Obama and “Socialism”

I agree with what you are saying save for one item. One of the reasons McCain is calling Obama is socialist is socialized medicine. I do not agree that is what Obama is doing, but a lot of people see it as a step in that direction.

I agree with what you are saying save for one item. One of the reasons McCain is calling Obama is socialist is socialized medicine. I do not agree that is what Obama is doing, but a lot of people see it as a step in that direction.

Reagan’s taxes were high only WHEN he got into office…after 8 years they were MUCH lower…about 50% lower! So you are twisting the truth.

Reagan’s taxes were high only WHEN he got into office…after 8 years they were MUCH lower…about 50% lower! So you are twisting the truth.

@ Daniel,

Just to be clear, are you for, or against, a shift in our government towards socialism?

I, for one, feel that the titanic bureaucracy already in place can’t properly manage the money I already voluntarilly give to it’s gigantic, gaping maw, and feel it would be a waste to encourage it’s nigh-infinite hunger for more, by allowing it to take more per force.

I owe a debt to my society, and I owe a debt to my government, and one way to pay that debt is to slap it’s hand when it’s in the cookie jar, trying to steal more than our government needs, or more than is healthy for it.

I do not believe the ills of our government can be solved by making it bigger.

Lastly, I do not feel any sort of guilt for having made the money I have, not to the extent that I should be forced to give up more than already given. I’m sure you don’t feel guilty either, but, if in the event that your guilt consumes you, don’t believe for a moment I’d let your collective guilt force me to submit my children’s sustainance, shelter, and comfort to a cancer riddled beast that doesn’t respect it’s own boundaries, or individual rights in the addictive throes it’s now succumming to.

-=T=-

@ Daniel,

Just to be clear, are you for, or against, a shift in our government towards socialism?

I, for one, feel that the titanic bureaucracy already in place can’t properly manage the money I already voluntarilly give to it’s gigantic, gaping maw, and feel it would be a waste to encourage it’s nigh-infinite hunger for more, by allowing it to take more per force.

I owe a debt to my society, and I owe a debt to my government, and one way to pay that debt is to slap it’s hand when it’s in the cookie jar, trying to steal more than our government needs, or more than is healthy for it.

I do not believe the ills of our government can be solved by making it bigger.

Lastly, I do not feel any sort of guilt for having made the money I have, not to the extent that I should be forced to give up more than already given. I’m sure you don’t feel guilty either, but, if in the event that your guilt consumes you, don’t believe for a moment I’d let your collective guilt force me to submit my children’s sustainance, shelter, and comfort to a cancer riddled beast that doesn’t respect it’s own boundaries, or individual rights in the addictive throes it’s now succumming to.

-=T=-

Read the first 3 paragraphs (at least) and tell me this isn’t the direction of the Progressive Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

This is definitely not a recent claim by the McCain campaign; it is the same claim used in every election between Democrats and Republicans. Of course Obama is not A Socialist but his policies are a direction towards socialism. It is a step towards bigger government, more intervention into the economy, redistribution of wealth, and universal social policies.

“The degree of increased taxes being discussed are lower than Reagan levels” Wait. Earlier you said the percentage of taxes in relation to the economy (I assume GDP?) is lower than Reagan levels. Well the economy has grown enormously since the Reagan era. So doesn’t that mean his actual tax rates are much higher than Reagan levels?

Read the first 3 paragraphs (at least) and tell me this isn’t the direction of the Progressive Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

This is definitely not a recent claim by the McCain campaign; it is the same claim used in every election between Democrats and Republicans. Of course Obama is not A Socialist but his policies are a direction towards socialism. It is a step towards bigger government, more intervention into the economy, redistribution of wealth, and universal social policies.

“The degree of increased taxes being discussed are lower than Reagan levels” Wait. Earlier you said the percentage of taxes in relation to the economy (I assume GDP?) is lower than Reagan levels. Well the economy has grown enormously since the Reagan era. So doesn’t that mean his actual tax rates are much higher than Reagan levels?

Wow Daniel. I never thought you, a Ron Paul supporter, would ever endorse theft. Forget Socialism or Collectivism or whatever other label we want to call it. Obama’s economic plan is so far from what Ron Paul supports and what he stands for.

Taking something that is someone else’s and calling it your own is theft plain and simple. This isn’t just a tax the rich program, this is redistribution of wealth all in the name of fairness? Fair is forcefully taking money from people who have earned it?

You said it yourself that “We’re talking about taking a very small percent from the VERY rich, and giving it to the middle class who ARE contributing.” It’s not about the fact that currently it will only be a small percentage tax on the “very” rich. How do we define those that are middle class and contributing? It’s about the principle of taking something that’s not yours.

What’s the incentive to become VERY rich when if I, as a middle class citizen, am somewhat successful and contribute to society based on some vague government definition, I’ll get some free money from the government (aka rich people)?

My wife and I can’t have kids but are good people and contribute to society. So, the government goes to a family that has been successful in their production of offspring and has 6 kids. It’s obviously not fair that they get 6 kids when my wife and I can’t even have 1 child. So the government takes one of the 6 children and gives it to us. It’s TAKING something of value and giving it to someone else. Is it a shame we can’t have kids? Absolutely. Is it the responsibility of the family of 6 to give us a child? No. That’s exactly what Obama is proposing, only he’s talking about dollar bills instead of children.

I love Robin Hood just as much as the next guy, but this taking from the rich is wrong and you know it.

Wow Daniel. I never thought you, a Ron Paul supporter, would ever endorse theft. Forget Socialism or Collectivism or whatever other label we want to call it. Obama’s economic plan is so far from what Ron Paul supports and what he stands for.

Taking something that is someone else’s and calling it your own is theft plain and simple. This isn’t just a tax the rich program, this is redistribution of wealth all in the name of fairness? Fair is forcefully taking money from people who have earned it?

You said it yourself that “We’re talking about taking a very small percent from the VERY rich, and giving it to the middle class who ARE contributing.” It’s not about the fact that currently it will only be a small percentage tax on the “very” rich. How do we define those that are middle class and contributing? It’s about the principle of taking something that’s not yours.

What’s the incentive to become VERY rich when if I, as a middle class citizen, am somewhat successful and contribute to society based on some vague government definition, I’ll get some free money from the government (aka rich people)?

My wife and I can’t have kids but are good people and contribute to society. So, the government goes to a family that has been successful in their production of offspring and has 6 kids. It’s obviously not fair that they get 6 kids when my wife and I can’t even have 1 child. So the government takes one of the 6 children and gives it to us. It’s TAKING something of value and giving it to someone else. Is it a shame we can’t have kids? Absolutely. Is it the responsibility of the family of 6 to give us a child? No. That’s exactly what Obama is proposing, only he’s talking about dollar bills instead of children.

I love Robin Hood just as much as the next guy, but this taking from the rich is wrong and you know it.

…Then again, maybe we are just “red-baiting” Daniel.

For the record, I think Daniel’s intentions are good, along with Obama and most Democrats. However, I don’t think they are practical, realistic or even have the consequences that they expect. Working with government bureaucracies has been one of the most frustrating experiences in the business world for me. The last thing I want is to deal with them more. I don’t promote privatization and deregulation because it sounded good in the book I read; I acknowledge its real advantages in the work place that I have directly experienced. Admittedly, privatization and deregulation are not silver bullets, but I think they are generally better solutions than paying a govt bureaucrat to solve the problem for me (helping the poor, giving me health care, taking care of my children, getting me a job, supplementing my education and skills, or even keeping me safe)

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-baiting ]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_bullet ]