Originally Posted by icfireball
Read my post about the flow of the economy.
Also, question for you:
Is humanitarian aid to developing countries socialism?
No. It's humanitarian aid.
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar
First, SDW, please break your responses because it is obnoxious editing them down to the relevant parts. Obama wasn't talking about redistribution of wealth. You are. The fact that you need to apply your concepts of what Obama was talking about to interpret the recording that way says more about you than it does about Obama.
He absolutely WAS talking about redistribution of wealth. Are you kidding? He practically said "let's redistribute wealth." My lord.
First, in another time the 14th Amendment was interpreted as ALLOWING separate but equal. Look, these problems still exist -- the constitution is always interpreted in the context of the culture that exists at the time. Even the separate but equal interpretation has found a come back in recent years with bussing cases presented before the court. You may think that these simply reflect the constitution's true intent, but in reality they are simply cultural interpretations du jour.
So? What are you saying, that the Supreme Court sometimes overrules itself? Surely you jest!
He said nothing to that effect. Nothing at all. Stop making things up.
That's the thing with you liberals. You argue and obfuscate and justify and parse until words simply don't have any meaning. "Socialism" and "redistribution" mean something. Let me know when you've figured out what.
Originally Posted by shetline
Everyone who doesn't believe in complete anarchy favors redistribution of wealth, because ALL governments must collect taxes, all governments must spend some tax revenue on public works, and every single time the government takes money from one person and gives it to another -- be it a policeman, a guy paving a road, or a social security recipient -- the dreaded "redistribution of wealth" has occurred.
No, using tax revenue for public infrastructure has occurred. That's what taxes are supposed to fund. Socialism and redistribution results when money is taken from one group and given to another.
Either every government which has ever existed is "socialist", or your definition of socialism needs to be fleshed out a little more than a catch phrase used as red meat to stir up the Republican base.
There are, of course, different forms of socialism to discuss as well, but with so much gosh-it-doesn't-fit-on-a-bumper-sticker complexity to deal with, let's try crawling before we try walking.
It's not my definition that's the problem, it's yours. You clearly have no understanding of the term.
Special bonus points if you can explain why the United States under Republican President Eisenhower, when the top tax rate on the wealthy was 91-92% (yes, those first digits are NINES, though I imagine there had to be quite a few loopholes) wasn't widely considered to be a socialist nation, and why a terrible economic collapse DIDN'T happen during the 1950s under tax conditions that today's Republicans, screaming and frothing, would decry as a sure-fire recipe for nothing short of total and utter economic apocalypse.
Uh, because those were different times economically? Did you notice that Kennedy and Reagan changed those policies, setting off economic growth each time?
Originally Posted by Fellowship
SDW you seem to forget the time from 1992 - 1994.
This if you will recall was a period where by the Democrats pretty much had full control in both the executive and legislative branch of government at the federal level.
You and other hardcore "cheerleader" party loyalist Republicans keep on spreading all this fear mongering about how awful things will be with an Obama as president -Democrat majority in Washington scenario but do you not think that if the Republicans re-group as they BADLY
need to the same (republicans advancing in congress in 1994) could not potentially happen in 2010 say if Obama is President with a democratic majority congress for these next two years?
Or perhaps we completely disagree with his proposals and legitimately think they suck? Perhaps we think they will alter the fabric of this nation, weakening it economically, militarily and socially?
And yes, I agree the GOP could come back in the mid terms. But is that a reason to vote for Obama?
If not why not? Do you not have faith in members of the republican party (today) to be as effective (to organize, make their case to the public, have a plan or roadmap) as the members in 94?
Do you not think things under the management of the Democrat majority scenario will be bad enough to lead to a change mid-term?
Please do tell why you are so worried...
And if you will recall Clinton raised taxes.
My memory of the Clinton years while they were not always admirable were of a time where by the US did much better for itself than we have during the last 8 years.
Yes, yes. "Things were great under Clinton!" Could you, Fellowship, please describe on policy that Clinton instituted that helped the economy?
I think you need to understand all of the points I list above and try to see why not all of America buys the talking points of your fear mongering and rhetoric.
Right, that's all it is: Fear mongering and rhetoric. My lord, the irony is dripping. OBAMA IS THE KING OF RHETORIC. And once again, there is no fear mongering here. I simply don't think we should a elect a socialist who does not like this country as its currently structured. His view of America is the polar opposite of mine.
When you sit by all these last eight years and make excuses for your guys in power every time they blunder things as opposed to calling them out on each count as I have you allow them to become politically inviable in the future which is where we are now.
No one has made excuses. The GOP is to blame for certain things, and they are not to blame for certain things. They are to blame for deficits. They are not to blame for the current economic situation. Just two examples.
Had any "Republicans" had the balls to call their own leaders on the table when they blundered maybe I would have more sympathy for the lot of you.
Uh, plenty of Republicans did that. You just would rather think of us as a monolithic group. It makes arguing easier.
Sorry but the proof is not in the pudding regarding your empty scare mongering rhetoric.
Go look in the mirror and take inventory.
Yeah, you really showed me, fellows! See, there are only a few reasons someone won't vote for Obama or would dare criticize him:
1. He's racist.
2. He's not an enlightened socialist liberal.
3. He's stupid.
I think it's you who needs to take inventory. Spend a little time looking into the man that you're going to help make President of the United States. He's a race baiting socialist/marxist with terrifyingly naive views on foreign policy. He's ridiculously inexperienced. But hey, he's not old like McCain! And most importantly, he's not Geroge Bush. CHANGE!