Obama Admits He Carefully Chose Marxist Professors as Friends

Ridge said:
How is his campaign far from noble? He hasnt said a single negative think about Obama, while Obama slings mud like its going out of style...
Click to expand...

Oh my. Oh dear. Oh god. How...?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
He is associated with MARXISTS and still is, and preaches the same rhetoric, this is the issue


VOTE BOB BARR 2008
Click to expand...

**** you. What is this, the 1950's?

He can associate with whoever the hell he wants to. His policies are not overtly communistic, they are overtly liberal. And thus, it is in the interests of anyone in the democratic party to get him elected.

Screw you and your wasted libertarian votes. A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for John Mccain.
 
theotherguy said:
**** you. What is this, the 1950's?

He can associate with whoever the hell he wants to. His policies are not overtly communistic, they are overtly liberal. And thus, it is in the interests of anyone in the democratic party to get him elected.

Screw you and your wasted libertarian votes. A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for John Mccain.
Click to expand...

I'd much rather have McCain in office than Obama. The redistribution of wealth IS one of the ten planks of communism. It's socialism in it's purest form and I definately do NOT support that.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I'd much rather have McCain in office than Obama. The redistribution of wealth IS one of the ten planks of communism. It's socialism in it's purest form and I definately do NOT support that.
Click to expand...

The redistribution of wealth is also a major pillar of the welfare state. It is the basis for many government programs.

The key is the level of redistribution. Communists support full redistribution, while liberals support redistribution as necessary.

It is a very sad state of affairs to have a country where the gap between rich and poor is very large. A more even distribution of wealth is always preferable to a vastly unbalanced one, because it leads to a stronger economy, more social mobility and freedom, and more social stability. A major gap still exists between the rich and the poor which should be curbed by progressive income taxes and other government actions.

Of course, a full redistribution of wealth and fully communistic policies are generally a bad idea, because they restrict freedom and mobility absolutely.

Honestly, I don't know why "socialism" is such a dirty word in this country. Socialism works, and it works fairly well, if used in moderation. Just look at any Western European or Scandinavian country and its indicators of social freedom and welfare, and you will discover that these socialistic countries are much better places to live than the United States.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Why? Why don't you support a national sales tax? It's the fairer way.


I don't support government THIEVERY.
Click to expand...

And I don't support corporate THIEVERY.

The interests of the rich are only in themselves and their own wealth. I would rather have money stolen from the rich and given to the poor by an impartial social agent than stolen from the poor by the robber baron rich to fill their decadent coffers.

A national sales tax is a horrible idea. It is not fair. At. All.


Here's why:
The Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns.

A loaf of bread is worth a lot more to a starving homeless person than it is to a rich person. Sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor, because the items typically taxed by a sales tax are often necessary for the survival of the poor. The rich can easily get around or overcome sales tax, while the poor must bear the burden and suffer immeasurably. "Fair Tax" HA! Far from it! A national sales tax would put almost all of the tax burden on the poor and leave the rich richer.

Ever heard of the French Revolution? That was sparked mainly by unfair sales and property taxes being placed on the poorer classes, while the wealthy classes enjoyed tax benefits. Since the wealthy people had the majority of the wealth, but the poorer classes far outnumbered them, the tax burden was extremely unequal, and led to a huge disparity in wealth. This drove the country into severe economic depression, famine, and eventually revolution.

But I suppose that's the world you would want to live in as a libertarian, right?
 
theotherguy said:
The redistribution of wealth is also a major pillar of the welfare state. It is the basis for many government programs.

The key is the level of redistribution. Communists support full redistribution, while liberals support redistribution as necessary.
Click to expand...


it is NOT necessary. A welfare state is the WORST THING that could ever happen to economic freedom in this nation. I will always fight a welfare nanny state.


The fair tax is not unequal to those with low income,


"Under the FairTax, family households of lawful U.S. residents would receive a "Family Consumption Allowance" (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services"


"The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.

How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here. Secondly, not everyone's average net tax burden falls. For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system.

Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities."
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Nationalisation of the banks as well.

Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State

Democratic support for the FCC and support of changing public radio to force owners to play liberal talking points.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

The democrat supported Death Tax

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Obama wants to increase income taxes, rather than smartly supporting a national sales tax to replace income tax.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in what your job is and your annual salary is. Your talk about taxes indicate you have serious money floating around if you are even remotely worried about estate taxes even with democrats. I believe that Obama's tax policies will do nothing more than removing Bush's tax cuts (which has numerous bad aspects to it).

[Edit]: Your fair tax blurb has income redistribution in the form of rebates. Those rebates turn the fair tax system into a progressive tax system. Apparently you can't escape Marxism even if you tried. :(
 
I make $26,000 a year currently

blahblahblah said:
[Edit]: Your fair tax blurb has income redistribution in the form of rebates. Those rebates turn the fair tax system into a progressive tax system. Apparently you can't escape Marxism even if you tried. :(
Click to expand...

It's not income redistribution, it's redistributing the sales tax gains to everyone regardless of income. It does not take money from your income which is what I have issue with.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I make $26,000 a year currently
Click to expand...


Oh... Well good thing you're voting for McCain then, because Obama is going to tax that ass heavily if he wins.



Anyways. I hope everybody here knows that politics are always heated and sometimes vicious here. I used to be on the conservative side attacking the other side. I know what it's like. But in the end, I hope everybody knows we're still forum mates and bonded as such.
 
Ridge said:
I'll admit, I am racist, but only slightly towards blacks...most of my racism goes towards hispanic illegals because of bad experiences I have personally had with them...
Click to expand...
Ah. A racist.

'nuff said.

Or is it?
Ridge said:
the only racists left in America nowadays besides the KKK and Neo-Nazis are actually blacks who hate white people for.....
Click to expand...
Sooo... you said you're a Jew so we can dismiss the possibility of you being black. Are you a member of the KKK or a neo-nazi Ridge?
 
Raziaar said:
Oh... Well good thing you're voting for McCain then, because Obama is going to tax that ass heavily if he wins.
Click to expand...

I'm not so selfish as to think just because I won't be hit hard by the tax hikes that it's fair, fine and dandy. It's unfair and it penalizes success.

Like I've shown, the Fair Tax is the best system. I despise socialism and will never support a socialist nanny state. It's a matter of principal, not whether or not I'm going to get more money or not.
 
the American dream:

tens of thousands of lower class people slaving away at wal-mart for $6 an hour so some guy at the top can have 12 houses for his one fat ass.

It's just not fair the sacrifices these guys might have to make at this 3% tax increase. Maybe he will have to cut back on air conditioning his lawn.
 
theotherguy said:
The redistribution of wealth is also a major pillar of the welfare state. It is the basis for many government programs.

The key is the level of redistribution. Communists support full redistribution, while liberals support redistribution as necessary.

It is a very sad state of affairs to have a country where the gap between rich and poor is very large. A more even distribution of wealth is always preferable to a vastly unbalanced one, because it leads to a stronger economy, more social mobility and freedom, and more social stability. A major gap still exists between the rich and the poor which should be curbed by progressive income taxes and other government actions.

Of course, a full redistribution of wealth and fully communistic policies are generally a bad idea, because they restrict freedom and mobility absolutely.

Honestly, I don't know why "socialism" is such a dirty word in this country. Socialism works, and it works fairly well, if used in moderation. Just look at any Western European or Scandinavian country and its indicators of social freedom and welfare, and you will discover that these socialistic countries are much better places to live than the United States.
Click to expand...

Why are you always so hateful?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I'm not so selfish as to think just because I won't be hit hard by the tax hikes that it's fair, fine and dandy. It's unfair and it penalizes success.

Like I've shown, the Fair Tax is the best system. I despise socialism and will never support a socialist nanny state. It's a matter of principal, not whether or not I'm going to get more money or not.
Click to expand...

Somebody has to pay for progress in this country, and if the burden falls upon the backs of the middle and lower class, there won't be enough money to get anything done.

Taxes aren't evil. No matter what McCain and Palin say, Taxes are all American. It's what let's us be who we are. It's what lets us have the strongest military in the world. All great things a country can accomplish generally cost a pretty penny, and the only way to fulfill the betterment of the country is to have taxes. I personally think the rich should bear the bulk of the burden, because they have the wealth to do so. And well, if they don't want to? Well, welcome to a shitty second world country because nothing is ever able to be funded. Welcome to a second rate military. Goodbye to super power status. The rich people are the only ones with the wealth that drives this nation. The rest of us are only capable of paying small amounts of it.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
I'd much rather have McCain in office than Obama. The redistribution of wealth IS one of the ten planks of communism. It's socialism in it's purest form and I definately do NOT support that.
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of -

Do you know what the communist 'redistribution of wealth' is? It's giving everyone exactly the same, creating a classless (and ultimately stateless) society.

Obama does not plan on making everyone as rich as each other. Taking more from those who can far more afford it does not make him a commie.

I mean hell, ignore that the Bush administration has seen some incredibly left wing policies to deal with the crisis, ignore the $700 billion bailout and the nationalisation of several companies, BURN THE COMMUNIST Obama, right?

Feel free to beleive all the stupid, crazy rubbish that you do. Please, don't inflict that stupidity on other people - It's mind numbingly tedious to sift through it.
 
Adam Smith and Milton Freidman both proposed forms of progressive taxation.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
He is associated with MARXISTS and still is, and preaches the same rhetoric, this is the issue


VOTE BOB BARR 2008
Click to expand...
Jesus, not all Marxists are horrid people, many are not even communists.

Marxism contains a set of tools for anylisising history and the economy. It anylises labor and the worth of things. You can subcribe to these tools and support capitalism very easilly.

I haven't seen such rubbish politics threads since the last election, people making stupid threads about isolated incidents like a poster getting pulled down and using it to discredit Obama. It's retarded.
 
This American irrational phobia of anything remotely socialist (its not communism and as is proven by every other western nation, works well within a democratic and capitalist framework) is just lol.



Its like watching some noob getting shitted on and when you offer the solution they are like "naw, I prefer society defecating on me and using my life as a disposable tool for the selfish advancement of the infinitely greedy".





As I've said before, Europe proves you can still be obscenely rich and still have socialized elements, resistance to it is nothing but indoctrinated ignorant phobia.
 
Since when does the welfare state "work well"? Clearly the only people making such bullshit claims have never actually had any experience of it.

The welfare state primarily pays for scroungers to live lives of riley. Secondarily, it helps the long-term needy - by then giving them access to more disposable income than the vast majority of working people have. It keeps people in poverty (at our expense) because in many cases, you genuinely are better off on benefits - and to actually go out to work would have all your benefits instantly revoked.

Get made redunant and want some help from the system you've paid into your whole life? Good luck - if you have any savings you'll have to use them all up before you get anything, and then you'll have to sell off all your assets. Then you'll get a few hours pay every two weeks.

From someone who grew up on various council estates with two non-working parents. :rolleyes:

My dad gets nearly as much money in benefits as I earn, and while I don't have a massive salary, I get by. I also have to pay rent and bills (including trying to clear debts I ran up when I couldn't work due to injury and got sweet **** all from the benefits system), whilst my dad gets a four bedroom house in London that only the very rich could afford to buy absolutely free of charge.

UK spending on welfare is roughly equal to UK income tax. **** that.
 
BUT DOES HE HATE OUR FREEDOMS?!?!!?!?!!!????

Ridge said:
Clearly us Americans actually voting next week have no say in the situation....its up to the Euros on here to choose who will lead America...
Click to expand...

If only it was.. if only it was..
 
I have carefully chosen indian people as my friends. I go to their house often. I learn things from them, i listen to what they teach in language and culture. I hang out with them.
Im still not indian.
 
Azner said:
I have carefully chosen indian people as my friends. I go to their house often. I learn things from them, i listen to what they teach in language and culture. I hang out with them.
Im still not indian.
Click to expand...

You can never "become Indian." You CAN however adopt Indian cultures and habits, which is highly likely to happen in such a case.

your comparison doesnt make sense
 
I guess youre right there, the ideology is different. Let me try.
Im a theologist. I have muslim friends, I hang out with them. I study their religion. I read their holy book.
But yet i still can be Christian?
 
Azner said:
I guess youre right there, the ideology is different. Let me try.
Im a theologist. I have muslim friends, I hang out with them. I study their religion. I read their holy book.
But yet i still can be Christian?
Click to expand...

Yes, but if you proposed things relating to Sharia law then I would say you're edging towards muslim (note: i am not relating this to the mistaken claims obama is a muslim, just in response to his post as a comparison)


Obama has touted the redistribution of wealth and his policies promote a welfare state.
 
Yes yes, you're all very smart. I'm impressed. Really, I am. Here's the thing: I couldn't give two shits as to whether or not Obama MAY - or may not - have lifted some philosophies from socialist ideology. What he's proposed is what he has been proposing the last long effin while: a tax cut for 95% of working Americans. That's what I'll be voting for. Screw you and your anti-working class hate speech.

On that note,

HAVE YOU ALL FORGOT ABOUT AFRO NINJA?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEtIoGQxqQs
 
Is "Marxist" the new word for Obama now? Makes sense, I guess since "Muslim", "Terrorist", and "Elitist" didn't stick the next logical step was good old fashioned McCarthyism.
 
repiV said:
Since when does the welfare state "work well"? Clearly the only people making such bullshit claims have never actually had any experience of it.
.....
I couldn't work due to injury and got sweet **** all from the benefits system
Click to expand...

So how did you get treatment for that injury again? Was it expensive?
The Welfare state certainly isn't perfect but that's more due to poor implementation in some areas than any ideological inherent wrongness imo.
 
I need to point out that the creator of this thread has a moustache. Need I say more?
 
Eejit said:
So how did you get treatment for that injury again? Was it expensive?
The Welfare state certainly isn't perfect but that's more due to poor implementation in some areas than any ideological inherent wrongness imo.
Click to expand...

The health service is not part of the welfare state, nor is health spending included in the spending on welfare which equals takings from income tax. In fact, the expenditure on benefits is higher than the expenditure on health and defence combined - and also makes up half of all government spending, or a quarter of the UK GDP as a total. That's ridiculous.

We managed just fine without a welfare state until the 1950s, and the genuinely needy would be better taken care of by charities and communities than by a bloated government bureaucracy which rewards laziness and punishes success.
 
repiV said:
The health service is not part of the welfare state, nor is health spending included in the spending on welfare which equals takings from income tax. In fact, the expenditure on benefits is higher than the expenditure on health and defence combined - and also makes up half of all government spending, or a quarter of the UK GDP as a total. That's ridiculous.

We managed just fine without a welfare state until the 1950s, and the genuinely needy would be better taken care of by charities and communities than by a bloated government bureaucracy which rewards laziness and punishes success.
Click to expand...

not being from the UK but having extensive experience working with not for profit charities I have to say poppycocks to your idea that charities can pick up the slack ..I worked at a school for the mentally handicapped that had a budget of about $7000/month for each student ..there is absolutely no way we'd ever operate without government money..we would fund raise on a continual basis but still needed the government to provide at the very least 60% of operating budget ..the overwelming majority of parents could not afford this ..and it's much worse as they get older: many sustain themselves SOLELY from government disability and welfare. to do away with government support of these programs would mean complete collapse of the entire system pretty much overnight ..now you have thousands of mentally handicapped hmeless (on top of those that are already homeless) ..yay way to **** people over because of a personal pov that doesnt in the least bit affect you
 
repiV said:
The health service is not part of the welfare state,
Click to expand...
Ah true, I always think of them as linked since they were introduced at approx the same time as part of a larger set of reforms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
RakuraiTenjin's Anti-Obama thread
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Uriel
Uriel
Back
Top