Exactly! No one cried "ZOMG SOCIALISM" when the government just bought out the biggest banks in the nation. Why not? Because Fox News told you it was a good thing, and you ate it up. Socialism is all up in the American society, yet Republitards don't seem to care because one of their Fox News talking heads didn't tell them to say anything about it. Fuck, open your droopy little eyes people. You are getting played and you don't even realize that it is happening.

Since you had no problem insinuating that I am a racist, I will go ahead and insinuate that you are a closet Communist.


You really are an idiot, aren't you?

Video is the one area that radio is really lacking. They should figure out a way to make it so you can see while the people are talking. Maybe call it television or something like that.

lol yeah, it's just a catchphrase. Jump on board! yeeeeeeehaw!

And I'd really like to know the insurance provider who can cover a families major medical, incidental visits and catostrophic care for $5000 a year and a low deductible. And god help you if you have to buy it yourself. It's MORE likely that your deductible is closer to 5 grand and your coverage is closer to 15 grand. Mccains tax-health insurance "plan" is such a wasted effort. And made all the worse when he simply continues to mis-state Obamas plan. McCain continually insists that Obama would force you to accept goverment run socialist health care, and if an employer doesnt comply, they'll be fined. When all the while, for at least a year and counting now, Obamas plan has been clear that if you like and can afford what you currently have: NOTHING WILL CHANGE FOR YOU!!!!


I mean come on. Someone actually thought this tactic would work? Oh sorry, maybe it's a strategy not a tactic.. yawn.


Oh, and by the way... McCains health insurance tax rebate plan.. is a redistribution of YOUR WEALTH in the form of a tax rebate to deadbeats who can't afford platinum quality care!!!!! dont be fooled!!!!!! LMFAOOOOO :1orglaugh

ok the horse is dead. Beat at own risk.

I tried to listen to the video but they keep editing it and throwing messages in it that I'm supposed to interpret the way the edited context wants me to. I'll pass. You can keep drinking kool-aid if you want.

When you get ahold of the complete interview, let me know. I'd be glad to listen.

people one check away from the street, heavily in debt and with no health care probably want a little redistribution lol ....

If my taxes go to the military, it's still a redistribution of income. So why you're saying "not true" is beyond me.

To be fair, you're pretty much misstating McCain's plan here.

The $5000 tax credit was never meant to full purchase your health insurance. That would be akin to the government buying everyone healthcare but not raising any new taxes to pay for it.

He wants to provide bigger tax incentives for people to buy care, and end the breaks for employers offering health care to employees, to basically do away with the employer based system and move toward a market based system where everyone is equal in terms or purchasing insurance.

It's a fatally flawed plan to be sure, and the only people who would benefit in the end are the insurance companies.....but the $5K was never meant to pay for anyone's health care in full.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Even taking the viewpoint that distributing some of the wealth from the well to do in this country to the larger base of Americans struggling paycheck to paycheck is EXACTLY what is going to happen, I still do not understand the argument of why this is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing to want those who are very needy to have just a little bit more security in the areas of food, housing and medical care?

The disparity between the very rich and the very poor has never been greater in the USA than it is now. For all the fat cats sitting and crying the blues because their retirement accounts are down 40%, it rings hollow for the low income family that waters down their milk to make it last longer and prays to God their car doesnt break down in between paychecks. A poster earlier points out that families making less than 20k pay no income tax. Isnt that a good thing? Because if they were paying taxes that would be outrageous. The fat cats spend 20k on their dining out per year, not their total family budget. Im shocked that a family in the USA can even live on 20k a year. How is that possible?

I had this professor in undergrad that gave this lecture once that I will never forget. In that lecture he told all that students that when they left Cal-Berkeley and went on to be lawyers and doctors and engineers, to never forget that the wealth distribution in the USA is a heavily slanted pyramid. And that social services like welfare, food stamps and unemployment are the main line of defense that the wealthy have against angry mobs storming their neighborhoods with pitchforks and burning torches. Don't think for a moment that we are so civilized in the USA that this cannot happen. The day that comes that large amounts of the poor cannot feed their children or get medicine for their family and you will see anarchy. If you are rich, the smart play to protect your own security is to allow the governenment to invest in protecting the basics needs of the poor.

How come republicans don't care about wealth distribution if its being given to the super wealthy?

...because Reagan's cock is up their ass.

We all know people can't think straight when they are in the middle of a sex act.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:action-sm:rasta:GFYBand:xmas-smil16

The Palin/McCain ticket has its own socialist leanings:



During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC?s ?Hardball,? a young woman asked John McCain why her father, a doctor, should be ?penalized? by being ?in a huge tax bracket.? McCain replied that ?wealthy people can afford more? and that ?the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don?t pay nearly as much as you think they do.? The exchange continued:


YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here?s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there?s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.



For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama ?Barack the Wealth Spreader,? seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government?s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year?s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist?Philip Gourevitch, of The New Yorker?that ?we?re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it?s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.?







Actually, Ms. Palin, collective ownership of resources and sharing in the revenue is communism. And Mr. McCain, I think the idea of "to each according to his ability" came from the writings of Karl Marx.

:thumbsup

Isn't McCain's $300 billion plan to buy up bad mortgages redistributing wealth? If you believe what Obama is doing is redistributing wealth, you believe all the candidates with the exception of Bob Barr.

i actually said i was sorry for that . see you calling me a communist makes me laugh because its not true.im smart enough to look around and say boy what we have been doing isnt working time to try something new. also i dont know how u make a living but my product is bought in the greatest numbers by working middle class people.if they doing well it benefits my business. trickle down doesnt work. rich got a big tax break and wages dropped doesnt take a scientist.also fyi it was government funding that made the internet a reality.mccain before he sold his soul was against the bush tax cuts is he a communist?

actually the biggest tax increases during peacetime were during reagan. its a myth republicans dont raise taxes created by pundits. more increases under poppy bush remember read my lips no new taxes.

explain this to me fidel communist bad but china communist good.

Oh yeah I didnt mean to sound like I thought the $5k was meant to cover fully. It's just one of those talking point things where I feel like each camp is fine just putting out their plan. Rather than focussing on attacking the opponents. Both have big trouble!

McCain today at a rally said that Obama would retreat in Iraq, but he (McCain) would bring them home in victory and honor! 3 sentances later he lambasted Obama for wanting to spend too much "while theres 2 wars going on".. Well which is it?

we actually might be out sooner because it seems iraq wont sign the agreement for us to stay there.this leaving with victory is a fantasy.these people have been fighting for 100's of years. they arent going to stop for us.

Not true. He [the congress] cut taxes for the rich and lowered taxes on capitol gains.

They want Reagan's wrinkly man missle inside them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Its not the industry that most should be concerned with. Its the eroding of personal freedoms. If porn online is taken away, then whats next? Mail order? Stores? Then what? Maybe they'll want to take your guns away or who knows what. Its a slippery slope.

Reagan dramatically raised social security tax as well as gas tax which hurt the lower and middle class. He also raised taxes after cutting them, but instead called it "tax reform". Kind of like how they now call bailouts "rescue packages".

Don't be silly. The middle class don’t count, only the rich.

Bow before Reagan you worm!
ALL HAIL TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS!


P.S. You hate America if you disagree with me.

ok, so... let me get this straight.
Taking your money and giving it to the rich so that the government can own a majority share is good?
Taking your money and giving it to average Americans who need help is bad?

One is socialist and the other isn't? Is that how it is now?
Or is one kind of socialism somehow less evil than the other?

Its actually very easy to pull off. You convince the middle class that they are rich or will be rich when they are not. Manipulation of the ego.

Sadly this is just the begenning of the Bullshit.

damn communist :mad::mad:

Well some of you are starting to realize that both parties are the same at the same time defending the pile of shit you choose to sit in.

This is another one of those cases where supply siders only want to call income tax "tax" and not mention anything else.
So they can drone on about how the rich pay for such a large percentage of the total and the poor don't pay anything.

They never mention the payroll tax. Wanna know why?
Payroll tax is capped at about 100K. So a guy making 10MM a year pays payroll tax on 1% of his income while a guy making 50K pays payroll tax on 100% of his income.

Payroll taxes were raised significantly during the Reagan administration to cover the shortfall the program was experiencing at the time.

Funny how supply siders never mention payroll taxes when talking about who shoulders the tax burden....but they include payroll tax collections when telling you how revenues went up in the 80's after Reagan cut taxes.

So true.

I find it funny that conservatives tend to abhor FDR and what he did, and have been spending the last 30 years trying to undo the new deal.
What they don't realize is that the new deal actually saved capitalism....most of the world was turning socialist/communist at the time, and FDR's hybrid approach is the only reason we still have rich people in this country.

This is too complicated for me to understand.

FACT: Economic growth during Clinton administration was due to a magic vile of Ronald Reagan's essence stored in the Whitehouse.

FACT: Democratic presidents are "tax and spend" because it sounds catchy.

CHECKMATE

Hmm I always thought the increase in the economy was due to mainly the internet boom that he lucked into being pres during....

Agreed. When the economy is good under Democrats it is luck. When it is bad under Republicans it is the Democrats fault.

Do you think any of the changes and policies set forth during Reagan's terms in office made it possible for the boom to happen? Or do we attribute it all to Mr. Gore's inventing? :1orglaugh

I agree 100% with you. Reagan installed a policy that would only take effect 10 years later. Then Clinton poisoned it with his own policy that would poison it right around this time so that his wife could get elected. I bet you Bush has put a secret policy in effect too that will cause the economy to be good in 2016.

lol well at least you made me laugh... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

The last 8 years has seen the largest 'redistribution of wealth' in history. The middle class lost over 600 Billion while the top 1% gained 600 Billion. When a policy wants to give some back to the middle class, its called socialism, handouts, welfare, etc. When it goes the richest people in this country, it's called capitalism, good business and entrepreneurship.

In all honesty, I do believe Clinton did have some luck on his side. He was President during one of the greatest bull runs in our nation's history. He gets too much credit for that.

But I do think the last 8 years have had a failed fiscal policy. Most major economists agree. There was a lack of oversight and initiative on the part of the administration. I think Bernacke fucked up big time by waiting too long to cut rates. I think government fucked up big time by not seeing where this was all headed. Our President is supposed to lead us and he didn't during this time. We were told to keep running up our credit cards to keep the economy rolling.

As a President, all I ask is that they don't completely fuck up our economy.

OK I will. I've been saying this McCain says Obama is socialist and government shouldn't get involed in health care but his plan does just that. I'm pretty sure the $5000 check is going to have "United States of America" written somewhere on it. I'm prety sure the GOVERNMENT is goingot make sure you spend that mpney on health and not say a HDTV or a vacation. So isn't that government getting involved? And as you say the $5000 is being taken form someone and being redistubuted to someone else. What people don't get is that those that have health insurance through their employer will now have that count as income and be taxed on it. That sounds like a tax INCREASE to me.

What I find ironic is that McCain blasts Obama's proposal to offer all American the SAME insurance they both get as memebrs of Congress. According to McCain the governemnt sucks at providing healthcare and yet despite being worth millions himself and his wife being worth over $100 mil and thus waealthy enough to afford premium PRIVATE health insurace he CHOOSES to use the shitty government run health care plan. So what he is saying the governemnt health care plan is good enough for him but not Joe the Plummer

Sorry Lord
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

Ok so I think I understand now.

Economic growth in the 1980's was because of Reagan. The massive debt incurred in the 1980's was because of the Democratic controlled congress.

Economic growth in the 1990's was because of the republican congress, and so was the balanced budget. Clinton, however, did set things in motion that are fucking us over today. (How dare he think that poor people should own their own homes)
The housing crisis has nothing to do with congress making Wall Street exempt from State gaming laws and Bucket Shop laws in 2000 that allowed the creation of derivatives and credit default swaps....it's all because those annoying liberals wanted poor people to be home owners.

Everything bad that's happened from 2000-2006 was because of the Democratic minority in congress....and everything bad that's happening now is the fault of the Democratic paper thin majority that's been there for 18 months. (they apparently work quick)

So really, even when republicans control all 3 branches of government, the Democrats still manage to fuck things up by trying to help poor people. So the only way to really turn things around is to have a one party system (with that party being Republican)

Oh yeah, and I almost forgot. A 35% top tax rate is capitalist, and a 39.6% top rate is socialist.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

This story got zero traction (deservedly so). Faux News, and the Drudge Report were one of the few entertainment outlets that gave it any play.

Are you missing the fact that I'm spewing a massive amount of sarcasm in this thread to present a straw man for people to knock down?

With that said, you're quoting OVERALL taxation, but the the top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% in 1986... gee what class of people does that help? (Hint: Its not the middle class or the poor). It was arguably the biggest tax change of the era.

You should write a political blog. You write great :thumbsup

Thats probably the dumbest statement I've heard from a repub in months, and trust me, there's been plenty.