News-Record.com

Two points:
First, what happened to all the people who complained about the Bush-bashers in 2004? Remember: "Why do you only bash Bush, rather than promote the attributes of Kerry?"
I expect there to be much more promotion of McCain than criticism of Obama, yet I see the exact opposite. It's about 95% bashing Obama. Could it be that some of you (and I think many of us know who specifically) are colossal hypocrites?

Second,
"Consider that the majority of American citizens are depending on investments to help them have a decent lifestyle in their old age."

"Contrary to popular belief, most Americans depend now, or will depend in the future, on money invested in some sort of stocks, bonds or mutual funds to maintain a standard of living that would not otherwise be possible."

"Obama wishes to double the tax rate on these investments."

Got any facts to back up these claims? I couldn't find them at a cursory glance, so I'll have to try when I have more time. But any supporting documentation might jumpstart the debate.
Thanks.

Good luck Edgar, but when was the last time you talked to a late teens/early twenties college student that believed their elders knew more than they?

It's the teenyboppers that will elect him, and when they see him "punishing the rich" via confiscatory tax rates, they will cheer and tell themselves they did the right thing...right up until it's their time to start looking for employment.

Howie:

I've read that Obama wants to double the capital gains tax .. which will impact Wall Street Traders and at-home computer-jockey Day Traders .. but will not impact those with 401K's or SEP's or Home Equity - the savings instruments used by most of us as we hope to stay above the poverty line in our rapidly approaching old age.

We often hear:

"The top 1% paid almost 40%, the top 5% paid almost 60% and the top 10% paid almost 70%."

but here are some other truths:

> Those higher tax rates apply only to the higher levels - the low tax rates apply to the first tier, the middle tax rates apply to the middle tier, and the higher tax rates apply to the upper tier.

> The tax base adjusted. The rest of us help pay for Dan's boat and airplane because he writes off part for "business use" - ditto his lunches which most folks pay for out of pocket. I get my millage from home to work reimbursed because technically I work out of my home - that alone is a $13,000 deduction for me. Ditto a lot of other deductions - I hire my own children to work for me, my corporation puts thousands into my children’s Roth IRA's - because I can.

> These top 1% / 5% / 10% whatevers earn what they due because they live in the United States of America where tax rates are some of the lowest in the world. They take advantage of all the good then whine like babies. There is no discussion about how to use money more wisely, or set aside for the future, or pay off any debt - they'll just take their cash and more to an island - or walled compound. Gimme More. I earned it the new fashion way: Derivatives.

It's another ruse .. these guys just whine about stuff - wedge issues may be the right term "We're right on everything, you're wrong on everything."

Whatever.

btw - they also don't care about whom will win the prez' election - they know it's gonna be a rough decade due to their shenanigans – so they diss’ Obama and likewise do not support that RINO McCain. Whomever wins they will come back and say “We told you Obama was a screw-up – look at the Misery Index while under Bush43 we had 8 years growth! .. or conversely: We told you McCain was a screw-up – look at the Misery Index while under Bush43 we had 8 years growth! Re-Elect a REAL Republican!"

"Remember: "Why do you only bash Bush, rather than promote the attributes of Kerry?"

Neo makes your point, Howie.

I've said on many occasions, as far back as 12-18 months ago, that the Repub's should want a Democrat to win. The catastrophe of GWB is going to take some real work and sacrifice to clean up. And whoever is left with the mess will get pummeled in 2012 because he had to make hard choices and ask us to sacrifice. So the red carpet is already being prepared for whomever they trot out. The country will be tired of three years of fiscal discipline. If it's a Dem in the office, the scapegoat is easier to target.

Oh, and neocon frequently makes my points for me.

`

Howie,
The Democrats should put neo on the payroll, as his views make the worst of the lot look good.
As to James' points on income tax rates and Dan's false points--that shows exactly how far the right has taken their argument. They have folks like Dan believing THEY are in that marginal bracket! We'll just call that a "P.T. Barnum Moment".
Dan might better his own understanding by reading Mickey Edwards' new book titled, "Reclaiming Conservatism". Edwards shows how folks like Dan have no clue at what they talk about other than 'surface' knowledge. They're wacked out on abortion, guns, and gay marriage with little understanding of what "conservative" actually means. I heard Edwards interviewed on Diane Rheem show and I went and bought the book. It is fascinating and very enlightening about the shills of the GOP.

`

"I expect there to be much more promotion of McCain than criticism of Obama, yet I see the exact opposite. It's about 95% bashing Obama. Could it be that some of you (and I think many of us know who specifically) are colossal hypocrites?"

How is it hypocritical if one is not voting for either candidate? Obama sticks his foot in his mouth on a daily basis.

Fair enough, Hugh. If you are voting for neither candidate, or a third party candidate, rather than choosing McCain as a "lesser of two evils" candidate, then perhaps you avoid the "colossal hypocrite" label. But to be completely transparent in this debate, I'd suggest that you and others who fall into this category should declare that you are voting for neither, because the inferance is that if you are not voting for one, you are voting for the other.

McCain is an open-borders, compromising, First Amendment restricting, liberal republican. He deserves to be bashed.

Obama is an empty suit, a complete nothing of substance or accomplishment other than getting this far into the process. His message is HOPE which means whatever the listener wants it to mean. There's no substance to his message, no meat on his bone, and his teflon dancing makes Bill Clinton look like Forrest Gump.

Screw the lesser of two evils. One is evil and the other is a child.

Hugh,

You highlight an issue that brings a smile to my face every day.

On one side of the ballot, we have: "an open-borders, compromising, First Amendment restricting, liberal republican", who was allegedly courted four years ago to run on the Democratic ticket.

On the other side, we have an African-American senator with two years of experience (whose middle name is Hussein by the way). And he's probably going to win. Can you think of a more anti-George Bush candidate?

So the votes are already in. The neocon agenda is an unmitigated disaster, and no matter who wins in November, the neocon experiment is a failure of staggering magnitude.

My daily smiles are the result of the valiant last few who still cling to the idea that "Dem=bad, Republican=good" simplicity that has been proven so many times over to be wrong. I just have to laugh. Even our neighbor neocon jumped ship.

BTW, Hugh, CNN.com said yesterday that your hope of a war with Iran may yet come true.

I wouldn't call it "hope of a war", Howie, It's more a reading of the tea leaves regarding theater strategy in long term military operations. IMO, it's been planned for a long time.

The Syrian military will be reduced to ashes too.

Gas at $7-8/gallon by the first of the year.

While you ultimately may prove to be right, I sincerely hope not. Otherwise, Bush is guilty of the worst war crimes imaginable. If your theory is correct, and this has all been premeditated, he launched an unprovoked attacked on a country, just so he could justify moving equipment closer to his real target.

So he would be responsible for killing or injuring tens of thousands of our soldiers, and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis along the way. And he would be guilty of lying to the american people to justify his actions, and lying to congress, and lying to just about anyone else you can think of.

And as a final dagger in the heart of our nation, he will launch this attack on his "true" target less than six months before he leaves office.

So if this sequence of events is true -- and I truly hope it is not -- we have forever lost any moral authority anywhere in the world. And we will be targets for decades. All because of this one man.

Sen. Obama's proposed tax hike on capital gains would only apply to households with annual incomes above $250,000.

Though we may want to debate this, I would argue that "a decent lifestyle" can be achieved on an annual income below $250,000. In any case, the increase will not affect "most Americans" or move people into poverty.

"Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?

OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief."

Well yes, I can see how conservatives might get upset about that.

I wish that people like Mr. Phillips, would stop hiding behind things like “taxes” and just come out and say that he is not just going to vote for Obama. Obama could part the Red Sea and Mr. Phillips would criticize the way that it was done. Let’s stop playing these games and making up these hilarious excuses.

Here’s a little blurb concerning socking away money that was taken from the NYT:

“Since President Bush came to office, our national savings have gone from 6 percent of gross domestic product to 1 percent, and consumer debt has climbed from $8 trillion to $14 trillion.” But, Mr. Phillips did not put any mention of the decline in savings under the Bush years. That’s quite an omission.

It appears that there are less people saving: for a rainy day, retirement and college tuition for the clueless, future college students.

The Deliverer's 'tax the rich' scheme won't raise this kind of cash:
http://www.aim.org/press-release/aim-says-media-cover-up-obamas-socialist-oriented-global-tax-bill/

He's gonna have to go after the masses to fulfill his wet dream of 'cutting global poverty' by half.

"The rest of us help pay for Dan's boat and airplane because he writes off part for "business use" - ditto his lunches which most folks pay for out of pocket. "

First of all I'm flattered to be mentioned in a thread where I have not previously posted.

Thanks for paying for my boat JDR, that was pretty silly. I'll give you credit and assume you thought the same. In fact the boat has been paid for since 1996. I've never written off any boat expenses as business, it is for pleasure only, in fact that may raise a red flag. The airplane however is a source of business transportation, just like a car or airline ticket that you may buy. I'll write off more this year as aviation gas is running around $5.50 to $6.50 per gallon. Glad to see you writing off business expenses as well, after all they are expenses, a cost of doing business.

Yeah Dan, but you have an airplane and ~we~ don't.

I want a pony.

.. pretty wide range of estimates out there.

"Based on information from the State Department, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9082/s2433.pdf

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02433:

Dan - I used you as an example because everyone likes you !

You will also note no one disputes the other presentations, including "These top 1% / 5% / 10% [individuals] earn what they due because they live in the United States of America where tax rates are some of the lowest in the world. They take advantage of all the good then whine like babies. There is no discussion about how to use money more wisely, or set aside for the future, or pay off any debt - they'll just take their cash and mo[v]e to an island - or walled compound. Gimme More. I earned it the new fashion way: Derivatives."

Ribar says,
"Though we may want to debate this, I would argue that "a decent lifestyle" can be achieved on an annual income below $250,000. In any case, the increase will not affect "most Americans" or move people into poverty."

Yes, and THE most hilarious part is how neocon thinks of himself as being "wronged" ....yes, the same fellow who barely has command of his mother tongue, and can't string a verb and a noun together without 'cutting and pasting'. Yep. If that fellow, who is still not ashamed to call himself a 'neocon', is in the $250,000/year category, you can bet it is strictly on inherited wealth!

Note to JDR: To deduct the costs you mention, one has to have the income to do so. An educated guess, is that Dan is nothing but a parrot of his GOP upbringing, pretending, he too, is part of a world he has no entry into. God, Gays and Guns--the mark of today's conservative.

The real sad part is, there are plenty just like Dan, who are totally convinced that when some ad says, "Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes" they think it's referring to them. They know this, because FoxNewsChannel or Comedian Rush Limbaugh told them so.

It would be refreshing to see these same folks, be big boys, and admit it. Instead, we see posturing for the sake of posturing. We see Sean Hannity's diatribes manifest themselves in such small people, all the while thinking that the sky is falling because rich people are just not quite rich enough. Again, a "P.T. Barnum moment".

Ribar says,
"Though we may want to debate this, I would argue that "a decent lifestyle" can be achieved on an annual income below $250,000. In any case, the increase will not affect "most Americans" or move people into poverty."

Yes, and THE most hilarious part is how neocon thinks of himself as being "wronged" ....yes, the same fellow who barely has command of his mother tongue, and can't string a verb and a noun together without 'cutting and pasting'. Yep. If that fellow, who is still not ashamed to call himself a 'neocon', is in the $250,000/year category, you can bet it is strictly on inherited wealth!

Note to JDR: To deduct the costs you mention, one has to have the income to do so. An educated guess, is that Dan is nothing but a parrot of his GOP upbringing, pretending, he too, is part of a world he has no entry into. God, Gays and Guns--the mark of today's conservative.

The real sad part is, there are plenty just like Dan, who are totally convinced that when some ad says, "Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes" they think it's referring to them. They know this, because FoxNewsChannel or Comedian Rush Limbaugh told them so.

It would be refreshing to see these same folks, be big boys, and admit it. Instead, we see posturing for the sake of posturing. We see Sean Hannity's diatribes manifest themselves in such small people, all the while thinking that the sky is falling because rich people are just not quite rich enough. Again, a "P.T. Barnum moment".

Ribar says,
"Though we may want to debate this, I would argue that "a decent lifestyle" can be achieved on an annual income below $250,000. In any case, the increase will not affect "most Americans" or move people into poverty."

Yes, and THE most hilarious part is how neocon thinks of himself as being "wronged" ....yes, the same fellow who barely has command of his mother tongue, and can't string a verb and a noun together without 'cutting and pasting'. Yep. If that fellow, who is still not ashamed to call himself a 'neocon', is in the $250,000/year category, you can bet it is strictly on inherited wealth!

Note to JDR: To deduct the costs you mention, one has to have the income to do so. An educated guess, is that Dan is nothing but a parrot of his GOP upbringing, pretending, he too, is part of a world he has no entry into. God, Gays and Guns--the mark of today's conservative.

The real sad part is, there are plenty just like Dan, who are totally convinced that when some ad says, "Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes" they think it's referring to them. They know this, because FoxNewsChannel or Comedian Rush Limbaugh told them so.

It would be refreshing to see these same folks, be big boys, and admit it. Instead, we see posturing for the sake of posturing. We see Sean Hannity's diatribes manifest themselves in such small people, all the while thinking that the sky is falling because rich people are just not quite rich enough. Again, a "P.T. Barnum moment".

"Contrary to popular belief, most Americans depend now, or will depend in the future, on money invested in some sort of stocks, bonds or mutual funds to maintain a standard of living that would not otherwise be possible."

What about all the Americans that will depend on money borrowed from Visa, Mastercard or the Discovery card to maintain a standard of living that otherwise would not be possible?

Uh, maybe they are living a standard of living above their means?

Tell me why, again, I should feel badly for them?

Kinda like the mortgage debacle. People wanted to buy into big houses that they couldn't afford. When offered the mortgage with a 2 year introductory interest only rate they ate it all up because all they really cared to see is the initial monthly payment, which they could make, and failed to inquire or verify what future ramifications would be.

Real estate, stocks, mutual funds, these things are all speculative. If you rely on them to live a standard that you could not ordinarily afford, then you must assume the risks of them not panning out as you had hoped. I will not become jealous if your portfolio increases ten fold, but will also have little sympathy if it stagnates and you have difficulty paying the mortgage on the McMansion you bought before you had the actual means to do so.

But hey, I'm kind of an ass when it comes to things like that.

Some good comments by everyone else, though.

oxymoron,
One attack per post is quite enough!
I know you think you are twice as smart as everyone else, you just don't have to repeat it.

LC/DD said:

"Note to JDR: To deduct the costs you mention, one has to have the income to do so. An educated guess, is that Dan is nothing but a parrot of his GOP upbringing, pretending, he too, is part of a world he has no entry into. God, Gays and Guns--the mark of today's conservative.

The real sad part is, there are plenty just like Dan, who are totally convinced that when some ad says, "Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes" they think it's referring to them. They know this, because FoxNewsChannel or Comedian Rush Limbaugh told them so. "

Baseless rhetoric and foolish speculation by LC, as usual.

Justsomedude said: "Real estate, stocks, mutual funds, these things are all speculative. If you rely on them to live a standard that you could not ordinarily afford, then you must assume the risks of them not panning out as you had hoped. I will not become jealous if your portfolio increases ten fold, but will also have little sympathy if it stagnates and you have difficulty paying the mortgage on the McMansion you bought before you had the actual means to do so."

So even if your parent's or grandparent's retirement portfolio crashes and burns because it was with a company that was invested in real-estate trusts, mutual funds and stocks you'll have no sympathy? Or is it the ownership of a McMansion that drives your lack of empathy?

Dude, I missed this one: "Kinda like the mortgage debacle. People wanted to buy into big houses that they couldn't afford."

You are obviously unaware of the massive volume of 900-1500 s.f. homes priced from $30,000 to $100,000 in scores of Greensboro-Winston- High Point neighborhoods that have gone through foreclosure in the past few years. In this area those are the bulk of the crisis.

There's a class warfare theme to your post. Why the attribution of the problem to those who live in big houses or have the ability to have investments?

"So even if your parent's or grandparent's retirement portfolio crashes and burns because it was with a company that was invested in real-estate trusts, mutual funds and stocks you'll have no sympathy?"

Correct, pretty much. Safety is a money market, savings account or a CD. Stocks not so much. If you choose to invest money, you are doing so in hopes of recieving a return. You are not guaranteed a return. If you take a risk and reap a reward, good for you. If you take a risk and suffer a loss, then better luck next time.

"You are obviously unaware of the massive volume of 900-1500 s.f. homes priced from $30,000 to $100,000 in scores of Greensboro-Winston- High Point neighborhoods that have gone through foreclosure in the past few years. In this area those are the bulk of the crisis."

So? People bought 30-100 K homes they couldn't afford and they are losing them. I do not wish foreclosure on anyone, but no matter how large or how small your house, in order to keep it, you are required to pay for it. This does not strike me as a novel concept.

"There's a class warfare theme to your post."

I do not understand how you formed this opinion of my beliefs so am unable to effectively respond to it.

"Why the attribution of the problem to those who live in big houses or have the ability to have investments?"

Really simple. If you agree to buy a house, you are accountable for paying for it. With the real estate boom, people over bought. They bought houses that they couldn't afford to keep. Someone who should have bought a 100,000 house got a 150,000 house and the 175,000 house person got a 250,000 house. Your 30,000 house friend should have sought out a 25,000 house.

Again, and I don't know how to be clearer about this point- if you invest in something you are assuming the risk. I have investments. I got my ass handed to me on a silver platter when Lucent went down. Remember them? Whose fault was that? No ones, really. It was my risk. Had it payed off, I certainly would have had no problem with reaping the rewards, so I have to accept the risk.

"An educated guess, is that Dan is nothing but a parrot of his GOP upbringing,.."

For once we agree on something Demon Deacon, but don't limit it to this once instance, your posts are full of uneducated guesses!!

The people I know who make $200-250K annually are business owners and entrepreneurs who employ other people. The majority of them do not sit on their ass in air conditioned government buildings teaching Marxism to young minds and preaching about what others need to live comfortably.

What today's liberals promote...class envy and hatred towards anyone who has accumulated more wealth than they...is what Karl Marx rose to power on. They lack the backbone to admit this, even to themselves, so they brush off and try to ridicule anyone who points this fact out.

Hussein Obamamessiah has plans to advance the UN's dream of a global welfare state and fund it with $ confiscated from Americans...and this is just fine and dandy with the liberals...as long as he is perceived as punishing the "rich" while doing it.

As Hugh said, Neo: “Baseless rhetoric and foolish speculation .. as usual”.

Marx rose to power by convincing the masses of labor wage earners that they were being exploited by a rigged system that heavily favored the merchant class. (landowners and employers)

Marx exploited the natural class envy and distrust the lower class harbor for the more affluent.

We see this same tactic used today by liberal politicians and their useful idiots in accademia and and the press.

Hussein Obamassiah and the democrats are exploiting the same class envy and hatred among the masses that Marx used to gain power.

"Baseless rhetoric"?...I don't think so.

"Marx rose to power by convincing the masses..."

"Hussein Obamassiah and the democrats are exploiting the same class envy and hatred among the masses that Marx used to gain power."

Really? What power was that? What offices did he hold, or movements did he lead? What was this power you refer to? I

t took me less than a minute to back up what I already knew. Marx never held any position of power. He was a journalist and author, whose work was not widely known until after he died.

"The philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx, is without a doubt the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid acceptance in the socialist movement after his death in 1883."
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html

So "baseless rhetoric and foolish speculation...as usual" seems to sum it up pretty well. For all your spouting off about Marx, you'd think maybe you'd want to know what you were talking about. But that's not your style is it?

"Marx rose to power by convincing the masses..."

"Hussein Obamassiah and the democrats are exploiting the same class envy and hatred among the masses that Marx used to gain power."

Really? What power was that? What offices did he hold, or movements did he lead? What was this power you refer to? I

t took me less than a minute to back up what I already knew. Marx never held any position of power. He was a journalist and author, whose work was not widely known until after he died.

"The philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx, is without a doubt the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid acceptance in the socialist movement after his death in 1883."
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/marx.html

So "baseless rhetoric and foolish speculation...as usual" seems to sum it up pretty well. For all your spouting off about Marx, you'd think maybe you'd want to know what you were talking about. But that's not your style is it?

OK, Howie. Marxism rose to power.

Sounds like a raw nerve was hit. Usual reaction when a socialist is confronted with the truth. Anger followed by denial.

I await the denial.

What, that I'm a socialist? Here it is: I'm a capitalist -- always have been, but that's not news to anyone who pays attention and knows the actual definitions of the two terms.

Unfortunately, your definition of socialist is anyone who doesn't vote the way you do.

I await the reasoned debate, but I'm quite sure I'm barking up the wrong tree.

And if you're waiting for denial of the anger -- here it is. I enjoy taking about 30 seconds to prove how full of crap you are. It's a nice diversion at the end of my day. That's almost as enjoyable as your Bush bandwagon jump last week.

Help me with this, Neo. You jump on Howie for correcting you from “Marx rose to power …” to “Marxism rose to power” ... and you chide him as being “a socialist .. confronted with the truth”.

Dude - you have it so backwards.

And brazen I will correct you even further – there has NEVER BEEN a Marxist state (country, nation, or whatever you want to call it). All your hype over something that was only an idea. You have Ideophobia: fear of Ideas, fear of expressed opinions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell

Socialist: one who advocates socialism.

Socialism: Many definitions for this, but the one thing they all share is the power of the state to confiscate property from those who own it and redistribute it "for the common social good".

Government confiscating money to redistribute it via the welfare check to those who never earned it?....socialism

Government confiscating money from the individual to pay for the health care of those who never earned it?...socialism.

Government confiscating property for redistribution to a 'UN global poverty fund'?...socialism.

Do you advocate government confiscation of property in order to turn it over to those who never earned it for "the common good" Howie? Never mind that the victim makes $200-250K a year, property confiscation by the government is still property confiscation.

I know, I know, no one here is really a socialist...they just want government to collect the property of others to pay for their latest expense. (food, health care, day care for the shillrun, 'education' (that's a joke) etc, etc, etc.)

Class envy and hatred towards the more affluent is the hallmark of liberalism/socialism. It is an art the liberal democrats have honed to a fine point. "Tax cuts for the rich" has become their battle cry in their war on individualism.

It really sounded like a raw nerve was struck...I can understand your frustration and consequently, your attacks, but be advised, liberal insults roll off me like water off a duck. I laugh at them. I look forward to them showing their frustrations.

It's hard to admit to yourself that you harbor socialist tendencies and support government confiscation of private property in order to keep their voting blocks happy, fed, and dumb. I was headed down that road myself once, but when I saw it's effects on society... lawlessness, dependancy, and the destruction of the family unit, I mended my ways.

I never "jumped on Howie". Howie "jumped on me".

Tell me cRock-o-...feller, what do you call government confiscation of property and income redistribution? Just the basics please. No lectures on liberal economics, Gitmo, or 'faux conservatives' who like to burn the dino juice.

I await your learned spin and left wing website links.

What do you call government confiscation of property and income redistribution?

Ok - Do you want to start with the mineral rights that - one would think belonged to the person who's home (real estate) was located above it - but instead "belongs" due to some archaic law to the g-man who insead gives it away for 10 cents on th dollars gives it to the first corporate sponsor of his reelection campaign ..

btw - I try to not use "left wing website links" .. you'll find many have "dot gov" at the end. Disagree? Prove it.

.. or are you talking about WELFARE .. which as far as I know was clearly "ended" - keeping a 1992 Clinton campaign promise - and supported by data.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/welfare/welfarepres.pps

your turn.

"Socialism: Many definitions for this, but the one thing they all share is the power of the state to confiscate property from those who own it and redistribute it "for the common social good". "

Really? Many definitions? I only see two, restated in a couple of ways but still just one main meaning: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." -American Heritage Dictionary.

Also noted in Marxist theory (I know you're an expert in this, but for those less learned) as the stage that occurs after capitalism as a society progresses to communism.

See how easy that was? Now it should be just as easy for you to cite where I advocated this system of government. And also try to point out where I said that I am hoping for the progression from capitalism to communism. Shall I wait?

In the mean time, I'll assure you that you are just as bad at reading my mood as you are demonstrating your knowledge of political theory. I respond to your ridiculous claims for fun. As I said, at the end of the day I needed a little levity, so I invested almost no effort to once again demonstrate what a windbag you are.

Oh, and if I "jumped on" you, and you feel wronged, submit my name to the N&R for breach of etiquette.

Yes mineral rights, and the welfare that ended in 1992, but by some odd phenomenon, the late checks are still arriving.

Howie you failed to answer my question. Do you support any of the 'programs' I mentioned above that involve confiscation of private property for redistribution? This is socialism.

BTW, this is "creeping socialism"...you won't find any definition for this in the American Heritage Dictionary either:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0416/p01s04-usec.htm

"The Congressional Budget Office, in a long-range forecast prepared in 2005, outlined a baseline scenario in which entitlement programs push federal spending to 25.3 percent of GDP by mid-century, up from about 18.4 percent today. That number could go higher still if medical inflation doesn't edge downward."

"Entitlement spending" = income redistribution...the bulwark of socialism/ Marxism.

I notice that for about 99 of the 100 times I challenge you for a direct answer, you never give one, so why should I indulge you?

Oh what the heck. It's a holiday: No, I do not support confiscation of personal property and redistribution to those who have not earned it.

Now be a man once and a while and answer some direct questions.

"You're a windbag"..."Be a Man once and a while"...

Sounds like anger to me.

BTW, if "answering a direct question" is your measurement of manhood...

Then America's liberals have become more feminized that I had realized.