Obama supporters are for Socialism, spreading the wealth and shoving things

[audtatious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...g.php



Three of the supporters talk to the film crew. First is a Union worker who states generic talking points then tries to hide his face and not answer anymore when questioned, finally telling the reporter to shove the camera up her azz.

The second college kid states she wants socialism. The third says she wants the wealth spread.

Good times

[telcoman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...g.php



Three of the supporters talk to the film crew. First is a Union worker who states generic talking points then tries to hide his face and not answer anymore when questioned, finally telling the reporter to shove the camera up her azz.

The second college kid states she wants socialism. The third says she wants the wealth spread.

Good times

Jeff

If you are attempting to convince anyone not to vote for Obama that video was a poor choice in my opinion.

Neither one in that video was anymore prepared to talk to a clearly hostile reporter than is Sarah Palin qualified to go on Meet The Press or Hardball.

Attempting to raise meager wages on the working poor is not socialism and you know that. Many low wage workers that work long hours and perhaps two jobs just to get by are not well informed to speak on the issues. They only know that they do not want four more years of what has happened to their standard of living during the past eight years.

Trickle down economics does not work and never has.

Telcoman

[HashiriyaS14]

Trickle down economics does not work and never has.

Telcoman

I would disagree with this.

Before globalization, I'd argue that it probably worked pretty well. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they got behind it only as it was starting to become no longer viable.

And it works on a micro scale. If you decrease taxes for a small businessman, there's probably a good chance that they'll hire additional people or spend money in the domestic economy.

On a macro scale it's a rolling disaster. Large corporations will offshore anything and everything they can, and any savings will either get passed on as lower pricing for customers to aid in competitiveness or it will find it's way back to the investors, a huge portion of which are likely not Americans.

[audtatious]

Jeff

If you are attempting to convince anyone not to vote for Obama that video was a poor choice in my opinion.

Neither one in that video was anymore prepared to talk to a clearly hostile reporter than is Sarah Palin qualified to go on Meet The Press or Hardball.

Attempting to raise meager wages on the working poor is not socialism and you know that. Many low wage workers that work long hours and perhaps two jobs just to get by are not well informed to speak on the issues. They only know that they do not want four more years of what has happened to their standard of living during the past eight years.

First off, I'm not Jeff. I live in Jeffersonville which is outside of Louisville. Second, I'm not posting this in order to steer anyone away from Obama but simply pointing out how dumb some people are. Both of the college age kids wanted the wealth spread in order to make their lives easier. They have no clue what it takes to make it in the US and simply want to stop sucking their parents teet in order to grab on to "Joe Taxpayer".

I take it you are all for giving the poor more without asking for anything in return? Hell, I'll take a job at a WalMart moving buggies as that would be far less stressful than what I do for a living and you can send me all of your pay over $50k/year to make sure I'm comfortable.

Trickle down economics does not work and never has.

Telcoman

Prove it. Show me where punishing corporations and "the rich" increases jobs and pay.

[marlin29311]

Socialism is lazy, as well as re-distribution of wealth. While I do not believe that the people making millions of dollars a year deserve it, I also do not think that it is fair that someone's hard eard money should be redistruibted to person X who sits around all day, not looking for a job (no flaming about the hard working Americans that are trying to make a decent living - I know they exist and my heart bleeds for them - these are the ones that deserve the help). I'm talking about the lazy bungholes that sit around all day, collecting welfare, not looking for a job, not contributing to society in any way, and are looking for a free ride.

I work hard, I save my money, I live within my means. I make 50k a year, and I'm not asking Uncle Sam for the CEO of my company to give me his money. Hard work pays off, and you get what you work for. I don't buy what I can't afford. I also don't want my hard earned money to go to someone else - I would like to keep what I worked for.

[Cold_Zero]

The core rationale for Socialism being applied in American society is to bring 'Fairness' to the American Society (traditionally an idea backed by the poor and middle class) or to the citizenry from themselves. It strikes me as being that people who push socialism typically do so because they want to replace the role of Religion with Government. What they fail to recognize that justice that Government administers in order to maintain order in the society is not the divine justice that they are really looking for. Also, they fail to see that the Government does not have the power nor does it have the capability to save humanity or equalize people in status. Can government do good by to alleviating certain pains or social ills? Sure, but this was nothing new that the church wasn't already doing back during the infancy of this country.

Sure, in the beginning of Socialistic systems when ideas are applied in a smaller scale these types of ideas do seem to work, but as the scope is expanded to a larger scale it always runs into trouble for many reasons. Do you really think with the current state of politics and government in this society that Socialism will work? The two parties are more concerned with consolidating and retaining their power rather than doing what is right for this country.

History has shown time and time again that Socialism, Communism and Utopian societies don't work in the grand scheme of things and over time. They may work on a limited basis, but if there is little or no Capitalism it will not work. Now, I am a Capitalist, but I don't think that we should just let the market dictate everything in society. I believe that Government does have some role to play to keep the bounds and order in place. But if the scales are tipped too much to one side or the other, then this country will be hurt.

I also find it disingenuous that Obama paints McCain as a rich old man with 11 houses and yet according to his own standard (making more than 250,000 a year threshold) he is 'Rich.' This is the atypical American Democrat Party BS. Class warfare and divide and conquer. What I find ironic is that the majority of the people that are pushing for this Socialism don't pay taxes and don't hire people! WTF? Seems a bit suspect to me!

I resent Obama because he thinks he can just offer new programs and entitlements to win votes in this election. I call that a bribe but Democrats call that ‘Change.’ Can we spend it? YES WE CAN! I guarantee you folks, there will be no attempt to balance the budget, pay down the national debt. The trillions of dollars that would be spent in Iraq and Afghanistan will be spent domestically. Somehow I am not down with this idea either. I would must rather stop contributing to our national debt and pay it down.

No one talks about the Federal Government's windfall profits, only Big Oil's 'windfall profits.' They take in tax dollars from the American public each year and spend 2.7 trillion dollars without having produced a product. WTF?

[mtcookson]

Quote »Also, they fail to see that the Government does not have the power nor does it have the capability to save humanity or equalize people in status[/quote]Actually... the government could rather easily make everyone equally poor, that's not too difficult at all.

[Cold_Zero]

Actually... the government could rather easily make everyone equally poor, that's not too difficult at all.

For a moment or moments in time and then what will happen? The creme always rises to the top.

But you miss the bigger picture. Equalization of society is not purely monetary.

[smockers83]

Those students probably go to Ohio State. Ohio State supports the Third Reich!

People say the youngest generations are lazy and what not, probably because they expect everything to be fair and want this socialistic society.

[HashiriyaS14]

Socialism has always had a lot of support from college kids.

I think it's been awhile since a few of you were IN college, but I don't think it's any kind of secret that colleges are breeding grounds for extreme leftist thought.

But really, we're saying what here? That Obama has some nutty supporters? Ok.

We've got borderline-communist college kids, the same ones the Dems have had for decades, and the GOP has borderline-senile old ladies who think Obama is an Arab, the same ones the GOP has had for decades.

Why is this news?

[Cold_Zero]

Yeah, I want to thank UM College Park and the great state of MD for taking my sister in law and making her a Dumbocrat. I liked the old conservative one better. She was more fun and didnt panic over the stupidiest of things.

[smockers83]

No one talks about the Federal Government's windfall profits, only Big Oil's 'windfall profits.' They take in tax dollars from the American public each year and spend 2.7 trillion dollars without having produced a product. WTF?

There's a couple of reasons for that. The government doesn't make windfall profits for one. Secondly, the government does produce stuff, but definitely not $2.7 trillion worth.

[szh]

Socialism has always had a lot of support from college kids.

Yes ... until they get out in the real world!

Z

[AZhitman]

...all this does is lean me (and many others) further and further to the right.

