Is Obama A Socialist?

[Achilles]

I think three things we need to do are:

 

Declare a flat tax for all citizens.

I disagree. Whatever tax burden we decide is necessary will be paid off more quickly by the wealthy than the poor, not to mention that it will be a larger percentage of income for lower income households than wealthy households.

 

Think of it like this: would you rather pay $10,000 a year in taxes making $25k per year or $250k per year? Not everyone gets to be rich and the government needs money to operate. So where does "the slack" in this scenario come from?

 

(hint: the backs of the lower and middle class).

 

Make stricter regulations about spending.

This is vague. Specifics please?

 

Illegalize (large, but not small) corporate monopolies.

Okay. Why? What about industries in which there are no natural barriers to competition, however markets don't warrant any? Will the government then be forced to create competitors just to keep a monopoly from occurring (and isn't that a prime example of big, fat, capital "S" Socialism)?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Declare a flat tax for all citizens.

yes in this financial crisis what we need to do is bring back the tax system from the pre-depression era and decrease tax revenue.

 

Illegalize (large, but not small) corporate monopolies.

already done

[Astor]

Though coming from someone that is taking classes on the United States Constitution currently it sounds pretty anti-American to me considering, our founding fathers were talking about "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," in the declaration of independence.

 

Nice of you to cut out the start of that sentence:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

And could it not be argued that those rights also include the right to help from your government? After all, a government is supposed to protect and serve it's people - not leave them to fend for themselves.

 

Honestly, I don't think there's a single politician in all the major parties of North America and Europe that doesn't have socialist ideals (although i'm sure many don't subscribe to pure socialism, many aspects of government across the world today are based on socialist ideals). And I don't know why your trying to paint socialism as bad - it has been proven to work in many countries in Europe. I think that it might actually be fear of change on the part of those screaming about it.

[Arcesious]

By flat tax, I mean, for example, 10% all across the board- completely fair.

 

A person making 100,000 pays 10,000

a person making 10000 pays 1000, etc, etc.

 

At least that's how my father explained it to me...

 

As for stricter regulations on spending: I think they should no longer be allowed to spend money on spoiling themselves. Perhaps some of these 'partying politicians' should see what it's like to live like people making under 100,000 per year...

[The Doctor]

Are you saying that luxuries should be forbidden?

[Achilles]

By flat tax, I mean, for example, 10% all across the board- completely fair.

"completely fair" is a value judgment.

 

A person making 100,000 pays 10,000

a person making 10000 pays 1000, etc, etc.

 

At least that's how my father explained it to me...

This sounds nice, until you look at distribution of wealth of this country. A vast majority of the tax burden is still being placed on the middle and lower classes (there are a lot more people making 10,000 than there are making 100,000). I don't agree with the conclusion that it's "completely fair".

 

As for stricter regulations on spending: I think they should no longer be allowed to spend money on spoiling themselves.

Example?

 

Perhaps some of these 'partying politicians' should see what it's like to live like people making under 100,000 per year...

Are these "partying politicians" using the federal budget to spring for their "parties"? If not, then I don't understand the argument. I'm going to need a source and not speculation please.

[Arcesious]

"It's very easy to spend money when it's not yours."

 

Are not federal jobs are paid for by taxes?

[Achilles]

That doesn't tell me anything.

[Arcesious]

I edited the post above- you responded quicker than I edited.

 

The Federal budget is paid for by taxes, is it not?

 

BTW, I agree with your points about the taxes. As for wasteful spending. I's obvious that there are ridiculous complications and loopholes in the system...

[Achilles]

I edited the post above- you responded quicker than I edited.

 

The Federal budget is paid for by taxes, is it not?

Indeed it is. Your argument seems to be that there is a line item on the federal budget for wild parties. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm merely requesting that you show me where it is.

 

If your argument is that they are using their own money to party and you don't like it, then I'd suggest that you are generalizing and probably need to spend a little less time worrying about how other people spend the money that they earn (if you want to have a conversation about whether people should make as much as they do, we can do that too, but I think I'll win that one as soon as a mention one of the myriad of professions we spend a ridiculous amount of money we support that doesn't have nearly as much value as say "running our country"). I would also hypothesize that you are either ignoring or unaware the fact that a lot of those so-called political parties aren't being paid for by members of the government or covered by the government's budget.

 

Perhaps your time would be better spent lobbying for lobby reform

 

BTW, I agree with your points about the taxes.

Cool

 

As for wasteful spending. I's obvious that there are ridiculous complications and loopholes in the system...

Indeed, I'm sure there is. Unfortunately I'm still trying to nail down whether you're talking about earmarks, the actions of lobbyists, something else entirely, all of it together, whatever.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

By flat tax, I mean, for example, 10% all across the board- completely fair.

