monkeys

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Jason Hayes <jason@jasonhayes.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 05 November 2008 11:50:39 Thomas Cameron wrote:
> > keith smith wrote:
> > > A president with a socialist view is much better?  He wants to tax your
> > > business to help those who do not want to help themselves.
> >
> > BWAHAHAHAAAA!  Are you serious?  I mean, *really* - this is hogwash and
> > you should know better.
> >
> > One misquote != socialist agenda, and anyone who stoops low enough to
> > try to twist it that way is either a liar or an idiot.
>
> Actually, Keith is correct. Obama and many others in our government do
> advocate socialist policies. By that I mean that they advocate growing the
> government's ownership and/or ability to control the means of production in
> our society. They also advocate the creation of a more "egalitarian"
> society,
> in which wealth is distributed evenly throughout. (Definitions of
> egalitarian
> and evenly will vary.)
>
> You all heard the "spread the wealth around" quote and it was in no way
> taken
> out of context. That comment was advocating socialism and blustering won't
> make it any less so. If you support the notion, man up and admit it. Don't
> back away from it and try to equivocate on the definition of the word.
>
> > And if you think for one second that nationalizing the banks like Bush
> > and Company did, even partially, is not a "socialist" move then you're
> > smoking crack.
>
> You see, you do understand the meaning of the term. So I am not sure why
> you're not willing to apply it evenly across both parties.
>
> What Bush and Paulsen (and McCain and Obama and every other member of the
> Congress that voted for the bailout package) advocated was, very clearly,
> socialist. They were trying to, and did to a large extent, nationalize our
> banking system.
>
> That is socialist, by definition. Just because Bush advocates it and he
> happens
> to have an "R" beside his name doesn't make it a free-market option by a
> long
> shot.
>
> > Obama is no more a Socialist than Bush is.
>
> Again, you do appear to understand the meaning of the term. So now we can
> all
> just admit that they both advocate socialist policies. Obama is just
> further
> along the scale than Bush is.
>
> > And the reality is that the
> > *vast* majority of small business owners do not make more than
> > $250K/year, so that argument is complete bullshit as well.
>
> For those who missed the repeated updates on that particular promise from
> Obama. It started at $300K/yr. Then it moved to $250K, then $200K, then
> $150K
> (Biden), then $120K (Gov Richardson NM).
>
> During the primaries, Obama referred to the those who make more than
> $97,000
> as the top earners. Additionally, Obama has voted to raise taxes on anyone
> making more than $42,000.
>
> You can make the argument that Richardson isn't in Obama's inner circle if
> you
> want. However, the progression was clear. When he had a chance, he reduced
> the
> number that made you "rich" in his eyes regularly. And, like it or not,
> there
> are a lot of small business owners that gross more than $42,000, $97,000,
> $120,000, or $150,000 a year.
>
> Put more simply, there's no way that Obama can implement his more than $1
> trillion in spending increases -- over and above Bush's massive spending
> increases -- and not increase taxes.
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > Thomas
>
> --
> Jason Hayes
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>