A backlash is coming, and the limp-wristed lefties won't be able to contain it.

This whole shift we're seeing reeks of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

[HashiriyaS14]

...all this does is lean me (and many others) further and further to the right.

A backlash is coming, and the limp-wristed lefties won't be able to contain it.

This whole shift we're seeing reeks of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

In what way does any of this move you further to the right? Why should your beliefs change just because the Dems are fielding a candidate who's further left than their last guy (Bill)? Do you, for some reason, feel the need to take a more extreme stance when your "opponent" takes a slightly more extreme stance?

Yeah, and kids tend to turn into little commies when they go off to college only to snap out of it when they graduate. I, for whatever reason, was an uberconservative when I was in college (NRA, Heritage Foundation, etc,). Figure that one out, lol.

[audtatious]

There's a couple of reasons for that. The government doesn't make windfall profits for one.

You are correct. Other companies make the profits and they simply keep increasing the taxes on those profits because the Gov can do a better job with the money.

That's part of the point missed with "Joe the Plumber". When "Joe the Plumber" is taxed more over 250k he sure is not willing to simply accept the fate, he will turn around and use other means to increase the profitability of what he does. That means constantly raise his rates in order to keep growing the company and making profits. In effect, those who need plumbing work will pay more and that includes the poor who are not paying taxes today because at some point they will need a plumber unless we are providing them with housing at which point "Joe Taxpayer" pays the additional fees. If they are renting then they will indirectly pay for these increases in rent because the apartment complex is sure not gonna be ding'd for it.

[smockers83]

Well, not only that but a windfall profit or gain is something that is unexpected, like winning the lottery or something. Tax revenues are expected when you have a tax policy. Plus, the government runs on a deficit so there is no profit realized, otherwise known as a surplus.

To the oil industry. A windfall profit in a business sense is profit due to unforeseen circumstances. A hurricane is not an unforeseen circumstance because we see these things coming weeks ahead of time. Back in the 1700s, storms did qualify profits as windfall profits. An unforeseen increase in demand can qualify profits as windfall profits, however, the high demand seen up until the past year and a half or so for oil and gasoline was not unforeseen. High oil prices were not unforeseen simply because as demand rises with limited output, price goes up. Worldwide demand rose as the world economy was booming, not really a circumstance that is unforeseen because if an economy is booming, it needs more energy. Oil traders knew this as they invested in futures contracts, even Southwest Airlines knew this and they invested in futures contracts very smartly.

[AZhitman]

In what way does any of this move you further to the right? Why should your beliefs change just because the Dems are fielding a candidate who's further left than their last guy (Bill)?

My beliefs haven't changed much - But since it's clear the media has made up our minds for us, and no one's asking the Left any "tough questions", it's time to get loud.

Do you, for some reason, feel the need to take a more extreme stance when your "opponent" takes a slightly more extreme stance?

It's called "Continuum of Force".

[audtatious]

Well, not only that but a windfall profit or gain is something that is unexpected, like winning the lottery or something. Tax revenues are expected when you have a tax policy. Plus, the government runs on a deficit so there is no profit realized, otherwise known as a surplus.

To the oil industry. A windfall profit in a business sense is profit due to unforeseen circumstances. A hurricane is not an unforeseen circumstance because we see these things coming weeks ahead of time. Back in the 1700s, storms did qualify profits as windfall profits. An unforeseen increase in demand can qualify profits as windfall profits, however, the high demand seen up until the past year and a half or so for oil and gasoline was not unforeseen. High oil prices were not unforeseen simply because as demand rises with limited output, price goes up. Worldwide demand rose as the world economy was booming, not really a circumstance that is unforeseen because if an economy is booming, it needs more energy. Oil traders knew this as they invested in futures contracts, even Southwest Airlines knew this and they invested in futures contracts very smartly.

Oil companies were having to pay the increased cost per barrel that the market demanded. There was not a "run on oil" from that perspective. With overall profits in the 6-10% maximum range I don't see how they were making additional profits as that is appx the percentage they were making anyway. If you are going to penalize the oil company based on the amount of profit instead of the percentage than you need to do it to all companies that are making "X"% above a set level for "fairness". Of course, that would stagnate growth but it seems those wanting this additional tax money put into the Gov don't really care.

[HashiriyaS14]

My beliefs haven't changed much - But since it's clear the media has made up our minds for us, and no one's asking the Left any "tough questions", it's time to get loud.

I've heard over and over again that no one's asking "tough questions" of the Democrats but I'm not ever clear on what questions those would be.

The details are all available on stuff like Ayers, and there isn't much about Obama's policy intentions that we don't already know. Didn't I already write up a response very similar to this?

EDIT: Yeah, I did. Here it is. Second to last response:

zerothread?id=377594

Oh, and adopting ever-more-extreme viewpoints just because the other guy is doing the same thing and you don't want to yield a slippery slope is dangerous business. This is how we've gotten to our modern discussion on firearms, wherein there seems to be no acceptable viewpoints other than a complete ban on firearms or a scenario wherein people can carry fully automatic weapons without a license. It's always a bad road to go down. I've found myself doing it before, but I try to watch it now, even when my "opponent" seems dead-set on motivating it.

[smockers83]

Right again, Matt. The only other thing a windfall tax on oil companies serves besides the uninformed American feeling like they're being served justice is that it may help jump start oil companies find new sources more quickly and ways to distribute those sources, such as natural gas.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

It's called "Continuum of Force".

It' also known as "symmetrical response" and has been the lynchpin of U.S. foreign policy since Nixon.

[Cold_Zero]

Oh, and adopting ever-more-extreme viewpoints just because the other guy is doing the same thing and you don't want to yield a slippery slope is dangerous business. This is how we've gotten to our modern discussion on firearms, wherein there seems to be no acceptable viewpoints other than a complete ban on firearms or a scenario wherein people can carry fully automatic weapons without a license. It's always a bad road to go down. I've found myself doing it before, but I try to watch it now, even when my "opponent" seems dead-set on motivating it.

Hash, Why do you have to be so melodramatic? Please, you know very well that the majority of gun owners in this country are not only Responsible and Reasonable when it comes to 2nd Amendment discussion. If we were 'extreme' we would be advocating arming babies, the criminally insane and dogs. We can't arm cats because we must give the dogs the upper hand in the whole Cat v. Dog struggle.

Wanting the Federal Government off the back of Responsible Citizens in this country and to keep it from imposing unnecessary legislation in the hopes of ‘combating crime’ is not extremism.

It should also be pointed out that Socialist Governments (Modern England, Modern Germany, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China...) have been more prone to confiscate firearms/weapons than non Socialist Governments.

[HashiriyaS14]

Hash, Why do you have to be so melodramatic? Please, you know very well that the majority of gun owners in this country are not only Responsible and Reasonable when it comes to 2nd Amendment discussion. If we were 'extreme' we would be advocating arming babies, the criminally insane and dogs. We can't arm cats because we must give the dogs the upper hand in the whole Cat v. Dog struggle.

Wanting the Federal Government off the back of Responsible Citizens in this country and to keep it from imposing unnecessary legislation in the hopes of ‘combating crime’ is not extremism.

It should also be pointed out that Socialist Governments (Modern England, Modern Germany, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China...) have been more prone to confiscate firearms/weapons than non Socialist Governments.

LOL

Way to take shxt the wrong way.

I was trying to illustrate the very absurdity that you seem to think I was advocating. I was saying that taking ever more extremist stances is nonsensical and tends to misrepresent the people involved (in this case, gun owners). I'm well aware that the average gun owner isn't advocating full-auto unlicensed carry, in fact that was the very POINT of my post.

The "extremists" of whom I speak are the lobbying and interest groups. The NRA and the anti-gun groups each have to resort to increasingly extremist stances to counter one another, and we have long since passed the point wherein NEITHER group accurately represents the majority will of it's "followers". They do it to avoid their positions being eroded by compromise, but all it does is yield meaningless stalemate.

[mtcookson]

For a moment or moments in time and then what will happen? The creme always rises to the top.

But you miss the bigger picture. Equalization of society is not purely monetary.

Ahh, I was just joking around mostly. Forgot to put my chuckle thingy ->

[audtatious]

Right again, Matt. The only other thing a windfall tax on oil companies serves besides the uninformed American feeling like they're being served justice is that it may help jump start oil companies find new sources more quickly and ways to distribute those sources, such as natural gas.

Maybe. That has yet to be seen. Oil companies are sitting things out for now as I'm sure the "no drill" policy will be put back into play if Obama takes office.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

The "extremists" of whom I speak are the lobbying and interest groups. The NRA and the anti-gun groups each have to resort to increasingly extremist stances to counter one another, and we have long since passed the point wherein NEITHER group accurately represents the majority will of it's "followers". They do it to avoid their positions being eroded by compromise, but all it does is yield meaningless stalemate.

DERAIL!

The NRA is far, far, far, far from representing the extremist wings of the RKBAs movement. Infact, if memory serves, the last mission statement I read delt with holding fast on the federal firearms laws and targeting the state's laws to bring them in line with the federal standards. There is no large movement within the NRA's leadership to modify the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 to allow ownership of post-86 manufactured full-auto weapons (what a stupid law). Nor is there a movement to modify the National Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1938. That's a pretty damn moderate stance. They also were originally not backing Heller.

Now, Brady and goons on the other hand...

[HashiriyaS14]

DERAIL!

The NRA is far, far, far, far from representing the extremist wings of the RKBAs movement. Infact, if memory serves, the last mission statement I read delt with holding fast on the federal firearms laws and targeting the state's laws to bring them in line with the federal standards. There is no large movement within the NRA's leadership to modify the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 to allow ownership of post-86 manufactured full-auto weapons (what a stupid law). Nor is there a movement to modify the National Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1938. That's a pretty damn moderate stance. They also were originally not backing Heller.

Now, Brady and goons on the other hand...

Ok, I used them as an example. I really don't care about the particulars, I'm just trying to make the point that the lobbying organizations are considerably right or left (respectively) of the constituencies they supposedly serve.

I don't even know what "RKBAs" is.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In a world where semantics are everything, that's most prefered over "pro-gun." You don't hear the "woman's rights" movement calling themselves "pro-abortion."

I disagree with your statement on lobby organizations. When it comes to population, I'd agree that they branch off right or left.

When it comes to serving and representing their members, they're probably closer to the center of that demographic. There are, of course, exceptions. PETA and the ASPCA are dark, twisted versions of what most members think they are. I'm sure the same applies for some "pro-life" groups and other "right" organizations as well.

I love "special interest groups," as they give me a voice. The money a year for the one's I'm a member of is a damn sight cheaper than visting my representatives and hounding them constantly.

[Cold_Zero]

LOL

Way to take shxt the wrong way.

I was trying to illustrate the very absurdity that you seem to think I was advocating. I was saying that taking ever more extremist stances is nonsensical and tends to misrepresent the people involved (in this case, gun owners). I'm well aware that the average gun owner isn't advocating full-auto unlicensed carry, in fact that was the very POINT of my post.

The "extremists" of whom I speak are the lobbying and interest groups. The NRA and the anti-gun groups each have to resort to increasingly extremist stances to counter one another, and we have long since passed the point wherein NEITHER group accurately represents the majority will of it's "followers". They do it to avoid their positions being eroded by compromise, but all it does is yield meaningless stalemate.

Hash,You know me. I may disagree with your analogy but not the principal. I would think that Abortion is a much better example of the Extremism that has creeped into Social and Political discourse.

I listen to Cam and Company the NRA's talk show in Sirius and I have to say, the NRA is a pretty level handed organization.