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