason to believe that.