EPTOn October 29 2008 04:10 Jibba wrote:
How many McCain supports would go for a 88% tax rate?
How many McCain supports would go for a 88% tax rate?
loooooooooooooooooool
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 59
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Flaccid
8850 Posts
loooooooooooooooooool | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." I don't know the context however. | ||
|
Flaccid
8850 Posts
On October 29 2008 05:14 Savio wrote: Another Obama quote you can expect to hear a lot of in these last few election days: I don't know the context however. Since when did context start mattering in this campaign? =P | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
Community organizing and grass roots efforts on the ground may have helped get this done quicker. Obama is saying while the courts are good at granting rights, they are less good at getting the wealth redistributed fairly between social services to back up the social rights changes. Because doing so would require perhaps broad interpretations of the constitution to get it done, even if it's in the interest of all of society. Therefore, legislation is better fit for this. The wealth he is talking about specifically in this case is to spread economic support more evenly among the school system so you don't have a dirt poor mostly black school that no white kids are going to want to go to. If you spread the social wealth (wealth that is already there in taxes) better then desegration can happen a lot quicker. This was his argument, he was talking about how to better spread the wealth of tax money that is already there specifically in the context of the Civil Rights Movement and even more specifically in the context of Brown vs. Education. Realistically, for the Civil Rights Movement to happen, you cannot just grant African Americans rights, you need to provide them equal socal services and this does take a "redistribution of wealth" between social services. The second part of what Obama said was in response to another professor. Another of the professors there was talking about how people were getting cocky in the court system and even went as far as using the court system to help out welfare systems using the due process law. But he explained how that ultimately failed pretty quick. Then Obama reiterated his point, that trying to bring about redistribution of wealth through the court system is very hard to do, it is mostly a legislative job. In the second example he was responding to another professor who brought up welfare, but Obama wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with welfare, he was just repeating his earlier point. And I don't think McCain wants to get rid of welfare anyway. I have taken a constitutional law course in college where the main focus was social issues and one of the main focuses was the Civil Rights Movement. So this whole random discussion the McCain campaign is trying to use is actually something I know a lot about. Hopefully the media will make it clear that the small audio clip being played is completely taken out of context, and academically what Obama said is very standard and mainstream, because this is ridiculous. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
On October 29 2008 05:14 Savio wrote: Another Obama quote you can expect to hear a lot of in these last few election days: I don't know the context however. Considering 100% of these references trying to link Obama to socialism/marxism/communism have been known to the McCain campaign the whole time, it's quite obvious bringing them all out now is just a political hail mary and looks very desperate to most I would hope. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Locke.
Israel562 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
If anyone took 10 minutes, or less, of time to actually see the whole context of the various attacking points of this last-ditch socialism scare, it becomes very apparent very quickly that it just has no basis. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
il0seonpurpose
Korea (South)5638 Posts
Another saying was that there's usually a pattern of 2 terms of republicans and then 1 year of democrats in office which was pretty interesting. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 29 2008 06:58 BlackJack wrote: When people call Obama a socialist, they are talking more along the lines of what a lot of European Governments are like today, not some kind of communist. The only people that are using the word communist are ignorant rednecks and the Obama supporters using it sarcastically as in, "omgz obama is a communist!@!@." In the sense McCain is using it, it would be along the lines of raising minimum wage, nationalizing healthcare, increasing entitlement spending, etc. All of which I'm sure Obama wouldn't mind doing, so I don't see what's so far off. k, they're still using the word incorrectly | ||
|
Flaccid
8850 Posts
On October 29 2008 06:58 BlackJack wrote: When people call Obama a socialist, they are talking more along the lines of what a lot of European Governments are like today, not some kind of communist. The only people that are using the word communist are ignorant rednecks and the Obama supporters using it sarcastically as in, "omgz obama is a communist!@!@." In the sense McCain is using it, it would be along the lines of raising minimum wage, nationalizing healthcare, increasing entitlement spending, etc. All of which I'm sure Obama wouldn't mind doing, so I don't see what's so far off. It's because the nature of Obama's policies aren't anywhere near the typical person's definition of "zomg socialist." When average people hear someone use a word like 'socialist', they don't think of it in a relative sense, they think of it as "omg red army communist insurgent." It's a blatant and obvious tactic of scaring voters by using a word to bring up negative connotations. People saying he's a socialist aren't aiming to define his policies as more left-leaning than those of conservatives. They are attempting to brand him with a generalization people find unattractive - even if they aren't sure why. If labels were all relative, then I can call any pediatrician a pedophile since relative to me they have touched a lot more naked babies... | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
On October 29 2008 06:58 BlackJack wrote: When people call Obama a socialist, they are talking more along the lines of what a lot of European Governments are like today, not some kind of communist. The only people that are using the word communist are ignorant rednecks and the Obama supporters using it sarcastically as in, "omgz obama is a communist!@!@." In the sense McCain is using it, it would be along the lines of raising minimum wage, nationalizing healthcare, increasing entitlement spending, etc. All of which I'm sure Obama wouldn't mind doing, so I don't see what's so far off. The problem is the McCain campaign is using the word socialist as a scare-tactic word. The average American does not realize the United States already has a bunch of socialist programs. McCain supports entitlement spending, he has said repeatedly he wants to save social security. McCain supports progressive tax brackets. Obama has never said he wants to nationalize healthcare, you can choose not to believe him but he has made his healthcare policy clear. McCain is using vague terms like "redistribution of wealth" which is simply one of the main jobs of government, to take tax payer dollars and redistribute them according to law and legislation. The other thing is the McCain campaign simply lies. They say Obama is going to raise taxes for everyone to "spread the wealth", another scare tactic phrase, but Obama has repeatedly made his tax plan clear. Once again you can choose not to believe Obama's tax and healthcare plans if you want, but it would be silly to conversely believe everything McCain says, all politicans will have to deviate from their plans in office. McCain championed the trillion dollar bailout and when questioned about how that is not socialist he has responded along the lines of, when a country is experiencing great difficulities it is the government's job to step in and help. He is flatly contradicting what he is trying to make his public persona to be, so in this sense McCain is lying just as much as you think Obama might be. Socialism is being thrown around more as a fear-based word than as an actual policy-based word, the great lengths to which the McCain campaign is lying/misleading to get the socialism point across makes that quite obvious. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 29 2008 07:03 il0seonpurpose wrote: So there was this expert guy about the Constitution in our city and my AP US teacher told us if we went she would give us extra credit. I didn't get to go but we had a discussion about what he said and one thing that I remember was that he said that McCain should've talked more about his age during his running (during the summer and stuff) and because he's old, he should've said stuff about how he wants only one term in office. Now I think that's a pretty bold statement, not many presidents say they just want one term of power. What would be the point in that? McCain is no James K. Polk. Another saying was that there's usually a pattern of 2 terms of republicans and then 1 year of democrats in office which was pretty interesting. That is simply not true. | ||
|
shmay
United States1091 Posts
On October 29 2008 02:56 Hot_Bid wrote: what i don't understand is how a ~39% marginal tax rate ceiling is "redistributing wealth" and ~35-36% marginal tax rate ceiling is all of a sudden not both parties tax the rich more than the poor, its just a matter of degree, and relative to a true flat rate tax system the difference isn't a lot, all this rhetoric about spreading the wealth is just another stupid scare tactic It's not the tax rate. Obama says he's going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But that's impossible as 40 million Americans (so articles on the internet say -- would be welcome to a correction) pay no taxes. In other words, they're getting a subsidy, not a 'tax cut'. That is where the 'redistributing the wealth' line comes from, I believe. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
| ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
| ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
| ||
| ||
