Good explanation of why over-taxing the rich is not a good idea.

[Sherri in MI]

Here is a link to an excellent article explaining the differences between captialistic and socialistic ideas as it pertains to the candidates. It is an editorial, but even though this article does not support Obama, I would encourage everyone to read it through to the end because I think it explains very clearly our philosophical differences and how the policies of each theory will effect the economy, if implemented.

 

The Loft

 

Blessings (to all on either side of the political issues),

Sherri

[Spy Car]

On a day when the Republican President of the United States has semi-nationalized the Banks, it takes a lot of chutzpah to call Barack Obama a "socialist" for wanting to restore a nominally higher marginal tax rate on the wealthiest sliver of Americans. :glare:

 

Bill (who applauds the Bush Administration for taking decisive action)

[Kathleen in VA]

Thanks for posting this. Here is a great segment:

 

However, that is not how a socialist thinks. Rather than each person truly paying "their fair share," the socialist says that the "rich" person should not only pay more because he or she makes more, but they should also pay a higher percentage. So, the person making $1,000,000/year instead pays 35% in taxes for a tax bill of $350,000. That's an extra $200,000 that the government takes out of circulation to pay for their social engineering.

 

My contention is this, there is basically nothing that the individual with an extra $200k as his/her disposal could do that is "bad" for the economy. The person could save it, thus giving banks more leverage to do business. The person could invest it, thus helping new or established companies grow. The person could donate some to charity, thus helping organizations at the grassroots level do things more efficiently than the federal government could ever hope to. Or, God forbid, the person could simply go out and buy stuff. Two hundred thousand dollars of stuff is a lot of stuff! Imagine all that cash injected into society. Talk about a stimulus package. More goods being purchased, whether it is cars, clothes, furniture, food, or whatever, means that more jobs will be needed to produce those goods. It's as simple as that.

[Renee in NC]

What would a poor person do with the $200K that would be bad for the economy? Don't they basically have the same options?

 

I am not advocating higher taxes for the rich or taking any position on the article - just wondering what the flip side is.

[Kathleen in VA]

What would a poor person do with the $200K that would be bad for the economy? Don't they basically have the same options?

 

I am not advocating higher taxes for the rich or taking any position on the article - just wondering what the flip side is.

 

I think the point is that the $200,000 was earned by the "rich" person so it is rightfully theirs to do with what they want. No matter what they decide to do with their own hard-earned money will not be bad for the economy or poor people.

[Renee in NC]

I think the point is that the $200,000 was earned by the "rich" person so it is rightfully theirs to do with what they want. No matter what they decide to do with their own hard-earned money will not be bad for the economy or poor people.

 

I missed that nuance. I wasn't suggesting they hadn't earned it - it seemed from the quote that it was suggesting that if it were re-distributed it wouldn't be good for the economy.

[LilyK]

On a day when the Republican President of the United States has semi-nationalized the Banks, it takes a lot of chutzpah to call Barack Obama a "socialist" for wanting to restore a nominally higher marginal tax rate on the wealthiest sliver of Americans. :glare:

 

 

 

Spycar, I think I normally disagree with you on issues, but no one can dispute this one. Ironic isn't it. I think the difference is that Bush is acting out of desperation to avoid catastrophe. I believe he hates resorting to socialist actions, but is choosing the lesser of two evils in a crisis situation. If he were still in office when the climate calms, I believe he would work to reverse the actions of the past week. The difference with Obama is that he probably will not "resort to" socialist actions. He believes that redistributing the wealth is the correct course of action as a general rule. If any one wants me to provide a link, forget it. Just look at the very long thread from yesterday about redistributing the wealth. I have to start math.

[Melissa in FL]

On a day when the Republican President of the United States has semi-nationalized the Banks, it takes a lot of chutzpah to call Barack Obama a "socialist" for wanting to restore a nominally higher marginal tax rate on the wealthiest sliver of Americans. :glare:

 

Bill (who applauds the Bush Administration for taking decisive action)

 

Yep, I agree with you. That's why in Novemeber I'll be voting for McCain and not Bush.

Melissa

[mcconnellboys]

I believe we're moving into a society such as Ayn Rand described in Atlas Shrugged. Don't get me wrong, I was shocked to see our Republican President leading the charge into socialism recently. I still don't believe that the buy-out is going to save us from a deep and dismal world-wide depression, either, so I'm not too keen on the idea that he "had to do it to save us".....

 

I was listening to a financial analyst talk about income tax over the weekend. He said that about 40% of Americans do not now pay taxes. He believes that when the number gets to 50%, there must be some sort of major restructuring of our system of taxes in this country.

 

I believe that we are coming to the point where it will not pay to be an entrepreneur who strives for success in business. At some point, I believe that we will begin to see business people withdraw their talents from our productive pool and refuse to participate, just as Rand suggested many decades ago.....

[Murphy101]

*sigh*

I don't think anyone is actually FOR over-taxing anyone, rich or otherwise.

 

The problem is where the line of reasonable taxation crosses over to over-taxation.

 

Just a thought to ponder.:auto:

[angela in ohio]

I believe we're moving into a society such as Ayn Rand described in Atlas Shrugged. QUOTE]

 

LOL, I wondered if I was the only one thinking that... I keep waiting to hear who has disappeared...

[angela in ohio]

You are right Bill but "Republican" and "conservative" are not synonymous if the last eight years are any indication. :glare:

 

There's the rub of it. That was the problem in Ohio during the last state administration, too...

[snickelfritz]

I saw a statistic recently (I would link if I remembered where it came from) that the US is one of the most giving countries. Honestly, I trust charitable organizations more than the governement. There certainly can't be any more red tape.

 

 

If wealthy people are taxed out the wazoo, will their charitable donations go down? Thereby increasing the number of people who need more from the government?

 

I wish they would just give better tax deductions for certain types of charitable organizations. ie... those that focus on feeding and clothing the poor. Differentiate between that kind of giving and giving to a college or university's athletic program.

[teamturner]

I believe that we are coming to the point where it will not pay to be an entrepreneur who strives for success in business. At some point, I believe that we will begin to see business people withdraw their talents from our productive pool and refuse to participate, just as Rand suggested many decades ago.....

 

:iagree: When that happens, we will be a society of mediocrity. Will we have new drug development? New inventions? New technology? I'm not familiar with the book you mentioned but I've heard these ideas discussed. It's interesting that France is moving away from socialism and we seem to be moving towards it. Of course we already were a bit socilist once we started all the government programs with Roosevelt's New Deal. It's been a slippery slope since then. I am a long time conservative and I was against the bail out. I'm sure something should be done but this plan was not the best. And I'm not too happy that McCain supported it. However, I think we need to think about which canditate will actually try to reduce spending. That's what really needs to happen in the next administration.

[Bev in B'ville]

Here is a link to an excellent article explaining the differences between captialistic and socialistic ideas as it pertains to the candidates. It is an editorial, but even though this article does not support Obama, I would encourage everyone to read it through to the end because I think it explains very clearly our philosophical differences and how the policies of each theory will effect the economy, if implemented.

 

The Loft

 

Blessings (to all on either side of the political issues),

Sherri

 

 

I just read this article, it was great. Exactly what I've been thinking (and, dare I say, posting some of on this board). Thanks for sharing. I'm giving you pseudo rep!

[joannqn]

I find the growing government and increasing taxes to be scary. Spreading the wealth around is terrifying. When you punish smart people who succeed by taxing them more and more, they don't want to continue succeeding. We'll see innovation, initiative, motivation, etc. fall. The very greedy will become rich. Everyone else will become poor. We'll start standing in long lines to collect our government paid for weekly food allowance which won't be enough to feed the family. It was a system that didn't work well for the Soviet Union and it won't work well here.

 

As far as that $200,000 going to a poor person being just as good as staying with the rich person...well the article discussed that. A rich person has the ability to create a job, create products we need, invent something useful, can do something that will benefit society in the long term. Take half their income away, they do less of that. Give it to a poor people and they buy a few necessities but that job, that product, that invention never existed.

 

Obama said in one of the debates that very few small businesses make more than $250,000 and thus wouldn't be affected by his tax increases. My husband learned why so few businesses make more than $250,000 when he worked for a very small one. They don't want to hit that tax bracket so they find ways to spend the money as a write off instead. My husband's employer was VERY generous with his employees to avoid paying those taxes. He took his three employees and their spouses to a Christmas dinner that cost over $800. He took his three employees and their families to Disneyland for a long weekend...paid for airfare, Disneyland hotel, three day park hopper tickets, and breakfast with the characters. I'm sure he paid more than $12,000 for that business trip (they had a 45 minute meeting on the last day to make it deductible). Do you see how taxing the rich at such a high rate actually decreases the taxes the government receives/takes? Those who make enough to be taxed at 55% (what Obama wants to raise it to) will make sure they don't make enough. Leave the tax rate reasonable and the businesses/wealthy won't be trying so hard to right things off.

 

My family has always been low income. We do NOT support taxing businesses and the wealthy in such an unfair way. It hurts us when the government does that. Raise the taxes on businesses and they'll raise the price on their products to recupe the loss. Soon we won't be able to afford even the basics anymore. I'm scared about what we are going to do when that happens.

[mcconnellboys]

I'm not sure whether or not you're familiar with C.S. Lewis' short work "Screwtape Proposes a Toast". In it, his main character talks at length about democracy (and a great deal about education), explaining that 'democracy' comes to represent the thought that 'I'm as good as you are', and leads to an equality of mediocrity for all. It reminds me very much of Rand. He ends with this:

 

"...And what we must realize is that democracy in the diabolical sense is the finest instrument we could possibly have for extirpating political democracies from the face of the earth.

 

For 'democracy' or the 'democratic spirit' (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and quick to snarl or whimper at the first hint of criticism. And that is what Hell wishes every democratic people to be. For when such a nation meets in conflict a nation where children have been made to work at school, where talent is placed in high posts, and where the ignorant mass are allowed no say at all in public affairs, only one result is possible...."

[mcconnellboys]

What I find unreasonable is that the ultra-wealthy have their monies managed and stored off-shore; in untouchable trusts; etc. and don't really pay "their fair share" of taxes. On the other hand, the middle class, in large part, does not have the luxury of such money management techniques and ends up *truly* paying what is deamed to be "their fair share", becoming poorer as time goes on, in spite of all their hard work, while the ultra-rich become richer.... If assets were truly, equally examined and taxed for ALL, then I would not have a problem with our system.

[Brigitte]

What would a poor person do with the $200K that would be bad for the economy? Don't they basically have the same options?

 

I am not advocating higher taxes for the rich or taking any position on the article - just wondering what the flip side is.

 

I think part of the problem is that the $200,000 that person would pay in extra taxes would not translate into $200,000 in the pockets of the needy. Once all the bureaucrats and administrators get paid and all the overhead of the government is covered, there is not a whole lot left of that $200,000 in additional taxes paid to go to the needy.

[ma23peas]

Let's take a look at countries that have turned away from taxing the corporations and stimulating growth...hmmm...not many, can we say Ireland? Anyone care to compare Ireland's capitalistic approach to China's socialist approach? Which way do we want to head? Obama wants more government control at a time when it demands less.....I say the fighting Irish have a little more sense and atleast we have them to look up to.

 

Tara

[Aggie]

What I find unreasonable is that the ultra-wealthy have their monies managed and stored off-shore; in untouchable trusts; etc. and don't really pay "their fair share" of taxes. On the other hand, the middle class, in large part, does not have the luxury of such money management techniques and ends up *truly* paying what is deamed to be "their fair share", becoming poorer as time goes on, in spite of all their hard work, while the ultra-rich become richer.... If assets were truly, equally examined and taxed for ALL, then I would not have a problem with our system.

 

In which group would we place most of our politicians? The ones making the laws about taxes and trusts and redistribution of wealth? :glare:

 

I think the system is broken. And the people we send there to fix it become part of the dysfunction. I wish we could clean house and start fresh.

[Spy Car]

Day before yesterday Obama was a Muslim, yesterday he was a terrorist, today he's a socialist. You can smear the man all you want with untruths, but it is very unbecoming :001_smile:

 

Bill (who feels desperation in the air)

[Parabola]

Day before yesterday Obama was a Muslim, yesterday he was a terrorist, today he's a socialist. You can smear the man all you want with untruths, but it is very unbecoming :001_smile:

 

Bill (who feels desperation in the air)

 

 

I wonder what he'll be tomorrow??? Maybe.....the next president?? :svengo:

 

I feel it too.

[Zelda]

Day before yesterday Obama was a Muslim, yesterday he was a terrorist, today he's a socialist. You can smear the man all you want with untruths, but it is very unbecoming :001_smile:

 

Bill (who feels desperation in the air)

 

Wow. Does "you" refer to someone here who has said all of these things or is that a general "you" like a blanket comment referring to anyone who has said anything critical of Obama?

 

:001_huh:

[Alenee]

Bill, for the sake of argument, not to trash you personally, I find it interesting that you have yet to actually comment on the article's truths. Is there a reason you're throwing out digs instead of either ignoring the thread alltogether or commenting on the facts of the matter? And for the record, I've called Obama a socialist from the beginning. ;)

[mcconnellboys]

I'm a little confused, too. I've made no reference to Obama, nor did I note any in the posts to which I referred...?

[Spy Car]

Bill, for the sake of argument, not to trash you personally, I find it interesting that you have yet to actually comment on the article's truths. Is there a reason you're throwing out digs instead of either ignoring the thread alltogether or commenting on the facts of the matter? And for the record, I've called Obama a socialist from the beginning. ;)

 

People are calling Bush a socialist here today too. Personally, I'm getting tired of the ad homonym attacks.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I'm not sure whether or not you're familiar with C.S. Lewis' short work "Screwtape Proposes a Toast". In it, his main character talks at length about democracy (and a great deal about education), explaining that 'democracy' comes to represent the thought that 'I'm as good as you are', and leads to an equality of mediocrity for all. It reminds me very much of Rand. He ends with this:

 

"...And what we must realize is that democracy in the diabolical sense is the finest instrument we could possibly have for extirpating political democracies from the face of the earth.

 

For 'democracy' or the 'democratic spirit' (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and quick to snarl or whimper at the first hint of criticism. And that is what Hell wishes every democratic people to be. For when such a nation meets in conflict a nation where children have been made to work at school, where talent is placed in high posts, and where the ignorant mass are allowed no say at all in public affairs, only one result is possible...."

 

Wow.

[emeraldjoy]

Interesting.

Well, whatever has happened (and by whom) it certainly has worked.....

Not much dissension on this particular thread.

I cannot help but feel that noone will benefit from this.

Forget about socialism...who wants to talk about totalatarianism?

e

Edited October 15, 2008 by emeraldjoy
spelling

[Kathleen in VA]

People are calling Bush a socialist here today too. Personally, I'm getting tired of the ad homonym attacks.

 

Isn't it an ad hominem attack only if it is not based on truth and is merely appealing to emotion? Here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of socialism:

 

socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|

noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

In the case the "community as a whole" would be the federal government using taxpayer dollars.

 

When the president uses billions of taxpayer dollars to jump start the economy I would say he is behaving like a socialist. When a presidential candidate says he wants to tax small businesses that make over $250,000 at a rate of 55% that is socialist thinking.

 

That is not an ad hominem attack - it is a statement of truth.

[Spy Car]

Isn't it an ad hominem attack only if it is not based on truth and is merely appealing to emotion? Here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of socialism:

 

socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|

noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

In the case the "community as a whole" would be the federal government using taxpayer dollars.

 

When the president uses billions of taxpayer dollars to jump start the economy I would say he is behaving like a socialist. When a presidential candidate says he wants to tax small businesses that make over $250,000 at a rate of 55% that is socialist thinking.

 

That is not an ad hominem attack - it is a statement of truth.

 

I'll concede the point, President Bush is a Socialist.

[Retired]

I don't think the tax system we have works period.

 

I love the idea fo the Fair Tax system. I don't pretend to understand ecomomics but it seems that changing our whole tax system could solve problems

 

Check out http://Fairtax.org

[Kathleen in VA]

I'll concede the point, President Bush is a Socialist.

 

Thanks, Bill. Will you concede that wanting to "spread the wealth around" makes Obama appear to have a socialist ideology?

[Spy Car]

Thanks, Bill. Will you concede that wanting to "spread the wealth around" makes Obama appear to have a socialist ideology?

 

No. Smart capitalists know if there isn't money floating around in an economy, there won't be anyone purchasing the things they are trying to sell.

[Kathleen in VA]

No. Smart capitalists know if there isn't money floating around in an economy, there won't be anyone purchasing the things they are trying to sell.

 

I hope you're right.

[Melissa in FL]

Day before yesterday Obama was a Muslim, yesterday he was a terrorist, today he's a socialist. You can smear the man all you want with untruths, but it is very unbecoming :001_smile:

 

Bill (who feels desperation in the air)

 

First off Bill, let me tell you I really do enjoy hearing what you have to say about the political climate this year. I've really enjoyed hearing your opinions on the financial mess this country faces. If I had rep I would use it on some of your posts because even though I don't agree with everything you say, I do enjoy learning about your view points on things.

 

I believe Obama was at least partially raised a Muslim. His step-father was one and the paper work from his school in Indonesia reports his religion as Muslim. There are childhood friends of his that are still in Indonesia who remember playing with him in the mosques. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I've known a lot of Muslims over the years and they are fine, upstanding people that I have been proud to know. I do believe that now he is a Christian. But, to me it's a non-issue what ones religion is. Although, why he is so adamant about wanting people not to know that he was around Muslims growing up is an issue for me. I just don't get why he would feel he has to hide that and I find it dishonest. But, whatever, it's his choice.

 

I've never thought he was a terrorist, nor have I ever heard anyone else say he was. I do think he has a pretty close relationship with a known terrorist. I believe he has tried to hide from the public exactly how close the relationship was/is. I have a problem with that. It's not just his one moment of bad judgement in befriending ex-terrorist Bill Ayers that I have a problem with. It's the list of people he has chosen as friends and associates over the years and then tried to hide or disassociate himself from. It's Ayers, Rev Wright, Rezko, and Raila Odinga. These are people I don't want to have the President's ear. And all I can think of is: if these are people we know about, what are his friends that we don't know about like? I don't think he is/was/ or ever will be a terrorist.

 

Socialist: oh yeah, I think it's a good word for him. I would say he believes in Social Democracy. Here's from wikipedia:

 

These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, sometimes termed the mixed economy or the social market economy.[2] This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end the predominance of capitalism, or Marxism, which aims to replace it with a worker-controlled economic system. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the injustices and inefficiencies perceived in capitalism.

 

Most of his programs scream Social Democrat to me. Start with Obama handing out tax increase so he can make it more "fair" for all (sorry, the government should tax to get revenue, not to be fair) and then add his health plan, then just for kicks add his "Global poverty act". Yep, I've always thought he was to much a socialist for my comfort.

 

I am not trying to smear the man, nor do I believe I'm spreading untruths. I'm merely trying to help you understand why I don't want him to be president. I do honestly think that Barack Obama loves this country, and I do believe he thinks what he is going to do is good for it, but I think he is wrong. And I will say so with my vote next month. Meanwhile, I will still enjoy hearing your view on both the candidates running (that's McCain, not Bush).

Melissa

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I believe Obama was at least partially raised a Muslim. His step-father was one and the paper work from his school in Indonesia reports his religion as Muslim. There are childhood friends of his that are still in Indonesia who remember playing with him in the mosques. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I've known a lot of Muslims over the years and they are fine, upstanding people that I have been proud to know. I do believe that now he is a Christian. But, to me it's a non-issue what ones religion is. Although, why he is so adamant about wanting people not to know that he was around Muslims growing up is an issue for me. I just don't get why he would feel he has to hide that and I find it dishonest. But, whatever, it's his choice.

 

How can you say all that stuff about Obama's "Muslim connections", then say that it's a non issue what one's religion is, then in the next breath say you feel it is "dishonest" that Obama doesn't spend more time talking about his religion or the religion of his step parent or friends past or present? It doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

[kokotg]

However, that is not how a socialist thinks. Rather than each person truly paying "their fair share," the socialist says that the "rich" person should not only pay more because he or she makes more, but they should also pay a higher percentage. So, the person making $1,000,000/year instead pays 35% in taxes for a tax bill of $350,000. That's an extra $200,000 that the government takes out of circulation to pay for their social engineering.

 

Again, it is fine to argue that this is socialism, as long as one is willing to call Teddy Roosevelt the granddaddy of socialism in America and say that the US has been a socialist country for a century and that virtually every country in the world is socialist and say that 85% of American economists favor socialism. If you want to say that every president since Teddy Roosevelt has been a socialist, then go ahead (as far as I know. The highest marginal tax rate was much, much higher than it is now throughout the 40's, 50's, and didn't start to come down until the 60's. I am not aware of any president, of any party, who has attempted to get rid of progressive taxation, but I could be missing someone). But recognize that THIS is the view that represents a radical departure from US economic history. Not to say there's anything wrong with proposing a radical departure, but that's what it is.

[Melissa in FL]

How can you say all that stuff about Obama's "Muslim connections", then say that it's a non issue what one's religion is, then in the next breath say you feel it is "dishonest" that Obama doesn't spend more time talking about his religion or the religion of his step parent or friends past or present? It doesn't make sense to me. :confused:

 

Ok, I'll try to explain my thoughts on this, and please realize these are my thoughts and beliefs.

 

I was raised Episcopalian and although I am not one today, I still believe that it helped shape my belief structure. I believe that everything, good or bad, that children are exposed to help shape their adult beliefs. I believe that Barack Obama was, at least during parts of his childhood, was raised in the Muslim religion and that has shaped who he is today. As I said, I do believe he is a Christian today.

 

But what bothers me is his total dismissal of the Muslim faith in his early life and in the life of those around him. He just dismisses it as "I'm not a Muslim". Well, he may have never felt he was, but he was certainly exposed to the culture surrounding it. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I do think it's dishonest of him to just dismiss or distance himself from it. I would find it much more honest of him if he just came out and said what he actually thinks about that part of his life. He seems to have this theme of trying to distance himself from anything he thinks may be a negative to his campaign.

 

My problem with it isn't if he is/was or isn't/wasn't a Muslim, my problem with it is I feel he hasn't been honest about it. There are so many things that have come up around him that I have just found him to try to bush off. One or two things like this I could dismiss, but all of them put together? It makes me feel that he is hiding from a lot in his past. He seems to only want to talk about what he wants to do, not how he arrived at his beliefs or what he has done. I think the character of the President is at times more important than his policies and I find Barack Obama's character to be lacking in huge areas. And this is just one area that I have found that speaks to me of dishonesty.

 

Hopefully this will help you understand where I am coming from, if not I will try to elaborate more.

Melissa

[kokotg]

I like this op-ed as a counterpoint:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

 

Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

 

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

[mom22722]

I think it is kind of scary that the man who may become our leader is going to define what wealth is 250,000$ and then tax that. Why that number? I don't want the government to take more money I want it to balance what it already has. I certainly don't want a government to define what is too wealthy. When they(the government) wants more cash does it just lower that amount of what wealth is? Maybe next year 50,000$ is what will be considered Wealth.

[Peek a Boo]

No. Smart capitalists know if there isn't money floating around in an economy, there won't be anyone purchasing the things they are trying to sell.

 

 

No, you are describing greedy people, NOT Capitalists :)

The two are often confused :D

 

Capitalists want a FREE market, not a socialized one.

Smart Capitalists prefer the longterm benefits of Real Capitalism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market, rather than by central economic planning.

 

and I'll sit on the bench w/ Ron Paul pointing out all the socialistic tendencies our country has taken :D

[CLHCO]

I like this op-ed as a counterpoint:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

 

I admit this doesn't mean that much to me because the president is not necessarily the puppet master of the market place. There are other things going on in the world that sometimes effect what happens to the stock market. Sometimes there are bubbles that burst from prior good times during a prior presidency, (tech bubble, housing, etc.), sometimes there are wars, or gee, maybe terrorist attacks. Congress plays a role as well. It's very simplistic to pretend one president has that much control.

 

Although Bush is certainly not the major player in the latest issues (Raines, Frank, Greenspan, etc.), he plays a part because he's a big spender and gives in to every spending idea out there. However, he is also picking up pieces from the over-valued stock market during the tech bubble, followed immediately by a terrorist attack, and lately a disaster in the mortgage and bank failings. I'm so peeved at him for his latest behaviors I can't believe I'm defending him, but I get very weary of the simplistic thinking on such issues. It runs far deeper than who is president at any given moment and the NYT knows this.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Ok, I'll try to explain my thoughts on this, and please realize these are my thoughts and beliefs.

 

I was raised Episcopalian and although I am not one today, I still believe that it helped shape my belief structure. I believe that everything, good or bad, that children are exposed to help shape their adult beliefs. I believe that Barack Obama was, at least during parts of his childhood, was raised in the Muslim religion and that has shaped who he is today. As I said, I do believe he is a Christian today.

 

But what bothers me is his total dismissal of the Muslim faith in his early life and in the life of those around him. He just dismisses it as "I'm not a Muslim". Well, he may have never felt he was, but he was certainly exposed to the culture surrounding it. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I do think it's dishonest of him to just dismiss or distance himself from it. I would find it much more honest of him if he just came out and said what he actually thinks about that part of his life. He seems to have this theme of trying to distance himself from anything he thinks may be a negative to his campaign.

 

My problem with it isn't if he is/was or isn't/wasn't a Muslim, my problem with it is I feel he hasn't been honest about it. There are so many things that have come up around him that I have just found him to try to bush off. One or two things like this I could dismiss, but all of them put together? It makes me feel that he is hiding from a lot in his past. He seems to only want to talk about what he wants to do, not how he arrived at his beliefs or what he has done. I think the character of the President is at times more important than his policies and I find Barack Obama's character to be lacking in huge areas. And this is just one area that I have found that speaks to me of dishonesty.

 

Hopefully this will help you understand where I am coming from, if not I will try to elaborate more.

Melissa

None of what you say about his being Muslim and denying it or anything of the sort is true. Perhaps this will interest you:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

 

I'll have to remember your argument, though, if I ever decide to run for office. I was raised Christian, but I am now an atheist. According to your argument, I can claim to be Christian in order to get elected since I was raised Christian.

[kokotg]

I admit this doesn't mean that much to me because the president is not necessarily the puppet master of the market place. There are other things going on in the world that sometimes effect what happens to the stock market. Sometimes there are bubbles that burst from prior good times during a prior presidency, (tech bubble, housing, etc.), sometimes there are wars, or gee, maybe terrorist attacks. Congress plays a role as well. It's very simplistic to pretend one president has that much control.

 

 

certainly it's simplistic. I just thought it was interesting, not a replacement for more rigorous scholarship on the subject. Bartels' Unequal Democracy gives a much more thorough analysis of why the economy has historically fared much better under Democrats, I understand.

[GailV]

 

I'll have to remember your argument, though, if I ever decide to run for office. I was raised Christian, but I am now an atheist. According to your argument, I can claim to be Christian in order to get elected since I was raised Christian.

 

Actually, no, I believe her argument would mean that you could claim to have been raised with Christian influences or raised as a Christian. OTOH, if you tried to distance yourself from any Christian influences ever in your life, then she would point out that this was not true.

 

Okay, I usually don't get involved in these threads -- I'll go back to lurk mode now. And, no, my comment here has nothing to do with whether or not I believe Obama was ever Islamic. I'm *only* commenting on how I read Melissa's thoughts on the matter.

[kokotg]

Actually, no, I believe her argument would mean that you could claim to have been raised with Christian influences or raised as a Christian. OTOH, if you tried to distance yourself from any Christian influences ever in your life, then she would point out that this was not true.

 

 

 

Although to make this claim effectively, she would first need to point to any instance where Judy had actually done so.

[Melissa in FL]

None of what you say about his being Muslim and denying it or anything of the sort is true. Perhaps this will interest you:

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

 

I'll have to remember your argument, though, if I ever decide to run for office. I was raised Christian, but I am now an atheist. According to your argument, I can claim to be Christian in order to get elected since I was raised Christian.

 

Thank you for the snopes link, I had already read it. I have also already researched a lot about Barack Obama, not to find negative, but to learn about who might be our next President. I still believe what I have stated.

 

I'm not saying he should claim to be a Muslim, in fact I have said that I believe he is a Christian today. What I'm saying is he denies any part of Islam in his life, and in my mind, Islam was in his life and had some effect on it. Whether for good or bad.

 

If you run for office you should not claim to be Christian if you aren't. But you should not hide, for good or bad, that you had a Christian upbringing. If I was your campaign manager, I would recommend you explain to the voters what moved you to become atheist if it's relevant. I don't think it should be something to be ashamed of.

 

And as I've tried to get across, if this was the only thing about him that he denied then it would probably be a non-issue with me. But it's one thing out of a long list of his past that he has tried to distance himself from. He came onto the political stage this year as an unknown to most of us. When he won his first primary I had to come online to find out who is (I also did the same thing when Mike Huckabee won his first primary). I don't think it's a bad thing for people like me to want to know more about the back ground of the person who might be our President.

 

I have researched him and I have formed an opinion about him. You don't need to agree with me, but I wish you would try to respect others views of him. If he wins I will give him the respect I think the office deserves. As I have stated, I believe he cares and loves this country and will do his best for it. I just don't agree with what he thinks should be done. And, to me at least, his background is important in trying to get to know his Character. The fact that he keeps distancing himself from so much of his past bothers me.

Melissa

[Margaret in GA]

Thank you for the snopes link, I had already read it. I have also already researched a lot about Barack Obama, not to find negative, but to learn about who might be our next President. I still believe what I have stated.

 

I'm not saying he should claim to be a Muslim, in fact I have said that I believe he is a Christian today. What I'm saying is he denies any part of Islam in his life, and in my mind, Islam was in his life and had some effect on it. Whether for good or bad.

 

If you run for office you should not claim to be Christian if you aren't. But you should not hide, for good or bad, that you had a Christian upbringing. If I was your campaign manager, I would recommend you explain to the voters what moved you to become atheist if it's relevant. I don't think it should be something to be ashamed of.

 

And as I've tried to get across, if this was the only thing about him that he denied then it would probably be a non-issue with me. But it's one thing out of a long list of his past that he has tried to distance himself from. He came onto the political stage this year as an unknown to most of us. When he won his first primary I had to come online to find out who is (I also did the same thing when Mike Huckabee won his first primary). I don't think it's a bad thing for people like me to want to know more about the back ground of the person who might be our President.

 

I have researched him and I have formed an opinion about him. You don't need to agree with me, but I wish you would try to respect others views of him. If he wins I will give him the respect I think the office deserves. As I have stated, I believe he cares and loves this country and will do his best for it. I just don't agree with what he thinks should be done. And, to me at least, his background is important in trying to get to know his Character. The fact that he keeps distancing himself from so much of his past bothers me.

Melissa

 

Have you read his books or have you merely "researched" him online by visiting various right wing websites? I have read his books as well as his website and found everything I ever wanted to know (and then some). I know you people are scared of terrorists and scared of socialists and scared of Muslims. I ask that you really look into that fear and ask yourself if it's legitimate.

 

I love this country and I firmly believe that should we endure another attack from extremist Muslims (or socialists! ;) ), we will still be the greatest country on earth. If we destroy ourselves (by removing our privacy rights, allowing torture, buying into the propoganda from talk radio ala Nazi Germany) in an attempt to never be attacked again than we we will no longer be that great nation. That's a real fear of mine. And I do think its legitimate.

 

 

Margaret

[Soph the vet]

Day before yesterday Obama was a Muslim, yesterday he was a terrorist, today he's a socialist. You can smear the man all you want with untruths, but it is very unbecoming :001_smile:

 

Bill (who feels desperation in the air)

Personally, I never called him a terrorist. I have always called him a socialist, not just today:001_smile:. It is not desperation, it is called scrutinization and any candidate for the Presidency should be able to withstand it. For crying out loud, I have to submit my diploma to the school district in order to homeschool. Why shouldn't Obama be required to submit real documentation as to his birthplace, his medical records, and his college transcripts? If he has nothing to hide and would like to put some of these "smears" to rest then man-up and put all the evidence on the table.

 

And, Bill, this rant is not against you, it is against your candidate. I hope that we can still agree to disagree. You are one of my favorites;)! What do your chickens think of all this?