PDA

View Full Version : Is Obama A Socialist?


GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 09:31 AM
Radio Address Uncovered: Interview with Senator Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

It was a link I found via courtesy of Fox News, also found information on this from Newsbusters, and it sounds like if true, this also indicates that media outlets like: CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, AP, Reuters, etc. have absolutely no credibility left whatsoever.

Btw, there are also links on the drudge report: http://www.drudgereport.com/

News busters story:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/27/will-msm-continue-ignoring-shocking-obama-redistribution-wealth-audio


Another Source is Little Green Footballs: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31702_Obama_on_the_Redistribution_of_Wealth

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

Little Green Footballs is a right wing blog with an extremely good reputation including breaking stories on: The Killian Documents controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents) and Adna Hajj photographs controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy).

Little Green Footballs is ran by: Charles Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Johnson_(blogger))

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-27-2008, 11:24 AM
jmac, please buddy, no need to be this snarky - please avoid use of expletives even if the filters do cut them down, it conveys an unnecessary amount of hostility in a post. You are of course free to state if you think a source has wasted your time, but please do this in a more courteous manner - thanks - :) j7

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 11:31 AM
Well considering that the Main Stream media is trying to downplay it, makes it seem like the tape is pretty damaging.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/27/daily-kos-desperately-spinning-obama-redistribution-wealth-audio


And

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/27/broadcast-morning-shows-bury-obama-redistributionist-radio-intervi

Though it seems Like Morning Joe (MSNBC) reported on it a little.
View Video (http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/10/2008-10-27MSNBCMJ.wmv)

And Fox News has now jumped into this officially: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-27-2008, 12:04 PM
OBAMA SAYS SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5OMlOPgrBk)

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 12:42 PM
And here is why it is a bad thing:

1. small businesses (and quite a few make over $250,000 a year) would be taxed more which would affect their ability to employ workers.

2. the health insurance taxes would then add yet again to these burdens further cutting jobs.


Eventually it becomes too expensive for the business to function and the small business owner just gives up. Part of the American Dream is to be able to get ahead in life by working hard, someday maybe even becoming rich.

Obama's tax plan + rebates flies in the face of that dream, there is no longer an incentive to do your best work because the government is going to take care of you.

Also taxing capital gains affects middle class people whom own stocks, not just the rich.

ET Warrior
10-27-2008, 12:53 PM
1. small businesses (and quite a few make over $250,000 a year) would be taxed more which would affect their ability to employ workers.
ORLY? (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html)

Also, John McCain is a socialist, the horror.
[W]e feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.
....
And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans ... all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they – you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view.
...
[H]ere's what I really believe, that when you are – reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
source (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/21/1577609.aspx)

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-27-2008, 01:13 PM
ORLY? (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html)

Also, John McCain is a socialist, the horror.

source (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/21/1577609.aspx)preemptive msnbc can't be trusted post

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 01:47 PM
ORLY? (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html)


Isn't factcheck.org tied to the Annenberg Foundation which was once ran by Senator Obama, and also associated with Bill Ayers?

http://beltwayblips.com/story/the_chicago_annenberg_challenge_the_fog_thickens/


Also, John McCain is a socialist, the horror.

source (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/21/1577609.aspx)

MSM not Correcting 'McCain Will Tax Your Benefits' Claim by Obama Campaign (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-menefee/2008/10/03/obama-ad-watch-claims-mccain-will-tax-your-benefits)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/21/guess-who-sees-msm-double-standard-bidens-latest-gaffe
Dan Rather (http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/10/2008-10-21MSNBCMJ.wmv)

Getting back to topic, Obama has ties to several socialists and Marxists.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/voight/
Gonna find some more sources on this.

Rogue Nine
10-27-2008, 02:12 PM
MSM not Correcting 'McCain Will Tax Your Benefits' Claim by Obama Campaign (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-menefee/2008/10/03/obama-ad-watch-claims-mccain-will-tax-your-benefits)
My favorite part of the article is where the author uses herself (http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,68/category_id,0/blog_id,1094/type,33/) as a source. Nowhere in either article does she cite and properly source McCain's actual economic position, leading me to believe she's making all this up.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/21/guess-who-sees-msm-double-standard-bidens-latest-gaffe
Dan Rather (http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/10/2008-10-21MSNBCMJ.wmv)
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand (which you started) and further attempts to run with this line of thought will be deleted as spam.

Getting back to topic, Obama has ties to several socialists and Marxists.
And John McCain is tied to someone (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct24/0,4670,JoeMcCain911,00.html) who thinks it's okay to call 911 to complain about traffic and then curse at them. Why does John McCain associate with people like this, who think it's fine to abuse our emergency services systems in such a frivolous manner? :rolleyes:

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 02:19 PM
My favorite part of the article is where the author uses herself (http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,68/category_id,0/blog_id,1094/type,33/) as a source. Nowhere in either article does she cite and properly source McCain's actual economic position, leading me to believe she's making all this up.


Technically even if you use an article you've written before, if you mention it at all in another location, you're supposed to source it. One of those little legal situations that makes little sense but is on the books.



And John McCain is tied to someone (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct24/0,4670,JoeMcCain911,00.html) who thinks it's okay to call 911 to complain about traffic and then curse at them. Why does John McCain associate with people like this, who think it's fine to abuse our emergency services systems in such a frivolous manner? :rolleyes:

Wasn't that John McCain's brother named Joe McCain? He doesn't have a choice who his family is and you know it.

Rogue Nine
10-27-2008, 02:26 PM
Technically even if you use an article you've written before, if you mention it at all in another location, you're supposed to source it. One of those little legal situations that makes little sense but is on the books.
I don't care if she cites herself as a source, as long as she cites a source that backs up her claims as well. Fact of the matter is, I didn't see any links to anything from the official McCain stance on the economy. What I saw was one right-wing writer's rebuttal of the Obama Campaign's claim on McCain's economic policies that uses un-sourced conjecture and no legitimate links to back it up.

Wasn't that John McCain's brother named Joe McCain? He doesn't have a choice who his family is and you know it.
Wow, he's McCain's brother? Wowee wow wow, this gets even better! So John McCain has obviously known this guy for a long time! I wonder if he shares Joe's views on using the 911 emergency system.

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 03:00 PM
Nice try. This one doesn't source itself to McCain's actual economic policies either. It just gives another political writer's interpretation of what they think McCain's plan is.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/14/usa-johnmccain

Again though what does this have to do with the topic, and I can point out where his policies differ with socialism all day but again that isn't the topic.


Oh, so now you want to be on-topic. :rolleyes:

Actually I was on topic, I was using a strategy that is referred to as inductive reasoning (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inductive%20reasoning) and pointing out why I was dismissing a particular source.

Again while you pointed out McCain's brother the fact is it differs from Obama's associations significantly because McCain couldn't choose whom he is related to by blood. Senator Obama chose to associate himself with socialists and marxists whom aren't even related to him.

Ravnas
10-27-2008, 03:06 PM
Bah, I'm curious as to one thing how socialism is a bad thing, plus I never knew that it was a political viewpoint, but more of an economic theory, ah well, just ignore the man behind the curtain I guess.

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 03:19 PM
Bah, I'm curious as to one thing how socialism is a bad thing, plus I never knew that it was a political viewpoint, but more of an economic theory, ah well, just ignore the man behind the curtain I guess.

Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?

There is a difference between people being charitable and the government coming in, taking your money that you worked for and just giving it to people whom were too lazy to work a job.

An article that would be good reading to bring you up to speed can be found here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism)

Rogue Nine
10-27-2008, 03:22 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/14/usa-johnmccain
I don't want you to source the articles, I want the authors to do it for their own writing. The fact that they did not source their articles is rather suspect, in my opinion.

Actually I was on topic, I was using a strategy that is referred to as inductive reasoning (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inductive%20reasoning) and pointing out why I was dismissing a particular source.
Sure you were. :dozey:

Senator Obama chose to associate himself with socialists and marxists whom aren't even related to him.
Gonna have to ask you to cite some sources that aren't in the tank for McCain.

jonathan7
10-27-2008, 03:24 PM
Please can everyone calm down, lets not get snarky with each other... don't let me get my big stick out.... Also you are all reminded to please stay on topic :) - j7

Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?

This is subjective at best - furthermore have you actually read the Marxist Charter? Any country that took it up, would infact be the most "democratic" country on earth - the USSR, was never what Marx had envisioned. Furthermore it is entirely subjective to see socialism as a bad thing... I love that in a country that is apparently about freedom of speech, it is seen as bad for Obama to associate with such people.... - My 2 cents.

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 03:39 PM
This is subjective at best - furthermore have you actually read the Marxist Charter? Any country that took it up, would infact be the most "democratic" country on earth - the USSR, was never what Marx had envisioned. Furthermore it is entirely subjective to see socialism as a bad thing... I love that in a country that is apparently about freedom of speech, it is seen as bad for Obama to associate with such people.... - My 2 cents.

Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).

Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.

Also he is a member of the New Party (Democratic Socialists), they tried to remove it from their website when this was made public.


On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.


From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party

Additional Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html

ET Warrior
10-27-2008, 03:49 PM
Isn't factcheck.org tied to the Annenberg Foundation which was once ran by Senator Obama, and also associated with Bill Ayers?Hey, maybe you should read the article and see the vast number of sources they use to support their position as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand because they're "in the tank" with Obama (even though they condemn just as many of his false claims).

jrrtoken
10-27-2008, 04:10 PM
Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).Socialism can work, but most of the attempts in recent history have not been executed properly. I agree that socialism on a larger scale will eventually collapse, but when in city-state form, perhaps in an anarcho-socialist scheme, it might just work. Like J7 said, true Marxist communism hasn't even implemented yet. There's a reason why USSR's government was known as Leninism, and eventually Stalinism, and so forth; Each leader shifted the basic communist principles to their own philosophical beliefs. Which is why Marxism shouldn't be written off yet, as it has never been truly implemented.

Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.Sweet Jesus, please don't bring that up again.

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 04:10 PM
Hey, maybe you should read the article and see the vast number of sources they use to support their position as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand because they're "in the tank" with Obama (even though they condemn just as many of his false claims).

I have read through a lot of their stuff, and while they have condemned quite a few of Obama's false statements, there have been things they've allowed to slip through and this case is one of them. To be fair to factcheck.org they've been a lot better at covering things than the mainstream media.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/16/joe-plumber-calls-obamas-tax-plan-socialist-sawyer-defends-it

I've been trying to find the actual interview on Fox News where one of Obama's advisors said that the $250,000 cutoff refers to Gross Income, I actually saw it on TV a few days ago, which completely debunks the accusation that McCain wasn't telling the truth.

Anyways, even without it I can say this taxes are taken on a person's gross income, that means the total amount you make before taxes and other expenses.

Web Rider
10-27-2008, 04:15 PM
Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?
Marxism=/=Socialism. I've just spent the last 5 weeks studying Marx, they're not the same. The execution of Marxism and what Marx intended aren't even the same thing.

There is a difference between people being charitable and the government coming in, taking your money that you worked for and just giving it to people whom were too lazy to work a job.
I guess you don't realize that taxes also pay for our failing airline industires, support our steel companies, pay for our roads, keep our food cheap.

Unless you'd like an apple to cost 10 dollars, build your own roads, have steel owned by the Swiss and have no form of air travel, you're already loving a lot of socialist things.

You want a socialist government, it's not Marx. It's the UK, or Japan. Socialism is more of an economic policy that governments participate in the operation of business to ensure a stable economy.

An article that would be good reading to bring you up to speed can be found here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism)
How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
It gives general information, unlike the other which is just a critique. And it gives some pros and cons, but mostly gives you the information and lets you decide for yourself.

True_Avery
10-27-2008, 04:19 PM
Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).

Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.

Also he is a member of the Democratic Socialists, they tried to remove it from their website when this was made public.
It seems you've mixed up socialism with communism.

Socialism:
1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Communism:
1. A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

Now, the definition of Marxist socialism does indeed mean a transitional period between the two. But lets looks closer:

It transitions into communism. Now, as far as we know, true 100% communism has never existed. There have been very good examples of it happening, but even these tribes have had some form of trade, currency (be it hides, meat, respect, etc), and concept of ownership, even if it was small. So, through this, I think we can establish that true Marxist communism is a pipe dream that will never work in a society.

It is the Garden of Eden of societies if you will. A utopia that is only promised in religious lore, but never successfully implemented on a scale larger than roughly 100 people.

Now, we seem to agree with this from what I've read of your posts. But, if you would like me to pull up some sources on such tribes then I would be more than welcome to provide them.

But, moving on to socialism as it actually applies to the world and not as Marx pipe dream says it should:

Just throwing it out there, but America is a capitalist/socialist hybrid in many respects. Now, while we may not have Universal Health Care, we do share other socialist aspects of society with other socialist/capitalist hybrid countries.

For example:
Military
National Defense
Police
Firemen
Roads
Highways
Bridges
Water treatment
Recycling
Trash collection
Welfare
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
Social Security
Prisons
Jails

Our Taxes, in most if not all of the United States, pay for these services that you enjoy. We give the government the money, and we hope, through elected officials, that they use the money in a way that benefits our society, or "community" if you will.

One of the other aspects of Socialism is the creation of an Egalitarianist society. Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.

America's Bill of Rights says roughly the same thing, but we have established that said "rights" can be removed from a person if they fail to follow the established rules/laws that the society and government has in place. And, for the most part, all first world countries nowadays attempt to follow this doctrine.

So, your claim that "no country could take it up" is odd to say the least. While we are not entirely Socialist, we share many aspects of a socialist society. Outside of Universal Health Care, most of what you'd call socialist in other countries are things this very country stands for.

Ravnas
10-27-2008, 04:28 PM
Huh, looking at all these articles, I feel pretty sure that Socialism isn't the worst path to go down, I guess I don't really understand the whole laziness argument since I grew up with a single mom and a 50,000 a year income and she treated(She works in Medicine) a lot of people who happened to be laid off due to outsourcing and such. Ah well, I have a clearer understanding of the matter at least, though considering there was a statement from the Socialist Candidate that Obama isn't a Socialist will probably be an influence on this whole argument.

EDIT: Here's a link to his statement:http://vote-socialist.org/press/081023spt.html

GarfieldJL
10-27-2008, 04:36 PM
Marxism=/=Socialism. I've just spent the last 5 weeks studying Marx, they're not the same. The execution of Marxism and what Marx intended aren't even the same thing.


A lot of the aspects are the same though.



I guess you don't realize that taxes also pay for our failing airline industires, support our steel companies, pay for our roads, keep our food cheap.


I live in the United States in our case it's the other way around as far as food is concerned, or it used to be. Government actually paid farmers not to farm so food prices didn't fall through the floor.


Unless you'd like an apple to cost 10 dollars, build your own roads, have steel owned by the Swiss and have no form of air travel, you're already loving a lot of socialist things.


I'll agree pure capitalism is bad, however you're missing the point. What we're talking about is Marxist/Socialist style of class warfare.


You want a socialist government, it's not Marx. It's the UK, or Japan. Socialism is more of an economic policy that governments participate in the operation of business to ensure a stable economy.


I don't want to have my success taxed if I manage to get over the $250,000 gross income cutoff. Furthermore, raising taxes in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. See the state of Michigan as an example.


How about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
It gives general information, unlike the other which is just a critique. And it gives some pros and cons, but mostly gives you the information and lets you decide for yourself.

Again Socialism doesn't work on a large scale, it ends up falling apart relatively rapidly.

Look at Venezuela, as an example they've devolved into a dictatorship.

Huh, looking at all these articles, I feel pretty sure that Socialism isn't the worst path to go down, I guess I don't really understand the whole laziness argument since I grew up with a single mom and a 50,000 a year income and she treated(She works in Medicine) a lot of people who happened to be laid off due to outsourcing and such. Ah well, I have a clearer understanding of the matter at least, though considering there was a statement from the Socialist Candidate that Obama isn't a Socialist will probably be an influence on this whole argument.

Raising taxes on employers causes the price of goods to increase or they ship the jobs overseas. Or the business just closes up.

Web Rider
10-27-2008, 04:53 PM
A lot of the aspects are the same though.
Yeah, and we share 50% of our basic building blocks with a banana. Does that make us a banana? no it doesn't.

I live in the United States in our case it's the other way around as far as food is concerned, or it used to be. Government actually paid farmers not to farm so food prices didn't fall through the floor.
Farmers get HUGE government subsides, paid by our taxes, to keep being farmers instead of selling their land to have homes built on it.

I'll agree pure capitalism is bad, however you're missing the point. What we're talking about is Marxist/Socialist style of class warfare.
No we're not. YOU didn't even say that to being with. And STOP equating Marxism with Socialism. They are not the same.

I don't want to have my success taxed if I manage to get over the $250,000 gross income cutoff. Furthermore, raising taxes in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. See the state of Michigan as an example.
Okay, my mistake for thinking you'd actually know about the countries I mentioned. Japan's government is heavily invested in the largest corporations in their nation, though this often causes massive corruption, it has also lead to the government subsidizing business to allow for cheaper operating costs and LESS class warfare. Workers are better taken care of, government and business walk hand in hand instead of head to head.

Again Socialism doesn't work on a large scale, it ends up falling apart relatively rapidly.

Look at Venezuela, as an example they've devolved into a dictatorship.
This did not happen because of socialism. This happened because a guy with dictatorial dreams was in power. France, Germany, England, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, ALL very successful nations, ALL practice strongly Socialist principles.

Jae Onasi
10-27-2008, 10:42 PM
France is probably not one of the better examples of socialism with its huge unemployment problems. Venezuela is likewise a poor example of failing socialism, since Chavez has turned out to be nothing more than a petty would-be dictator.

Corinthian
10-27-2008, 11:13 PM
Explain to me the dividing line between Socialism and Communism, Web Rider. Because from where I'm sitting, Socialism is just the road to Communism.

Arcesious
10-28-2008, 12:20 AM
I don't see much of a difference between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism either, even after reading about the three on wiki and even finding definitions for the three. But I don't think that they are 'evil' concepts. There are some good ideas from these similar concepts, and some bad ideas.

I think that the best government system is one that is a hybrid of many systems, designed to adapt accordingly depending on the factors the system would have to work with.

I don't know what specific ideologies of politics and economics I support, technically, but my veiw of it is that the best system would consist of adaptation, fairness, and logic.

Tyrion
10-28-2008, 12:38 AM
Explain to me the dividing line between Socialism and Communism, Web Rider. Because from where I'm sitting, Socialism is just the road to Communism.

Communism is the extreme application of socialism, where government management of the economy is transformed into totalitarian control of the state. A little bit of socialism is good in the same sense that a moderate amount of capitalism is also good; it's the extremes of both you have to worry about.

Web Rider
10-28-2008, 02:42 AM
Explain to me the dividing line between Socialism and Communism, Web Rider. Because from where I'm sitting, Socialism is just the road to Communism.

I would suspect that if you can tell that Socialism is NOT Communism, and only could possibly lead there, then you can tell the difference yourself.

Now, I'm just curious as to what exactly you call "communism" 'cause ya know, it's been applied to dictatorships, which isn't the original intention of Marx.

Corinthian
10-28-2008, 02:58 AM
It's been applied to dictatorships? Of course it has - every wannabe Communist state on Earth is a Dictatorships. Marx's original intent is really not relevant.

I really can't tell the difference between a state that's committed to Socialism and a state that's committed to Communism. I can tell a truly Communist state when I see it, but none of those have ever existed or are ever likely to exist, so I can't exactly compare and contrast.

Web Rider
10-28-2008, 03:05 AM
It's been applied to dictatorships? Of course it has - every wannabe Communist state on Earth is a Dictatorships. Marx's original intent is really not relevant.

I really can't tell the difference between a state that's committed to Socialism and a state that's committed to Communism. I can tell a truly Communist state when I see it, but none of those have ever existed or are ever likely to exist, so I can't exactly compare and contrast.

Well it sounds like you're pretty committed to the idea that socialism is pretty much gonna end up a dictatorship-style communism, so I don't see much point in attempting to dissuade you.

Tyrion
10-28-2008, 03:27 AM
I really can't tell the difference between a state that's committed to Socialism and a state that's committed to Communism. I can tell a truly Communist state when I see it, but none of those have ever existed or are ever likely to exist, so I can't exactly compare and contrast.

I hope you can tell the difference between Britain and the Soviet Union.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 07:30 AM
There is confirmation that the audio tape is the genuine article and Obama is going nuts over this.

Obama Attacks Fox News over Coverage of 2001 Radio Interview (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/)

Also anyone hear about that interview Biden blew a gasket concerning in Florida, well there was another one just the other day in Pennsylvania that Biden blew a gasket in. (Gonna see if I can find a tape of that)

It looks like there is some weight to the socialism charge.

ET Warrior
10-28-2008, 08:08 AM
Based on that article, I do not understand where you get the notion that Obama is "going nuts" over this. Sounds like an Obama spokesman simply told the interviewer that Obama does not intend to push any kind of socialist agenda as president, even though the title of the web page also indicates some kind of 'freak out'.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 08:16 AM
Based on that article, I do not understand where you get the notion that Obama is "going nuts" over this. Sounds like an Obama spokesman simply told the interviewer that Obama does not intend to push any kind of socialist agenda as president, even though the title of the web page also indicates some kind of 'freak out'.

It's a figure of speech, anyways the tape in question basically calls Obama's integrity into question especially with the Obama spokesman denying it all, just like they denied his ties to ACORN, Rev. Wright, etc.