 

A person making 100,000 pays 10,000

a person making 10000 pays 1000, etc, etc.

 

At least that's how my father explained it to me...

 

As for stricter regulations on spending: I think they should no longer be allowed to spend money on spoiling themselves. Perhaps some of these 'partying politicians' should see what it's like to live like people making under 100,000 per year...

Go read about the Gilded Age of the US. A flat tax concentrates a greater amount of wealth into the hands of fewer people, a greater concentration of wealth leads to a greater concentration of power, and since plutocracies and Laissez-Faire capitalism don't work, neither does a flat tax. If you assume that wealth is not equal to power or obscenely rich douchebags will always do what's good for everyone, then it might work, but you can't assume either of those.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay this is going to be a long explanation, in order to explain why Socialism (at least as Obama apparently believes) flies in the face of the founding principles of this country, I'm going to have to bring up events that were taking place in the late 1700s and why the Declaration of Independence was written and why the Constitution includes the "Bill of Rights." The start of this explaination goes back all the way to the Revolutionary War and Shay's Rebellion. I can't really think of a short way to explain this:

 

Nice of you to cut out the start of that sentence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

And could it not be argued that those rights also include the right to help from your government? After all, a government is supposed to protect and serve it's people - not leave them to fend for themselves.

 

The idea that government is supposed to serve as a nanny, if you look at the historical context of the Declaration of Independence flies in the face of what that document stands for, this is the same reason why Socialism (at least on the level Obama apparently wants) flies in the face of what it means to be an American. If you look at the historical context the Declaration of Independence, was made due to abuses of governmental power such as abusive taxation (the same kind of taxation that you can argue that Obama wants to impliment) by the English Government towards their colonies. The Declaration of Independence isn't talking about the right of people to be happy, it says people have the right to pursue happiness.

 

Following the revolution, the first attempt for a government was a Confederation of states that fell apart as seen with Shay's Rebellion. It demonstrated that the Confederation style was too weak, so the founding fathers went back to the drawing board and worked on the Constitution.

 

One of the key sticking points on the Constitution was that originally it didn't have anything to limit the power of government, finally the "Bill of Rights" (Historical Note: Shay's Rebellion and the attempt to take away people's guns following it is arguably the reason why the 2nd Amendment is in the "Bill of Rights.") had to be added. The "Bill of Rights" was added to protect individuals from government. The reason the Constitution is a written document is because our founding fathers were extremely concerned about was government getting too powerful, and they didn't want things to be subject to arbitrary interpretation.

 

This "redistribution of wealth" is a form of taxation that the Founding Fathers would have been extremely appalled by, in fact the taxation that the Founding Fathers were extremely mad about had to do with a redistribution of wealth as well, only it was going to England.

 

Honestly, I don't think there's a single politician in all the major parties of North America and Europe that doesn't have socialist ideals (although i'm sure many don't subscribe to pure socialism, many aspects of government across the world today are based on socialist ideals). And I don't know why your trying to paint socialism as bad - it has been proven to work in many countries in Europe.

 

I don't think they'd willingly admit it to the general public right now, but the fact is that Obama is a Socialist.

 

Read the article from Newsbusters.org

 

It contained two links of interest:

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

http://www.chicagodsa.org/page2.html

 

 

I think that it might actually be fear of change on the part of those screaming about it.

 

The fear is more about the fact that it has surfaced that Obama thinks that the courts should have gone in and forcibly taken wealth away from one group of people and gave it to another group of people. That they didn't go far enough during the Civil Rights movement, and it shouldn't have just been about equal rights, instead it should have been about wealth redistribution. Again see the youtube video I posted.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

words

 

First off, this isn't 1776, it's 2008, what was applicable back then isn't necessarily applicable now, case in point: slaves being regarded as 3/5 of a person. Secondly, you're assuming everyone starts off equal and can actually have a shot at pursuing happiness, which is untrue. As for your claim that the founding fathers would be appalled by taxation, I'm sure they'd also be appalled by the distribution of both power and wealth in this country -- they fought to create a country run by the people instead of a small group of extremely rich individuals, which is exactly what we've returned to.

[Astor]

This "redistribution of wealth" is a form of taxation that the Founding Fathers would have been extremely appalled by

 

Are you a founding father? If not, how can you be so sure?

 

I don't think they'd willingly admit it to the general public right now, but the fact is that Obama is a Socialist.

 

Sure.

 

Read the article from Newsbusters.org

 

I'm sorry, but the amount of salt i'd need to read that article would likely induce a cardiac arrest.

[GarfieldJL]

Are you a founding father? If not, how can you be so sure?

