Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Socialism?

Old 10-15-2008, 01:11 PM
  #91  
Boone & Crockett
 
ipscshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,283
Default RE: Socialism?

ORIGINAL: Arthur P


Where's the government going to get money to run with McCains tax plans and us having to pay that much interest on our tab? Apparently the only answer he's got is a spending freeze. But, like I said, I haven't seen what today's bright idea will be from McCain. Maybe he'll appoint that blue ribbon panel and let them study it for a few years, then come up with a comprehensive plan to get us out of this mess. If we're not all talking Chinese by then.
What bright ideas have you seen from Obama? Raise taxes? During a troubled economy? Moronic! Add a trillion dollars of new spending? I doubt that'll help reduce the deficit...
ipscshooter is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 01:22 PM
  #92  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,153
Default RE: Socialism?

ORIGINAL: Arthur P

But I think the Republicans are absolutely on the wrong track, fiscally and I can't stomach any more of it.
Let's keep tax policy and deficit spending as separate ideas. I suppose I have to justify this approach. Here is my justification. Obama does not propose to rein in deficit spending -- he proposes to increase taxes and also dramatically increase spending. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I'm not buying in to the proposition that Obama is going to concurrently resolve the budget deficit problem.

I'm with you about reducing/stopping deficit spending. Let's cut our friggin' spending pronto! This does not, however, equate to increasing taxes. I tell my wife she has to live on what I earn, we aren't going to spend more than that. Sure, there are a lot of good things that I could spend borrowed money on. At a point in the past when our finances tightened up I took my son out of competitive, club gymnastics. It was costing about $250/month just for gym tuition fees, not counting meet fees and other miscelleneous costs. Would that have been a good thing to keep funding? Hell yes. But I chose not to run a deficit to fund it. We can do that in the US, and indeed there will be good programs that would be cut. I'm 100% behind this approach. Let's have a balanced budget.

But I am 100% against increasing taxes. In my opinion the government sucks enough of my blood now. They are just going to have to find some way to make do and get along with what the have. There is another pespective in this. Increasing tax rates doesn't increase tax revenues. I know that seems backwards, but that is the way it works. I would guess the issue is that those taxes that aren't collected get reinvested in a business and grows and leads to increased revenues that more than compensates for that additional tax revenue that would have come in at a higher tax rate.

No to socialism. No to higher taxes. Government is just going to have to live with what its got now. It is not the job of government to redistribute wealth. It is hot the job of the government to solve every conceivable problem experienced by people. Cut out these friggin' give aways.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 02:40 PM
  #93  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
Default RE: Socialism?

That's true, Alsatian. Unlike McCain who's scared to death of economics and wants to just throw up his hands and give up - spending freeze that would cost about a million jobs according to some analysts - Obama wants to open up federal spending and actually create jobs. Yes, it will drive up the deficit but the return on the investment is worth it.

Right now, the rich folks the Republicans are counting on to create jobs are pulling in their money and sitting on their thumbs. Dow is down 486 points at this exact moment. Oops! Make that 517... 522... 524... 526... I'm getting dizzy! 10 points in the past 15 seconds!

People are either losing jobs or are terrified that they will lose their jobs. They're not buying. They say credit is hard to get. Demand is in the tank and without demand there is no market. No market, no new jobs created. Obama intends to put people to work on rebuilding infrastructure, building a new power grid... things the country has been needing to do for a long time, which are things that have been completely ignored by administration after administration.

Yeah, it's going to cost money. But it will put people to work and put money in their pockets. When they've got money, they'll want to spend it. That is called demand. THAT is how you get the economy moving again, not funneling billions of dollars into the black hole of the financial market. Once the market is going again and the tax base has been reestablished, the money spent to get there will be more than repaid.

I like Obama's proactive approach a LOT better than McCain's hide in a hole and watch plan.

541 points down right now.
Arthur P is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 02:44 PM
  #94  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 6,471
Default RE: Socialism?

Arthurp I guess we are going to be taxed into prosperity EH? We have to cut government programs Arthur a 3 trillion dollar budget won't cut it anymore. WHat is so hard about this? The rich folks are already factoring in an Obama presidency. Our stock market will be lucky to get back to 12,000 and will never reach 14,000 ever again.
oldelkhunter is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 03:10 PM
  #95  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
Default RE: Socialism?

Once we get rid of the borrow and spend Republicans, who knows how much deficit spending can be eliminated? Are you stupid enough to think we're going to crawl out of this hole without costing you or me or everyone else a dime? You're not that naive, at least I hope not. Those rich folks we've been supporting for the past 28 years aren't going to lift a finger. What are they worried about? They've got plenty of money and know they won't starve. When they see an opportunity to make more money, THEN they'll come out of hibernation and start investing again.

That's not class warfare. It's simply the honest to God truth and you know it.

When your livelihood has been stolen, you can't just go sit in the corner and cry about it, hoping everything will work out. You have to spend to replace what you need to function and get back to work. We need jobs to recreate the demand that rekindles the economy. Those are the tools we need to function. If the money isn't coming from the private sector then it's got to come from the gov't. That's what Obama is proposing and I support it.

Dow's down 733 now.



Arthur P is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 03:28 PM
  #96  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,153
Default RE: Socialism?

ORIGINAL: Arthur P


People are either losing jobs or are terrified that they will lose their jobs. They're not buying. They say credit is hard to get. Demand is in the tank and without demand there is no market. No market, no new jobs created. Obama intends to put people to work on rebuilding infrastructure, building a new power grid... things the country has been needing to do for a long time, which are things that have been completely ignored by administration after administration.
Obama is going to put people to work building a new power grid? Hogwash. The electric power grid is owned by the private sector and it is their business to update as needed. I don't want to spend a nickel of my tax dollars on the electric power grid. Or is Obama going to nationalize the electrical power companies as part of his socialism program? If there is a problem with the electical power grid, one of the main problems is liberal puke legislators refusing to allow new power plants to be built proximate to population centers such as California and New York. Having to generate the electricity afar and transporting more and more electric power over long lines is the fundamental problem. And I'm guessing the electric utilities are probably thwarted when they try to get permits to build new transmission lines to carry this increasing electricity load to Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, etc. Phhhttt! I vomit on the proposition that Obama is going to deal with this.

Obama is going to create jobs? You mean Obama is going to spend more federal money than presently for roads? That is just increasing government spending. Maybe increasing government spending on jobs isn't the right answer. I certainly think if Obama plans to increase spending for roads he needs to DOUBLY reduce spending somewhere else, such as on welfare. Is that on Obama's agenda? Probably not. Tax and spend. Tax and spend liberal socialist. What a surprise.

Credit is not hard to get. If you want to buy a new car, credit worthy borrowers can get credit. If you want to buy homes, you can get a mortgage if you are credit worthy (I had beers with a friend whose wife is a realtor in the area North of Dallas, and I checked on this with him. No mortgages, and his wife ain't makin' a dime. I think he would know.). People who are not credit worthy are the only ones I've heard who can't get credit.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 03:33 PM
  #97  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,153
Default RE: Socialism?

ORIGINAL: Arthur P

We need jobs to recreate the demand that rekindles the economy. Those are the tools we need to function. If the money isn't coming from the private sector then it's got to come from the gov't. That's what Obama is proposing and I support it.
It is the private sector's business to create jobs, not the federal government. When did the federal government become the sugar daddy that is responsible for creating jobs? Very, very bad thinking.

Alsatian is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 03:42 PM
  #98  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 6,471
Default RE: Socialism?

Once we get rid of the borrow and spend Republicans, who knows how much deficit spending can be eliminated? Are you stupid enough to think we're going to crawl out of this hole without costing you or me or everyone else a dime? You're not that naive, at least I hope not.
I know we cannot continue going on our way with this deficit and current tax revenues. Programs are going to be eliminated hopefully by whomever takes over. I tell you what with what we have on the horizon and by that I mean threats we better not cut our military. Congress bears a huge responsibility in all of this because they added pork to our spending. Typically Dems public programs are patchwork at best and not long term. We need long term job growthand to achieve that we have to cut our corporate tax rates and create a proper growth environment .The tax revenues will be increased and we will be back on our way.
oldelkhunter is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 05:32 PM
  #99  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location:
Posts: 2,053
Default RE: Socialism?



Honestly, I pay $250 a month insurance premiums. My insurance is not the best, but my catastrophic kicks in after $5,000. That is why I stated for now. I chose to stay home with my kids until they were all in school full time. My youngest is 4 and will start Kindergarten full time in 2 years.

Furthermore, Obama's plan is NOT national healthcare, that was Hillary's plan. Obama wants to create a national benefit plan, where insurance companies offer at a discounted rate, insurance that ANYONE can purchase if they so desire. You don't HAVE to buy it. It is optional, with the exception of a children's plan, which he feels should be mandatory to ensure that all children get proper medical attention.
[/quote]

THe things enumerated by Mrs'Mudhead are not rights at all. Health care is not a right. The only thing you have a right to is the fruit of your labor. Under obama, you don't get that right anymore. And while there's lots of nice feel-good choices in the obama plan, it does not come without mandates. WHO DO YOU THINK PAYS FOR GOVERNMENT MANDATES ? Another tax and spend liberal scheme... I will remind that the Canadians have nationalized their health care which they use for sprains, cold capsules and broken bones. When they need a REAL doctor, the cross the border to avail themselves of American doctors. That fish stinks....throw it in the trash where it belongs.
[/quote]

I suppose I should have spoke more clearly, since the constitution does not read that way, but many on welfare think it is a right because all men should be treated equal. They think that means that they should have it for that reasoneven if they can't pay for it. And there are those like Obama who want to give them those luxaries and call it economic justice implying that these luxaries are rights. Why should I pay for someone else to have cable when I CHOOSE not to spend the money on it? Why should I have topay for a cell phone for someone when ICHOOSE not to spend my money on one?If I can live without these things than so can someone else. You want welfare so kids don't go hungry and are clothed properly (not in designer but clean and not worn through) than fine I will pay for someone else to be able to have those things without complaint but when these people are running around in designer clothes, with cell phones, and have a hundred or so channels to watch on t.v. your darn right I am going to complain about it. And when your behind those people at the grocery store and their cart is loaded down with soda, icecream, t.v. dinners, chips, candy,and pizza's I am going to complain. What a joke[:'(]
mudhead1s wife is offline  
Old 10-15-2008, 05:35 PM
  #100  
Dominant Buck
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 36,321
Default RE: Socialism?

Those rich folks we've been supporting for the past 28 years aren't going to lift a finger.
Who is supporting who there arthur. Poor people pay no income tax. That's shouldered by the rich. You have a very warped sense of who is supportting who!
Fieldmouse is offline  

Quick Reply: Socialism?


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.