Here are the facts: (And I'm probably going to miss a few)

Obama associates with Marxists
Obama said he wants to spread the wealth around to "Joe the Plumber"
He made similar statements in the radio tape, which Dick Moris on Hannity and Colmes on Monday, October 27 pointed out the way he said it was the code phrases used in the 60s and 70s.
He said he wants to cut wealth to 95% of Americans when a significant percentage of those people don't pay Federal Income Taxes. (Which in my opinion and many other people's opinion as well is welfare).

jrrtoken
10-28-2008, 08:25 AM
It's a figure of speech, anyways the tape in question basically calls Obama's integrity into question especially with the Obama spokesman denying it all, just like they denied his ties to ACORN, Rev. Wright, etc.It's not just a figure of speech, it is a complete twisting of words; a blatant attack.
Here are the facts: (And I'm probably going to miss a few)

Obama associates with Marxists
Obama said he wants to spread the wealth around to "Joe the Plumber"
He made similar statements in the radio tape, which Dick Moris on Hannity and Colmes on Monday, October 27 pointed out the way he said it was the code phrases used in the 60s and 70s.
He said he wants to cut wealth to 95% of Americans when a significant percentage of those people don't pay Federal Income Taxes. (Which in my opinion and many other people's opinion as well is welfare).
Any sort of proof would be much appreciated.

ET Warrior
10-28-2008, 08:31 AM
so we're going to base our socialism charges against Obama based on a single 2001 interview, but we cannot assume that John McCain is going to do the same based on the statements he made in 2000? (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2545287&postcount=6)

Astor
10-28-2008, 08:51 AM
Is it just me, or is Obama having slightly socialist leanings not really important?

So what if he associates with Marxists? It doesn't make him a Marxist.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 09:25 AM
so we're going to base our socialism charges against Obama based on a single 2001 interview, but we cannot assume that John McCain is going to do the same based on the statements he made in 2000? (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2545287&postcount=6)

And I don't exactly agree with McCain on that point either, however McCain isn't advocating giving checks to people that don't pay taxes to begin with.

Is it just me, or is Obama having slightly socialist leanings not really important?

As an American whom would actually be affected directly by an Obama Presidency it concerns me.


So what if he associates with Marxists? It doesn't make him a Marxist.

If his associations coincide with statements and interviews he has made, in addition to his associations interconnecting, then we're looking at a pattern. So his associations can indicate him to be a Marxist.

If he just had one or two bad associations it would raise some eyebrows, but it wouldn't be much of a cause of concern. But the number of associations he has and how they interconnect is why it indicates that he is likely a socialist.

Great Scott!
10-28-2008, 01:55 PM
I just want to point out the hypocrisy in people getting all upset when others point out Obama's association with his minister and "fellow terrorists" and all that, yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.

And that's all I have to offer. No useless walls of text that lead to more walls of text here.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 02:58 PM
I just want to point out the hypocrisy in people getting all upset when others point out Obama's association with his minister and "fellow terrorists" and all that, yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.


Amen, was trying to think of a way to say it without appearing condecending, but essentially you're right.

And I've just found myself a pattern all the way back to when Obama was in college.

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."
Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/)

Achilles
10-28-2008, 03:01 PM
Except that the "Ayer's living room" thing has been debunked. Unless you have evidence (not right-wing hearsay) that shows otherwise, of course.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-28-2008, 03:04 PM
I just want to point out the hypocrisy in people getting all upset when others point out Obama's association with his minister and "fellow terrorists" and all that, yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.

And that's all I have to offer. No useless walls of text that lead to more walls of text here.What are you talking about when you refer to McCain being "associated" with his brother? The 911 phone call? If so, that'd probably be on the news as a "lighter side of the news" story even if he wasn't John McCain's brother just because of its sheer ridiculousness.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 03:05 PM
Except that the "Ayer's living room" thing has been debunked. Unless you have evidence (not right-wing hearsay) that shows otherwise, of course.

Debunked by who?

A foundation chaired by Barack Obama that was designed to improve Chicago public schools gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Small Schools Workshop, an organization led by former Weatherman Bill Ayers and by Michael Klonsky, a former chairman of both Students for a Democratic Society and, according to The Washington Post and New York Times, a group called the “Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=74B7DB99-A934-4340-9D46-1438C29400C3

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-28-2008, 03:08 PM
Debunked by who?


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=74B7DB99-A934-4340-9D46-1438C29400C3CNS News - The Right News, Right Now

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 03:22 PM
http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/10/24/barack-obama-the-radical-chicago-new-party-socialist-with-evidence/

Though it's from a blogger there are quite a few sources mentioned in the article. Some videos, etc.

Arcesious
10-28-2008, 03:55 PM
I just want to point out the hypocrisy in people getting all upset when others point out Obama's association with his minister and "fellow terrorists" and all that, yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.

And that's all I have to offer. No useless walls of text that lead to more walls of text here.

I agree with you... Also, has anyone heard about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs? (They're just as insane as Obama's) She's into witchhunting and whatnot... Not to mention that she seems to be anti-science. For example, how she was talking about ridiculous government funding and said that the research of fruit flies is a waste of money. Apparently she has no idea how important fruit flies are to our study of some pretty major diseases... Also how she wants creationism taught in public schools...

ET Warrior
10-28-2008, 03:59 PM
yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.I believe you are misunderstanding Rogue Nine's use sarcasm. It was a parallel drawn to show the ridiculousness of the charges against Obama, though it seems to have been lost on the intended target(s).

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 04:00 PM
I agree with you... Also, has anyone heard about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs? (They're just as insane as Obama's) She's into witchhunting and whatnot...

If you want to start on that and are referring to the source I'm thinking of it was debunked long ago, whereas Obama's associations are well documented.

I believe you are misunderstanding Rogue Nine's use sarcasm. It was a parallel drawn to show the ridiculousness of the charges against Obama, though it seems to have been lost on the intended target(s).

ET Warrior, something tells me that he didn't misinterpret anything, because the charges aren't ridiculous.

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/

ET Warrior
10-28-2008, 04:03 PM
If you want to start on that and are referring to the source I'm thinking of it was debunked long ago, whereas Obama's associations are well documented.Because when the fact checkers debunk something about the Republicans they got it right, but if anything about Obama is debunked they're just in the tank with him?

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 04:07 PM
Because when the fact checkers debunk something about the Republicans they got it right, but if anything about Obama is debunked they're just in the tank with him?

When they're being funded by the Organization that the Democratic candidate ran, that's the general idea.

I'd be a little suspicious of a fact checker funded by an Organization that Senator McCain ran if it were debunking rumors about him. (though last I checked he hasn't been on any boards funding a fact checker)

Darth333
10-28-2008, 04:20 PM
A foundation chaired by Barack Obama that was designed to improve Chicago public schools gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Small Schools Workshop, an organization led by former Weatherman Bill Ayers and by Michael Klonsky, a former chairman of both Students for a Democratic Society and, according to The Washington Post and New York Times, a group called the “Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).”
I fail to see what is wrong with giving money to the Small Schools Workshop (http://www.smallschoolsworkshop.org/) (other article by Klonsky (http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/el200202_klonsky.html))? It seems pretty much in line with the foundation's objectives :confused: The fact that Ayers or Klonsky might have done stupid things 40 years ago when Obama was just a kid doesn't seem very relevant to me in that regard. It's rather what they have become, now Ayers is a University professor (http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers) and Klonsky works as an educator (see above description of his project) and the Small Schools Workshop isn't a Marxist organization. Unless I am missing something there was nothing illegal in giving money to that organization (and I bet they had attribution criteria for the donation and the Small Schools met them). It appears as a total non-story to me. As a foreigner I am appalled at how low the attacks against an adversary can be in the American campaign.

I happened to give money last year to a charity that helps poor children...I knew that the organizer who contacted me was an ex drug addict who committed manslaughter in the past and I am pretty sure that he had a different political allegiance than mine...sounds to me that, accordingly to what you say, I would have been supporting drug traffic and crime and I would be sharing the same political views as that guy too instead of helping out children :giveup:

As for adding a small tax percentage to the people with higher revenues I don't see how that makes Obama a socialist (McCain used to agree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY)!) or why it is such a big deal in the current situation (ouch! (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/))... Besides, as several other people mentioned already, socialism does no equal totalitarianism. In any event, my take is that if Obama is elected, there will a very slight move to the left (and hopefully a more open approach towards foreign policy), nothing more...

Zerimar Nyliram
10-28-2008, 04:39 PM
Yes, he is. He is practically Karl Marx reincarnated.

The Doctor
10-28-2008, 04:43 PM
... ok, I've gotta jump in after that.

On what are you basing that, Zerimar?

El Sitherino
10-28-2008, 04:45 PM
His primary achievement has been confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.

There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom wherever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

I can't help but make relation between our current election fears and the Red Scare.

Arcesious
10-28-2008, 05:10 PM
source I'm thinking of it was debunked long ago

What source are you thinking of then and how was it debunked? I'd prefer not to be misinformed any longer if what I heard was not true.

Web Rider
10-28-2008, 05:14 PM
Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/

I once made a speech extolling eugenics and social Darwinism. Which is by far much worse than extolling socialism or communism, or Marxism or Leninism.

So what's your point? Lots of people make speeches about lots of things in their life. Aren't we in that country where we can express our opinion freely on any subject?

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 05:29 PM
I fail to see what is wrong with giving money to the Small Schools Workshop (http://www.smallschoolsworkshop.org/) (other article by Klonsky (http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/el200202_klonsky.html))? It seems pretty much in line with the foundation's objectives :confused: The fact that Ayers or Klonsky might have done stupid things 40 years ago when Obama was just a kid doesn't seem very relevant to me in that regard. It's rather what they have become, now Ayers is a University professor (http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers) and Klonsky works as an educator (see above description of his project) and the Small Schools Workshop isn't a Marxist organization. Unless I am missing something there was nothing illegal in giving money to that organization (and I bet they had attribution criteria for the donation and the Small Schools met them). It appears as a total non-story to me. As a foreigner I am appalled at how low the attacks against an adversary can be in the American campaign.


The devil is in the details Darth333:
Neither were they an innovative, sophisticated way to sort and track kids. Rather, the small schools movement offered a strategy for engaging teachers, students, parents, and whole communities, the people
with the problem, in a movement for democratic education--http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/archive/pdf/k0602aye.pdf


I happened to give money last year to a charity that helps poor children...I knew that the organizer who contacted me was an ex drug addict who committed manslaughter in the past and I am pretty sure that he had a different political allegiance than mine...sounds to me that, accordingly to what you say, I would have been supporting drug traffic and crime and I would be sharing the same political views as that guy too instead of helping out children :giveup:

Darth333, in that situation I would question your judgement on taking that guy's word at face value. That being said, that would be the only thing I would question in regards to that. However, your example doesn't compare to this situation, there are multiple reasons for that, one of which you weren't on a board with this guy overseeing how money was spent with the money ending up in the hands of groups like ACORN. Furthermore, in your case we're only looking at one association here, in Obama's case I'm looking at 4 interconnecting associations that begin with the letter A and all four of them have socialist leanings.



As for adding a small tax percentage to the people with higher revenues I don't see how that makes Obama a socialist (McCain used to agree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY)!) or why it is such a big deal in the current situation (ouch! (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/))... Besides, as several other people mentioned already, socialism does no equal totalitarianism. In any event, my take is that if Obama is elected, there will a very slight move to the left (and hopefully a more open approach towards foreign policy), nothing more...

There is a difference in what McCain suggested (which I disagree respectfully disagree with McCain on his prior stance), compared to Senator Obama's stance. Obama wants to give tax breaks to people that already don't pay any Federal Income tax, in order to subtract from 0 you have to send a bunch of checks to these individuals which is not a tax cut, it's welfare.

If you listen to the audio tape from youtube that I posted (which has been confirmed to be authentic), you'll see that there is a significant difference.

I can't help but make relation between our current election fears and the Red Scare.
Well the tape has been confirmed to be real, so there appears to be some evidence to back up what I'm saying.

What source are you thinking of then and how was it debunked? I'd prefer not to be misinformed any longer if what I heard was not true.

The places I heard of the rumor from included Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and also MSNBC (least I think they were the ones to drag this up). Along with the bogus story that Palin's youngest son trig was actually a case of incest between her husband and Palin's oldest daughter.

El Sitherino
10-28-2008, 05:38 PM
Well the tape has been confirmed to be real, so there appears to be some evidence to back up what I'm saying.

Clearly you misunderstood my post.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 05:51 PM
Clearly you misunderstood my post.

Obviously, because as far as I'm interpretting what you're saying, you're trying to compare apples and oranges whose only similarity is that they are both fruit, I really don't get the connection because unlike the "Red Scare" there is quite a lot of evidence on public record concerning Obama.

El Sitherino
10-28-2008, 06:11 PM
You have yet to provide evidence, as well you have yet to validate that socialism = unamericanism.

I suggest re-reading over my post and understand what was being talked about. If there is further information you need on the situation you can google McCarthyism.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 06:29 PM
You have yet to provide evidence, as well you have yet to validate that socialism = unamericanism.


I'm saying that he's a socialist and his policy ideas are extremely dangerous because it will tank the economy even worse than it is now.

He also has a history of diverting funds to groups with questionable agendas:
Obama's Education Groups funded Controversial Organizations' Tax Returns (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/obamas-education-groups-funded-controversial-organiations-s-tax-returns/)
(a lot of the groups mentioned in the article have socialist agendas)


Though if you want to go down the unamerican road, I don't think funding a group that specializes in voter fraud is pro-American putting it mildly.

jrrtoken
10-28-2008, 06:32 PM
I'm saying that he's a socialist and his policy ideas are extremely dangerous because it will tank the economy even worse than it is now.You still have not given any credible proof on why we should believe that Obama is a socialist. Unless if you have a document(s) which says OBAMA=SOCIALIST, then you are making wild claims.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 06:38 PM
You still have not given any credible proof on why we should believe that Obama is a socialist. Unless if you have a document(s) which says OBAMA=SOCIALIST, then you are making wild claims.

Had posted it earlier:

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
New Party tried to scrub this but it was saved on the web Archive (http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html)
The New Party is a Socialist Party.

jrrtoken
10-28-2008, 06:45 PM
The New Party is a Socialist Party.In your own opinion.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 06:49 PM
In your own opinion.

It isn't just my opinion.

The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others.

So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-28-2008, 06:52 PM
I'm saying that he's a socialist and his policy ideas are extremely dangerous because it will tank the economy even worse than it is now.unless you can provide evidence that socialism will crash the economy or can prove you have a doctorate in economics, kindly stop throwing around assertions like that. furthermore, history goes against what you've just said, look at the great depression and the new deal that came after and dragged the economy out of the ****ter.

It isn't just my opinion.


http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-partywell, i'm certainly surprised that a right wing website that you cherry picked shares your opinion.

El Sitherino
10-28-2008, 08:14 PM
You still have not given any credible proof on why we should care that Obama is a socialist.

Fix'd

jrrtoken
10-28-2008, 08:16 PM
Fix'dOh yes, my bad. Thanks for correcting me! :p

mimartin
10-28-2008, 08:23 PM
I'm saying that he's a socialist and his policy ideas are extremely dangerous because it will tank the economy even worse than it is now.
:lol: Is that even possible? :lol:

Eight years of trickle down voodoo economics did not work, maybe we should try trickle up economics for a while. You know like under Clinton when all we had to gripe about was the man’s character. :rolleyes:

:thmbup1::bow:El Sitherino for post #56

Achilles
10-28-2008, 09:52 PM
Some perspective (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg) for those that crave it.
Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” There's more good stuff both before and after this part, but I think this passage here is essential.

GarfieldJL
10-28-2008, 10:44 PM
You have yet to provide evidence, as well you have yet to validate that socialism = unamericanism.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Listen to the audio tape again, and as for providing proof, I was proving he is a socialist. Though coming from someone that is taking classes on the United States Constitution currently it sounds pretty anti-American to me considering, our founding fathers were talking about "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," in the declaration of independence.

Not government giving everything to you and us living in a nanny state.

El Sitherino
10-28-2008, 11:55 PM
Where is Obama's manifesto? So far you have shown no evidence of anything negative or dangerous on Obama's part. I must say it is disturbing to see citizens of any class exploit a system of fear.

Arcesious
10-29-2008, 01:52 AM
I think three things we need to do are:

Declare a flat tax for all citizens.
Make stricter regulations about spending.
Illegalize (large, but not small) corporate monopolies.

Achilles
10-29-2008, 02:11 AM
I think three things we need to do are:

Declare a flat tax for all citizens.I disagree. Whatever tax burden we decide is necessary will be paid off more quickly by the wealthy than the poor, not to mention that it will be a larger percentage of income for lower income households than wealthy households.

Think of it like this: would you rather pay $10,000 a year in taxes making $25k per year or $250k per year? Not everyone gets to be rich and the government needs money to operate. So where does "the slack" in this scenario come from?

(hint: the backs of the lower and middle class).

Make stricter regulations about spending. This is vague. Specifics please?

Illegalize (large, but not small) corporate monopolies.Okay. Why? What about industries in which there are no natural barriers to competition, however markets don't warrant any? Will the government then be forced to create competitors just to keep a monopoly from occurring (and isn't that a prime example of big, fat, capital "S" Socialism)?

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-29-2008, 02:13 AM
Declare a flat tax for all citizens.yes in this financial crisis what we need to do is bring back the tax system from the pre-depression era and decrease tax revenue.

Illegalize (large, but not small) corporate monopolies.already done

Astor
10-29-2008, 06:48 AM
Though coming from someone that is taking classes on the United States Constitution currently it sounds pretty anti-American to me considering, our founding fathers were talking about "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," in the declaration of independence.

Nice of you to cut out the start of that sentence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And could it not be argued that those rights also include the right to help from your government? After all, a government is supposed to protect and serve it's people - not leave them to fend for themselves.

Honestly, I don't think there's a single politician in all the major parties of North America and Europe that doesn't have socialist ideals (although i'm sure many don't subscribe to pure socialism, many aspects of government across the world today are based on socialist ideals). And I don't know why your trying to paint socialism as bad - it has been proven to work in many countries in Europe. I think that it might actually be fear of change on the part of those screaming about it.

Arcesious
10-29-2008, 11:06 AM
By flat tax, I mean, for example, 10% all across the board- completely fair.

A person making 100,000 pays 10,000
a person making 10000 pays 1000, etc, etc.

At least that's how my father explained it to me...

As for stricter regulations on spending: I think they should no longer be allowed to spend money on spoiling themselves. Perhaps some of these 'partying politicians' should see what it's like to live like people making under 100,000 per year...

The Doctor
10-29-2008, 12:31 PM
Are you saying that luxuries should be forbidden?

Achilles
10-29-2008, 01:52 PM
By flat tax, I mean, for example, 10% all across the board- completely fair. "completely fair" is a value judgment.

A person making 100,000 pays 10,000
a person making 10000 pays 1000, etc, etc.

At least that's how my father explained it to me...This sounds nice, until you look at distribution of wealth of this country. A vast majority of the tax burden is still being placed on the middle and lower classes (there are a lot more people making 10,000 than there are making 100,000). I don't agree with the conclusion that it's "completely fair".

As for stricter regulations on spending: I think they should no longer be allowed to spend money on spoiling themselves. Example?

Perhaps some of these 'partying politicians' should see what it's like to live like people making under 100,000 per year...Are these "partying politicians" using the federal budget to spring for their "parties"? If not, then I don't understand the argument. I'm going to need a source and not speculation please.

Arcesious
10-29-2008, 02:04 PM
"It's very easy to spend money when it's not yours."

Are not federal jobs are paid for by taxes?

Achilles
10-29-2008, 02:06 PM
That doesn't tell me anything.

Arcesious
10-29-2008, 02:09 PM
I edited the post above- you responded quicker than I edited.

The Federal budget is paid for by taxes, is it not?

BTW, I agree with your points about the taxes. As for wasteful spending. I's obvious that there are ridiculous complications and loopholes in the system...

Achilles
10-29-2008, 02:20 PM
I edited the post above- you responded quicker than I edited.

The Federal budget is paid for by taxes, is it not? Indeed it is. Your argument seems to be that there is a line item on the federal budget for wild parties. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm merely requesting that you show me where it is.

If your argument is that they are using their own money to party and you don't like it, then I'd suggest that you are generalizing and probably need to spend a little less time worrying about how other people spend the money that they earn (if you want to have a conversation about whether people should make as much as they do, we can do that too, but I think I'll win that one as soon as a mention one of the myriad of professions we spend a ridiculous amount of money we support that doesn't have nearly as much value as say "running our country"). I would also hypothesize that you are either ignoring or unaware the fact that a lot of those so-called political parties aren't being paid for by members of the government or covered by the government's budget.

Perhaps your time would be better spent lobbying for lobby reform ;)

BTW, I agree with your points about the taxes.Cool :D

As for wasteful spending. I's obvious that there are ridiculous complications and loopholes in the system...Indeed, I'm sure there is. Unfortunately I'm still trying to nail down whether you're talking about earmarks, the actions of lobbyists, something else entirely, all of it together, whatever.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-29-2008, 02:50 PM
By flat tax, I mean, for example, 10% all across the board- completely fair.

A person making 100,000 pays 10,000
a person making 10000 pays 1000, etc, etc.

At least that's how my father explained it to me...

As for stricter regulations on spending: I think they should no longer be allowed to spend money on spoiling themselves. Perhaps some of these 'partying politicians' should see what it's like to live like people making under 100,000 per year...Go read about the Gilded Age of the US. A flat tax concentrates a greater amount of wealth into the hands of fewer people, a greater concentration of wealth leads to a greater concentration of power, and since plutocracies and Laissez-Faire capitalism don't work, neither does a flat tax. If you assume that wealth is not equal to power or obscenely rich douchebags will always do what's good for everyone, then it might work, but you can't assume either of those.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 02:56 PM
Okay this is going to be a long explanation, in order to explain why Socialism (at least as Obama apparently believes) flies in the face of the founding principles of this country, I'm going to have to bring up events that were taking place in the late 1700s and why the Declaration of Independence was written and why the Constitution includes the "Bill of Rights." The start of this explaination goes back all the way to the Revolutionary War and Shay's Rebellion. I can't really think of a short way to explain this:

Nice of you to cut out the start of that sentence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And could it not be argued that those rights also include the right to help from your government? After all, a government is supposed to protect and serve it's people - not leave them to fend for themselves.


The idea that government is supposed to serve as a nanny, if you look at the historical context of the Declaration of Independence flies in the face of what that document stands for, this is the same reason why Socialism (at least on the level Obama apparently wants) flies in the face of what it means to be an American. If you look at the historical context the Declaration of Independence, was made due to abuses of governmental power such as abusive taxation (the same kind of taxation that you can argue that Obama wants to impliment) by the English Government towards their colonies. The Declaration of Independence isn't talking about the right of people to be happy, it says people have the right to pursue happiness.

Following the revolution, the first attempt for a government was a Confederation of states that fell apart as seen with Shay's Rebellion. It demonstrated that the Confederation style was too weak, so the founding fathers went back to the drawing board and worked on the Constitution.

One of the key sticking points on the Constitution was that originally it didn't have anything to limit the power of government, finally the "Bill of Rights" (Historical Note: Shay's Rebellion and the attempt to take away people's guns following it is arguably the reason why the 2nd Amendment is in the "Bill of Rights.") had to be added. The "Bill of Rights" was added to protect individuals from government. The reason the Constitution is a written document is because our founding fathers were extremely concerned about was government getting too powerful, and they didn't want things to be subject to arbitrary interpretation.

This "redistribution of wealth" is a form of taxation that the Founding Fathers would have been extremely appalled by, in fact the taxation that the Founding Fathers were extremely mad about had to do with a redistribution of wealth as well, only it was going to England.


Honestly, I don't think there's a single politician in all the major parties of North America and Europe that doesn't have socialist ideals (although i'm sure many don't subscribe to pure socialism, many aspects of government across the world today are based on socialist ideals). And I don't know why your trying to paint socialism as bad - it has been proven to work in many countries in Europe.

I don't think they'd willingly admit it to the general public right now, but the fact is that Obama is a Socialist.

Read the article from Newsbusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/10/28/obama-promoted-redistribution-socialist-groups-meeting-1996-media-could-)

It contained two links of interest:
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html
http://www.chicagodsa.org/page2.html


I think that it might actually be fear of change on the part of those screaming about it.

The fear is more about the fact that it has surfaced that Obama thinks that the courts should have gone in and forcibly taken wealth away from one group of people and gave it to another group of people. That they didn't go far enough during the Civil Rights movement, and it shouldn't have just been about equal rights, instead it should have been about wealth redistribution. Again see the youtube video I posted.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-29-2008, 03:05 PM
words

First off, this isn't 1776, it's 2008, what was applicable back then isn't necessarily applicable now, case in point: slaves being regarded as 3/5 of a person. Secondly, you're assuming everyone starts off equal and can actually have a shot at pursuing happiness, which is untrue. As for your claim that the founding fathers would be appalled by taxation, I'm sure they'd also be appalled by the distribution of both power and wealth in this country -- they fought to create a country run by the people instead of a small group of extremely rich individuals, which is exactly what we've returned to.

Astor
10-29-2008, 03:08 PM
This "redistribution of wealth" is a form of taxation that the Founding Fathers would have been extremely appalled by

Are you a founding father? If not, how can you be so sure?

I don't think they'd willingly admit it to the general public right now, but the fact is that Obama is a Socialist.

Sure. :dozey:

Read the article from Newsbusters.org

I'm sorry, but the amount of salt i'd need to read that article would likely induce a cardiac arrest.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 03:24 PM
Are you a founding father? If not, how can you be so sure?


I can be sure because of the fact because we had the American Revolution and one of the complaints was unfair taxation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

First off, this isn't 1776, it's 2008, what was applicable back then isn't necessarily applicable now, case in point: slaves being regarded as 3/5 of a person.
I'm not bringing up slavery, that part of the Constitution quite frankly violated other parts of the Constitution with habeus corpus being one part that it violated. I'd appreciate it if you refrain from bringing race into this in the future.


Secondly, you're assuming everyone starts off equal and can actually have a shot at pursuing happiness, which is untrue. As for your claim that the founding fathers would be appalled by taxation, I'm sure they'd also be appalled by the distribution of both power and wealth in this country -- they fought to create a country run by the people instead of a small group of extremely rich individuals, which is exactly what we've returned to.

Most of the founding fathers were relatively wealthy, but I really don't want to engage in the class warfare rhetoric.

In the United States of America, you don't have to start off at equal wealth in order to be successful or fail. There are people that start off dirt poor in this country that has managed to become multi-millionares through hard work and ingenuity. There are people whom start off rich that end up losing wealth even going broke through their own foolishness.

The idea that government takes care of you no matter what takes away your rights and is why Socialism flies in the face of everything this country stands for.

mur'phon
10-29-2008, 03:26 PM
this is the same reason why Socialism (at least on the level Obama apparently wants) flies in the face of what it means to be an American.

I believe that it is up to the Americans to decide what is american, no? So, if the Americans elect a socialist, facist, communist, cappitalist etc wouldn't it be American?

mimartin
10-29-2008, 03:28 PM
Not to those that want to dictate to others “what it means to be an American.”

Web Rider
10-29-2008, 03:48 PM
what that document stands for,
Is open to interpretation. Some people say it stands for one thing, some people say it stands for another. "Free speech" for example does not cover hate speech. But it does cover talking about hate speech in a non-hate speech manner(such as a lecture or in a book).


what it means to be an American.
Is again open to interpretation. One could say that "being American" means being free. But obviously that freedom does not mean anarchical freedom. The degree to which "being American" equates to "being free" depends on who you ask.

such as abusive taxation (the same kind of taxation that you can argue that Obama wants to impliment)
I can argue(and win) a lot of things. But to specific, the objection was "taxation without representation" ie: people were getting taxed and had no say in english government. It's generally agreed that if England had given the colonies representation, we'd be part of the "United Kingdom" still. In any case, Obama, regardless of tax plans, does not want to eliminate your ability to vote, your ability to elect representatives, or your ability to protest(like the current administration keeps restricting). And, since we ARE represented and we do have a say, if Obama wants to increase taxes....that's nice, he still needs congressional approval to do it.

it says people have the right to pursue happiness.
Indeed. Though as federal law has already laid down, some kinds of happiness, such as murdering black schoolchildren or presidential assassination attempts are not kosher. Your right to freedom ends when it means I'm losing mine. Balance, there always is.

they didn't want things to be subject to arbitrary interpretation.
Is only as arbitrary as you choose to believe it is. We decide for ourselves who we're going to elect, and those people in turn, interpret our electing them as supporting their views. Which means that their interpretation of laws, the constitution, ect... are what we are supporting by electing them. An official can only really have an "arbitrary" interpretation of something if we didn't elect them.

This "redistribution of wealth" is a form of taxation that the Founding Fathers would have been extremely appalled by, in fact the taxation that the Founding Fathers were extremely mad about had to do with a redistribution of wealth as well, only it was going to England.
Because the crystal ball on your table allows you to channel their spirits and ask them? Speculation much.

I don't think they'd willingly admit it to the general public right now, but the fact is that Obama is a Socialist.
Considering the level of work to pay, the amount of time off, the quality of life, the amount of happiness, the large profits, and general stability of economies that many socialist states have, I think you're doing to find that even if Obama came out as a socialist, a lot of his supporters would LIKE that.

Read the article from Newsbusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/10/28/obama-promoted-redistribution-socialist-groups-meeting-1996-media-could-)
No.

The fear is more about the fact that it has surfaced that Obama thinks that the courts should have gone in and forcibly taken wealth away from one group of people and gave it to another group of people. That they didn't go far enough during the Civil Rights movement, and it shouldn't have just been about equal rights, instead it should have been about wealth redistribution. Again see the youtube video I posted.
No.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-29-2008, 04:06 PM
I can be sure because of the fact because we had the American Revolution and one of the complaints was unfair taxation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_IndependenceThe keyword there being "unfair".

I'm not bringing up slavery, that part of the Constitution quite frankly violated other parts of the Constitution with habeus corpus being one part that it violated. I'd appreciate it if you refrain from bringing race into this in the future.I'm not bringing race into this, it was just an example to show that the Constitution isn't infallible and neither were the founding fathers.

Most of the founding fathers were relatively wealthy, but I really don't want to engage in the class warfare rhetoric.Well, you can stop posting in this thread then, since Obama has said he wants to re-distribute wealth.

In the United States of America, you don't have to start off at equal wealth in order to be successful or fail. There are people that start off dirt poor in this country that has managed to become multi-millionares through hard work and ingenuity.You're still not refuting the fact that the deck is stacked against some and for others.

The idea that government takes care of you no matter what takes away your rights and is why Socialism flies in the face of everything this country stands for.No one has said anything about taking away anyone's rights, socialism is an economic theory, not a form of government.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 04:11 PM
Considering the level of work to pay, the amount of time off, the quality of life, the amount of happiness, the large profits, and general stability of economies that many socialist states have, I think you're doing to find that even if Obama came out as a socialist, a lot of his supporters would LIKE that.


His supporters like it because they do not understand all the consequences of it.

Example (actually happened today):
I was at a job fair today and one of the people was talking about their brother whom is a brain surgeon that makes $800,000 a year. Okay he seems wealthy right, but here is the problem, if Obama raises taxes for him this guy wouldn't be able to afford to do his job.

Apparently, over $400,000 of that $800,000 goes to pay for malpractice insurance. Additionally he has other expenses he has to pay for that he cannot cut out of the equation in finality after the new taxes this man's income would be $70,000 a year and we still have yet to get to his student loans, which the man would now be unable to pay off.

Studying to be a doctor is exteremely expensive.

mimartin
10-29-2008, 04:21 PM
His supporters like it because they do not understand all the consequences of it.:lol: :lol: That is a very big assumptions you are making there. Just because John McCain admitted that he does not know much about the economy, does not mean everyone is in the same boat.

You do know the difference between net and gross profits?

jrrtoken
10-29-2008, 04:22 PM
His supporters like it because they do not understand all the consequences of it.http://catchwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/que_che.jpg
Example (actually happened today):
I was at a job fair today and one of the people was talking about their brother whom is a brain surgeon that makes $800,000 a year. Okay he seems wealthy right, but here is the problem, if Obama raises taxes for him this guy wouldn't be able to afford to do his job.IF he raises taxes. There could be many other things that might give that surgeon a tax cut, such as size of his family, etc, etc.
Apparently, over $400,000 of that $800,000 goes to pay for malpractice insurance. Additionally he has other expenses he has to pay for that he cannot cut out of the equation in finality after the new taxes this man's income would be $70,000 a year and we still have yet to get to his student loans, which the man would now be unable to pay off.

Studying to be a doctor is exteremely expensive.Maybe someone with experience in the medical field might be able to enlighten and clarify your statement. ;)

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 04:28 PM
:lol: :lol: That is a very big assumptions you are making there. Just because John McCain admitted that he does not know much about the economy, does not mean everyone is in the same boat.


mimartin, I know a lot more about the economy then you may think.


You do know the difference between net and gross profits?

Did you know taxes are on gross income not gross profits?

Gross income is the total amount of money you take in before any expenses are factored in.

IF he raises taxes. There could be many other things that might give that surgeon a tax cut, such as size of his family, etc, etc.
Not likely, considering the tax hike is either for families with a gross income of $250,000 or more a year or families with a $150,000 or more gross income. (Depends on whether you believe the Obama statement or the Biden statement is the accurate one)

mimartin
10-29-2008, 04:57 PM
Did you know taxes are on gross income not gross profits? huh? Gross income is the total amount of money you take in before any expenses are factored in. Taxes are off of net, not gross. You can deduct your business expenses and other taxes (such a Employeer Taxes) and the tax rate is based off of your income. I have a degrees in Finance and Accounting. Plus I am a small business owner, who prepares my own taxes.

IRS Tax forms - Most small Business Use

Schedule C- (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf) Profit or Loss From Business - This is the form that allows you to write off expenses such Advertising, Vehicle, Depreciation, Employee Benefits, INSURANCE, Mortgage, Rent, Office Expense, Repairs, Supplies, Utilities... At the end of it you are given Net Profit which is what you are taxed off of, but only after personal deductions and Self-Employment Tax (Social Security).

Form 4562 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4562.pdf)-Depreciation and Amortization.

Schedule SE (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sse.pdf)- Self-Employment Tax

1040 (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf)

1099 (http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=98114,00.html) - There are different forms based on the type of business and type of income.

So by your example, the surgeon’s Business Income (line 12 on the 1040) is $400,000 because the cost of malpractice insurance is an expense deducted on Schedule C (line15). I suspect his income is even lower once he deducted other business expenses.

ET Warrior
10-29-2008, 05:04 PM
after the new taxes this man's income would be $70,000And after I graduate from my six years of college (with a masters degree) my starting salary will probably not exceed $70,000 before taxes. Somehow I think I'll be able to do my job and pay off student loans because I am aware of what it means to live within my means.

El Sitherino
10-29-2008, 05:12 PM
Our founding fathers and their brethren fought for the equality of all man, so that every individual that resides in this country has the ability, right, and responsibility to succeed. They understood a wealthy united nation has the ability to protect those that are persecuted against and provides them the freedoms that all Humans have a right to. Bring me your tired, your weak, your poor is not just a saying my friend, it is the American's cry to protect freedom to all those who desire it. It is the responsibility of great (wo)men to stand up for what is right, regardless of what is found popular.

The citizen must succeed for the state to succeed. I suggest everyone understand the meanings of the language the beautiful document was written in. Much like the Magna Carta, people don't speak with as much eloquence and deep meaning as they previously did.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 05:26 PM
Our founding fathers and their brethren fought for the equality of all man, so that every individual that resides in this country has the ability, right, and responsibility to succeed. They understood a wealthy united nation has the ability to protect those that are persecuted against and provides them the freedoms that all Humans have a right to. Bring me your tired, your weak, your poor is not just a saying my friend, it is the American's cry to protect freedom to all those who desire it. It is the responsibility of great (wo)men to stand up for what is right, regardless of what is found popular.


They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights. If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.

Freedom also means freedom to succeed and freedom to fail, it's called personal responsibility.


The citizen must succeed for the state to succeed.

A citizen has to also want to succeed, something that they have absolutely no incentive to do in socialism.


I suggest everyone understand the meanings of the language the beautiful document was written in. Much like the Magna Carta, people don't speak with as much eloquence and deep meaning as they previously did.

In order to understand the meaning of the language, one also has to know the context in which it was written, you can only do that if you know what was going on when the document was written.

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.

Jae Onasi
10-29-2008, 05:29 PM
This "redistribution of wealth" is a form of taxation that the Founding Fathers would have been extremely appalled by

Are you a founding father? If not, how can you be so sure?
Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

jrrtoken
10-29-2008, 05:33 PM
They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights. If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.So you're saying that it's your own fault that you're poor? that your own laziness caused your poverty? That's a very archaic and ignorant idea born from the flames of social Darwinism.
The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.Through your eyes, perhaps, but if you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, there are many passages that support socialism and other "leftist" ideas in some form or the other.

El Sitherino
10-29-2008, 05:34 PM
They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights.

How are you being punished? Aside from the fact I highly doubt you make +$250,000 I doubt you are going to be punished under Obama's presidency.

If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.

Technically your tax money already goes to people that are "too lazy to work".
Mostly CEO's of corporations who drive around in ferrari's and have sex with European sex slaves.

Freedom also means freedom to succeed and freedom to fail, it's called personal responsibility.

Right, and this isn't interfering in that.


A citizen has to also want to succeed, something that they have absolutely no incentive to do in socialism.

You have shown no proof to this claim. I call fallacy.


In order to understand the meaning of the language, one also has to know the context in which it was written, you can only do that if you know what was going on when the document was written.

Way to rephrase what I said in a drawn out and boring way.

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.
The United States of America was founded on free distribution of wealth and the market was owned by citizens as they are the market. Now it's a business setup with many chains and branches down, you have to adapt to the changes made in society to better protect it.

Astor
10-29-2008, 05:36 PM
Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

I'm not fully versed on American Political history, so I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out, Jae.

I was commenting more on using long dead people to further an argument, which I don't agree with - it's very easy to say they would agree/disagree with something if they're not here to say for themselves.

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism

I thought it was founded on Freedom from tyranny, and right to self governance? I've obviously been wrong in my history, then.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 05:41 PM
Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

One of the examples of why people of that era would balk at redistribution of wealth.

Chief Justice Marshall also determined that Maryland may not tax the bank without violating the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause dictates that State laws comply with the Constitution and yield when there is a conflict. Taking as undeniable the fact that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy", the court concluded that the Maryland tax could not be levied against the government. If states were allowed to continue their acts, they would destroy the institution created by federal government and oppose the principle of federal supremacy which originated in the text of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

While congress does have the power to tax, the problem is they can use taxes to literally destroy people whom happen to be wealthy and shove them into poverty.

Furthermore, we could be looking at as many as 4 Supreme Court Justices dieing these next 4 years, and another 2 after that.

You have, a potential super-majority of Democrats in the Legislature (with the ability and will pass extremely left wing agenda), a socialist President (if Obama is elected), and potentially a supreme court that will potentially uphold anything that they pass (regardless of the fact it may not be Constitutional). Reasoning behind that is the radio interview from 2001, which has Obama advocating the courts should have implimented wealth redistribution.

That's the reason why people are scared of the fact Obama is a Socialist, because as President with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, he would effectively have the power to tax the 'wealthy' (whatever they define as wealthy) and the middle class out of existence.

I was commenting more on using long dead people to further an argument, which I don't agree with - it's very easy to say they would agree/disagree with something if they're not here to say for themselves.


The reason that the Constitution is a written document is to keep it from being reinterpretted on a whim. It is also why it is so difficult to amend the Constitution, the founding fathers recognized that there needed to be safeguards in place.

I thought it was founded on Freedom from tyranny, and right to self governance? I've obviously been wrong in my history, then.

But a government even an elected one can become a tyranny, there are numorous examples in human history of that.

mimartin
10-29-2008, 05:53 PM
Did you know taxes are on gross income not gross profits?Your not going to explain this? Did you mean “Did you know taxes are on net income not gross profits” or did you mean “Did you know taxes are on gross income not net profits.”

Since you don’t seem incline to respond I’ll assume you meant “Did you know taxes are on net income and not gross profits”. Since that is correct.

jrrtoken
10-29-2008, 06:02 PM
While congress does have the power to tax, the problem is they can use taxes to literally destroy people whom happen to be wealthy and shove them into poverty.They also have the power to give tax cuts to the wealthy and no relief to the middle and lower class, as we've seen in the current administration.

You have, a potential super-majority of Democrats in the Legislature (with the ability and will pass extremely left wing agenda), a socialist President (if Obama is elected), and potentially a supreme court that will potentially uphold anything that they pass (regardless of the fact it may not be Constitutional). Reasoning behind that is the radio interview from 2001, which has Obama advocating the courts should have implimented wealth redistribution.No one gawked at this when the same thing happened in 2000 when we had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican controlled White House who led us into two wars and an economic recession, but hey, maybe it's just me.

That's the reason why people are scared of the fact Obama is a Socialist, because as President with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, he would effectively have the power to tax the 'wealthy' (whatever they define as wealthy) and the middle class out of existence.According to Obama's plan, the middle class isn't going to be taxed at all, in fact, they'll be given a tax cut. I fail to see the logic in your post. I thought that the general consensus agreed that taxing the wealthy was supposed to be a good thing, if I'm not mistaken.

The reason that the Constitution is a written document is to keep it from being reinterpretted on a whim. It is also why it is so difficult to amend the Constitution, the founding fathers recognized that there needed to be safeguards in place.Uh, it can be changed at any moment, as it's been done so in the past. The Constitution is reinterpreted all the time, as it should be, as society is always changing.

But a government even an elected one can become a tyranny, there are numorous examples in human history of that.I'm thinking of a word, one that starts with "buh" and ends with "ush".

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 06:03 PM
Your not going to explain this? Did you mean “Did you know taxes are on net income not gross profits” or did you mean “Did you know taxes are on gross income not net profits.”

I am quite well aware of what the mean.

Gross: Is the total amount you've made

Net: is the amount you've made or lost (Gross - expenses = net)


The term you're looking for in retail is Gross Sales I believe (Gross Income) which is what Obama is taxing.

Net is the what you get after all the expenses including taxes.

Since you don’t seem incline to respond I’ll assume you meant “Did you know taxes are on net income and not gross profits”. Since that is correct.

Accusing fellow members of criminal activity is a flame, response snipped... - j7

Gross income is the total amount of money I make in a year, and then the net income is the amount I've taken in after taxes.

Achilles
10-29-2008, 06:10 PM
@garfield: mimartin appears to be discussing business income tax whereas you appear to be discussing personal income tax.

mimartin
10-29-2008, 06:25 PM
@garfield: mimartin appears to be discussing business income tax whereas you appear to be discussing personal income tax. QFT I thought GarfieldJL was talking business income too with his example.

mimartin, I'm not trying to sound condecending but do you actually pay income taxes? I'm guessing you don't because when I look at my pay stubs, it shows me the gross pay for the two weeks the amount I made before taxes, and then they take the taxes out and that is the net pay.

Gross income is the total amount of money I make in a year, and then the net income is the amount I've taken in after taxes. I’m a small business owner, I pay taxes, personal and employee taxes. I also have degrees in Finance and Accounting. You were talking about a small business owner in your example of the doctor. Thus, I corrected your mistake in post #99. Now you want to change the discussion to personal income tax, which is fine with me. Because the MALPRATICE INSURANCE has nothing to do with personal income, personal income is the income left over after paying business expenses.

In case you don’t know when you are self-employed, you don’t get a pay stub unless you or your accounting department makes it.

Thanks for answering my question, but I’ll look elsewhere for financial or accounting advice. :D

The term you're looking for in retail is Gross Sales I believe (Gross Income) which is what Obama is taxing. Your belief is unfounded. He would tax Business Income. Which is after business expenses, if you are talking personal (for people not self-employed) he would tax wages, which are on a W-2. Either way, from your example, the malpratice insurance expense would not be taxable.

Gross Income and Net Income really have very little meaning for people who don't make huge sums of money or run their own business as the figures aren't very different.For a small business owner the net income is the only number that matters at the end of the day.

El Sitherino
10-29-2008, 06:57 PM
To be fair they want to make a constitutional ammendment to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Clearly the founding fathers thought it should be okay for dykes and queens to marry.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 07:01 PM
To be fair they want to make a constitutional ammendment to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Clearly the founding fathers thought it should be okay for dykes and queens to marry.

Yes, and honestly I wish this could be handled by the states because morals is something that really should generally be handled by the individual states.

Anyways the odds of an amendment like that going through isn't particularly high because of the difficulty in actually amending the Constitution (which is a good thing).

The point is based on the information I've found Obama is a socialist, and raising taxes in a recession will cause a depression.

El Sitherino
10-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Yes, and honestly I wish this could be handled by the states because morals is something that really should generally be handled by the individual states.

Anyways the odds of an amendment like that going through isn't particularly high because of the difficulty in actually amending the Constitution (which is a good thing).

So then what is making you so worried about Obama accomplishing such things?

Achilles
10-29-2008, 07:05 PM
The point is based on the information I've found Obama is a socialist, and raising taxes in a recession will cause a depression.And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

jrrtoken
10-29-2008, 07:15 PM
And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

You're right about that, Faux News is "right". ;)

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 07:23 PM
And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

See: New Thread on Media (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2546484#post2546484)

So then what is making you so worried about Obama accomplishing such things?

In answer to your question, if he controls all three branches of Government there are no checks & balances. Especially with the media being in the tank for him.

The DC gun ban was overturned by only 1 vote, if it hadn't been overturned we could have seen the total loss of our second amendment rights.

The Democrats want to reinstitute what is known as the "Fairness Doctrine" which in reality is an attempt to shut down all voices of dissent.

Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).

I honestly could go on all night, but a lot of these could all connect with the fact he's a socialist.

Astor
10-29-2008, 07:26 PM
Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).

Do you have a source for that? The previously sourced article determined that the access was not politically motivated - so you must mean somebody else?

jrrtoken
10-29-2008, 07:29 PM
In answer to your question, if he controls all three branches of Government there are no checks & balances. Especially with the media being in the tank for him.The same scenario that you are describing has already happened with Bush, who has a totally different set of ideals than Obama.

The DC gun ban was overturned by only 1 vote, if it hadn't been overturned we could have seen the total loss of our second amendment rights.And in the process, thousands of lives would probably be spared, but that's for another another thread.

The Democrats want to reinstitute what is known as the "Fairness Doctrine" which in reality is an attempt to shut down all voices of dissent.Proof, por favor.

Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).Proof?


snipped flamebait --Jae

jonathan7
10-29-2008, 07:30 PM
Again Europe, can keep it's socialism, they're having just as many economic problems that we are right now. I don't like the idea of big brother or the state is mother the state is father garbage.

You have the CIA, FBI, NIA - and you think your not being watched? Furthermore please tell me how universal education (which you have) and universal healthcare constitute being watched?

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 07:39 PM
Do you have a source for that? The previously sourced article determined that the access was not politically motivated - so you must mean somebody else?

I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.

jrrtoken
10-29-2008, 07:43 PM
I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.Thank you for providing articles with headlines such as "Liberals declare war on Joe the Plumber" and "Obama donor ordered Big Brother probe of Joe the Plumber". Now while I'm slam dunking these articles into the nearest rubbish bin, I'd like you to provide some real sources without any hate speech and right-wing bias.

True_Avery
10-29-2008, 07:45 PM
I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.
Got any sources that source what they are saying and aren't obviously biased towards one side?

Astor
10-29-2008, 07:49 PM
Jones-Kelley said such background checks are not unusual.

And

"Based on what we know to this point, we don't have any reason to believe the information was improperly accessed or disclosed by a state employee,"

I have a feeling that had it not been for the coincidence that she donated money to Obama's campaign, this wouldn't even be news.

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.

Of course it'll be on a network whose sole purpose at the moment is to jump all over Obama and the Democrats for the slightest little thing.

GarfieldJL
10-29-2008, 07:57 PM
And


It wouldn't be unusual if he was trying to get a job which you'd get a criminal background check for, the only thing he did was ask Obama a question. Since there was no legitimate reason for the background check, it was illegal and people are facing criminal charges.



I have a feeling that had it not been for the coincidence that she donated money to Obama's campaign, this wouldn't even be news.


Probably not, unless she worked on the Obama Campaign, because there wouldn't be anything really there except she acted on her own. The fact she's a maxed out donor, ties her to the Obama Campaign.



Of course it'll be on a network whose sole purpose at the moment is to jump all over Obama and the Democrats for the slightest little thing.

You notice any other networks bothering to even report on this fact, regardless of what you may think it is newsworthy. If something similar happened only we substituted John McCain in for Obama, the Mainstream Media would be going nuts.

Astor
10-29-2008, 08:00 PM
Probably not, unless she worked on the Obama Campaign, because there wouldn't be anything really there except she acted on her own. The fact she's a maxed out donor, ties her to the Obama Campaign.

Right. She gave them money - it doesn't mean she's working for them, or doing anything untoward on their behalf.

Jae Onasi
10-29-2008, 10:10 PM
There is a fair amount of snarkiness going on in this thread and I've deleted some of the more egregious posts. Keep it civil in accordance with the amended Kavar's rules, please.

Discussion of Joe the Plumber needs to relate back to the topic, otherwise they're off-topic posts. Thanks.

GarfieldJL
10-30-2008, 10:55 AM
Discussion of Joe the Plumber needs to relate back to the topic, otherwise they're off-topic posts. Thanks.

To tie Joe the Plumber into this discussion, the revelation of Obama's socialist viewpoints first surfaced when he went into Joe's neighborhood for a photo op and Joe asked him a question. Up until that point Obama and the mainstream media managed to keep it hidden.

Obama Explains His Tax Cut Plans to Plumbing Business (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA)

The response Obama gave, was brought up repeatedly by Senator McCain in the third debate. Obama's response then was to attack and smear 'Joe the Plumber', which indicates that there is something to this.
Obama Mocks Joe the Plumber, Crowd Laughs (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqis9mRcWl4&NR=1) I'm going to see if I can find a video that just has Obama's statements with the crowd.
And Biden also Mocked 'Joe the Plumber for not having a license which as Jae and myself have pointed out he didn't need to work as a plumber.
Biden Mocks Joe the Plumber on Leno for Not Having Actual Plumbing License (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c2NqqVinzk4)

All this points out to me is that this Socialism charge has struck a nerve and has real merit. The Presidential Candidates mocking each other and complaining about the media is one thing, but Joe isn't running for office, he wasn't at an Obama rally, Obama entered Joe's neighborhood and all Joe did was ask a question.

Astor
10-30-2008, 10:59 AM
To tie Joe the Plumber into this discussion, the revelation of Obama's socialist viewpoints first surfaced when he went into Joe's neighborhood for a photo op and Joe asked him a question. Up until that point Obama and the mainstream media managed to keep it hidden.

Hang on, you've already claimed that Obama's socialist viewpoints came about a few years ago - with the distribution of wealth comments.

Which is it?

All this points out to me is that this Socialism charge has struck a nerve and has real merit.

There's no charge - unless you're claiming that Obama is a criminal? So far all there has been are accusations.

GarfieldJL
10-30-2008, 11:09 AM
Hang on, you've already claimed that Obama's socialist viewpoints came about a few years ago - with the distribution of wealth comments.


The comments were out there, but the general public really didn't know about them for the most part till 'Joe the Plumber' asked Obama the question. That's what kicked up the search for other instances where he made similar comments. That's how 'Joe the Plumber' caused Obama's socialist viewpoints to come to the public's attention.



There's no charge - unless you're claiming that Obama is a criminal? So far all there has been are accusations.

That isn't the only meaning of the word 'charge.' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charge)


6. to accuse formally or explicitly (usually fol. by with): They charged him with theft.
7. to impute (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impute); ascribe the responsibility for: He charged the accident to his own carelessness.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charge

ET Warrior
10-30-2008, 11:40 AM
Obama Mocks Joe the Plumber, Crowd Laughs (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqis9mRcWl4&NR=1)Well, if you take the quote completely out of context and put a negative spin on it, sure, that sounds like he's mocking Joe. But if you look at the entire quote he is not. Not even close. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NbukEk8JBTY&feature=related)

Jae Onasi
10-30-2008, 02:13 PM
OK, Garfield, we've established that the 'redistribution of wealth' comment that Obama made to Joe is viewed by conservatives at least as a socialist tenant. We've not only beaten that dead horse, we've squashed the poor thing into little bits and then smeared it into a paste across the highway. Time to move on both here and in other threads.

El Sitherino
10-30-2008, 02:33 PM
I'd also like to add that everyone drop the subject of "Joe the Plumber", leave the poor guy alone. Whether or not his specific county has requirements about operation with a plumbers license does not matter, as well it's not relevant to anything of worthy discussion. That is, unless you want to start a debate about the restrictions and protections for customers the local representation has as far as contract labor. It's not too alien of an idea for a town to want to hold some old values of good local labor, the local plumber, mechanic/car-buff, the local carpenter, the accountant, etc.

Point is, leave Joe alone.

GarfieldJL
10-30-2008, 03:43 PM
My point is if you listen to the Radio Interview from 2001: Interview (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)

Then listen to what he said with Joe, these are two different instances where he talks about spreading the wealth around.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
--Blog (http://iwilly.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/2001-obama-audio-tragedy-that-redistribution-of-wealth-not-pursued/)

It goes on to say:
Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y’know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.


Now put that in context with, the first video I posted in post #129 (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2546712&postcount=129).

El Sitherino
10-30-2008, 03:50 PM
You realize personal income and the total earnings of a business are seperate things, right?

The $250,000 is income, not business. Two completely different things.

GarfieldJL
10-30-2008, 04:14 PM
You realize personal income and the total earnings of a business are seperate things, right?

The $250,000 is income, not business. Two completely different things.

