It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama: Socialist

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
First let me get this out of the way: I am definitely not a supporter of McCain, or either of the 2 major political parties. I will not be voting in the upcoming election as I feel no need to vote for the lesser or 2 evil morons.

That being said, if Obama gets elected, the final nail in the coffin of the U.S. will have been hammered in place. He advocates socialism, and it's clear by his ideas he has never read the U.S. Constitution.

A short video where his own words prove he wants to implement socialism:



Everyone knows that the higher the capital gains rate goes, less money will be invested, and even less will be stolen/ taken in taxes. Obama clearly has no idea on the issue of government revenue resulting from the capital gains tax.

It's as simple as risk vs reward: If you invest 1,000 and earn a gain of 10% ($100), currently you would actually receive a net return of $85. If Obama puts his little socialistic plan in place, you would only receive $72. If you are getting less, why would anyone want to put more in?

He continually mentions raising taxes on the wealthy so he can redistribute that money to the "middle class". He claims this is "fair" How is income redistribution fair? How is it fair to take money from successful people and give it to someone else? How is it fair the ultra wealthy pay the majority of the taxes, while millions of others pay nothing but still get money back?

Income redistribution is the foundation of socialism.

Fair? To whom?

Does he not realize that government theft going by the name of taxes takes away motivation from people? Why would anyone want to work hard if they know the government will take a large chunk of the money their hard work has earned?


Just to show his ignorance on the Constitution, lets take a look at his own
website:


Support Job Creation: Barack Obama believes we need to double federal funding for basic research and make the research and development tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs. Obama will also make long-term investments in education, training, and workforce development so that Americans can leverage our strengths - our ingenuity and entrepreneurialism - to create new high-wage jobs and prosper in a world economy.


It isn't the job or function of the federal government to "create jobs". That is a function of the private market.


Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.


Yet again he proves his ignorance on economic matters. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that raising the minimum wage results in fewer jobs, as business owners are forced to cut back on staff so they don't have to raise prices. Minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage, it is an ENTRY LEVEL wage.


Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures: Obama will create a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners. The fund will be partially paid for by Obama's increased penalties on lenders who act irresponsibly and commit fraud.


The Constitutional authorization for this is where? What about irresponsible homeowners who buy homes they can't afford? Will taxpayers be forced to subsidize their poor choices too?


Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.


This idiocy piggybacks on the Family and medical Leave Act. Obama wants to force business owners to pay people when they take FMLA leave. Having a baby is a personal decision, why should a business owner be forced to pay someone to not work because of a CHOICE said employee made? Business owners will be forced to hire someone to fill the vacated spot, yet again raising the cost of doing business.

I could go on and on, but I think this should be enough to get us started. If you want to see his frightening ideas on violating our 2nd Amendment rights, check out this blog post

[edit on 19-6-2008 by slackerwire]

[edit on 19-6-2008 by slackerwire]




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
First let me get this out of the way: I am definitely not a supporter of McCain, or either of the 2 major political parties. I will not be voting in the upcoming election as I feel no need to vote for the lesser or 2 evil morons.

That being said, if Obama gets elected, the final nail in the coffin of the U.S. will have been hammered in place. He advocates socialism, and it's clear by his ideas he has never read the U.S. Constitution.


OK, it's clear you are against socialism. May I ask why? Can you point me to a country where socialism has made it to be a terrible place to live?


Income redistribution is the foundation of socialism.


Actually, the definition of socialism is the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners.


Does he not realize that government theft going by the name of taxes takes away motivation from people? Why would anyone want to work hard if they know the government will take a large chunk of the money their hard work has earned?


I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. Using France as an example, the tax rates are not such much higher (i.e. 5%) than those in the US. So I wouldn't agree that he's taking a "large chunk", tax rates in socialist countries are not that much more at all. French tax rates are:

www.frenchentree.com...

US tax rates are:

www.moneychimp.com...

So you can see, for the really rich, you're paying 5% more in France. The "middle class", who I'll define are people earning $100k plus, it's 2% more. Again, not a "large" chunk.


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that raising the minimum wage results in fewer jobs, as business owners are forced to cut back on staff so they don't have to raise prices. Minimum wage isn't meant to be a living wage, it is an ENTRY LEVEL wage.


So all those in minimum wage jobs are people who are still living at home or something? All waitresses are 16 and still living with Mom & Dad? Only kids still living at home take minimum wage jobs? All the bus boys you see in restaurants aren't doing it to make a living, it's just pocket money? Come on, please be real, do you see the Mexicans who are predominantly on minimum wage getting promoted much?

Since oil prices have gone up, have you been seeing oil companies lay people off to keep the price at the pump the same, or have they just passed on the cost direct to us? Please provide an example where a company has laid off staff so it doesn't have to raise a products price.


This idiocy piggybacks on the Family and medical Leave Act. Obama wants to force business owners to pay people when they take FMLA leave. Having a baby is a personal decision, why should a business owner be forced to pay someone to not work because of a CHOICE said employee made? Business owners will be forced to hire someone to fill the vacated spot, yet again raising the cost of doing business.


We'll see if your singing the same tune when you have a kid.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Alethia]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia

OK, it's clear you are against socialism. May I ask why? Can you point me to a country where socialism has made it to be a terrible place to live?


1. Socialism is unconstitutional.

2. Socialism infringes upon everyones freedom.

3. Each and every socialist nation with confiscatory tax rates would be a terrible place to live. More government is never the answer to anything.




Actually, the definition of socialism is the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners.


Private ownership = freedom.




I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. Using France as an example, the tax rates are not such much higher (i.e. 5%) than those in the US. So I wouldn't agree that he's taking a "large chunk", tax rates in socialist countries are not that much more at all. French tax rates are:

www.frenchentree.com...

US tax rates are:

www.moneychimp.com...

So you can see, for the really rich, you're paying 5% more in France. The "middle class", who I'll define are people earning $100k plus, it's 2% more. Again, not a "large" chunk.


Uh, you neglected to mention France's 19.6% Value Added Tax rate. Care to explain why ANYONE should be forced to give government 40% of their earnings?


So all those in minimum wage jobs are people who are still living at home or something? All waitresses are 16 and still living with Mom & Dad? Only kids still living at home take minimum wage jobs? All the bus boys you see in restaurants aren't doing it to make a living, it's just pocket money? Come on, please be real, do you see the Mexicans who are predominantly on minimum wage getting promoted much?



Of course not. Those are people who made poor career choices and didn't get the necessary job skills to make something of themselves. Minimum wage IS NOT a living wage, nor was it ever meant to be.



Since oil prices have gone up, have you been seeing oil companies lay people off to keep the price at the pump the same, or have they just passed on the cost direct to us? Please provide an example where a company has laid off staff so it doesn't have to raise a products price.


Oil companies are one of the few that can pass the cost down and demand will remain the same. Oil is an absolute necessity in todays America. oil companies have no incentive to lay people off to keep the price the same. They continue to post record profits due to volume, hence they aren't being forced to pay anyone a certain amount of money.





We'll see if your singing the same tune when you have a kid.


Already do. Certainly wouldn't expect my employer to pay me for my personal decision to take time off of work to tend to a child I chose to have.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
So have you ever lived in France? Have you ever even visited France, have you visited any socialist country?

What freedoms do the French lack, for example?

The US has sales tax too, maybe not as much as other countries, but it does have it.

People who made poor career choices huh. So what about people who, by birth, do not have the mental capacity to take on certain jobs, people with downs syndrome for example. They should be forced to live on a minimum wage and not enjoy the things that others have because they can't afford it. Through birth, they must accept being an underclass?

Great, so oil companies should be allowed to exploit people because there is no other choice, what a fine position to have. Again, care to provide an example of where a company has laid off staff to maintain a low product price.

What I would generally like to know is how you feel the US would change if, and it's still and IF, Obama did implement new taxes. What would it mean to you? How would your life change?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
France can't even look at a website the government doesn't agree with. Now who's free? Not that any country is better than any other, to attack France is not my point.
And anyone can submit a website to "be reviewed for banning." Hello, KGB? At least the
communist government of France can no longer easily hide behind the PC version of communism, socialism. And if you don't agree with their orwellian policy you MUST be a pedophile, or terrorist. It's as bad as the U.S. or U.K. policy.

blog.wired.com...

French Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie announced on 10 June 2008 that the French state had come to an agreement with the French ISPs to block sites carrying pedophilic content or content related to terrorism and racial hatred. (((Or whatever.)))
"We can no longer tolerate the sexual exploitation of children in the form of cyber-pedophilia. We have come to an agreement: the access to child pornography sites will be blocked in France. Other democracies have done it. France could wait no longer" said the minister. (((Who is a tough old broad had been well-rehearsed.)))
en.wikipedia.org...èle_Alliot-Marie
The plan will be put into force in September by the creation of a blacklist on the basis of information received from Internet users on sites that carry offensive material. Internet users will be able, via a platform, to signal offensive content. A decision will then be taken on whether the respective sites should be included on the blacklist that will be sent to ISPs that will then block them. Sites found to contain illegal content will be referred to justice. (((Kind of an ingenious Web 2.0-style participatory scheme here.)))
According to Alliot-Marie, France will pass on, via Interpol or Europol, information regarding sites found offensive that are hosted in other countries. The minister said this plan was not intended as a Big Brother of the Internet stating she believed in the "fundamental liberty that is Internet access." She also expressed her hope that France's upcoming presidency of the European Union will be a chance to coordinate efforts between countries so as to avoid useless duplicated efforts in blocking offensive sites. (((Yeah, and just wait till this guy is the President of Europe -- oh wait, the pesky Irish just torpedoed the Lisbon treaty. Oh well, that's a mere detail.)))



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Ahhhh.... I see someone has Baracknophobia.

You sound like my friend. He's hopping around madder than Rumplestiltskin with St. Vitus Dance in his pants.

No one is going to stand for socialism in this country. Especially not the corporations.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
what is wrong with socialism?

everyone is equal

hence social-ism

i consider myself a Kerouatic-socialist-marxist (groucho) that is

[edit on 19-6-2008 by MurderCityDevil]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurderCityDevil
i consider myself a Kerouatic-socialist-marxist (groucho) that is


Is the Kerouatic-socialist-marxist (Harpo) a different type?


I'm not a big fan of socialism. Why should I work for the great good, if some other people will sit on their ever-expanding ass and collect without ever working a day?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
Ahhhh.... I see someone has Baracknophobia.

You sound like my friend. He's hopping around madder than Rumplestiltskin with St. Vitus Dance in his pants.

No one is going to stand for socialism in this country. Especially not the corporations.


Socialism already (unfortunately) has a pretty strong foothold in this country.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurderCityDevil
what is wrong with socialism?

everyone is equal

hence social-ism

i consider myself a Kerouatic-socialist-marxist (groucho) that is

[edit on 19-6-2008 by MurderCityDevil]


What isn't wrong with it?

Everyone is equal? So the worthless loser who sits around collecting a government check is equal to the hard working guy who has money stolen from him by the government so that they may redistribute that money to the aforementioned worthless losers?

As I said before, socialism is Unconstitutional.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia
So have you ever lived in France? Have you ever even visited France, have you visited any socialist country?


Yes. Been to France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland.


What freedoms do the French lack, for example?


You can be put in prison for "offensive speech"

How about the freedom to criticize a certain group of people and not having to worry about being prosecuted for your speech?


The US has sales tax too, maybe not as much as other countries, but it does have it.


You may want to learn the difference between sales tax and a VAT.


People who made poor career choices huh. So what about people who, by birth, do not have the mental capacity to take on certain jobs, people with downs syndrome for example. They should be forced to live on a minimum wage and not enjoy the things that others have because they can't afford it. Through birth, they must accept being an underclass?


Life isn't fair sometimes, and it certainly isn't governments job to make it that way.

Who said down syndrome people are relegated to only minimum wage only jobs?


Great, so oil companies should be allowed to exploit people because there is no other choice, what a fine position to have. Again, care to provide an example of where a company has laid off staff to maintain a low product price.


The oil companies profit margin is quite low compared to other industries, exactly who are they exploiting?


What I would generally like to know is how you feel the US would change if, and it's still and IF, Obama did implement new taxes. What would it mean to you? How would your life change?


My life would change pretty drastically. My income places me in one of the highest tax brackets, and if numbnuts wants to raise them even more, that means I would have less disposable income.


I would be forced to invest less, as there is no reason for me to continue the way I do if the government would take an extra 13% of my gains.

Need I go on?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by slackerwire

Yes. Been to France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland.


Great. And where they terrible places?


How about the freedom to criticize a certain group of people and not having to worry about being prosecuted for your speech?


Funny you should mention that. Heard about this guy who was arrested for criticizing Cheney:

www.rockymountainnews.com...

Or this couple arrested for wearing t-shirts with Bush's name crossed out

www.blogd.com...

Care to explain to me the difference?


You may want to learn the difference between sales tax and a VAT.


No, I'm fully aware of the difference. The point being made is that you're saying socialist countries pay a lot more tax, when the stats don't bear that out.


Life isn't fair sometimes, and it certainly isn't governments job to make it that way. Who said down syndrome people are relegated to only minimum wage only jobs?


Come on now, don't twist words when you don't like the way the debate is going. Did I say all people with downs syndrome? No. But as an example, there are people with downs syndrome who, because of the way society works, will only be given minimum wage jobs, either because society doesn't deem them to be capable of more, or because through birth they can't do more, even though it's not their fault they are not capable of more.

Now, if you are advocating an underclass that's fine, it's just nice to know and I'm happy to not to have to know or work with you.


The oil companies profit margin is quite low compared to other industries, exactly who are they exploiting?


Everyone. Please point me in the direction of someone who is happy with the price of gas right now, who feels it isn't artificially high and is not adversely affecting them (other than Bush & Cheney of course, they're loving every minute of it).

And I again, I please ask you to clarify your statement that peoples jobs are lost with the rise in taxes due to companies not passing on that tax cost to the consumer. Please provide an example of where this has happened.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by Alethia]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Alethia
 





OK, it's clear you are against socialism. May I ask why? Can you point me to a country where socialism has made it to be a terrible place to live?


That's not too hard to do. Let's try Soviet Russia, Mao's China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Albania, Angola .... etc. etc.

All deplorable horrific countries, where waiting in line for your toilet paper was the norm. Socialist command and control economies always produce shortages, higher costs and lack of consumer choice. All you are doing is replacing one monopoly (corporate America) for an even bigger one (federal government).

Even socialized medicine is a complete failure unless you are healthy. That's why Canadians who need heart surgery come to the US. Or they could just die in Canada waiting for service. That's why you can't find an oral surgeon in the UK unless you pay out of pocket.

Yet for some reason people keep wanting to repeat this mistake over and over again.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alethia


Great. And where they terrible places?


No, because I am not forced to live there.



Funny you should mention that. Heard about this guy who was arrested for criticizing Cheney:

www.rockymountainnews.com...

Or this couple arrested for wearing t-shirts with Bush's name crossed out

www.blogd.com...

Care to explain to me the difference?


Both are equally bad, however you are overlooking one thing:

Neither of the 2 examples you posted were actually CHARGED with a crime. They weren't forced to defend themselves in court. Both of the links you posted stated all charges were dismissed.





No, I'm fully aware of the difference. The point being made is that you're saying socialist countries pay a lot more tax, when the stats don't bear that out.


the VAT in france is 19.6%. You don't consider that alot more?



Come on now, don't twist words when you don't like the way the debate is going. Did I say all people with downs syndrome? No. But as an example, there are people with downs syndrome who, because of the way society works, will only be given minimum wage jobs, either because society doesn't deem them to be capable of more, or because through birth they can't do more, even though it's not their fault they are not capable of more.


Lots of people without down syndrome aren't qualified to do anything other than menial jobs that pay minimum wage. Your point? As I said before, life isn't fair, some people get the shaft simply by being born.

Some people are born good looking, others are born ugly. Should the government force plastic surgeons to de-uglify the ugly folks? Of course they shouldn't. Same goes with the minimum wage. It was never meant to be a living wage. If you believe otherwise, lets see some factual evidence to back up that contention.




Now, if you are advocating an underclass that's fine, it's just nice to know and I'm happy to not to have to know or work with you.


There always has been and there always will be an underclass in every society that has ever existed. Don't like it? Tough. Get used to it. Your little socialist dream will never rectify it.




Everyone. Please point me in the direction of someone who is happy with the price of gas right now, who feels it isn't artificially high and is not adversely affecting them (other than Bush & Cheney of course, they're loving every minute of it).



How about the oil company's shareholders? With record profits being posted every quarter, I'm sure they are more than happy with the nice dividends they are receiving. It's artificially high due to speculators in the futures market, not the oil companies.



And I again, I please ask you to clarify your statement that peoples jobs are lost with the rise in taxes due to companies not passing on that tax cost to the consumer. Please provide an example of where this has happened.



Uh, I didn't say the taxes would cause a loss of jobs, I said raising the minimum wage would.

Source 1

Source 2

Need more?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Wake up!

The Democrat party is socialist.

FDR got it going with his programs during the depression and like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As for refusing to vote because neither candidate is in lockstep with your ideals, that's not particularly smart.

It is far better to vote for the candidate that best represents your ideals than it is to let everyone else decide who's going to run the country for the next four years.

In fact, if you don't vote, don't bother me with your complaints about anything having to do with politics.

If you don't vote, you're just a kibitzer, not a player.


[edit on 2008/6/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Neither of the 2 retards running for president share my beliefs, why should I vote for either one of them?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by slackerwire
 


Obviously, you shouldn't vote.

I'll just put you on ignore.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Ah ignore, the last resort of someone who obviously is out of their league.

Good luck with that.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Good post Slackerwire.

Lazy people want to be spoonfed by the government.

Disabled people in some ways should be.

If the government has more control of things, it means an Obama Presidency would thus have more control.

For someone with so little experience, Obama wants to stick his nose into everything, tell you what is best for you.

He doesn't know what is best for you, only you know that.

Obama has no business running for the POTUS - the world's leading free democracy.

He should go run for President of Kenya, but he won't , because he wouldn't have as much power.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
reply to post by Alethia
 





OK, it's clear you are against socialism. May I ask why? Can you point me to a country where socialism has made it to be a terrible place to live?


That's not too hard to do. Let's try Soviet Russia, Mao's China, North Korea, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Albania, Angola .... etc. etc.

All deplorable horrific countries, where waiting in line for your toilet paper was the norm. Socialist command and control economies always produce shortages, higher costs and lack of consumer choice. All you are doing is replacing one monopoly (corporate America) for an even bigger one (federal government).


It's so easy, you've gone and confused communism with socialism, without understanding the difference. In fact China is a confuscianist country, if you want to be exact. What you've also gone and done is list countries that aren't/weren't democratically elected governments. Try and list a country that is democratically elected eh, or are you saying the US can't vote democratically and that Obama will be a dictator?


That's why you can't find an oral surgeon in the UK unless you pay out of pocket.

Yet for some reason people keep wanting to repeat this mistake over and over again.


Can you prove you can't get an oral surgeon without paying for one in the UK? And your advocating living in a society where a child should die of a toothache if they can't pay?

www.washingtonpost.com...



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join