Do You View Socialism Positively?

[Rikurzhen]

Not exactly...

Wow, are you ever gullible. Can't you recognize false flag operations conducted by liberals? Those are liberal activists pretending to be TEA Party activists in order to embarrass the TEA Party.

Do you really think 25 year old men and women are protesting about Government taking away their MEDICARE benefits?

False flag? REALLY??? A CONSPIRACY!!!

Look at the first two photos you posted. Do you know of any 25 year old students who collect Medicare? There is no doubt that those stupid signs are part of a false flag operation by democrats.

 

[Youch]

Dumb thread.

Why would anyone advocate oppression?

 

[Bfgrn]

Not exactly...

Wow, are you ever gullible. Can't you recognize false flag operations conducted by liberals? Those are liberal activists pretending to be TEA Party activists in order to embarrass the TEA Party.

Do you really think 25 year old men and women are protesting about Government taking away their MEDICARE benefits?

False flag? REALLY??? A CONSPIRACY!!!

Look at the first two photos you posted. Do you know of any 25 year old students who collect Medicare? There is no doubt that those stupid signs are part of a false flag operation by democrats.

I found a new avatar for you...

You're welcome!

 

[Rikurzhen]

I found a new avatar for you...

You're still avoiding, running away, from answering the question. Does this guy look like he's on Medicare?

 

[Bfgrn]

I found a new avatar for you...

You're still avoiding, running away, from answering the question. Does this guy look like he's on Medicare?

He is not on Medicare. BUT, that does not prove he is a liberal.

They don't call 'em 'teabaggers' for nothing...

 

[Rikurzhen]

He is not on Medicare. BUT, that does not prove he is a liberal.

Liberals are well known for their false flag operations. Almost every racial hate crime is a false flag operation. The vandalism of Democratic offices was a false flag operation. It's what you guys do to reinforce your egos - to pretend that you're sophisticated. Every single damn liberal I know thinks he's intelligent. Morons.

As for your other photos, there's nothing incongruous about elderly people who've spent a lifetime contributing to Medicare wanting no cuts to Medicare - they feel that they've lived up to their end of the bargain. Keep in mind that the specific issue here was cuts to Medicare and the diversion of savings into Obamacare, meaning that the taxes used to finance Medicare during their retirement were being stolen and redirected to helping non-elderly people.

That point of concern is entirely legitimate. I don't agree with it, but it's not crazy like you liberal liars are trying to make it out to be.

They don't call 'em 'teabaggers' for nothing...

You and your homosexual slurs of people.

 

[Bfgrn]

He is not on Medicare. BUT, that does not prove he is a liberal.

Liberals are well known for their false flag operations. Almost every racial hate crime is a false flag operation. The vandalism of Democratic offices was a false flag operation. It's what you guys do to reinforce your egos - to pretend that you're sophisticated. Every single damn liberal I know thinks he's intelligent. Morons.

As for your other photos, there's nothing incongruous about elderly people who've spent a lifetime contributing to Medicare wanting no cuts to Medicare - they feel that they've lived up to their end of the bargain. Keep in mind that the specific issue here was cuts to Medicare and the diversion of savings into Obamacare, meaning that the taxes used to finance Medicare during their retirement were being stolen and redirected to helping non-elderly people.

That point of concern is entirely legitimate. I don't agree with it, but it's not crazy like you liberal liars are trying to make it out to be.

They don't call 'em 'teabaggers' for nothing...

You and your homosexual slurs of people.

Liberals are well known for false flag operations? NAME 'EM you asshole?

We KNOW your beloved union busting piece of shit Gov Walker of Wisconsin considered "planting some troublemakers" to discredit teachers and unions in his recorded phone call with who he thought was David Koch.

We KNOW an Indiana deputy prosecutor and Republican activist resigned after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism uncovered an email to Gov. Scott Walker in which he suggested a fake attack on the governor to discredit union protesters.

Carlos F. Lam submitted his resignation shortly before the Center published a story quoting his Feb. 19 email, which praised Walker for standing up to unions but went on to say that the chaos in Wisconsin presented “a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation.”

“If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions’ cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions,” the email said.



"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

 

[Iceweasel]

It's no surprise that the Democrats are gaining strength since the 70s with the tens of millions of poor people brought about by the Great American Socialist...Ronald Reagan.

....which is horse shit. But is socialism good or bad? Can you liberals even make up your mind?

: The Great American Socialist

There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.
Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

The author, like you, is a dimwit. No one was paying 90% taxes then since there were numerous loopholes and if you had the big bucks you had the accountants that could utilize them. The fact is that federal income went up when those extreme tax rates went down and loopholes were closed.