It actually depends on what kind of a business that we're referring to?

Are we talking about a Sole Proprietorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sole_proprietorship), a Partnership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership), a Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation), or a Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative)? Because if I remember correctly from my business law class, each one has different tax codes.

Additionally with the legal differences and size of the business they react in different ways to tax hikes, for instance, a Corporation just passes the cost on to the consumer or lays off employees or both.

El Sitherino
10-30-2008, 05:13 PM
Okay, but my income tax is different from my business tax.

GarfieldJL
10-30-2008, 05:21 PM
Okay, but my income tax is different from my business tax.

You didn't answer the question, depending on the type of business you have, affects whether or not it falls under your personal income taxes or not.

The key to remember though is that Federal Taxes are on Gross income or the gross amount of money that the business takes in. The net is after all of the expenses are figured in.

There are several groups that would be directly affected by the tax plan Obama has proposed one of which is sole proprietorships, which is one of the more common kinds of small business.

mimartin
10-30-2008, 05:24 PM
No matter how you slice it or dice it, you are only taxed on profits. Sales + other income – expenses = profits (this is simplified). That is the same for any business.The key to remember though is that Federal Taxes are on Gross income or the gross amount of money that the business takes in. The net is after all of the expenses are figured in. Anyone preparing their own taxes please disregard this or you will be seriously overpaying your taxes. I’ve prepared taxes for myself, my father and friends that own small business, sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLC and this is not true. However, we all know the government needs money so if you want to do it this way that is fine with me.

If this was true, most small business owners would be working for someone else and we would never hire anyone.

El Sitherino
10-30-2008, 05:29 PM
You didn't answer the question, depending on the type of business you have, affects whether or not it falls under your personal income taxes or not.

The key to remember though is that Federal Taxes are on Gross income or the gross amount of money that the business takes in. The net is after all of the expenses are figured in.

There are several groups that would be directly affected by the tax plan Obama has proposed one of which is sole proprietorships, which is one of the more common kinds of small business.

Except the $250,000 is only in regards to income tax, not business. Discussing business profit and what is taken from there has no bearing on an employees income tax.

If I work at Target and earn $250,000+ a year, I'll be taxed at a higher percentage. I'd have no problem with that, that's a lot of money. Mind you I'd have to be some sort of Head Executive of some area branch to make anywhere near that much.

Jae Onasi
10-30-2008, 06:10 PM
The key to remember though is that Federal Taxes are on Gross income or the gross amount of money that the business takes in. The net is after all of the expenses are figured in.

I know mimartin already noted it's wrong, but I'm chiming in and agreeing with him that this couldn't be more incorrect. Fed taxes are paid on net, not gross. I see patients in my own small practice, and I do my taxes myself (love Turbotax). I know without a doubt that I pay taxes on my net, not my gross. Please don't spread this misinformation anymore.

GarfieldJL
10-31-2008, 01:58 PM
I know mimartin already noted it's wrong, but I'm chiming in and agreeing with him that this couldn't be more incorrect. Fed taxes are paid on net, not gross. I see patients in my own small practice, and I do my taxes myself (love Turbotax). I know without a doubt that I pay taxes on my net, not my gross. Please don't spread this misinformation anymore.

Jae, I must respectfully point out that based on sources I've found, both you and mimartin are mistaken. Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, I'm not saying either of you filed your taxes incorrectly, I'm just saying you and mimartin have gotten your terminology wrong, if we want to be technical it's taxable income that mimartin, you, and myself were thinking of. However, taxable income is calculated from the adjusted gross income which is calculated from gross income. Net Income is what you get after all expenses including taxes have been factored in.

According to dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com) Net Income is defined as:

1. A company's total earnings, or profit. Net income is calculated by taking revenues and adjusting for the cost of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses. This number is found on a company's income statement and is an important measure of how profitable the company is over a period of time. The measure is also used to calculate earnings per share.

Often referred to as "the bottom line". In the U.K., net income is known as "profit attributable to shareholders".

2. An individual's income after deductions, credits and taxes are factored into gross income. Deductions and credits are subtracted from gross income to arrive at taxable income, which is used to calculate income tax. Net income is income tax subtracted from taxable income.
--Net Income (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Net%20Income)


Additional source Legal Dictionary: Income Taxes (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Income+taxes) (which is a nonpartisan site).

Regardless of the changes made by legislators since 1913, the basic formula for computing the amount of tax owed has remained basically the same. To determine the amount of income tax owed, certain deductions are taken from an individual's gross income to arrive at an adjusted gross income, from which additional deductions are taken to arrive at the taxable income. Once the amount of taxable income has been determined, tax rate charts determine the exact amount of tax owed. If the amount of tax owed is less than the amount already paid through tax prepayment or the withholding of taxes from paychecks, the taxpayer is entitled to a refund from the IRS. If the amount of tax owed is more than what has already been paid, the taxpayer must pay the difference to the IRS.


Additional Sources include:
wikipedia.org: Income tax in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)
wikipedia.org: State Income Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax)

mimartin
10-31-2008, 02:24 PM
GarfieldJL you are wrong. If you would have even looked at the links I posted you would have noticed that you do start with Gross Receipts or Sales in part 1 -Line 1 of the Schedule C, but Schedule C (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf)– Profit or Loss From Business (sole proprietorship) then deducts BUSINESS EXPENSES.

Tax preparation 101. (I usually get paid for this). :D

Line 5 is your Gross Profit after subtracting Returns and Allowances and Cost of Goods Sold.

You then add Gross Profit to Other Income to get GROSS INCOME on Line 7.

Lines 8 through 27 is where you add up your TOTAL EXPENSES.

You put TOTAL EXPENSES on line 28.

You then SUBTRACT line 28 from line 7 to get Net Profit or Net Loss. Net Profit or Net Loss is what you put on your 1040.

Your tax rate is base on your NET PROFIT or NET LOSS after adding Personal Income and Subtracting Personal Deductions.

In this example the Sole Proprietorship is taxed based on Net Profit or Net Loss.

This is from the United State Department of Treasury.

(love Turbotax). I love it too. No use getting audited over a simple arithmetic error. This reminds me, GarfieldJL I believe I’m doing my taxes correctly as I have been audited twice in the past 8 years.

GarfieldJL
10-31-2008, 03:33 PM
GarfieldJL you are wrong. If you would have even looked at the links I posted you would have noticed that you do start with Gross Receipts or Sales in part 1 -Line 1 of the Schedule C, but Schedule C (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf)– Profit or Loss From Business (sole proprietorship) then deducts BUSINESS EXPENSES.

Tax preparation 101. (I usually get paid for this). :D

Line 5 is your Gross Profit after subtracting Returns and Allowances and Cost of Goods Sold.

You then add Gross Profit to Other Income to get GROSS INCOME on Line 7.

Lines 8 through 27 is you TOTAL EXPENSES.

You put TOTAL EXPENSES on line 28.

You then SUBTRACT line 28 from line 7 to get Net Profit or Net Loss. Net Profit or Net Loss is what you put on your 1040.

In this example the Sole Proprietorship is taxed based on Net Profit or Net Loss.

This is from the United State Department of Treasury.

I'm taking it that you're not keeping your business and your personal income seperate then, or its your sole source of income? And that this business is a business where you sell actual goods like a small retail store.

I was going off the idea that your business is being treated as a legal entity similar to a small corporation in which case I don't think we're even looking at the same tax codes.

I was talking about personal taxes here, as it relates to your business. As I said though it really depends on how your business is set up, that determines what taxes you pay.

Going off of other tax forms involving personal income such as: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4852.pdf

It looks more like we're referring to Gross Income as far as business this is giving me a headache, and we could keep arguing back and forth on this till our fingers finally fall off and there is a bloody mess on the keyboard. And since this is the IRS we're talking about we could probably find sources to argue back an forth for probably the next 100 years, about the current tax code.

Getting back to topic I was trying to point out taxes under the Obama Tax plan, which seems to be fluctuating all over the place.

An article of interest getting back to topic: Another Change in the Obama Tax Brackets? (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/)

Also trying to find a video copy of the interview where an Obama Advisor said the taxes would be figured for businesses on gross income.

mimartin
10-31-2008, 04:45 PM
I'm taking it that you're not keeping your business and your personal income seperate then, or its your sole source of income?
Then you are not talking about a sole proprietorship or a partnership! Although you mentioned sole proprietorship more than once, you are talking about a LLC! Still does not matter, you get to deduct business operating expenses and cost of good sold.

I don't have the time or the patience to do show you how to properly use those tax forms right now, but most small business go into a Limited Liability Corporation in order to save on taxes and limit their exposure to losses. I’ve looked into it, but it is not worth the paper work to me as it would require the Corporation to be licensed with the State and Federal Government. It would save on my taxes, but not enough to make up for the extra $900.00 it would cost to license myself and the Corporation with the SEC.

GarfieldJL
10-31-2008, 04:58 PM
mimartin in my post above I suggested we drop it, cause given time I could probably find something to contradict your statements (once I recover from being cross-eyed reading through IRS tax forms and documents (they really need larger font)) and it would keep going back and forth for weeks.

Getting back to topic I was trying to point out taxes under the Obama Tax plan, which seems to be fluctuating all over the place.

An article of interest getting back to topic: Another Change in the Obama Tax Brackets? (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/)

Also trying to find a video copy of the interview where an Obama Advisor said the taxes would be figured for businesses on gross income.

Okay so now we have a third tax cutoff.

$250,000 to $150,000, to $120,000?

It looks like the term 'rich' is getting smaller and smaller.

mimartin
10-31-2008, 05:16 PM
mimartin in my post above I suggested we drop it, cause given time I could probably find something to contradict your statements (once I recover from being cross-eyed reading through IRS tax forms and documents (they really need larger font)) and it would keep going back and forth for weeks.
No, you wouldn't and no we would not go back in forth for weeks. Because I will go straight to the source and you will continue to go to bias and wrong interruptions of the source. In case you did not read it the first time, I have a degree in Accounting. I am not bragging because I don’t believe a piece of paper makes someone more intelligent than anyone else, but I have a degree in Accounting/Finance and a Masters in Finance. I know a little about the subject even though it is not my source of income. I did nine sets of returns last year for dinner and beer.

jrrtoken
10-31-2008, 05:46 PM
It looks like the term 'rich' is getting smaller and smaller.The way you that said it made it sound as if that was a bad thing...

Q
10-31-2008, 07:10 PM
Well, I was led to believe that discrimination of any kind was a bad thing. What do you think penalizing people for being wealthy is?

Actually, the shrinking taxable income cutoff is nothing new. They've made this same BS "tax the rich; stick it to the man" claim in every election as far back as I can remember (which is quite a long time now) and the cutoff amount always shrinks in a most predictable and rather drastic fashion. In short, they lie.

I'm not saying that the Republicans don't. It just pains me to see people that I respect buying into this same old crap over and over again like it was gospel, and always like it was something brand spanking new. It isn't. It's just the same old crap. :indif: