The Rise of the United Socialist States of America (USSA)

[billvon 3,119]

>Obama wants to raise taxes on some to give directly to others, and that is
>socialism and welfare and that is wrong.

Bush has already done that, and McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. But I have a feeling you will make excuses for both of them.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Obama wants to raise taxes on some to give directly to others, and that is
>socialism and welfare and that is wrong.

Bush has already done that, and McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. But I have a feeling you will make excuses for both of them.

Can you show me where Bush's Congressional voting record is and what bills he voted on? I can't seem to find it ANYWHERE, for some odd reason...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

It's always fun seeing Rush Limbaugh talking points become threads in the SC. How soon before we get one off of his Colin Powell rants? Will it be called RINO as well?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 3,119]

>Can you show me where Bush's Congressional voting record is and what bills he voted on?

Ah, a Cheneyite! No, the executive really isn't part of the legislature, despite what many conservatives believe.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Can you show me where Bush's Congressional voting record is and what bills he voted on?

Ah, a Cheneyite! No, the executive really isn't part of the legislature, despite what many conservatives believe.

Ah, I see - so the whole "voted with Bush" thing is just a miscommunication, I'm sure.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,119]

>so the whole "voted with Bush" thing is just a miscommunication, I'm sure.

McCain: ". . . and I voted with President Bush over 90% of the time, more than any other Senator." You'll have to ask him.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right, ignore the actual welfare and government programs.


Oh, all the Military Industrial Programs, or just the ones you want to ignore?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ignore the nationalized health care plan.


What plan? Even Obama has no plan for that, he wants to leave everyone alone with their plan who currently has insurance and extend typical government plans to other who don't, that's no where near uni-care.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ignore tax hikes for anyone above middle class.


Obama proposed tax hikes starting at 250k/yr, that is waaaaaaaaaaaay above middle class unless you have like 13 kids and an annoying mother in law.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Those are all made up by my mom and the neo-cons.



HUH?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We've had the military spending argument several times. As a function of GDP, the US is around #37. If you think that's too much then fine. Over spending in the military does not equate to socialism.


If we equate several things, including your narrow version of welfare, we can justify all spending. Where does SS fall in line with the GDP? I'm sure puny.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wow. Talk about oversimplifying. I'd really like know what you think a corporation is made of. You paint a picture of the Monopoly guy bouncing around a penthouse smoking a pipe. When a company like Boeing gets a government contract it employs thousands of people. There have to be people on the assembly line putting the shit together. In order to eliminate government contracts to civilian compaies, the military would have to produce all of their own equipment. That would mean, gasp, drastically increasing the size of the military.

You call this oversimplification after I called your example the same (imitation is pure flattery):

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


It may not be the minority welfare mom based socialism the RW likes to display, but it could be argued that it is collectivist for the military, for the greater good, etc. That is, unless you think like me that a huge military that spends 8 times that of #2 unnecessary.

The actual definition of Socialism is where the means of production is controlled by the people, versus by the government in Communism or by the elite in Capitalism.

Since corporations benefit the most with M.I.C., I would say that renders gross over-spending by the military more of corporatist fascism than Socialism, but it basically has components of both. Try not to oversimplify Socialism is that pregnant Mexican illegal with 5 kids running around her, it is simply RW rhetoric to scare people into voting Republican and outright dishonest.


Well Boeing is the best example of welfare you could exhibit. Boeing IS the government, they can’t fart w/o the government approving. At the same time, they are an example of fascism too, as the government allowed (probably encouraged) them to suck up all the smaller aircraft companies and then actually Douglas!!! If you were in the industry that was HUGE. The government used to like to keep the military contractors at arms length, several of them for better bids, somewhere in the late 80’s they realized that a fascist approach to consolidate them and bring them closer to the government was a good idea. The government could control a lot of things with the corporations, esp labor with fewer corps that were extremely close to the gov, unlike many more corps competing for contracts, the former American way. So yes, we are not only corporate welfare advocates that trickles down to conventional welfare, but we have become corporatist fascist in the process.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And the pregnant Mexican with 5 kids you speak of is in fact a drag on the economy... assuming she's drawing welfare, sending her kids to public school, and soon to be enrolled in free healthcare.



That’s the rhetoric the RW wants to convey; mission accomplished. Look at the stimulus bill, they gave all those billions to people to piss away, guess what the well off people did? They saved it. Guess what the poor did? They pissed it just like they piss away everything they have, stimulating the economy. Your boy GWB did nothing when Greenspan lowered the interest rate to numbers that were way too low, too long. The purpose of lowering the int rate is to entice people with money and credit to spend. Obviously it didn’t work and canalized the mortgage mess we’re in. Point is, conventional social welfare does many things, it extends help to those that need it to rise above it, I believe it reduces crime, and it stimulates the economy.

Another way to look at it is that I’m sure you’re for the war as most RW people are, guess where they go when they need people to die for it? It’s not the rich sector.

BTW, sending her kids to public school? I almost missed that one. Most of the people on this board went to public school I would venture to say. Kinda defined your argument with that one.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So Obama's voting record is the fault of republicans.


No, his is contrary to that of the Repubs, which is why he’s popular. Where did I say that? Obama voted for the bailout Bill likely due to it needed to be done to avoid another Republican depression. If he didn’t can you imagine what the hype would be? If he didn’t eventually vote for Iraq funding, can you imagine what the hype would be? The RW would say he’s trying to protect the insurgent forces. He’s kinda stuck. As I wrote, we get your party out of there, give us time to repair as did Clinton, then blame us for misgivings.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The D's have an approval rating roughly half of Bush's.


No, Congress does. The House is strongly Dem, the Senate is basically a wash, So that entire body is not well-viewed. Again, Bush didn’t veto a thing for 5.5 years, since then, he’s vetoed 12 bills for which 4 were shoved back up his ass, a pretty steep ratio for having your vetoes overridden. Not too spineless as you say.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I too am anxious (ie. nervous) to see what will happen when they're in total control.

Unlike assured and confident with an all Republican government from Jan 01 to Jan 07. Yea, it’s been a real treat.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>McCain wants to cut taxes and cut spending.


All projections based upon their 3 debates are that they will go into the hole, McCain more than Obama since he wants to cut taxes. You’re wrong here.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obama wants to shift taxes to anyone above middle-class and increase spending.


You have a very interesting view of MC. This probably addresses it: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_there_a_standard_accepted_definition_of.html

The middle class, as objectively defined, is no more than 75k/yr. Bur then nut job Romney says: He defines "middle class" as anyone with an adjusted gross income of under $200,000 – and acknowledges that such a proposal would affect "over 95 percent of American families."


I would say 250k/yr is upper middle class, so he wants to raise taxes on people above the upper middle class. But keep redefining it.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He doesn't want to distribute wealth. He wants to redistribute. Big difference.

HUH?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>so the whole "voted with Bush" thing is just a miscommunication, I'm sure.

McCain: ". . . and I voted with President Bush over 90% of the time, more than any other Senator." You'll have to ask him.

Better than "present" some 140+ times, I suppose.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>Obama wants to raise taxes on some to give directly to others, and that is
>socialism and welfare and that is wrong.

Bush has already done that, and McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. But I have a feeling you will make excuses for both of them.

Can you show me where Bush's Congressional voting record is and what bills he voted on? I can't seem to find it ANYWHERE, for some odd reason...

Sure, I can. Even tho Bill answer it correctly, I'll steer a little off of that. By Bush signing ALL bills before him for the first 5.5 years, he essentially voted for them all. He has a veto pen, a pocket veto pen if applicable, he could have simply exercised those. Signing is essentially voting for them. Since the new congress in Jan 07 he's vetoed 12 as I count, so he's voted against those.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>Can you show me where Bush's Congressional voting record is and what bills he voted on?

Ah, a Cheneyite! No, the executive really isn't part of the legislature, despite what many conservatives believe.

Ah, I see - so the whole "voted with Bush" thing is just a miscommunication, I'm sure.

What McCain means, in his senile way, is that of the bills Bush signed, he voted for 90% them in congress. Or the other way, of the bills McCain voted for in congress, Bush signed 90% of them. That's what the ole crusty dude means with his ramble..... and BTW, it is his ramble not ours.

[billvon 3,119]

>Better than "present" some 140+ times, I suppose.

Which, in turn, is better than missing 64% of the votes under his watch.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Oh, all the Military Industrial Programs, or just the ones you want to ignore?

Welfare and nationalized healthcare are not military industrial programs.

Quote

What plan? Even Obama has no plan for that, he wants to leave everyone alone with their plan who currently has insurance and extend typical government plans to other who don't, that's no where near uni-care.

Obama has a plan for nationlized healthcare estimated at $100B to kick off. keep dancing.

Quote

Obama proposed tax hikes starting at 250k/yr, that is waaaaaaaaaaaay above middle class unless you have like 13 kids and an annoying mother in law.

250k is not waaaaayyy above middle class, as evidenced by the argument you provide at the end of your post. The fact is he wants to shift more taxes to the well-off

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We've had the military spending argument several times. As a function of GDP, the US is around #37. If you think that's too much then fine. Over spending in the military does not equate to socialism.


If we equate several things, including your narrow version of welfare, we can justify all spending. Where does SS fall in line with the GDP? I'm sure puny.

Your broad view of welfare includes every dime the government spends. All government contracts are not 'corporate welfare.' Who should they award contacts to if corporations are off the table? Who do you want to get the jobs done or provide needed equipment and technology?

Quote

Well Boeing is the best example of welfare you could exhibit. Boeing IS the government, they can’t fart w/o the government approving. At the same time, they are an example of fascism too, as the government allowed (probably encouraged) them to suck up all the smaller aircraft companies and then actually Douglas!!! If you were in the industry that was HUGE. The government used to like to keep the military contractors at arms length, several of them for better bids, somewhere in the late 80’s they realized that a fascist approach to consolidate them and bring them closer to the government was a good idea. The government could control a lot of things with the corporations, esp labor with fewer corps that were extremely close to the gov, unlike many more corps competing for contracts, the former American way. So yes, we are not only corporate welfare advocates that trickles down to conventional welfare, but we have become corporatist fascist in the process.

Boeing is welfare? You can't possibly be serious. Welfare is a handout with nothing in return. Govenment contracts yield technology and equpiment. If you have a problem with the bidding process or over-spending, again that's fine.

Quote

That’s the rhetoric the RW wants to convey; mission accomplished. Look at the stimulus bill, they gave all those billions to people to piss away, guess what the well off people did? They saved it. Guess what the poor did? They pissed it just like they piss away everything they have, stimulating the economy. Your boy GWB did nothing when Greenspan lowered the interest rate to numbers that were way too low, too long. The purpose of lowering the int rate is to entice people with money and credit to spend. Obviously it didn’t work and canalized the mortgage mess we’re in. Point is, conventional social welfare does many things, it extends help to those that need it to rise above it, I believe it reduces crime, and it stimulates the economy.

Imagine that, saving some more rather than pissing it all away. You blame corporations. I blame handouts for the lazy. The problem is that conventional social welfare allows people to sit on their ass and collect indefinitely. There's no requirement to rise above it.

Quote

Another way to look at it is that I’m sure you’re for the war as most RW people are, guess where they go when they need people to die for it? It’s not the rich sector.

"They," whoever that is, doesn't go anywhere for military members. It's a volunteer military.

Quote

BTW, sending her kids to public school? I almost missed that one. Most of the people on this board went to public school I would venture to say. Kinda defined your argument with that one.

Most of the people on this board are legal US citizens who pay taxes.

Quote

I would say 250k/yr is upper middle class, so he wants to raise taxes on people above the upper middle class. But keep redefining it.

Reference earlier in thread. Fact remains that he wants to shift more of the tax burden to the successful.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually The Post-American World is probably a book we should all read and has nothing to do with islam.

Why? (should we all read it?)

Curious as to your reasons.
(Disclosure: I haven't read the book but have heard the author speak and am familiar with his arguments.)

VR/Marg

Just seems like an interesting read on one author's perception of the coming future world. I know little beyond reading the page I linked. If you have any light to shed that would be awesome.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

>so the whole "voted with Bush" thing is just a miscommunication, I'm sure.

McCain: ". . . and I voted with President Bush over 90% of the time, more than any other Senator." You'll have to ask him.

Better than "present" some 140+ times, I suppose.

Nice glass house you've got there, Mike.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I would say 250k/yr is upper middle class, so he wants to raise taxes on people above the upper middle class. But keep redefining it.

According to the Economist, Obama is going to raise taxes on people making over $42,000 a yaer.

Allowing tax cuts to expire when your oponent doesn't is the same thing as raising taxes.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I would say 250k/yr is upper middle class, so he wants to raise taxes on people above the upper middle class. But keep redefining it.

According to the Economist, Obama is going to raise taxes on people making over $42,000 a yaer.

Allowing tax cuts to expire when your oponent doesn't is the same thing as raising taxes.

I looked at it and I can't really get a grasp of their stance, they're kinda all over the place. Either way, post the citation of their saying that. Do understand that they're a London-based paper.


If we go by what Obama says, there will be no tax increase and he seems pretty honest and forthright of his plans, unlike McCain who hasn't thrown out numbers as to what he plans.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I looked at it and I can't really get a grasp of their stance, they're kinda all over the place. Either way, post the citation of their saying that. Do understand that they're a London-based paper.

I have an Economist subscription mostly because they're not an American magazine with American biases.

Quote

If we go by what Obama says, there will be no tax increase and he seems pretty honest and forthright of his plans, unlike McCain who hasn't thrown out numbers as to what he plans.

While Obama might not lie about there being WMDs in Iraq, he shares other politician's propensity to stretch the truth when campaigning.

In this case, he's decided that keeping a scheduled expiration is not actually a "tax increase."

Obama voted "Yea" on 3-14-08 and 6-4-08 to allow expiration of the Bush 28% to 25% rate reduction. During his campaigning he's said the same thing. A single person's taxable income over $32,550K is taxed at that rate. You get $5450 as the standard deduction and $3500 for the personal exempstion, so single people making $41,500 to $87,800 who don't itemize or take above the line deductions are going to have a 12.5% increase in their marginal tax rate.

Our budget is unbalanced and going increasingly towards interest on the debt. When need to cut spending and/or increase taxes. This is an increase.

It's probably a good increase. As long as people are going to be supporting a government with out of control spending they should be paying a fraction of the price.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>I have an Economist subscription mostly because they're not an American magazine with American biases.


Moat things have bias, why not post a citation to your article? If it's in print it s/b on their site. Kinda hard for us to take even a Euro paper seriously from an interpretation from a biased guy.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>While Obama might not lie about there being WMDs in Iraq, he shares other politician's propensity to stretch the truth when campaigning.

Ok but Obama has thrown the number, 250k out there, McCain, just more fluff blown up our asses about how great things will be.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obama voted "Yea" on 3-14-08 and 6-4-08 to allow expiration of the Bush 28% to 25% rate reduction.


Rate reduction? You're not real big on posting citations are you? Kinda helps to support your points, unless you want a mulligan


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..Our budget is unbalanced and going increasingly towards interest on the debt. When need to cut spending and/or increase taxes. This is an increase.


Clinton increased taxes on the MC ever so slightly and a lot on the rich, Obama will do something like that, basically leave ours alone, slight increase/decrease and hammer the rich. Worked for Clinton, it'll work for Obama - just have to cut ties with the rich which the neo-cons can't.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's probably a good increase. As long as people are going to be supporting a government with out of control spending they should be paying a fraction of the price.


We'll just have to watch, but Obama is waaaaay above board, esp as compared to crusty.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>Fear isn't always generated by the right...

I actually don't see McCarthy as a right winger or a left winger. He was a brand of politics unto himself, and was more a student of Machiavelli than of either brand politics here in the US.

McCarthy was actually proven somewhat right after many years.

His intentions and warnings were honorable, but when implemented by our congress and Cohen it became a bigger nightmare.

[billvon 3,119]

>McCarthy was actually proven somewhat right after many years.

In what way? That he had good ideas? Indeed he did - but then again, so did the Unabomber. In general it's people's actions rather than their philosophies that define them.

McCarthyism will forever be a dark spot on the history of this country, a time when xenophobia ruled and fear was used to destroy the lives of a great many innocent people. It's greatest use will be as a cautionary tale for the future, a parable on how not to react to an external threat.