Obama supporters

[Dr Grump]

It frankly surprises me how little people know about the nation in which they live and history in general when they use words like " spread the wealth around". Those that use such words have little knowledge of the basic tenants that this country was founded upon and willingly run to a system that is a proven failure. While to express yourself or your views on the political scene is an american tradition and one I completely support, the very idea that some of my countrymen would outwardly support a system of government that has proven itself to be an abject failure is somewhat disturbing.

Because all the rich folk stashing their wealth has worked so well for the US....pure capitalism is such a great economic system....

 

[Skull Pilot]

w-h-a-t A-b-o-u-t I-t J-a-c-k-a-s-s ?

have you ever heard of the New party?

New Party Principles

American Thinker Blog: Archives prove Obama was a New Party member (updated)

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

Progressive Populist 11/96 Editorial



New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.


New Ground 47 - Chicago Democratic Socialists of America

New Party Update

by Bruce Bentley

The Chicago New Party is increasingly becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.[/I]


It seems pretty clear that BHO was indeed a member of the New Party and subscribed to its socialist agenda.

 

[Dr Grump]

What the fuck is wrong with some of the ideals of socialism. It's not a fucking disease ya know.

You conservative whackjobs have been brought up on "our system is all about freedom, guns and money', you can't see the forest for the trees. You're so concerned about your freedoms, you're willing to give a shit load of them up and let corporate America run you around like Stepford wives. It's fucking pathetic....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

They said they supported Obama because of his socialism in the video....

So?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

have you ever heard of the New party?

New Party Principles

American Thinker Blog: Archives prove Obama was a New Party member (updated)

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

Progressive Populist 11/96 Editorial



New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.


New Ground 47 - Chicago Democratic Socialists of America

New Party Update

by Bruce Bentley

The Chicago New Party is increasingly becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.[/I]


It seems pretty clear that BHO was indeed a member of the New Party and subscribed to its socialist agenda.

Do the black helicopters keep you awake all nights or just on weekends?

 

[Dr Grump]

So?

Dey must be bad folks if dey support socialism massa. Socialism is evil massa!

 

[editec]

It frankly surprises me how little people know about the nation in which they live and history in general when they use words like " spread the wealth around". Those that use such words have little knowledge of the basic tenants that this country was founded upon and willingly run to a system that is a proven failure. While to express yourself or your views on the political scene is an american tradition and one I completely support, the very idea that some of my countrymen would outwardly support a system of government that has proven itself to be an abject failure is somewhat disturbing.

Perhaps they're willing to support an alternative system that is an abject failure because the system in place is an abject failure for them?

Just a thought, but what we have NOW is hardly the opposite of communism.

As we have just all seen (or are we already agreeing to ignore what we saw?) what we have now is hardly a meritocracy.

And let's face it, for real capitalism to exist, we really do need to live in an HONEST meritocracy.

NAV, do you think we live in a nation even remotely approaching an honest meritocracy?

Would an honest meitocracy reward those failed banks with over a trillion dollars? I don't think so.

I have a theory about why Americans love sports so much.

Because professional sports are about as close as we ever get to seeing a situation where MERIT actually gets rewarded according to the merit shown.

We surely do NOT see that in business, or in goverment either. Mostly what we see now is the outcomes of a oligarchical system which is clearly not interesting in rewarding based on merit, but will reward based on LOYALTY to the oligarch.

The ONLY way to truly have a meritocracy is if everyone starts out with the same resources and makes of them what they can in a system which treats everyone equally under the law.

Does that describe our world?

Clearly not.

So when our resident libertarians tell us that those on top got their on MERIT, a lot of us who have a reality based world view, think they've been misinformed.


The PROBLEM with these sharing the wealth schemes is they are seldom (never, actually) done fairly or wisely, either.

And so instead of helping those who deserve to get some help and who could do something meitorous with it, we end up rewarding failure and often corruption, too.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What the fuck is wrong with some of the ideals of socialism. It's not a fucking disease ya know.

You conservative whackjobs have been brought up on "our system is all about freedom, guns and money', you can't see the forest for the trees. You're so concerned about your freedoms, you're willing to give a shit load of them up and let corporate America run you around like Stepford wives. It's fucking pathetic....

It depends on which ideals you're talking about

some semblance of caring for those least able or unable to care for themselves is fine with most everyone. But subsidizing those who are able but choose NOT to care for themselves is not.

Nationalizing banks and businesses is not acceptable. Wealth redistribution via confiscatory taxation is not acceptable.

Personal liberties are important.

The Money I earn is mine. I risked everything i had to start my own business. the government didn't help me YOU didn't help me so why is it wrong to want to keep as much of the money I earn as possible and not just want to give it all away to those who haven't risked as much or worked as hard as I have?

If I want to own a gun to protect my family and my property, I should be able to.

Basically I should be free from government interference in all aspects of my life as long as I am not violating the law or anyone else's rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do the black helicopters keep you awake all nights or just on weekends?

The bigger government gets, the more black helicopters you will see.

 

[DavidS]

S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M

Pay attention, sport.

Please read up on what SOCIALISM actually is, Stoner.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elections-2008/61502-redistribution-of-wealth.html

Obama isn't capping the amount of money people are allowed to earn, not putting ownership of someone's company in the hands of all of the collective workers, not changing the prices of the products to calculate the social value of the product... come on! Anyone who compares what Obama is doing, which is just returning the upper class tax brackets to where they were under Bill Clinton, to socialism has no fucking clue what socialism is! Read the analysis stoner.

 

[Dr Grump]

It depends on which ideals you're talking about

some semblance of caring for those least able or unable to care for themselves is fine with most everyone. But subsidizing those who are able but choose NOT to care for themselves is not.

Nationalizing banks and businesses is not acceptable. Wealth redistribution via confiscatory taxation is not acceptable.

Personal liberties are important.

The Money I earn is mine. I risked everything i had to start my own business. the government didn't help me YOU didn't help me so why is it wrong to want to keep as much of the money I earn as possible and not just want to give it all away to those who haven't risked as much or worked as hard as I have?

If I want to own a gun to protect my family and my property, I should be able to.

Basically I should be free from government interference in all aspects of my life as long as I am not violating the law or anyone else's rights.

I live in a reasonably socialist country (compared to the US). I can own a gun. We don't mind living in a welfare state, but we also hate lazy fucks, and as soon as they are found to be leaching off the state they get their butts kicked.

The money I also earn is mine. Nobody is trying to take it off me (except for the govt in the form of taxes).

Nationalising banks???? This is the biggest laugh for me with regards to America, and I think I have already mentioned it on another thread, and it is this:

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that some of the big US banks are now being either fully or partially nationalised due to the greedy capitalism of conservative Americans? So the very people who hate the idea of any sort of socialism are actually responsible for such a thing occurring? It couldn't have been scripted any better...

 

[Dr Grump]

Please read up on what SOCIALISM actually is, Stoner.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elections-2008/61502-redistribution-of-wealth.html

Obama isn't capping the amount of money people are allowed to earn, not putting ownership of someone's company in the hands of all of the collective workers, not changing the prices of the products to calculate the social value of the product... come on! Anyone who compares what Obama is doing, which is just returning the upper class tax brackets to where they were under Bill Clinton, to socialism has no fucking clue what socialism is! Read the analysis stoner.

Some folk don't know the difference between communism and socialism...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Please read up on what SOCIALISM actually is, Stoner.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elections-2008/61502-redistribution-of-wealth.html

Obama isn't capping the amount of money people are allowed to earn, not putting ownership of someone's company in the hands of all of the collective workers, not changing the prices of the products to calculate the social value of the product... come on! Anyone who compares what Obama is doing, which is just returning the upper class tax brackets to where they were under Bill Clinton, to socialism has no fucking clue what socialism is! Read the analysis stoner.

Raising taxes to confiscatory levels IS capping income.

You seem to trust the government to stop raising taxes at some "fair" level when in reality taxes will continue to rise because the government invariably spends more than it takes from us.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I live in a reasonably socialist country (compared to the US). I can own a gun. We don't mind living in a welfare state, but we also hate lazy fucks, and as soon as they are found to be leaching off the state they get their butts kicked.

The money I also earn is mine. Nobody is trying to take it off me (except for the govt in the form of taxes).

Nationalising banks???? This is the biggest laugh for me with regards to America, and I think I have already mentioned it on another thread, and it is this:

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that some of the big US banks are now being either fully or partially nationalised due to the greedy capitalism of conservative Americans? So the very people who hate the idea of any sort of socialism are actually responsible for such a thing occurring? It couldn't have been scripted any better...

It wasn't just "greedy capitalists" that caused this mess. the government did more than its fair share to contribute. Why not blame the FED for keeping negative short term interest rates or for promoting unsound lending practices in the name of fairness. It certainly can be argued that government meddling in the market was a major cause of the "meltdown".

 

[DavidS]

Some folk don't know the difference between communism and socialism...

Even with that, Obama's plans are so far off from being either it's ludicrous people would say that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Raising taxes to confiscatory levels IS capping income.

You seem to trust the government to stop raising taxes at some "fair" level when in reality taxes will continue to rise because the government invariably spends more than it takes from us.

What do you call confiscatory level? In Britain in the late 70s and most of 80s Rod Stewart, the Rolling Stones and several other rich folk lived in France. They were allowed to only return to Britain for something like 80 days a year. If they overstayed that time, for tax purposes, they had to pay British taxes. What was the tax rate for them at the time? Over a certain amount the rate was 83 pence in the pound...Now, that's what I call a tax rate. So stop your bitching. If you don't like paying tax, don't use roads, or any other free shit your tax pays for.

 

[DavidS]

Raising taxes to confiscatory levels IS capping income.

#1 - No it's not. Under Socialism, the government tells you what you're allowed to make and sets your salary at a certain level and then taxes that salary. Again, READ up on what socialism is.

#2 - Clinton's taxes were not confiscatory levels. The taxes Americans paid in the 1970s were. Reagan fixed that by giving a 50% tax cut. That is the only time trickle down economics would work when the tax cut is massive. 4% aint massive.

You seem to trust the government to stop raising taxes at some "fair" level when in reality taxes will continue to rise because the government invariably spends more than it takes from us.

This is all speculation. If Obama raised taxes to above the levels he said he would, he wouldn't be re-elected. I do trust Obama to keep his word and say "I'm only raising taxes to the levels they were under President Clinton."

 

[Dr Grump]

It wasn't just "greedy capitalists" that caused this mess. the government did more than its fair share to contribute. Why not blame the FED for keeping negative short term interest rates or for promoting unsound lending practices in the name of fairness. It certainly can be argued that government meddling in the market was a major cause of the "meltdown".

I knew you'd try and blame the feds. Get a grip, the people who set the policies were the CEOs etc who were getting big, fat bonuses. Most conservatives want a deregulated economy, and now maybe some of your capitalist wonks will see why your system is fucked. It's based on greed. And when you get shit based on greed, it always ends up going pear shaped. I'm telling you, from personal experience, the best mix in govt is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Either end of the spectrum and you're stuffed.

Let's put it this way Skull...I ain't sitting here during this latest financial meltdown going "I can't fucking believe it". The likes of Jillian and I were calling this as far back as 2003 and we got told to shut the fuck up. The only satisfaction I get out of this subprime bullshit and its' associated fuck ups is "I told you so". TOO fucking late, I know. ...

 

[Skull Pilot]

I knew you'd try and blame the feds. Get a grip, the people who set the policies were the CEOs etc who were getting big, fat bonuses. Most conservatives want a deregulated economy, and now maybe some of your capitalist wonks will see why your system is fucked. It's based on greed. And when you get shit based on greed, it always ends up going pear shaped. I'm telling you, from personal experience, the best mix in govt is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Either end of the spectrum and you're stuffed.

Let's put it this way Skull...I ain't sitting here during this latest financial meltdown going "I can't fucking believe it". The likes of Jillian and I were calling this as far back as 2003 and we got told to shut the fuck up. The only satisfaction I get out of this subprime bullshit and its' associated fuck ups is "I told you so". TOO fucking late, I know. ...

many economists saw it coming as well. hell anyone with a brain saw it coming except those that held interest rates at artificially low levels to combat a contractionary cycle. Because we all know that a slow down = recession = depression right?

If interest rates were allowed to rise, lending would have slowed, home sales would have slowed, mortgage backed securities and derivatives would not have flooded the market as they did, home prices would have risen more slowly.

The question here is what extent are today's problems caused by market forces, and to what extent by government interference with these forces?

And BTW what is wrong with a company that made bad business decisions based on greed being allowed to go belly up. The market has a way of punishing companies that screw up but if Uncle Sam swoops in with our tax dollars what's the point? Just keep letting companies screw up and get bailed out at someone else's expense. that's better right?

Let the market kill these companies and invest in the ones that survive because they practiced good business.

 

[Skull Pilot]

#1 - No it's not. Under Socialism, the government tells you what you're allowed to make and sets your salary at a certain level and then taxes that salary. Again, READ up on what socialism is.

#2 - Clinton's taxes were not confiscatory levels. The taxes Americans paid in the 1970s were. Reagan fixed that by giving a 50% tax cut. That is the only time trickle down economics would work when the tax cut is massive. 4% aint massive.



This is all speculation. If Obama raised taxes to above the levels he said he would, he wouldn't be re-elected. I do trust Obama to keep his word and say "I'm only raising taxes to the levels they were under President Clinton."

Let's see the first 100K is taxed at x%, the second at y% the third at z% etc until we reach a portion of income that is taxed at upwards of 90% making it virtually impossible to earn more than an amount determined by government taxation.

Is that not an income cap?

Maybe the difference between you and I is that you TRUST the government.