The stock market has done a damn good job of that over the last year. :CRY: No need to wait for Obamanization.

That is a very good question. I wish more people would ask it. and think about it. Its very simple. Votes. Power. He who has the most votes has the most power. Use the power of the government to take from those who have and give to those who have not and you are certain of political power for a long time. Obviously the poor have nothing, so taking from them does not work. If you were on the recieveing end, who would YOU vote for? Luckily for the libs, the population of the poor and not so poor is large enough and the wealth of the rich is large enough to make this scheme work. We are just about to the point of no return. Some say we are already there. The way this will collapse is when the poor can get no further based on redistribution. And that point does exist. Much of what we are seeing in the market reflects this ideology. (need I repost that link where the Clinton Admin orders Fannie & Freddie to start loaning $$ to poor people as an example?)

Mike

Mike;

Good answer, but it's past time for the working class/middle class, and the rich to stand together and say NO MORE.....our only power is the vote, we need to stand together and vote these people out of office!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm 53 years old now and have had an IRA since my early 20's, hoped and dreamed to be able to retire sometimes before 60 and enjoy the fruits of my labor (40 years now), but it's not looking good, that's what scares the crap out of me right now!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm very afraid that in the next few years there may very well be some kind of revolt or civil war within the US....the people I associate with and my friends are all tired of this crap and seems to me the working class have had enough and are ready to do something..

I hope and pray for the best, but fear the worst.......

David

Well David, if Obama gets elected, I may contact you about those squirrels. Surely he can't regulate that?

Mike

Let's talk about the "redistribution of wealth" issue that McCain campaign has thrown out there to arouse his base, and that Gov. Palin is having fun calling "socialism."

What we're actually talking about here is the "progressive tax system" that has been a feature of US policy for almost 150 years. Long before there was anything known as "socialism," "marxism," or "communism;" President Abraham Lincoln imposed a "war tax" in which richer people paid more than poorer people. That was "redistribution of wealth." That tax was later repealed after the war.

That great lion of the "conservative republicanism," President Theodore Roosevelt, pushed hard for the drafting and advocated the enactment of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution which created a permanent income tax and implemented the "progressive tax system," where the wealthier paid more. The 16th Amendment institutionalized the policy of "redistribution of wealth" in the US. It reached the 2/3rd of states ratification threshold after TR left office. The concept of "socialism" hadn't caught on yet, so no one called it that.

Corporate income taxes are a "redistribution of wealth."

President Ronald Reagan in 1986 signed legislation that greatly expanded the "earned income credit" (EIC) program which allowed lower income individuals to receive tax credits, which is "redistribution of wealth."

D and R-controlled Administrations and Congresses have been "redistributing wealth" in this country for a long, long time. I must admit to being rather confused by the McCain campaign's tactic here, except that they are calculating that it might resonate with the terribly uniformed.

Apparently, it does with many here . . .

The problem is not the tax system. The problem is that the Obamination wants to increase the rate for the rich [already paying 60% of ALL income tax] and ISSUE CHECKS to those who have not paid a cent in tax. If you don't like to call it "Socialism," then call it what it is, WELFARE.

But the rich and businesses ALWAYS find a way to pass on the increased costs, and always will. Who ends up paying the increased costs? The poor and the middle class. There is no fount of money to be found anywhere. It must be earned.

Dan

Good, so the tax system is not the problem, and it is OK to "redistribute wealth" that way. I see . . .

So what is the earned income credit? And what is the current welfare system? What pays for those two things? Aren't those policies owned by elected officials from both parties?

And please show me where Sen. Obama has promised to "issue checks" to those who have earned no income. Didn't President Bush propose an economic stimulus package where lower income people got checks up to $750, and rich people did not?

And please show me where Sen. Obama has promised to "issue checks" to those who have earned no income.

BO's plan calls for issuing checks to those that earned income, but did not pay fed tax. In other words - a welfare payment in theory to offset payroll taxes (SS and Medicare).

And that would be similar to what Ronald Reagan did in 1986 when he signed legislation which greatly expanded the size of the earned income credit. The credit resulted in a larger tax refund for lower income people, which was, of course, A CHECK. He didn't call it a "welfare payment," and he was not accused of being a socialist.

Bush gave $750 ($1500 per couple) to poor people, and less or nothing to those more well off. He wasn't called a Socialist, and it wasn't called welfare.

But I digress . . . the reason certain people have earned income, but pay no tax is in part due to legislation provided by the Reagan Administration.

Hi Buddy! :D

Clay,
McCains campaign (and folks here) are using one of the 'Bad Words' of American politics in order to associate Obama with un-American thinking.

I'm sure you know that the Constitution did not declare that have a capitalist or socialist government, but it only defined how that government was to operate. The perfect capitalist society would have all of us be slaves, but then there would be no markets; the perfect socialist society would have all of us with equal incomes, but then there would be no drive to excel and build additional wealth.

CdC is right about the tax credit for SS and medicare. However, Obamas tax plan, for the most part, is a big stimulus package that I'm sure the GOP will repeal as soon as they can.

Welcome to the mess...try not to get yourself banned!;)

Steve

Hi Buddy:LOL:

Steve, it's only temporary. I had a few spare minutes on my hands this morning, and decided to have a little fun as in the "old days." However, life is too short to argue with people who do not take the time to either educate or think for themselves.

I suspected as much. Nice to have somebody else recognise the history and call people on their inconsistencies.
I enjoy the arguments - it gives me added inspiration to slog through reading all kinds of government reports and stats. I've already got all the Ferrari 250TRs and GTO memorised by chassis numbers - why not learn some tax stats as well, right?:LOL::JEKYLHYDE;)

Can everyone say "Tea Party"?

Maybe we need another one!

associate Obama with un-American thinking?

The audio recording of Barack Obama espousing his socialist philosophy of “redistribution of wealth” is all over the Internet and Fox News today (although the other media outlets are ignoring it), but there’s another disturbing section on that tape that has so far escaped notice.


The link to the audio is here: Chicago Public Radio - Audio Library: Odyssey.
http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp#010118

At about 15:30, Obama compares what was going on in the United States during the time of Brown vs. the Board of Education to ... Nazi Germany. Yes, really. Here’s the quote:

“...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

There you have it. America is close to electing a President that compares his own country to Nazi Germany.

Liberals have become so crass, so ignorant of history, and so idealogically blinded that we can now call them "National Socialists" without them realizing that we just painted them as NAZIs.

We called Obama a socialist because he definitely is one. We've been countered with, "What's wrong with socialism?"

Now we can simply call them National Socialists. They don't even KNOW we've just called them NAZIs.

The words came out of his mouth on TV. In one of the debates?

The Bush stimulus package was wrong too. Government trying to run business has always caused problems as bad as those they set out to cure.
The Bush stimulus however did not say, "We are going to take more from those that have and give it to those who have not." Philosophically, that's a better position than the Obamination, fiscally, it is just as bad. Bush IS as much Democrap as any declared Democrap.

Have you listened to this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Obamaination's "Redistribution of Wealth" is NOT a new program for him. In 2001 he was FOR legislation to do that regarding the Civil Rights movement.
This after white America has paid TRILLIONS of dollars in reparations and damages to the black community. Since 1960, we have welfared, granted, funded, legislated, gifted and blown more money on the black community than all the punitive damage awards worldwide in all of history. Did whites treat black slaves horribly? Sure they did, even those slave owners that knew a healthy worker was a more productive worker, mistreated them by the idea of slavery. And others holding absolute power, were monsters. And we have been paying a liberal mandated, OPEN ENDED, damage award for nearly 50 years. Not just a damage award larger than all others added together, and one we don't even know if its even the FIRST INSTALLMENT.
But a damage award that has not helped the black community make any real progress. Some individuals have fought their way out, but I submit that was in spite of our help, not due to it.
We do not have a long history of BO but we do have a history. And history DOES tell us what a person WILL do in the future.
He WILL either agree with or be duped by radicals.
He will raise taxes
He will not reject self interests.
He will not cut spending.
He will be outrageously liberal.
All that is not what he says, he talks more Republican than Republicans do, but it is what he will do because that's all he knows. It has been his life to date.

Dan

Well, Goodwin...here we come...**)**)**)**)**)**):JEKYLHYDE

CdC, I'm sure you are familiar with Jesse Owens. If you are not then look him up. Germany did everything they could to marginalise blacks, jews, gypsies, gays, and anybody else who did not fit in the Aryan Christian mould.

At the time mainstream America also looked down on many of those groups. A perfect example is the Tuskeegee airmen who had to work x-times as hard to get the same respect as white pilots. America did not set out to exterminate those groups, so if America is compared to Germany in the '40s we compare favourably, but because we did not treat minorities as equals we do not rate perfectly in that comparison.
In 1954 things were better, but still not perfect. And being an Aryan looking guy myself I have never been on the receiving end of the sort of racism that Obama has probably had to deal with. In the movie 'We Were Soldiers' there is a segment where all the wives are sitting around discussing how to get things done, and one of the more naive women asks where the others do the rest of their laundry because the laundromat she goes to will only do t-shirts, socks, and briefs. They look at her with a puzzled expression, and she explains that the laundromat has a sign in the window that says 'No Coloureds'. They all immediately look at the wife of one of the soldiers (she is black) and everything gets very uncomfortable. Now I was too young to remember anything like that, but that was late '60s, and I have certainly seen pictures.

Fast forward to today - now the bad guys are Muslims and gays, though there are still people who are holding on to older prejudices, as evidenced by the two who were caught planning to kill Obama as a cap to a killing spree of blacks.

So if Obama compares the US and Germany in WW2 it is not that he is trying to emulate Germany. That would be suicidal, and I really doubt that is his goal. Sounds to me like he would be trying to do what he can to fix a problem that he would most likely be a lot more personal to him than to either one of us. Maybe you would be better off calling him a Tuskeegee airman as he seems to want to fight racism at home.:rolleyes:

Steve

Corporate income taxes are in fact, the flattest tax as all consumers of the product produced pay for them, even the poor.(although they may pay them with MY money).

"Redistribution" and progressive taxes are not quite synonomous. Progressive taxes take more from the higher income earner, to fill the coffers of the government, to fund the functions thereof. Redistribution then awards some of that higher amount to the lower earners. distribute - to divide & give out shares. Hence the association of "distribute the wealth" with socialism - take from the rich & give to the poor. emphasis on "take"

And I ask again, what does the earned income credit do except to give more money to lower income people.....same as a check? Where did the tax dollars to pay for that come from? Who signed that bill?

And where did the $750 "economic stimulus check" lower income people received from George Bush's Treasury Dept. a few months back come from? Whose proposal was that and who signed it?

Why did I not receive a single penny from that, although I paid for a larger share of it than those who did receive it?

That is redistribution of income, no matter how you try to BS it, and the R's have espoused it equally with the Ds since the early 1900s.:rolleyes: