10128says...

Politicians taking money they didn't earn by force and redistributing it is a little different from people choosing to be charitable with their own money. Ever so slight of a difference.

I'm not defending McCain either, he's as socialist as the rest of them. I don't think the neo-cons understand that purchasing power appropriations (inflation) and nominal appropriations (taxes) are two sides of the same coin. What have we been doing since 71 when Nixon scratched the discipline of the gold standard? Borrowing money we can't pay back and then trying to pay it back with a printing press. Too bad printing presses don't create wealth, they just siphon the value of labor-backed money to the new printing press money. Last time it happened, we had a monetarist (Volcker) raise interest rates to 20%. What are we doing today? We have a neo-Keynesian (Bernanke) who has a complete misunderstanding of great depression lowering them to 0% and expanding the Fed balance sheet to unprecedented levels. Get your wheelbarrows ready.

The American worker has lost so much to inflationary currency and collusive subsidies, it's a complete joke if he gives one iota about this tax bracket nonsense. You are getting your wages debased daily, overpromised and underdelivered, for years and years, and if you can't figure this out and vote in a libertarian guy like Paul next round, we are deeply screwed for at least two more generations.

ponceleonsays...

I think Colon Powell said it best: all taxes are redistribution of wealth. We have taxes in our supposedly capitalistic society so any claim that Obama is somehow "different" from McCain is purely semantic. While they may have DIFFERENT tax plans, this is not a system by which they take ALL your income, pool it and then redistribute it equally.

This whole "socialism" thing is just the last desperate straw the Reps are hanging on to in order to try to scare the American people. The Reps have RUINED the country over the last 8 years... as Chris Rock said: vote for the guy with 1 house.

imstellar28says...

looks like half the battle has been lost.

private charity and socialist programs are vastly different in principle. private charity is the result of a good will towards your fellow man. socialism is the result of physical violence at the hands of a tyrant (democratically elected or otherwise).

MaxWildersays...

You are going to be taxed. So you can vote for the guy who will use it to help out people who are struggling to pay the rent, or you can vote for the guy who will funnel it to all his rich cronies. That's an easy decision to make.

Hopefully one day enough people will grow up and take responsibility for themselves, and we'll be able to take a more libertarian approach to government. But that day is not here yet.

HollywoodBobsays...

>> ^MaxWilder:
Hopefully one day enough people will grow up and take responsibility for themselves, and we'll be able to take a more libertarian approach to government. But that day is not here yet.

My hope is that one day we realize that money isn't everything, shut down the banks, and convert to a Resource based economy in a technocratic society, so that everyone can live as well as everyone else and we'll actually have leaders that are qualified, not just ones who tell us they are.

jwraysays...

>> ^imstellar28:
looks like half the battle has been lost.
private charity and socialist programs are vastly different in principle. private charity is the result of a good will towards your fellow man. socialism is the result of physical violence at the hands of a tyrant (democratically elected or otherwise).



Oh won't somebody PLEASE think of the CEOs who make $100 million a year and don't want to give half of that to hire police, firemen, educators, doctors, construction workers, etc for public projects that enable the existence and prosperity of the company from which they derive their wealth!

jwraysays...

[sarcasm] Let's go back to the days of deregulation when poor folk had no choice but to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, in unsafe factories to just barely eke out enough to survive (but not enough to move elsewhere)! Slavery in everything but name! [/sarcasm]

Raising the minimum wage promotes automation. Automation promotes higher efficiency per hour of labor. Higher efficiency per hour of labor promotes higher wages and shorter hours.

imstellar28says...

^people become rich because they contribute to society, unless we are talking about fraud which is illegal no matter what system you are in.

the man who invented synthetic insulin is a billionaire who has a $240 million dollar yacht--and hes also saved the lives of tens of millions of people. why should he give a dime to your lazy, uncreative ass or anyone like you? he has already saved the lives of more people then you will ever meet. if we are going to talk "equality" you owe this world much more than he, or any other smart, motivated millionaire who has developed a creative product. what have you contributed to the human race?

so far, your only contribution has been ignorant economic comments and a philosophy of slavery which leads to misery and despotism. our forefathers would gladly give their lives to end yours. you should be deeply ashamed of every word that comes from your mouth.

jwraysays...

take your pompous name and shove it up your ass. Then answer the following question:

Name one country that has ever had PPP median wages as high as OECD simultaneously with absolute laissez-faire economic policy (no taxes, no fiat currency, etc).

jwraysays...

Jefferson said "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies"

Benjamin franklin led the way from laissez-faire to socialism by establishing the first publicly-financed fire brigade

Personal income tax is MUCH less harmful to trade than alternative means of taxation such as tariffs.

IF the government had a 50 trillion endowment instead of $50 trillion debt, and it could therefore pay for its own operations without charging anybody taxes, would that make you happy? However That would basically be the same thing as government ownership of the means of production.

imstellar28says...

^you don't know anything about individualism. you also don't understand anything about the beliefs of our forefathers. they would turn in their graves if they knew you were quoting them in a defense of socialism.

jwraysays...

Socialism hadn't even been tried by anyone yet in 1776. They couldn't be "anti-socialism" when socialism didn't even exist yet.

And since when are we slaves to "THE FOUNDERS", anyway? They were neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More