White Noise Insanity

Politicians…don’t piss down our backs and then tell us it’s raining!

A socialist wants to get rid of the US Constitution & the Bill of Rights?

Posted by kayinmaine on October 28, 2008

Socialism is all about the power of the people (Barack Obama in front of 100,000)…

(picture)

The right wingers are freaking out about a Barack Obama presidency. All day yesterday, starting with Glenn Beck’s radio show, the theme was: SOCIALISTS HATE AMERICA. SOCIALISTS THINK OF THE CONSTITUTION AS A ‘GAWD DAMN PIECE OF PAPER’ AND WILL WORK TO DESTROY IT. SOCIALISTS HATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Unfreakingbelievable. It’s such nonsense. Socialists want RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE. Get used to it. It’s fascism that wants to erase the rights of the people and the right wingers are now freaking about a 2001 radio interview Barack Obama did where he talks about the Civil Rights movement in this country. Here’s part of it:

(THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN EDITED BY A WINGER TO SCARE THE PANTS OFF YA)

What the wingers are most afraid of in this audio is how Barack, once again, talks about redistributing the wealth. Of course, Barack is not saying then or now that he’s going to send in the National Guard to steal money from the uber wealthy in this country. Nope. This is how the right wing fringe is perceiving it to be. What he’s saying is, even after the Civil Rights movement, blacks in our country were able to sit at a lunch counter….but then points out….they weren’t able to get a job or at least a good paying one based solely on their skin color. To Barack, this was one part of the failure of the Civil Rights movement. Employing people generates income and when we’re paid, we spend our money.

Do the right wingers of America understand over the last 8 years George Bush decided where American taxpayer money would be spent? Do they understand that most of our money goes to the military? I doubt it. They’ve been thrilled with the idea the wealthy have not paid their taxes during a time of war while spending an additional $10 BILLION/month in a foreign land. Bankrupting America is patriotic to them apparently…

May I say this? It was Ronald Reagan who embraced the idea of redistrubting the wealth with the Earned Income Tax Credit. Nice, huh? Do the right wing Reagan Crazies know this? Oh, probably not. They just want you to be scared of socialism, when honestly, they have no idea what it is or what it means.

Socialism today looks different than it did decades ago, but the common theme still is: socialists want power to be in the hands of the majority of people and not in the hands of a few at the top. Why do the right wingers fear this concept? Is it because they’re fascists and think America should be a dictatorship/Banana Republic where the White House makes all the decisions and gives the finger to Americans? Apparently.

Why is it a bad thing for the wealthy in America to pay their fair share of the taxes? And why should they be able to send American jobs overseas without punishment? Regulation of the banking industry & Wall Street is needed right now, so why the hell are the wingers in America who are making $18,000/year so afraid of this kind of socialist thinking? Do they not care about our country or the citizens in it?

Union jobs are bad? It’s a socialist concept that Americans should be paid a fair wage to live in our society and should have a stable job no matter what color, religion, or creed you are. This is scary to the right wingers? Why??????? No one is saying all of Americans have to work in a Union, but it should be an EASY option for the majority of skilled employees who want it.

Here’s a Union leader talking to members about Barack Obama and the importance of Unions in our country:

What a great man! Thank you Richard Trumka! My father raised us kids on Union wages when he worked for a paper mill for most of his working years.

LET’S USE THIS POST TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS THE RIGHT WINGERS ARE REALLY SCARED OF. After 8 years of Hitler-like fascism, I truly am puzzled why the right wingers are scared of socialism.

Advertisements

40 Responses to “A socialist wants to get rid of the US Constitution & the Bill of Rights?”

  1. JBrown said

    Kay my challenge today is simple: Name me a time in which our economy has ever grown from the bottom up?

    Now just as a reminder (a history lesson if you will), remember this: In order for even lifelong Democrat’s to believe that Senator Obama’s tax proposals are the right move, then you would also have to prescribe to the belief that Herbert Hoover and Lyndon Johnson were correct; and subsequently that John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were wrong.

    When the progressive tax was instituted in 1913 at a 1%-7% rate and the effects of the tax were never known as US industry was soon mass producing war materials. The top marginal rates quickly rose during the war, with a promise by Wilson that they would return to lower levels after the end of the war.

    Between the wars we saw the wartime rate slowly lowered to 25%. In early 1932, facing a deepening 2 year recession, Hoover raised tax rates up to 63%; 1932 would become the worst year in terms of the rise in unemployment and loss of GNP/GDP; that year the nation would fall into a technical depression. Roosevelt would not raises taxes again until the end of 1936 and once again unemployment would dramatically rise in the following 24 months before settling into a 19% unemployment rate on the eve of WWII. Despite rising federal tax revenues throughout the 30’s and ever-increasing deficits, by the onset of WWII and the “War Economy”, they had no measurable positive effect on the economy.

    Taxes would be raised during WWII and then again at the end of the War to help slow US economic growth and assist in the rebuilding effort.

    In the early 60’s, President Kennedy would embark on a campaign to bring “tax fairness”, his words, back to our economy. In Kennedy’s own words, “It will be a major aim of our tax reform program to reverse this process, by broadening the tax base and reconsidering the rate structure. The result should be a tax system that is more equitable, more efficient and more conducive to economic growth.”

    Kennedy would go on to state, “The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

    I’m not talking about a “quickie” or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures…

    For all these reasons, next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.”

    In speech after speech on taxes, Kennedy would promote what he referred to as his “TOP-to-BOTTOM” approach to tax fairness. Congress would eventually pass Kennedy’s tax-cut in 1964 after his death, but the cuts were less than Kennedy had originally proposed.

    In 1968, Lyndon Johnson would reverse the economic policies of Kennedy and raise taxes in his final year in office. The economy would soon enter into the 1970’s which would become a period of rising inflation and no economic growth.

    Following his election in 1980, Reagan would revive the “Top-to-Bottom” approach sought by Kennedy 20 years earlier. The Reagan tax cuts would be based upon the across the board tax-cut proposals of Kennedy.

    The reality of history tells us that in no period since the birth of this nation has economic growth ever occurred from the bottom-up. The industrial revolution was fully financed by the wealthy of the age, the Rockefeller’s, Carnegie’s, Morgan’s and others. They profited dearly, but more importantly laid the basis for what would become the modern economic structure.

    Today, Senator Obama wants to talk about a revival of bottom-up economics, but to what period of time is this revival tied too. The last time I checked, Americans hold President’s such as Kennedy and Reagan in high regard, with little regard to Johnson or Hoover. Are we now to revise history, to believe that Hoover and Johnson were right.

    Senator Obama has stated that he merely wants to return tax rates back to the rates in place during the Clinton Administration. Yet, that’s not accurate. The only rates that Senator Obama wants to revert are the rates at the top of the scale, while maintaining and expanding the bottom-level tax cuts provided by the Bush Administration. The result would be a tax system with a shrinking tax base, the very system that President Kennedy fought against.

    Senator Obama also wants to take the system one step further, by not only providing tax cuts that would lead to more Americans not paying taxes, but would also provide “credits” to the nearly 40% of Americans who do not currently pay taxes. That is not a return to the Clinton years and it is not a return to any previous Presidential Era in this nation’s history.

    So my questions still stands…Name me a time when our economy ever grew from the bottom up?

    Were Kennedy and Reagan wrong?

    Were Hoover and Johnson right?

    Name me a single US President who ever proposed direct redistribution of wealth?

    (stolen from MY OWN BLOG at http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/)

  2. JBrown said

    Kay my challenge today is simple: Name me a time in which our economy has ever grown from the bottom up?

    Now just as a reminder (a history lesson if you will), remember this: In order for even lifelong Democrat’s to believe that Senator Obama’s tax proposals are the right move, then you would also have to prescribe to the belief that Herbert Hoover and Lyndon Johnson were correct; and subsequently that John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were wrong.

    When the progressive tax was instituted in 1913 at a 1%-7% rate and the effects of the tax were never known as US industry was soon mass producing war materials. The top marginal rates quickly rose during the war, with a promise by Wilson that they would return to lower levels after the end of the war.

    Between the wars we saw the wartime rate slowly lowered to 25%. In early 1932, facing a deepening 2 year recession, Hoover raised tax rates up to 63%; 1932 would become the worst year in terms of the rise in unemployment and loss of GNP/GDP; that year the nation would fall into a technical depression. Roosevelt would not raises taxes again until the end of 1936 and once again unemployment would dramatically rise in the following 24 months before settling into a 19% unemployment rate on the eve of WWII. Despite rising federal tax revenues throughout the 30’s and ever-increasing deficits, by the onset of WWII and the “War Economy”, they had no measurable positive effect on the economy.

    Taxes would be raised during WWII and then again at the end of the War to help slow US economic growth and assist in the rebuilding effort.

    In the early 60’s, President Kennedy would embark on a campaign to bring “tax fairness”, his words, back to our economy. In Kennedy’s own words, “It will be a major aim of our tax reform program to reverse this process, by broadening the tax base and reconsidering the rate structure. The result should be a tax system that is more equitable, more efficient and more conducive to economic growth.”

    Kennedy would go on to state, “The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963.

    I’m not talking about a “quickie” or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm, to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, during World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures…

    For all these reasons, next year’s tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes: for those in the lower brackets, who are certain to spend their additional take-home pay, and for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital.”

    In speech after speech on taxes, Kennedy would promote what he referred to as his “TOP-to-BOTTOM” approach to tax fairness. Congress would eventually pass Kennedy’s tax-cut in 1964 after his death, but the cuts were less than Kennedy had originally proposed.

    In 1968, Lyndon Johnson would reverse the economic policies of Kennedy and raise taxes in his final year in office. The economy would soon enter into the 1970’s which would become a period of rising inflation and no economic growth.

    Following his election in 1980, Reagan would revive the “Top-to-Bottom” approach sought by Kennedy 20 years earlier. The Reagan tax cuts would be based upon the across the board tax-cut proposals of Kennedy.

    The reality of history tells us that in no period since the birth of this nation has economic growth ever occurred from the bottom-up. The industrial revolution was fully financed by the wealthy of the age, the Rockefeller’s, Carnegie’s, Morgan’s and others. They profited dearly, but more importantly laid the basis for what would become the modern economic structure.

    Today, Senator Obama wants to talk about a revival of bottom-up economics, but to what period of time is this revival tied too. The last time I checked, Americans hold President’s such as Kennedy and Reagan in high regard, with little regard to Johnson or Hoover. Are we now to revise history, to believe that Hoover and Johnson were right.

    Senator Obama has stated that he merely wants to return tax rates back to the rates in place during the Clinton Administration. Yet, that’s not accurate. The only rates that Senator Obama wants to revert are the rates at the top of the scale, while maintaining and expanding the bottom-level tax cuts provided by the Bush Administration. The result would be a tax system with a shrinking tax base, the very system that President Kennedy fought against.

    Senator Obama also wants to take the system one step further, by not only providing tax cuts that would lead to more Americans not paying taxes, but would also provide “credits” to the nearly 40% of Americans who do not currently pay taxes. That is not a return to the Clinton years and it is not a return to any previous Presidential Era in this nation’s history.

    So my questions still stands…Name me a time when our economy ever grew from the bottom up?

    Were Kennedy and Reagan wrong?

    Were Hoover and Johnson right?

    Name me a single US President who ever proposed direct redistribution of wealth?

  3. JBrown said

    First two post not going through…..

  4. Grant in Texas said

    Simple labels for the simple-minded! McCarthyism all over again.

  5. kayinmaine said

    Jbrown…

    PLANTS DON’T GROW FROM THE TOP DOWN
    HOUSES ARE NOT BUILT FROM THE TOP DOWN
    BUSINESSES DON’T START OUT HUGE…they grow from the bottom

    A strong foundation means stability and is where THINGS GROW FROM. A simple concept….and Barack Obama is going to prove to Americans it works on economies too.

  6. Uncle Fester Lurks said

    Hmmm…Jbrown was that a cut and paste job?

  7. Grant in Texas said

    Yeah, J Brown forgot to link to the article that he cut-and-paste “his” posting:

    http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/so-if-obamas-bottom-up-redistribution.html

    Typical plagiarizing TROLL, can’t think for themselves but catapaults the propaganda of others and hope that makes him look smart.

  8. kayinmaine said

    Wow, another American Taliban GOP plaigarizer? Not surprised! Do neocons know how to think for themselves? Oh wait. They’re not socialists….they’re fascists! Yep, they all wear red and click their jackboots together when de Fuhrer Bush/McCain walks into the room! Poor things.

  9. kayinmaine said

    JBrown is fine with a House of Cards. Yep, just weaken the bottom & middle cards to ‘strengthen’ the upper cards! Sorry asshole. It doesn’t work that way. You end up with a collapse as we are witnessing today after 8 years of fascist capitalism. In fact, if you believed in science you would understand that the neocon theories on everything is pretty much hysterical and this is why when we have a right wing president our nation ends up a catastrophe!

  10. JBrown said

    Damn grant and Uncle…as I stated before on this blog… the blog is mine, I believe I can “cut-and-paste” my own work….if I wanted to post a link to MY BLOG here I would include it linked with my name…..so next time you might wanna pay attention to the name associated with the post.

    Because after looking back on this blog link: https://whitenoiseinsanity.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-is-connected-to-charles-keatingyes-that-one/

    both of you said the same thing last time I made a post (#20 and #21) again it gets repetitive when you can’t make a logical point…way to go 🙂

  11. Grant in Texas said

    Yes, I see that J Brown was the author of the article but online, anyone can be J Brown. Hell I can be Christopher Buckley!

  12. kayinmaine said

    Without linking your blog to your name, how the hell are we supposed to keep you neocon knuckle draggers straight? I can’t tell you how many “kayinmaine” there are, you know, right wing trolls online who leave comments all over the place to put a shadow over me. LOL It’s really pathetic, but hey, we’re dealing with Bushitler’s Brownshirts. This is how they are. They’ll call themselves ‘kayinmaine’ or ‘jbrown’ just to be an ass!

  13. kayinmaine said

    By the way, jbrown, when you neocons aren’t here you are out of mind, meaning, we don’t keep tabs on your neck droolers. We can’t stand ya when you show up here and when you leave we rejoice and don’t long for you to come back! See? Get over yourself.

  14. JFH said

    JBrown is fine with a House of Cards. Yep, just weaken the bottom & middle cards to ’strengthen’ the upper cards! Sorry asshole. It doesn’t work that way. You end up with a collapse as we are witnessing today after 8 years of fascist capitalism.

    “fascist capitalism”… If that’s not an oxymoron, I don’t know what is… Don’t bother arguing with Kay, JBrown. She can’t admit she’s wrong (as evident with comment 12), and she obviously is economically ignorant as fascism can’t possibly co-exist with capitalism (Unless, you pervert both terms to the point that they mean anything you want them to).

  15. clif said

    (Unless, you pervert both terms to the point that they mean anything you want them to).</i.

    Like the neo-con wanna be fascists did the last decade or so?

  16. kayinmaine said

    Oh yes, I’m ‘perverting’ the term ‘fascist capitalist’. Are you serious, Asshole? Just yesterday on Glenn “8 Hemorrhoids Removed From My Ass” Beck said ‘liberal fascism’. Laughable! Oh how you neocons are melting down and reaching out for anything to save your asses!

    Fascist capitalism has no place in American society. It failed our country, but you wingnuts are too stupid to admit it.

  17. kayinmaine said

    I noticed the right wingers never told us on this thread what it is about socialism that scares the pants off them. JFH….care to explain your reasoning?

  18. kayinmaine said

    George H.W. Bush & Bill Clinton raised taxes. Our nation did fine. Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush did not raise taxes and fed the wealthy mainly and what happened? A FAILED ECONOMY/PRESIDENCY!

  19. JBrown said

    Kay it is not that socialism scares me….it JUST DOESN’T WORK….Socialism doesn’t work. Its structure denies incentive, innovation and information, which in turn leads to dissatisfaction, waste, inefficiency and possible war. Free markets aren’t perfect, but they are better. This conclusion should have been obvious to anyone before it was argued through. That it isn’t to so many is because of the incredible superficial appeal that state-socialism has (“it’s so much fairer” and “wouldn’t the world be better…”) coupled with the way in which its proponents, almost like religious fanatics choose to ignore the facts. In the choice between sociailism and the market, how could one man possibly design an economic system that was superior to the silent intentions and commitments of countless people? A democracy isn’t only fairer than a dictatorship, it is more effective. The same holds for an economy.

  20. JBrown said

    Seeing that I answered your question Kay, what about mine…

    So my questions still stands…Name me a time when our economy ever grew from the bottom up?

    Name me a single US President who ever proposed “direct redistribution of wealth”?

  21. Grant in Texas said

    Obama is NOT proposing direct redistribution of wealth…that’s just the way the McCain campaign is spinning and taking out of context. He is proposing doing away with the Bush tax cuts on the nation’s wealthiest and restoring them to the tax rate under Bill Clinton when our nation’s wealthiest were also doing quite well overall, especially in the stock markets.

    I spent a month in “socialist” Europe a year ago in May, visited 13 nations including some in the old Soviet bloc and found nations with booming economies, better infrastructure, highways, transportation and best of all, HAPPIER people than we have here in the U.S. I had last spent time in Europe in 1975 and 1976 and saw a great change from that time, and all for the better.

  22. kayinmaine said

    Jbrown, are you telling me from the start of America all businesses were humongous when they started? Huh? Are you saying the saloons, the blacksmiths, the lumber yards, and other businesses started out huge and then trickled down to a small business? All businesses start out small. Ask Sam Walton. It wasn’t like Wal-Mart just appeared on the national stage and took America by storm. He had a small business to start and then it grew. And what happens if a business (large or small) has a populace who can’t afford to buy the products/services because there aren’t enough jobs? Oh that’s right….the businesses go out of business or they suffer! Oh, but when we have George Bush in charge of the nation using fascist capitalism, he says ‘fuck off’ to the small businesses and could care less if they collapse (or these families lose their homes and their livelihoods), but says, “We must save the big businesses because there are no others like them!”. Bunch of bullshit.

    Barack will regulate Wall Street. Control of big business is key. He will offer rewards to those businesses who employ Americans and do not send jobs overseas. He will help the middle class (if you’re poor, on welfare, and are not working you will not be filing a tax form, so therefore, you won’t get a tax cut/break) by giving them a break on their taxes, which will give them extra money in their pockets, which they will use either for their small business or they will MAKE A PURCHASE of some kind that helps local businesses. He will NOT allow the uber wealthy (like John McCain who is worth over $100,000,000) to get an uber tax cut, because really, even when the uber wealthy is taxed, they’re still wealthy. Those Americans making $250,000 or more won’t be hurt by having to pay their taxes.

    Barack will strengthen the base of America and the wealthy will STILL survive when he does. A strong middle class means more spending by them. The wealthy can go out and make their big expensive purchases, but it’s not these purchases that keep the economy going. It’s those in the middle and lower who are the ones who make up a larger percentage of the population and if they are suffering, then so does the whole economy.

    George H.W. Bush & Bill Clinton both raised taxes and everything was fine. Bill Clinton helped the base of our nation, but just like Barack, he said, “I’ll scratch your back if you help yourself off welfare”. Yep, Bill Clinton helped those on welfare who were working to pay for their daycare, so they could work themselves back gradually into society. Barack has said, if he helps the poor, he wants the poor to give back to their communities in some sort of way to keep their benefits. Sounds good to me. Community helping out the community. In George Bush’s world it was, the Haves & the Have Mores helping themselves to our money while the rest tried to survive on a daily basis.

    And Jbrown? Every time we purchase something we are redistributing our ‘wealth’. Think about it. Stop concentrating just on the taxes part. The wealthy do need to buck up and start paying their fair share, because as we saw over the past 8 years, THE TAX CUTS WERE HOARDED BY BIG BUSINESS, THEY FIRED WORKERS RATHER THAN EMPLOY THEM, SAT BACK AND DID NOTHING. Giving the wealthy more money DID NOT create a secure economy.

    Barack Obama will strengthen the middle class and will bring people out of poverty and into the middle class. He’s gonna grow a flower the way it’s supposed to be grown and not from the flower-to-the-root as the fascist capitalists like to think is the way it grows!

  23. kayinmaine said

    Jbrown, give us an example of socialism in our current society or in the past that didn’t work.

  24. Kay,

    I am reading your Web site for the first time. I mostly like it, but I have to ask: why are you arguing with these people? In many cases you are arguing with complete idiots. Just delete their comments! Your own news and writing is great, although I don’t agree with all of your opinions. Keep up the good work though, and let the stupid people have their own stupid Web sites!

    Obama is going to win by a landslide. This is a very good thing not because he is a liberal; it is a good thing because he is the first smart, nice, and truly good-person that has ever run! I don’t think of myself exclusively as a liberal, but I am so excited about Obama being our next President!

    Oh, on another note: I lived in Maine for a short time.
    Oh, on another note: My beautiful wife was a single liberal mom named Kay!

    The few things that about political-stuff are here: http://dangerismymiddlename.wordpress.com/category/politics/

    Thank you,
    Paul

  25. not Jbrown said

    China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Venezuela. Former: Albania, Afghanistan, Angola, Bulgaria, Guyana, Republic of India, Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sri Lanka, Portuguese Republic, Syrian Arab Republic, Tanzania.

    There are so many more-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries

    Maybe Kay will now answer JBrowns questions of where socialism has worked. It’s an easy answer, nowhere.

    “fascist capitalism” – your ignorance and lack of education knows no boundaries, does it kay?

  26. kayinmaine said

    I’ve not seen where any of you neocons have proved that FASCISM WORKS or what socialism will do.

    And Not Jbrown, we’re gonna find out how socialism (parts of it anyways) will work! Aren’t you excited or would you rather live under fascists who hate your rights, think you should not get a break making $18,000/year but should if you’re making $5,000,000/year, and who think stable jobs with a Union should be abolished and then having those jobs go overseas to people who don’t speak English?

  27. kayinmaine said

    Hey, what do you know…someone thinking like moi:

    http://www.hermes-press.com/fascist_capitalism.htm

  28. kayinmaine said

    FASCIST CAPITALIST’S MANTRA:

    TAX THE POOR…FEED THE RICH!

  29. Grant in Texas said

    We have had socialism since we have had public schools. I don’t have kids but pay school tax so it can “distributed” to others who HAVE kids! We have public highways where our gas tax money is distributed to others. Once our highway system was mostly toll roads (and thanks to Republicans in Texas who LOVE toll roads and want to build more we may be going back to those days). But we socialized our roads and now have Interstates, Federal highways, state, county and city roads. We have already “socialized” the Post Office, the railroads with Con-Rail and Amtrak, but unlike Europe, the latter hasn’t been funded to make folks want to use them.

  30. Grant in Texas said

    Another accusation of McCain-Palin today is that Obama LIES about the $250,000 cut off for no taxes, with numbers like $200K, $140K being cited by McCain-Palin, even that Obama “voted for” taxes on $42K (that is also a LIE!!). The Republicans are saying Obama is erratic about taxes and “do we really know him, or what he will really do?”

    The problem is that Obama and Biden have made a couple “for instances” like “IF” you only make $140K a year, you will get a tax break. In these cases, probably it would be wise to NOT name a lower taxable wage even though most people don’t make $250K and cannot relate to it. They need to watch their every word they say as for sure McCain’s campaign will take everything “out-of-context” and twist what they can to make it look like a lie.

    Here is Obama making the statement to Rev. Rick Warren as a “just
    suppose”!:

    But the fact is, Obama has ALWAYS said his tax CUTS top-out at
    $250K
    , saying no one would pay MORE taxes if they make below
    $250K. But NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell was suggesting Senator Obama had
    “changed his position” on who gets a tax “cut”. Who says the media is working FOR Obama? Today it seemed the media was on McCain’s side on this, taking HIS word on Obama’s cuts. The networks were also chiding Obama for “MOCKING McCain” by his calling some people as “Jack the Contractor” and “Rose the waitress” saying these folks will NOT pay additional taxes, but probably will deserve a tax cut.

    Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama’s tax plan breaks down for individuals with ranges compared to what they are paying under current tax codes:

    $0-$18,891 = up to $567 tax cut

    $18,982-$37,595 = up to $892 tax cut

    $37,596-$66,354 = up to $1,118 tax cut

    $66,355-$111,645 = up to $1,264 tax cut

    $111,646-$160,972 = up to $2,135 tax cut

    $160,973-$226,918 = up to $2,796 tax cut

    $226,919-$250,000 = NO tax increase

    $250,000-$603,402 = Up to $121 tax increase

    $603,403-$2.87 million = up to $93,709 tax increase

    $2.87 million-plus = up to $542,882 tax increase

  31. kayinmaine said

    Thanks Grant! Okay, now for the neck drooling knuckle draggers to explain why socialism will be detrimental to our country. Oh, by the way, our soldiers receive socialized medicine. Are ya gonna take it away from them? Is that what you want?

  32. Grant in Texas said

    I see where our TROLLS have equated socialism with communism using a wikipedia page with the following warnings:

    The neutrality of this article is disputed.

    The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.

    This article does not cite any references or sources.

    This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.

    Most of the nations of the world (and they are NOT listed by the TROLL) have BLENDED socialism with capitalism, EVEN China which is on the list has elements now of capitalism. Europe, Canada, and parts of Latin America are far more “socialist” than the U.S. and are far from being failed societies. Shouldn’t a nation be allowed to CHOOSE the kind of government it wants through free elections?

    Where are there examples of laissez-faire capitalism in the world??? Deregulated capitalism hasn’t worked as man is a greedy, selfish animal.

    Also, our trolls don’t realize that fascism is right-wing corporate control of the state so there can be no “liberal fascism”…an oxymoron.

  33. kayinmaine said

    LMAO Grant! Well, when was the last time a troll did anything right? Never. They are The Base of the republic Party, of course!

    By the way, neocons, if George Bush cared so deeply about the small businesses in America, can you explain why he did not go after the oil companies to keep the price of it low which hurt small businesses (and families too!)? Why didn’t he tap into America’s national oil reserve to lower prices? Oh that’s right! He doesn’t care about anyone but the Haves and the Have Mores!

  34. Grant in Texas said

    The problem with selfish reich-wingers is that they often haven’t studied their “god” Adam Smith whom is oft called the “father of capitalism”. They take his IDEAL capitalist society and run with it. They don’t realize that in the REAL WORLD, Adam Smith insisted that 1) progressive taxation, 2)
    confiscatory inheritance tax, 3) ‘the dole'(welfare) were
    necessary for “free market” economies to be sustainable, functional. His “mind experiment” was embarrassingly thorough in contrast to modern political economic punditry.

    The idea of a progressive tax has garnered support from economists and political scientists of many different ideologies – ranging from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, although there are differences of opinion about the optimal level of progressivity. Some economists even trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

    The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

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

  35. Grant in Texas said

    Error above. First sentence was a typo, PROBLEM instead of probably.

  36. not JBrown said

    oh Grant, you and your TROLL calling. Anyone who disagrees with you or Kay is a Troll. You must have a unhappy sad life.

    So the Wikipedia story is disputed. It doesn’t mean that the countries on that list don’t have Socialist or Communist political regimes. Search the term ‘Socialist Countries’ and you find other links, not Wikipedia, listing the same countries that appear on the wikipedia page.

    Are you trying to say that Vietnam, North Korea or the others ARE free market capitalist-based countries? Are you mad?

    Fascism comes from Socialism. Socialism is what Hitler’s Germany was, the National Socialist party. Fascism is liberalism gone wild. Did either of you get past 3rd grade?

    There can be social programs like highways, but privatizing them and making them toll roads, letting private businesses run them would be far better and cheaper for everyone.

    Will kay ever answer JBrowns comment? No, she can’t.

    Well, this comment looks like it is rejected. Do you reject everyones comment when they prove you wrong? Must be (***shaking head***) What sad unhappy lives you all live.

  37. kayinmaine said

    I’ll fix it, Grant. Hold on. 😉

  38. Grant in Texas said

    Kay usually doesn’t delete TROLL’s remarks as she thinks their absurdity needs to stand to reveal the brainwashed cut-and-paste parrots they most often are.

    Once again, Nazis are fascist, the FAR RIGHT. Why do we call them “reich-wingers” if not to emphasize that reality??? If the Nazis were actually LEFT wing, then why were their number one internal enemies the communists (even tried to blame the Reichstag Fire on the left). Hitler hated the Soviets, and loved other right-wing fascists like Mussolini and Franco. The Nazi concentration camps were FULL of socialists/communists.

    No, I went far beyond the third grade, even to A&M for graduate school in physics, with nearly 200 hours on my college transcripts. But even not taking many political science classes, I know that National “socialism” AKA Nazism, is NOT socialism in the classical sense other than like we are bailing out Wall Street now, It was “socialism” FOR THE CORPORATIONS (distributing OUR taxpayer wealth to the millionaire/billionaire CEO’s). Try to get some education, NOT JBrown (although probably is JBrown) and you won’t make such a fool of yourself.

  39. not JBrown said

    Nazi is National Socialism. Not far right by any means.

    You’ve twisted facts around so much it’s child’s play to shoot down your arguments. Denial is the blue plate special with folks like you grant. Kay too.

    Musso and Franco were right wingers? You didn’t fare too well at A&M or any other school.

    If you’re so against distributing tax payer wealth to millionaires or billionaires, why aren’t you upset with Obama when he voted for the $700 billion bail out?

    I like the fictional history and fake facts that grant and kay write in comments. It’s funny that you think anyone would believe you.

  40. kayinmaine said

    One of the trolls is dragging his asshole across the WNI spam/air filter about the countries listed above that he says are socialist. Well, let me tell the dingbat this:

    NO WAY IN HELL WOULD ANY AMERICANS ALLOW AMERICA TO FALL INTO MILITANT STYLED COUNTRY NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF POLITICS WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE! Get it?

    Now, stop worrying about Barack Obama. He’ll do better than what George Bush & Dick Cheney did to our country over the last 8 years!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: