Fear of higher taxes and socialism.

[Technosoul]

Once more the Republicans are resorting to the old myth that Democrats will raise your taxes to create a lot of new welfare programs.

Trying to scare you again.

In the same way as they tried to link Saddam with Bin Laden they will try to link the Democrats with Communism.

Likewise they will attempt to present their self as being moral Christians and will try to make you think that Democrats are secular intellecturals or that they have missguided morals.

Trying to scare you again.

Creating false fear of the Democrats is the only hope they have for gaining votes in this election.

Plus they will try to make people think that Democrats are weak on terrorism or that they do not "support our troops" in Irag. More deception.

However few people nowadays are stupid enough to fall for that old game plan. And Hillary Clinton is prepared to smote those concepts once and for all.

[The Sexorcist]

I was with you until you said Hillary was the candidate to put an end to all this.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Sexorcist I was with you until you said Hillary was the candidate to put an end to all this.

I am not sure yet if the other Democrats have prepared to answer the Republican's fear based agenda concerning this or not. In the U Tube debate she explained the difference between the title "Liberal" and "Progessive moderate" and that shows me she is ready to take on that attack method that Rudy is putting forth. And on behalf of any Democrat that is nominated as well as for her own bid.

[tivodan1116]

The funnier thing is that by and large these type of attacks work:

Gullible voters, Republicans and Democrats alike, base their voting on the proposition that Republicans favor smaller government and lower taxes, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The funnier thing is that by and large these type of attacks work: Gullible voters, Republicans and Democrats alike, base their voting on the proposition that Republicans favor smaller government and lower taxes, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Republican party is mostly composed of gullible people and so I guess they have the right to gather in their flock.

And I will also agree that some of the top democratic canadates are doing likewise. They want to represent change and that might be aimed at gullible people because so far they have not taken bold steps to insure that change in Congress.

[Osborn F Enready]

All of the Democrats, except maybe Gravel, and all of the Republicans except Paul support higher taxation for more un-necessary, un-constitutional social programs and corporate and/or private welfare.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready All of the Democrats, except maybe Gravel, and all of the Republicans except Paul support higher taxation for more un-necessary, un-constitutional social programs and corporate and/or private welfare.

Are you saying that taxes are unconstutional or that rasing the tax is unconsitutional? Or are you only objecting to welfare type programs?

There is a difference between something unconsitutional and something that happens to not be directly mandated by consitutional law.

Based on the gross profit of all the wealth and production made in America we can afford not to become like parts of India where people lay on the streets starving and dieing while other must walk past it knowing that they personally cannot help all those discarded people. Do we want that kind of country or not when we have the economic status do something to prevent such a mess? True, the consitutional law did not mandate that the government should rule with compassion for the disadvantaged among us, but the document did not cover everything, we can add extra objectives when the times make such possible and when the situtations call for action.

Why must religion be the only moral compass for helping the poor or for other social programs like that? Most atheists do not want to donate to a church outreach program, although the Salvation Army is doing a fine job, yet underfunded by donations to meet the demand. So why not a collective program that is not religious to meet those needs?

[Athena]

Quote by: Technosoul Once more the Republicans are resorting to the old myth that Democrats will raise your taxes to create a lot of new welfare programs. Trying to scare you again. In the same way as they tried to link Saddam with Bin Laden they will try to link the Democrats with Communism. Likewise they will attempt to present their self as being moral Christians and will try to make you think that Democrats are secular intellecturals or that they have missguided morals. Trying to scare you again. Creating false fear of the Democrats is the only hope they have for gaining votes in this election. Plus they will try to make people think that Democrats are weak on terrorism or that they do not "support our troops" in Irag. More deception. However few people nowadays are stupid enough to fall for that old game plan. And Hillary Clinton is prepared to smote those concepts once and for all.

This is equal to what happened in Germany, only the enemy was "Social Democrats" instead of "liberals". Same thing only different names.

Keep in mind, Reagan scapegoated the poor for our economic troubles, just as the Nazis scapegoated the Jews. Then he slashed domestic budgets and poured our wealth into military spending. He and Bush have greatly increased our national debt, as both usied our military to secure control of the Mid East. The real cost of oil is the military cost and political pay offs, and neglecting our domestic needs including education, and taking money from Social Security to hide the fact of how badly spending was not meeting domestic needs.

Bush is probably known for his efforts to improve education. This is such a sham! The No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to provide military recruiters with children's names and addresses, and instead of giving schools more to work with, it just set higher standards and threatened to take money from schools that can't meet them. We are drowning in double speak and illusions.

[Athena]

Quote by: Technosoul The Republican party is mostly composed of gullible people and so I guess they have the right to gather in their flock. And I will also agree that some of the top democratic canadates are doing likewise. They want to represent change and that might be aimed at gullible people because so far they have not taken bold steps to insure that change in Congress.

Be careful to not overstate your case.

Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As a political philosopher, Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment and knew many intellectual leaders in Britain and France. He idealized the independent yeoman farmer as exemplar of the republican virtue, distrusted cities and financiers, and favored states' rights and a strictly limited federal government. Jefferson supported the separation of church and state and was the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779, 1786). He was the eponym of Jeffersonian democracy and the co-founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, which dominated American politics for a quarter-century. Jefferson served as the wartime Governor of Virginia (1779–1781), first United States Secretary of State (1789–1793) and second Vice President (1797–1801).

If we base our opinion of the political parties on the past, the Republican party is clearly the better party. But these parties have almost reversed roles. The Neo con's got control of the Republican party, and unfortunately the eldly who support them, have not noticed the change, but they are beginning to realize the unthinkable- that Bush and his father did mean the same thing Hitler meant when he spoke of the New World Order. This is unthinkable to the generation that fought Nazi Germany, so they are having a very, very hard time dealing this reality.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Athena If we base our opinion of the political parties on the past, the Republican party is clearly the better party. But these parties have almost reversed roles. The Neo con's got control of the Republican party, and unfortunately the eldly who support them, have not noticed the change, but they are beginning to realize the unthinkable- that Bush and his father did mean the same thing Hitler meant when he spoke of the New World Order. This is unthinkable to the generation that fought Nazi Germany, so they are having a very, very hard time dealing this reality.

Huh? FYI... The group of Jefferson and his supporters later went on to become the modern Democrat party, not the Republicans.

[Netopalis]

Well, to be entirely honest, Jefferson's supporters went on to become the Democratic-Republican Party. Just to muddy the water a bit. They were against the Federalists - when the federalists collapsed, after a few intermediate parties, the Republicans split from the Democrats.

[Osborn F Enready]

Technosoul said: Are you saying that taxes are unconstutional or that rasing the tax is unconsitutional?

I am saying the current tax system, and tax structure is unconstitutional.

Technosoul said: Or are you only objecting to welfare type programs?

I am also objecting welfare type programs.

Techno said: There is a difference between something unconsitutional and something that happens to not be directly mandated by consitutional law.

You and I have discussed this enough times for you to know where I am coming from.

Techno said: Based on the gross profit of all the wealth and production made in America we can afford not to become like parts of India where people lay on the streets starving and dieing while other must walk past it knowing that they personally cannot help all those discarded people.

Appeal to emotion, assumption of role of government, false cause and effect, and utterly rabble.

Techno said: Do we want that kind of country or not when we have the economic status do something to prevent such a mess?

Who is this "we" that has the money?

Techno said: True, the consitutional law did not mandate that the government should rule with compassion for the disadvantaged among us, but the document did not cover everything, we can add extra objectives when the times make such possible and when the situtations call for action.

You certainly can, and should, in way that does not directly abridge the rights of the citizens of the United States, unlike current programs and systems of taxation.

Techno said: Why must religion be the only moral compass for helping the poor or for other social programs like that?

?!? I help the poor, and so do many Americans when they see a good cause. People who can make money, give money when they feel moved to do so. It is not governments right to theive from citizens to dole out their individual incomes in wealth redistribution programs.

Techno said: Most atheists do not want to donate to a church outreach program, although the Salvation Army is doing a fine job, yet underfunded by donations to meet the demand.

I am not religious, and I have donated to both religious AND non-religious charity programs if the cause was worthy in my opinion. It's the right of the individual to decide where that money goes, not the governments.

Techno said: So why not a collective program that is not religious to meet those needs?

I have no problem with that, as long as it isn't funded by mandatory taxation or run by the government.

[billybobama]

Quote by: Technosoul Once more the Republicans are resorting to the old myth that Democrats will raise your taxes to create a lot of new welfare programs. Trying to scare you again. In the same way as they tried to link Saddam with Bin Laden they will try to link the Democrats with Communism. Likewise they will attempt to present their self as being moral Christians and will try to make you think that Democrats are secular intellecturals or that they have missguided morals. Trying to scare you again. Creating false fear of the Democrats is the only hope they have for gaining votes in this election. Plus they will try to make people think that Democrats are weak on terrorism or that they do not "support our troops" in Irag. More deception. However few people nowadays are stupid enough to fall for that old game plan. And Hillary Clinton is prepared to smote those concepts once and for all.

The Fascist Republican Party runs on fear and ignorance.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am saying the current tax system, and tax structure is unconstitutional. I am also objecting welfare type programs. You and I have discussed this enough times for you to know where I am coming from. Appeal to emotion, assumption of role of government, false cause and effect, and utterly rabble. Who is this "we" that has the money? You certainly can, and should, in way that does not directly abridge the rights of the citizens of the United States, unlike current programs and systems of taxation. ?!? I help the poor, and so do many Americans when they see a good cause. People who can make money, give money when they feel moved to do so. It is not governments right to theive from citizens to dole out their individual incomes in wealth redistribution programs. I am not religious, and I have donated to both religious AND non-religious charity programs if the cause was worthy in my opinion. It's the right of the individual to decide where that money goes, not the governments. I have no problem with that, as long as it isn't funded by mandatory taxation or run by the government.

Fear of socialism is also an emotion,.

Your obsolete idea is fine as long as you can return us to the old days when people could walk into the woods and find or hunt for free food, when we could stll drink the water, when we could chop down trees to build a house from areas not owned by people with "no traspassing signs" and fenses, when we could still fish in the unpoluted lakes and streams. In the old days when you could raise your own chickens to get eggs (no longer permitted in most populated areas).

The old days are gone now.

Good socialistic programs that are properly carried out by a government are not evil plots to steal from Paul to give to Peter. It is something people as a collective conscience have voted for. Lots of things have changed since doctors rode horseback to visit people in their log cabins. We need to meet these new changes with new ideas.

And what about those founding forefathers? Tomas Jefferson started the tobacco industry and so how would he viewed in our modern eyes, today he would be the Evil Tobacco Industry and blamed for why we need costly medical research and treatment programs. Why the anti smoking government of our modern day would sin tax him right out of his horse and buggy.

But back to the topic - I can only agree that in the past our government has miss-managed the welfare systems and simular programs and ended up spending more money on paperwork then they did for food stamps. That part of the system also needs addressing and fixing.

Now (moving on to another perspective) we allow big companies to write off donations from their taxes and those "write offs" consitute the fact that they are pushed into supporting socialistic programs to aid a good cause. If we effect a "non-socialistic" agenda then you must outlaw writing off donations that the rich do on thier tax forms.
And without that loophole they would end up in a higher tax bracket and would end up being billed a LOT MORE from the IRS. The amount of tax money they would pay without write off loopholes would skyrocket for them which in their eyes would consitutute raising taxes.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: Fear of socialism is also an emotion,.

I have no fear of socialism, and am in fact, ready to confront it if it comes knocking.

Techno said: Your obsolete idea is fine as long as you can return us to the old days when people could walk into the woods and find or hunt for free food, when we could stll drink the water, when we could chop down trees to build a house from areas not owned by people with "no traspassing signs" and fenses, when we could still fish in the unpoluted lakes and streams. In the old days when you could raise your own chickens to get eggs (no longer permitted in most populated areas).

As if..... maybe you should investigate how we had those rights taken?

Techno said: The old days are gone now.

Everything that is old, will become new again as people see the ignorance of their ways.

Techno said: Good socialistic programs that are properly carried out by a government are not evil plots to steal from Paul to give to Peter. It is something people as a collective conscience have voted for.

A: They didn't vote for it, it was installed.
B: It wasn't their right to vote for it, OR have it installed.

Techno said: Lots of things have changed since doctors rode horseback to visit people in their log cabins. We need to meet these new changes with new ideas.

We need to meet those challenges with ideas that CAN work, as opposed to the bunk that has been passed as ideas, and has drug this nation further and further toward the third world.

Techno said: And what about those founding forefathers? Tomas Jefferson started the tobacco industry and so how would he viewed in our modern eyes, today he would be the Evil Tobacco Industry and blamed for why we need costly medical research and treatment programs. Why the anti smoking government of our modern day would sin tax him right out of his horse and buggy.

Did you get this in an e-mail from Rosie O'Donnel, Al Gore, or did you think that up yourself?

Techno said: But back to the topic - I can only agree that in the past our government has miss-managed the welfare systems and simular programs and ended up spending more money on paperwork then they did for food stamps. That part of the system also needs addressing and fixing.

As if you have a damn bit of say in it. Last time I checked, sheeple voted in another "democratic controlled congress" because they wanted change, and instead, got a big plate of status quo and worse, higher taxes.

Techno said: Now (moving on to another perspective) we allow big companies to write off donations from their taxes and those "write offs" consitute the fact that they are pushed into supporting socialistic programs to aid a good cause. If we effect a "non-socialistic" agenda then you must outlaw writing off donations that the rich do on thier tax forms.

And?

Techno said: And without that loophole they would end up in a higher tax bracket and would end up being billed a LOT MORE from the IRS. The amount of tax money they would pay without write off loopholes would skyrocket for them which in their eyes would consitutute raising taxes.

Please spare me your lack of economic insight.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have no fear of socialism, and am in fact, ready to confront it if it comes knocking. As if..... maybe you should investigate how we had those rights taken? Everything that is old, will become new again as people see the ignorance of their ways. A: They didn't vote for it, it was installed. B: It wasn't their right to vote for it, OR have it installed. We need to meet those challenges with ideas that CAN work, as opposed to the bunk that has been passed as ideas, and has drug this nation further and further toward the third world. Did you get this in an e-mail from Rosie O'Donnel, Al Gore, or did you think that up yourself? As if you have a damn bit of say in it. Last time I checked, sheeple voted in another "democratic controlled congress" because they wanted change, and instead, got a big plate of status quo and worse, higher taxes. And? Please spare me your lack of economic insight.

It sounded like you wanted everyone to fear socialism.

So what, they took away the right to use child labor and put them in public schools. (one example), replacing "bad rights" with 'better rights", I would think people would support such pregressive steps.

And so the old will be made new again, you say. As if by magic we can all become pioneers again in our new world. Nice pipe dream. But if we all repent of driving cars and get new horses to ride we might become like a 3rd world developing country like the kind that George Washington lived in.

They voted for the Pesidents and the Congress representives - same thing. If you feel "they" had no right to effect a program then get a hearing at the Supreme Court and it will be changed back to being "consitutional". We have a system in place for such matters.
Fact is you cannot because otherwise it would already have been done, and the reason no one got it reversed by the Supreme Court is that it was okay relative to consitutional interpretation.

At last I agree. We need ideas that WORK (better then ideas that do not work as well). I have no problem with ideas that work.

No I did not get an e-mail from Al Gore. In fact I do not ever check my e-mails and have not done so for a long time. The idea came to me as I was typing my post "from out of the blue". What does Rosie got to do with the price of eggs, she is not a canadate?

Where did you get such a notion, did Rush Limburgercheese e-mail you that idea?

No problem, I do not mind sparing some economic insite, I have an abundance and due to being overstocked I can spare some for those in need.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: So what, they took away the right to use child labor and put them in public schools. (one example), replacing "bad rights" with 'better rights", I would think people would support such pregressive steps.

What are you talking about?!? Where have I EVER complained about child labor laws? You are arguing with your vivid, imagination sir.

Techno said: And so the old will be made new again, you say. As if by magic we can all become pioneers again in our new world. Nice pipe dream.

DREAM?!? No, a "dream" has a nice ending, hence the term "dream", and not the term "nightmare" being used.

Everything old (the knowledge of how to survive without an obscenely fat market, and fluid fiat situation) will become new again. (as the market dries up, the fiat is cashed in, and bread lines grow long.)

Techno said: But if we all repent of driving cars and get new horses to ride we might become like a 3rd world developing country like the kind that George Washington lived in.

While it may seem funny, that America, today, would be faring much better, and much less dependent on terrorist nations for energy and fuel supplies.

Techno said: They voted for the Pesidents and the Congress representives - same thing. If you feel "they" had no right to effect a program then get a hearing at the Supreme Court and it will be changed back to being "consitutional".

Sure; I will just set aside my lunch money for the next 134 thousand years so I can hire a lawyer willing to take such a case, and then be able to afford the delays, appeals, dismissals, etc until the case is actually given a fair day in court.......

I would pick up arms first, thanks. I know where the better odds lay.

Techno said: We have a system in place for such matters.

Oh, you mean that corrupted, partisan system that has become kingmaker and denier of individual rights?

Techno said: Fact is you cannot because otherwise it would already have been done, and the reason no one got it reversed by the Supreme Court is that it was okay relative to consitutional interpretation.

"Relative" being the key term used. It was relative to those who were DOING the interpreting, who were handpicked ponies juiced by one side to give a one sided ruling.

Techno said: At last I agree. We need ideas that WORK (better then ideas that do not work as well). I have no problem with ideas that work.

So when are you giving up on socialism or communism?

Techno said: No I did not get an e-mail from Al Gore. In fact I do not ever check my e-mails and have not done so for a long time. The idea came to me as I was typing my post "from out of the blue". What does Rosie got to do with the price of eggs, she is not a canadate?

I was just saying that you replies and accusations remind me of the rhetoric I hear coming from their mouths. I though maybe you were on their "spam" list, and decided to share their nuggets of wisdom.

Techno said: Where did you get such a notion, did Rush Limburgercheese e-mail you that idea?

Rush is about as smart as Pelosi, or Hillary for that matter..... not very. Thats why they all sit where they do, and collect checks from who they do.

Techno said: No problem, I do not mind sparing some economic insite, I have an abundance and due to being overstocked I can spare some for those in need.

That was a sarcastic poke at your fundamental lack of understanding of economics.

[Technosoul]

[quote=Osborn F Enready;416234]What are you talking about?!? Where have I EVER complained about child labor laws? You are arguing with your vivid, imagination sir.



DREAM?!? No, a "dream" has a nice ending, hence the term "dream", and not the term "nightmare" being used.

Everything old (the knowledge of how to survive without an obscenely fat market, and fluid fiat situation) will become new again. (as the market dries up, the fiat is cashed in, and bread lines grow long.)



While it may seem funny, that America, today, would be faring much better, and much less dependent on terrorist nations for energy and fuel supplies.



Sure; I will just set aside my lunch money for the next 134 thousand years so I can hire a lawyer willing to take such a case, and then be able to afford the delays, appeals, dismissals, etc until the case is actually given a fair day in court.......

I would pick up arms first, thanks. I know where the better odds lay.



Oh, you mean that corrupted, partisan system that has become kingmaker and denier of individual rights?



"Relative" being the key term used. It was relative to those who were DOING the interpreting, who were handpicked ponies juiced by one side to give a one sided ruling.



So when are you giving up on socialism or communism?



I was just saying that you replies and accusations remind me of the rhetoric I hear coming from their mouths. I though maybe you were on their "spam" list, and decided to share their nuggets of wisdom.



Rush is about as smart as Pelosi, or Hillary for that matter..... not very. Thats why they all sit where they do, and collect checks from who they do.



That was a sarcastic poke at your fundamental lack of understanding of economics.[/QUOTE).

The educational program in public schools was founded to end child labor, although they agreed t allow some farmers to use their kids for a family business during a summer break. Mandatory education saved countless kids from those factories, sweat shops, and the coal mines.
And education is a socialistic program. You should know that and the whole history about why social programs went into effect by now. You never mentioned it because it does not shed a good light on a system designed for CEO dictatorships.

So you fear that socialism has a nightmare ending? And believe it or not I would agree with you that extreme socialism can be bad news and countries that tried it ended up with cruel dictators. This is why Hillary is bringing back an old idea called "moderate progressive" and is presenting in a new way to meet the needs of society. Where the government does not rule people like they are slaves, but where the government serves the people with social programs that will protect the people or will lift them up when they are down and out, and that will allow for long range solutions for the nation in general.

I would cost billions just the do needed repairs on you dams, they are only built to last for about 50 years and they are getting old. The worse ones are those that have private ownership but the ones owned by the state are also in need of repairs. Congress is paying for one dam inspector for 1000 dams (average) via the local states. Many lives are at stake. A dam could come crashing down like that bridge we saw on TV this week, which CNN reported was "like an earthquake that happened in an instant, form out of the blue". (sounds like one of MY nightmares).
In anycase no one wants to spend tax money to fix our interstructure because it is viewed as a "pork project". We cannot just coast along forever without funding these and many projects that serve the whole public. Otherwise the bridges will come falling down and when you are laying at the bottom of the rubble you can look up and smile "oh goodie, my No New Taxes at work saving me money". Suffering is for REAL and can be prevented to a large degree with the right kind of govenment, not one that just says "Hey that is not our duty - nothing in the consitution for such things, that is for the private sector to deal with".
Why is everyone blaming Congress if it is not their duty? Because we pay taxes so we do not have to worry about it.

We need less Big Brother government and more Big Mama government.

Now you do not need to pay for a hearing at the supreme court, all you need is an organization to do it and get lots of people to donate a small about to that organization so they can hire the lawyers, etc. The gun people have one and the NRA has been to court a number of times on their behalf.

Forget picking up a gun, and I hope I am not pushing you over the edge, and I believe you are sort of joking about using a gun like a terrorist to make a poltical statement. On the other hand perhaps Jefferson (whoever) was advocating the right for "consitutional terrorism"? eh?
But lets not get into that because Big Brother might be watching.

Now what my post is about is that some Republicans want to create a myth that the Democrats are pro total socialism rather then a balanced program that allows for a moderate amount of tax funded social programs.

Gotta go now and sorry for not addressing he remainder of your remarks.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Your not sorry for not addressing the remainder of my remarks, you just didn't want to embarass yourself with the lack of logic being used to justify your positions.

[xyzer]

It is a long time since I read so much crap on one thread! Nonsense about Reagan oppressing the poor when his approach to reducing taxes set off a booming economy that has lasted for the last quarter century.Made us all much more well off than many in the rest of the world.There is no comparison between the poor in the USA and many other third world nations?
Nonsense about tax cuts hurting the poor when the poor don't pay much if any tax and are also lifted with the rising economy and increasing job markets resulting from tax cuts and a free enterprise system..
Nonsense about socialism being welcome over a free enterprise system? This when there is evidence that big government(socialist) nations have either proved failures(Russia, Cuba) or have had to increase taxes to the point of killing incentive(Scandanaviasn countries). Also all sorts of evidence that nations who have socialized medicine have either very poor, long delay for treatment, results plus increased taxes on the productive members of their societies!?
Nonsense that the current Democrat legislative plutocrats really don't want to increase taxes when the say that we should raise taxes? Has the author that bit of nonsense listened to some of the major Democratoc candidates and their fellow travellers?.

I think some who post here need a reality check and a source of more accurate information. History is being muddled and distorted ad nauseam!