Furthermore, rich people paying less tax is not equivalent to taking poor people's money. It's a completely idiotic assertion. There's no redistributionist about it. You can't redistribute what you didn't collect.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

Income tax rates went way down and up a little in some areas. That wasn't Reagan realizing anything. That was Reagan that had a dishonest Democrat political party that didn't keep their end of the agreement. He agreed to sign the dotted line for various programs they wanted and they didn't make the cuts they promised.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

Presidents don't spend the money, genius. Congress does.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

Does the author support anything? All I see are allegations. But is that what socialism means? Nope. The idiot doesn't even know what the word means.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

Wake up America and elect leaders with a heart - not those who would tax your unemployment benefits and cut the capital gains tax. ref

The economy has struggled whenever the Democrats held the national purse strings and this genius thinks we need more of the same and badly misrepresents his enemies to try to influence the stupid. No wonder you liked it.

 

[Moonglow]

You must have missed Clinton's term...

 

[Iceweasel]

You must have missed Clinton's term...

Who, me? The Democrats held the House and Senate?

 

[Moonglow]

You must have missed Clinton's term...

Who, me? The Democrats held the House and Senate?

Sure buddy, just like Reagan's term was during a dem house and senate...

 

[Iceweasel]

Sure buddy, just like Reagan's term was during a dem house and senate...

http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm

 

[Moonglow]

Sure buddy, just like Reagan's term was during a dem house and senate...

http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm

Now you can tell me how it was Congress that screwed Reagan when he signed the amnesty law for the illegals..

 

[Iceweasel]

Now you can tell me how it was Congress that screwed Reagan when he signed the amnesty law for the illegals..

You're just going to keep moving the goal posts huh? I believe Reagan was for it and surely something should have been done by now. Dems had total control for BO's first term so I suppose you are going to tell me it's the racist Republican's fault?

 

[Moonglow]

Now you can tell me how it was Congress that screwed Reagan when he signed the amnesty law for the illegals..

You're just going to keep moving the goal posts huh? I believe Reagan was for it and surely something should have been done by now. Dems had total control for BO's first term so I suppose you are going to tell me it's the racist Republican's fault?

If you want it to be...

 

[Mac1958]

Dumb thread.

Why would anyone advocate oppression?

Well, look at the numbers.

There are clearly many Americans who would be perfectly comfortable living under a significantly more authoritarian central bureaucracy.

You see it in here every single day.

.

 

[Moonglow]

Dumb thread.

Why would anyone advocate oppression?

Well, look at the numbers.

There are clearly many Americans who would be perfectly comfortable living under a significantly more authoritarian central bureaucracy.

You see it in here every single day.

.

Is there whipping involved?

 

[Mac1958]

Dumb thread.

Why would anyone advocate oppression?

Well, look at the numbers.

There are clearly many Americans who would be perfectly comfortable living under a significantly more authoritarian central bureaucracy.

You see it in here every single day.

.

Is there whipping involved?

I would think you would know better than I.

.

 

[Moonglow]

Dumb thread.

Why would anyone advocate oppression?

Well, look at the numbers.

There are clearly many Americans who would be perfectly comfortable living under a significantly more authoritarian central bureaucracy.

You see it in here every single day.

.

Is there whipping involved?

I would think you would know better than I.

.

Probably not, better call the whole thing off...

 

[Bfgrn]

It's no surprise that the Democrats are gaining strength since the 70s with the tens of millions of poor people brought about by the Great American Socialist...Ronald Reagan.

....which is horse shit. But is socialism good or bad? Can you liberals even make up your mind?

: The Great American Socialist

There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.
Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

The author, like you, is a dimwit. No one was paying 90% taxes then since there were numerous loopholes and if you had the big bucks you had the accountants that could utilize them. The fact is that federal income went up when those extreme tax rates went down and loopholes were closed.

Furthermore, rich people paying less tax is not equivalent to taking poor people's money. It's a completely idiotic assertion. There's no redistributionist about it. You can't redistribute what you didn't collect.

Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

Income tax rates went way down and up a little in some areas. That wasn't Reagan realizing anything. That was Reagan that had a dishonest Democrat political party that didn't keep their end of the agreement. He agreed to sign the dotted line for various programs they wanted and they didn't make the cuts they promised.

The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

Presidents don't spend the money, genius. Congress does.

In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

Does the author support anything? All I see are allegations. But is that what socialism means? Nope. The idiot doesn't even know what the word means.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.

Wake up America and elect leaders with a heart - not those who would tax your unemployment benefits and cut the capital gains tax. ref

The economy has struggled whenever the Democrats held the national purse strings and this genius thinks we need more of the same and badly misrepresents his enemies to try to influence the stupid. No wonder you liked it.

HORSESHIT...

Why don't you find an adult to read and decipher the article for you? The article doesn't say "rich people paying less tax is equivalent to taking poor people's money" Let me highlight for you pea brain...

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher