Is Obama A Socialist?

[El Sitherino]

Our founding fathers and their brethren fought for the equality of all man, so that every individual that resides in this country has the ability, right, and responsibility to succeed. They understood a wealthy united nation has the ability to protect those that are persecuted against and provides them the freedoms that all Humans have a right to. Bring me your tired, your weak, your poor is not just a saying my friend, it is the American's cry to protect freedom to all those who desire it. It is the responsibility of great (wo)men to stand up for what is right, regardless of what is found popular.

 

The citizen must succeed for the state to succeed. I suggest everyone understand the meanings of the language the beautiful document was written in. Much like the Magna Carta, people don't speak with as much eloquence and deep meaning as they previously did.

[GarfieldJL]

Our founding fathers and their brethren fought for the equality of all man, so that every individual that resides in this country has the ability, right, and responsibility to succeed. They understood a wealthy united nation has the ability to protect those that are persecuted against and provides them the freedoms that all Humans have a right to. Bring me your tired, your weak, your poor is not just a saying my friend, it is the American's cry to protect freedom to all those who desire it. It is the responsibility of great (wo)men to stand up for what is right, regardless of what is found popular.

 

They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights. If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.

 

Freedom also means freedom to succeed and freedom to fail, it's called personal responsibility.

 

The citizen must succeed for the state to succeed.

 

A citizen has to also want to succeed, something that they have absolutely no incentive to do in socialism.

 

I suggest everyone understand the meanings of the language the beautiful document was written in. Much like the Magna Carta, people don't speak with as much eloquence and deep meaning as they previously did.

 

In order to understand the meaning of the language, one also has to know the context in which it was written, you can only do that if you know what was going on when the document was written.

 

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.

[Jae Onasi]

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?

Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

[jrrtoken]

They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights. If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.

So you're saying that it's your own fault that you're poor? that your own laziness caused your poverty? That's a very archaic and ignorant idea born from the flames of social Darwinism.

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.

Through your eyes, perhaps, but if you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, there are many passages that support socialism and other "leftist" ideas in some form or the other.

[El Sitherino]

They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights.

How are you being punished? Aside from the fact I highly doubt you make +$250,000 I doubt you are going to be punished under Obama's presidency.

 

If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.

Technically your tax money already goes to people that are "too lazy to work".

Mostly CEO's of corporations who drive around in ferrari's and have sex with European sex slaves.

 

Freedom also means freedom to succeed and freedom to fail, it's called personal responsibility.

Right, and this isn't interfering in that.

 

 

A citizen has to also want to succeed, something that they have absolutely no incentive to do in socialism.

You have shown no proof to this claim. I call fallacy.

 

 

In order to understand the meaning of the language, one also has to know the context in which it was written, you can only do that if you know what was going on when the document was written.

Way to rephrase what I said in a drawn out and boring way.

 

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.

The United States of America was founded on free distribution of wealth and the market was owned by citizens as they are the market. Now it's a business setup with many chains and branches down, you have to adapt to the changes made in society to better protect it.

[Astor]

Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

 

I'm not fully versed on American Political history, so I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out, Jae.

 

I was commenting more on using long dead people to further an argument, which I don't agree with - it's very easy to say they would agree/disagree with something if they're not here to say for themselves.

 

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism

 

I thought it was founded on Freedom from tyranny, and right to self governance? I've obviously been wrong in my history, then.

[GarfieldJL]

Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

 

One of the examples of why people of that era would balk at redistribution of wealth.

 

Chief Justice Marshall also determined that Maryland may not tax the bank without violating the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause dictates that State laws comply with the Constitution and yield when there is a conflict. Taking as undeniable the fact that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy", the court concluded that the Maryland tax could not be levied against the government. If states were allowed to continue their acts, they would destroy the institution created by federal government and oppose the principle of federal supremacy which originated in the text of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

 

While congress does have the power to tax, the problem is they can use taxes to literally destroy people whom happen to be wealthy and shove them into poverty.

 

Furthermore, we could be looking at as many as 4 Supreme Court Justices dieing these next 4 years, and another 2 after that.

 

You have, a potential super-majority of Democrats in the Legislature (with the ability and will pass extremely left wing agenda), a socialist President (if Obama is elected), and potentially a supreme court that will potentially uphold anything that they pass (regardless of the fact it may not be Constitutional). Reasoning behind that is the radio interview from 2001, which has Obama advocating the courts should have implimented wealth redistribution.

 

That's the reason why people are scared of the fact Obama is a Socialist, because as President with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, he would effectively have the power to tax the 'wealthy' (whatever they define as wealthy) and the middle class out of existence.

 

I was commenting more on using long dead people to further an argument, which I don't agree with - it's very easy to say they would agree/disagree with something if they're not here to say for themselves.

 

The reason that the Constitution is a written document is to keep it from being reinterpretted on a whim. It is also why it is so difficult to amend the Constitution, the founding fathers recognized that there needed to be safeguards in place.

 

I thought it was founded on Freedom from tyranny, and right to self governance? I've obviously been wrong in my history, then.

 

But a government even an elected one can become a tyranny, there are numorous examples in human history of that.

[mimartin]

Did you know taxes are on gross income not gross profits?[/Quote]Your not going to explain this? Did you mean “Did you know taxes are on net income not gross profits” or did you mean “Did you know taxes are on gross income not net profits.”

 

Since you don’t seem incline to respond I’ll assume you meant “Did you know taxes are on net income and not gross profits”. Since that is correct.

[jrrtoken]

While congress does have the power to tax, the problem is they can use taxes to literally destroy people whom happen to be wealthy and shove them into poverty.

They also have the power to give tax cuts to the wealthy and no relief to the middle and lower class, as we've seen in the current administration.

 

You have, a potential super-majority of Democrats in the Legislature (with the ability and will pass extremely left wing agenda), a socialist President (if Obama is elected), and potentially a supreme court that will potentially uphold anything that they pass (regardless of the fact it may not be Constitutional). Reasoning behind that is the radio interview from 2001, which has Obama advocating the courts should have implimented wealth redistribution.

No one gawked at this when the same thing happened in 2000 when we had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican controlled White House who led us into two wars and an economic recession, but hey, maybe it's just me.

 

That's the reason why people are scared of the fact Obama is a Socialist, because as President with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, he would effectively have the power to tax the 'wealthy' (whatever they define as wealthy) and the middle class out of existence.

According to Obama's plan, the middle class isn't going to be taxed at all, in fact, they'll be given a tax cut. I fail to see the logic in your post. I thought that the general consensus agreed that taxing the wealthy was supposed to be a good thing, if I'm not mistaken.

 

The reason that the Constitution is a written document is to keep it from being reinterpretted on a whim. It is also why it is so difficult to amend the Constitution, the founding fathers recognized that there needed to be safeguards in place.

Uh, it can be changed at any moment, as it's been done so in the past. The Constitution is reinterpreted all the time, as it should be, as society is always changing.

 

But a government even an elected one can become a tyranny, there are numorous examples in human history of that.

I'm thinking of a word, one that starts with "buh" and ends with "ush".

[GarfieldJL]

Your not going to explain this? Did you mean “Did you know taxes are on net income not gross profits” or did you mean “Did you know taxes are on gross income not net profits.”

 

I am quite well aware of what the mean.

 

Gross: Is the total amount you've made

 

Net: is the amount you've made or lost (Gross - expenses = net)

 

 

The term you're looking for in retail is Gross Sales I believe (Gross Income) which is what Obama is taxing.

 

Net is the what you get after all the expenses including taxes.

Since you don’t seem incline to respond I’ll assume you meant “Did you know taxes are on net income and not gross profits”. Since that is correct.

 

Accusing fellow members of criminal activity is a flame, response snipped... - j7

 

Gross income is the total amount of money I make in a year, and then the net income is the amount I've taken in after taxes.

[Achilles]

@garfield: mimartin appears to be discussing business income tax whereas you appear to be discussing personal income tax.

[mimartin]

@garfield: mimartin appears to be discussing business income tax whereas you appear to be discussing personal income tax.

QFT I thought GarfieldJL was talking business income too with his example.

 

mimartin, I'm not trying to sound condecending but do you actually pay income taxes? I'm guessing you don't because when I look at my pay stubs, it shows me the gross pay for the two weeks the amount I made before taxes, and then they take the taxes out and that is the net pay.

 

Gross income is the total amount of money I make in a year, and then the net income is the amount I've taken in after taxes.

I’m a small business owner, I pay taxes, personal and employee taxes. I also have degrees in Finance and Accounting. You were talking about a small business owner in your example of the doctor. Thus, I corrected your mistake in post #99. Now you want to change the discussion to personal income tax, which is fine with me. Because the MALPRATICE INSURANCE has nothing to do with personal income, personal income is the income left over after paying business expenses.

 

In case you don’t know when you are self-employed, you don’t get a pay stub unless you or your accounting department makes it.

 

Thanks for answering my question, but I’ll look elsewhere for financial or accounting advice.

 

The term you're looking for in retail is Gross Sales I believe (Gross Income) which is what Obama is taxing.

Your belief is unfounded. He would tax Business Income. Which is after business expenses, if you are talking personal (for people not self-employed) he would tax wages, which are on a W-2. Either way, from your example, the malpratice insurance expense would not be taxable.

 

Gross Income and Net Income really have very little meaning for people who don't make huge sums of money or run their own business as the figures aren't very different.

For a small business owner the net income is the only number that matters at the end of the day.

[El Sitherino]

To be fair they want to make a constitutional ammendment to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Clearly the founding fathers thought it should be okay for dykes and queens to marry.

[GarfieldJL]

To be fair they want to make a constitutional ammendment to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Clearly the founding fathers thought it should be okay for dykes and queens to marry.

 

Yes, and honestly I wish this could be handled by the states because morals is something that really should generally be handled by the individual states.

 

Anyways the odds of an amendment like that going through isn't particularly high because of the difficulty in actually amending the Constitution (which is a good thing).

 

The point is based on the information I've found Obama is a socialist, and raising taxes in a recession will cause a depression.

[El Sitherino]

Yes, and honestly I wish this could be handled by the states because morals is something that really should generally be handled by the individual states.

 

Anyways the odds of an amendment like that going through isn't particularly high because of the difficulty in actually amending the Constitution (which is a good thing).

 

So then what is making you so worried about Obama accomplishing such things?

[Achilles]

The point is based on the information I've found Obama is a socialist, and raising taxes in a recession will cause a depression.

And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

[jrrtoken]

And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

 

You're right about that, Faux News is "right".

[GarfieldJL]

And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

 

See: New Thread on Media

 

So then what is making you so worried about Obama accomplishing such things?

 

In answer to your question, if he controls all three branches of Government there are no checks & balances. Especially with the media being in the tank for him.

 

The DC gun ban was overturned by only 1 vote, if it hadn't been overturned we could have seen the total loss of our second amendment rights.

 

The Democrats want to reinstitute what is known as the "Fairness Doctrine" which in reality is an attempt to shut down all voices of dissent.

 

Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).

 

I honestly could go on all night, but a lot of these could all connect with the fact he's a socialist.

[Astor]

Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).

 

Do you have a source for that? The previously sourced article determined that the access was not politically motivated - so you must mean somebody else?

[jrrtoken]

In answer to your question, if he controls all three branches of Government there are no checks & balances. Especially with the media being in the tank for him.

The same scenario that you are describing has already happened with Bush, who has a totally different set of ideals than Obama.

 

The DC gun ban was overturned by only 1 vote, if it hadn't been overturned we could have seen the total loss of our second amendment rights.

And in the process, thousands of lives would probably be spared, but that's for another another thread.

 

The Democrats want to reinstitute what is known as the "Fairness Doctrine" which in reality is an attempt to shut down all voices of dissent.

Proof, por favor.

 

Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).

Proof?

 

 

snipped flamebait --Jae

[jonathan7]

Again Europe, can keep it's socialism, they're having just as many economic problems that we are right now. I don't like the idea of big brother or the state is mother the state is father garbage.

 

You have the CIA, FBI, NIA - and you think your not being watched? Furthermore please tell me how universal education (which you have) and universal healthcare constitute being watched?

[GarfieldJL]

Do you have a source for that? The previously sourced article determined that the access was not politically motivated - so you must mean somebody else?

 

I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004

 

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.

[jrrtoken]

I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004

 

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.

Thank you for providing articles with headlines such as "Liberals declare war on Joe the Plumber" and "Obama donor ordered Big Brother probe of Joe the Plumber". Now while I'm slam dunking these articles into the nearest rubbish bin, I'd like you to provide some real sources without any hate speech and right-wing bias.

[True_Avery]

I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004

 

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.

Got any sources that source what they are saying and aren't obviously biased towards one side?

[Astor]

Jones-Kelley said such background checks are not unusual.

 

And

 

"Based on what we know to this point, we don't have any reason to believe the information was improperly accessed or disclosed by a state employee,"

 

I have a feeling that had it not been for the coincidence that she donated money to Obama's campaign, this wouldn't even be news.

 

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.

 

Of course it'll be on a network whose sole purpose at the moment is to jump all over Obama and the Democrats for the slightest little thing.