Jump to content

Obama a Marxist ?


Guest Patriot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Patriot

Joe Gaffe was confronted by an Orlando newscaster yesterday . She compared Obama's economic plans to Maxism. Joe didn't answer the statement and Obama responded by shutting down any further interviews with the station. Further proof of the kind of person you Loony Lefties are supporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Extinguisher
Joe Gaffe was confronted by an Orlando newscaster yesterday . She compared Obama's economic plans to Maxism. Joe didn't answer the statement and Obama responded by shutting down any further interviews with the station. Further proof of the kind of person you Loony Lefties are supporting.

The woman you're referring to is the wife of a Republican operative.

If you want to have a real discussion about redistributing wealth, then you should start with the $700 billion tax dollar rescue plan and ask Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin why they all support such a massive transfer of wealth.

By the way, by keeping up the hatchet job and mudslinging, you keep turning off more and more independent voters. So keep those Wright/Ayers/Socialism name-calling attacks coming .... I want Obama to win in a landslide with a filibuster-proof Senate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The woman you're referring to is the wife of a Republican operative.

If you want to have a real discussion about redistributing wealth, then you should start with the $700 billion tax dollar rescue plan and ask Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin why they all support such a massive transfer of wealth.

By the way, by keeping up the hatchet job and mudslinging, you keep turning off more and more independent voters. So keep those Wright/Ayers/Socialism name-calling attacks coming .... I want Obama to win in a landslide with a filibuster-proof Senate!

I think the socialism label should stick; strongly opposed to Marxist comparisons though. But, an honest question.

How can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, when 40% of those households pay no income tax? Please don't cite Social Security and Medicare taxes, as everyone collects that eventually; I'm talking strictly Federal Income tax.

If they pay no tax, then they are giving people who haven't paid "free money", to me that stands as socialist. BTW, the money is only FREE to them, to you and I, there is a price tag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The woman you're referring to is the wife of a Republican operative.

If you want to have a real discussion about redistributing wealth, then you should start with the $700 billion tax dollar rescue plan and ask Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin why they all support such a massive transfer of wealth.

By the way, by keeping up the hatchet job and mudslinging, you keep turning off more and more independent voters. So keep those Wright/Ayers/Socialism name-calling attacks coming .... I want Obama to win in a landslide with a filibuster-proof Senate!

"Republican operative"? It that like a CIA operative? You're just the kind of demented idiot that would vote for Obama, Ayres, Wright, Rezko and Khalidi. Knock yourself out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Gaffe was confronted by an Orlando newscaster yesterday . She compared Obama's economic plans to Maxism. Joe didn't answer the statement and Obama responded by shutting down any further interviews with the station. Further proof of the kind of person you Loony Lefties are supporting.

She was a right-wing hack who was hyperventilating for the team. Senator Biden laughed at her because she was being ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the socialism label should stick; strongly opposed to Marxist comparisons though. But, an honest question.

How can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, when 40% of those households pay no income tax? Please don't cite Social Security and Medicare taxes, as everyone collects that eventually; I'm talking strictly Federal Income tax.

If they pay no tax, then they are giving people who haven't paid "free money", to me that stands as socialist. BTW, the money is only FREE to them, to you and I, there is a price tag.

You're just playing with words. McCain couldn't win the economic argument with the facts, so he started name-calling. You were going to vote for him anyway, so your cheerleading doesn't mean much.

The point about Obama's tax cut is that if you're making under $250,000, you'll do better with Obama. Would you prefer he just gave people money if they don't earn an income? Of course, we do anyway, no matter who is president, but what label would you put on that? Be honest for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The woman you're referring to is the wife of a Republican operative.

If you want to have a real discussion about redistributing wealth, then you should start with the $700 billion tax dollar rescue plan and ask Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin why they all support such a massive transfer of wealth.

By the way, by keeping up the hatchet job and mudslinging, you keep turning off more and more independent voters. So keep those Wright/Ayers/Socialism name-calling attacks coming .... I want Obama to win in a landslide with a filibuster-proof Senate!

I agree. We need a government that can pass new laws to change the direction of our country. The Republicans had their chance, now it's the Democrats' turn.

Most people don't realize how much wealth has been concentrated in a few hands under the Republicans. The Republicans are not for the little guy and never have been, at least not since Teddy Roosevelt. The top 1% control a greater share of the wealth than at any time since the late 1920s. Tell you anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just playing with words. McCain couldn't win the economic argument with the facts, so he started name-calling. You were going to vote for him anyway, so your cheerleading doesn't mean much.

The point about Obama's tax cut is that if you're making under $250,000, you'll do better with Obama. Would you prefer he just gave people money if they don't earn an income? Of course, we do anyway, no matter who is president, but what label would you put on that? Be honest for a change.

I completely disagree. I believe the facts are that groups petitioned Congress to ease lending rules. As a result, we ended up with the subprime mortgages at the heart of the economic mess. I also don't appreciate, in the middle of the crisis, Obama saying "I'll be campaigning over here if you need me." That is not leadership.

As for giving out free money, well, he is. He promises a tax cut to 95% of America, the problem is 40% of those pay no income tax. So what do you call that besides free money? Be honest for a change.

This country has to help out the less fortunate, of this there can be no doubt. But these social programs have evolved from a needed safety net to a HAMMOCK. The idea that MOST people can only be successful with the aid of the federal government is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're just playing with words. McCain couldn't win the economic argument with the facts, so he started name-calling. You were going to vote for him anyway, so your cheerleading doesn't mean much.

The point about Obama's tax cut is that if you're making under $250,000, you'll do better with Obama. Would you prefer he just gave people money if they don't earn an income? Of course, we do anyway, no matter who is president, but what label would you put on that? Be honest for a change.

Joe Biden has now said that people making over $150,000 will see a tax increase. Or did he just misspeak onec again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Extinguisher
I think the socialism label should stick; strongly opposed to Marxist comparisons though. But, an honest question.

How can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, when 40% of those households pay no income tax? Please don't cite Social Security and Medicare taxes, as everyone collects that eventually; I'm talking strictly Federal Income tax.

If they pay no tax, then they are giving people who haven't paid "free money", to me that stands as socialist. BTW, the money is only FREE to them, to you and I, there is a price tag.

Fact: the first US federal income tax was adopted in 1861.

Fact: in 1913, the US Constitution was amended to authorize a federal income tax because of a Supreme Court case oin 1895 that questioned the federal government's authority to levy an income tax. The amendment remains the law of the land.

Fact: Since the 1920's, United States federal income taxation has been based on higher tax rates for those who earn more. For example, the top income tax rate was as high as 77% in the 1920's.

Fact: Income taxation, with progressive tax rates that increase the more money you make, has been the very basis of revenue collection in the United States for almost a century.

Fact: Reducing tax rates for 95% of Americans and increasing it marginally for 5% of Americans increases the progressivity of the tax code but still would leave top bracket tax rates far lower than almost all of the past century (with the exception being tax rates during President George W. Bush's term).

Fact: The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refund for Americans who pay little or no tax. Yes, in a sense it's "free money." The Earned Income Tax Credit was sponsored by, and became law under, President Ronald W. Reagan.

If Barack Obama's proposal is Socialist or Marxist, so is Theodore Roosevelt, Howard Taft, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richad Nixon and Bill Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Extinguisher
"Republican operative"? It that like a CIA operative? You're just the kind of demented idiot that would vote for Obama, Ayres, Wright, Rezko and Khalidi. Knock yourself out.

If you don't like "operative" then use whatever word you like -- consultant, spin doctor, campaign official, whatever. Bottom line is that her husband's salary (her household) is paid by the Republican Party.

What about the other part of my response about the $700 billion bail out? Isn't that a redistribution of wealth? If so, why does the current Republican administration support it?

I'm rational and well-informed. I'm voting for the candidate with a realistic plan to get our country out of the current recession. I'm voting for Barack H. Obama.

(Notice that, unlike you, I didn't resort to name calling in making my points.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Gaffe was confronted by an Orlando newscaster yesterday . She compared Obama's economic plans to Maxism. Joe didn't answer the statement and Obama responded by shutting down any further interviews with the station. Further proof of the kind of person you Loony Lefties are supporting.

Maybe he didn't know who Max is. I certainly don't know any Max.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely disagree. I believe the facts are that groups petitioned Congress to ease lending rules. As a result, we ended up with the subprime mortgages at the heart of the economic mess. I also don't appreciate, in the middle of the crisis, Obama saying "I'll be campaigning over here if you need me." That is not leadership.

As for giving out free money, well, he is. He promises a tax cut to 95% of America, the problem is 40% of those pay no income tax. So what do you call that besides free money? Be honest for a change.

This country has to help out the less fortunate, of this there can be no doubt. But these social programs have evolved from a needed safety net to a HAMMOCK. The idea that MOST people can only be successful with the aid of the federal government is ludicrous.

The Republicans are screaming about the housing crisis because it's the only issue on which the Democrats played a major role - but so did the Republicans. The housing crisis could have been absorbed if we didn't owe $10 trillion in debt as a result of Bush's tax cuts and our failure to move away from oil consumption. That is a direct result of Republican anti-governmentalism during the entire Reagan era. The banks were also deregulated. That was pushed by the Republicans. Even on Fannie and Freddie, the Bush administration could have taken action to address it but chose not to do it. So on balance, it was the governing philosophy of no-government that led to the crisis. You tell me which party has championed that.

The knee-jerk reaction that I expect from that statement is along the lines of "do you want government to do everything?!" Of course not, but the problem we have is that government has been kept out of areas where it should have been active, like R&D for new energy sources.

I don't think you understand Obama's tax program. If someone isn't paying taxes, he can't get a tax cut. The point is that people earning less than $250,000 are either going to get a tax cut or at the very least not see any increase. Most will see a tax cut. You be honest. You're trying to spin the facts to suit your purposes.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that Obama wants to give anyone a nice, cushy hammock to rest in. The closest we have to that is the golden parachute for CEOs, another Republican favorite. I challenge you to look at www.barackobama.com and find any hammocks. You can say it all you want. It's not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...