 

I can be sure because of the fact because we had the American Revolution and one of the complaints was unfair taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

 

First off, this isn't 1776, it's 2008, what was applicable back then isn't necessarily applicable now, case in point: slaves being regarded as 3/5 of a person.

I'm not bringing up slavery, that part of the Constitution quite frankly violated other parts of the Constitution with habeus corpus being one part that it violated. I'd appreciate it if you refrain from bringing race into this in the future.

 

Secondly, you're assuming everyone starts off equal and can actually have a shot at pursuing happiness, which is untrue. As for your claim that the founding fathers would be appalled by taxation, I'm sure they'd also be appalled by the distribution of both power and wealth in this country -- they fought to create a country run by the people instead of a small group of extremely rich individuals, which is exactly what we've returned to.

 

Most of the founding fathers were relatively wealthy, but I really don't want to engage in the class warfare rhetoric.

 

In the United States of America, you don't have to start off at equal wealth in order to be successful or fail. There are people that start off dirt poor in this country that has managed to become multi-millionares through hard work and ingenuity. There are people whom start off rich that end up losing wealth even going broke through their own foolishness.

 

The idea that government takes care of you no matter what takes away your rights and is why Socialism flies in the face of everything this country stands for.

[mur'phon]

this is the same reason why Socialism (at least on the level Obama apparently wants) flies in the face of what it means to be an American.

 

I believe that it is up to the Americans to decide what is american, no? So, if the Americans elect a socialist, facist, communist, cappitalist etc wouldn't it be American?

[mimartin]

Not to those that want to dictate to others “what it means to be an American.”

[Web Rider]

what that document stands for,

Is open to interpretation. Some people say it stands for one thing, some people say it stands for another. "Free speech" for example does not cover hate speech. But it does cover talking about hate speech in a non-hate speech manner(such as a lecture or in a book).

 

 

what it means to be an American.

Is again open to interpretation. One could say that "being American" means being free. But obviously that freedom does not mean anarchical freedom. The degree to which "being American" equates to "being free" depends on who you ask.

 

such as abusive taxation (the same kind of taxation that you can argue that Obama wants to impliment)

I can argue(and win) a lot of things. But to specific, the objection was "taxation without representation" ie: people were getting taxed and had no say in english government. It's generally agreed that if England had given the colonies representation, we'd be part of the "United Kingdom" still. In any case, Obama, regardless of tax plans, does not want to eliminate your ability to vote, your ability to elect representatives, or your ability to protest(like the current administration keeps restricting). And, since we ARE represented and we do have a say, if Obama wants to increase taxes....that's nice, he still needs congressional approval to do it.

 

it says people have the right to pursue happiness.

Indeed. Though as federal law has already laid down, some kinds of happiness, such as murdering black schoolchildren or presidential assassination attempts are not kosher. Your right to freedom ends when it means I'm losing mine. [yoda]Balance, there always is.[/yoda]

 

they didn't want things to be subject to arbitrary interpretation.

Is only as arbitrary as you choose to believe it is. We decide for ourselves who we're going to elect, and those people in turn, interpret our electing them as supporting their views. Which means that their interpretation of laws, the constitution, ect... are what we are supporting by electing them. An official can only really have an "arbitrary" interpretation of something if we didn't elect them.

 

This "redistribution of wealth" is a form of taxation that the Founding Fathers would have been extremely appalled by, in fact the taxation that the Founding Fathers were extremely mad about had to do with a redistribution of wealth as well, only it was going to England.

Because the crystal ball on your table allows you to channel their spirits and ask them? Speculation much.

 

I don't think they'd willingly admit it to the general public right now, but the fact is that Obama is a Socialist.

Considering the level of work to pay, the amount of time off, the quality of life, the amount of happiness, the large profits, and general stability of economies that many socialist states have, I think you're doing to find that even if Obama came out as a socialist, a lot of his supporters would LIKE that.

 

Read the article from Newsbusters.org

No.

 

The fear is more about the fact that it has surfaced that Obama thinks that the courts should have gone in and forcibly taken wealth away from one group of people and gave it to another group of people. That they didn't go far enough during the Civil Rights movement, and it shouldn't have just been about equal rights, instead it should have been about wealth redistribution. Again see the youtube video I posted.

No.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I can be sure because of the fact because we had the American Revolution and one of the complaints was unfair taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

The keyword there being "unfair".

 

I'm not bringing up slavery, that part of the Constitution quite frankly violated other parts of the Constitution with habeus corpus being one part that it violated. I'd appreciate it if you refrain from bringing race into this in the future.

I'm not bringing race into this, it was just an example to show that the Constitution isn't infallible and neither were the founding fathers.

 

Most of the founding fathers were relatively wealthy, but I really don't want to engage in the class warfare rhetoric.

Well, you can stop posting in this thread then, since Obama has said he wants to re-distribute wealth.

 

In the United States of America, you don't have to start off at equal wealth in order to be successful or fail. There are people that start off dirt poor in this country that has managed to become multi-millionares through hard work and ingenuity.

You're still not refuting the fact that the deck is stacked against some and for others.

 

The idea that government takes care of you no matter what takes away your rights and is why Socialism flies in the face of everything this country stands for.

No one has said anything about taking away anyone's rights, socialism is an economic theory, not a form of government.

[GarfieldJL]

Considering the level of work to pay, the amount of time off, the quality of life, the amount of happiness, the large profits, and general stability of economies that many socialist states have, I think you're doing to find that even if Obama came out as a socialist, a lot of his supporters would LIKE that.

 

His supporters like it because they do not understand all the consequences of it.

 

Example (actually happened today):

I was at a job fair today and one of the people was talking about their brother whom is a brain surgeon that makes $800,000 a year. Okay he seems wealthy right, but here is the problem, if Obama raises taxes for him this guy wouldn't be able to afford to do his job.

 

Apparently, over $400,000 of that $800,000 goes to pay for malpractice insurance. Additionally he has other expenses he has to pay for that he cannot cut out of the equation in finality after the new taxes this man's income would be $70,000 a year and we still have yet to get to his student loans, which the man would now be unable to pay off.

 

Studying to be a doctor is exteremely expensive.

[mimartin]

His supporters like it because they do not understand all the consequences of it.

:lol: That is a very big assumptions you are making there. Just because John McCain admitted that he does not know much about the economy, does not mean everyone is in the same boat.

 

You do know the difference between net and gross profits?

[jrrtoken]

His supporters like it because they do not understand all the consequences of it.

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Example (actually happened today):

I was at a job fair today and one of the people was talking about their brother whom is a brain surgeon that makes $800,000 a year. Okay he seems wealthy right, but here is the problem, if Obama raises taxes for him this guy wouldn't be able to afford to do his job.

IF he raises taxes. There could be many other things that might give that surgeon a tax cut, such as size of his family, etc, etc.

Apparently, over $400,000 of that $800,000 goes to pay for malpractice insurance. Additionally he has other expenses he has to pay for that he cannot cut out of the equation in finality after the new taxes this man's income would be $70,000 a year and we still have yet to get to his student loans, which the man would now be unable to pay off.

 

Studying to be a doctor is exteremely expensive.

Maybe someone with experience in the medical field might be able to enlighten and clarify your statement.

[GarfieldJL]

:lol: That is a very big assumptions you are making there. Just because John McCain admitted that he does not know much about the economy, does not mean everyone is in the same boat.

 

mimartin, I know a lot more about the economy then you may think.

 

You do know the difference between net and gross profits?

 

Did you know taxes are on gross income not gross profits?

 

Gross income is the total amount of money you take in before any expenses are factored in.

 

IF he raises taxes. There could be many other things that might give that surgeon a tax cut, such as size of his family, etc, etc.

Not likely, considering the tax hike is either for families with a gross income of $250,000 or more a year or families with a $150,000 or more gross income. (Depends on whether you believe the Obama statement or the Biden statement is the accurate one)

[mimartin]

Did you know taxes are on gross income not gross profits?[/Quote] huh?

Gross income is the total amount of money you take in before any expenses are factored in.[/Quote] Taxes are off of net, not gross. You can deduct your business expenses and other taxes (such a Employeer Taxes) and the tax rate is based off of your income. I have a degrees in Finance and Accounting. Plus I am a small business owner, who prepares my own taxes.

 

IRS Tax forms - Most small Business Use

 

Schedule C- Profit or Loss From Business - This is the form that allows you to write off expenses such Advertising, Vehicle, Depreciation, Employee Benefits, INSURANCE, Mortgage, Rent, Office Expense, Repairs, Supplies, Utilities... At the end of it you are given Net Profit which is what you are taxed off of, but only after personal deductions and Self-Employment Tax (Social Security).

 

Form 4562-Depreciation and Amortization.

 

Schedule SE - Self-Employment Tax

 

1040

 

1099 - There are different forms based on the type of business and type of income.

 

So by your example, the surgeon’s Business Income (line 12 on the 1040) is $400,000 because the cost of malpractice insurance is an expense deducted on Schedule C (line15). I suspect his income is even lower once he deducted other business expenses.

[ET Warrior]

after the new taxes this man's income would be $70,000

And after I graduate from my six years of college (with a masters degree) my starting salary will probably not exceed $70,000 before taxes. Somehow I think I'll be able to do my job and pay off student loans because I am aware of what it means to live within my means.