Jump to content

Obama gets discredited as a socialist

Kelly the Dog
 Share

Recommended Posts

YellowLinesandArmadillos Veteran

YellowLinesandArmadillos

Posted
Posted

What about the Constitutional definition of what taxes at the Federal Level are for????

 

Article I Section 8:

 

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

 

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

 

To establish post offices and post roads;

 

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chef Jim Hall of Famer

Chef Jim

Posted
Posted
What about the Constitutional definition of what taxes at the Federal Level are for????

 

Article I Section 8:

 

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

 

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

 

To establish post offices and post roads;

 

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

 

I don't see anything about "spreading the wealth."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YellowLinesandArmadillos Veteran

YellowLinesandArmadillos

Posted
Posted
No, taxes are to provide services too all not to move money from one segment of the population to the other. Only a socialist would say that's what taxes are for.

Taxes by definition of the service they provide for do just what you say, move money from one segment of the population to another. So how is that socialistic???? So paying for a military is socialistic, it transfers wealth, paying a company to make and pave roads is socialistic, it transfers wealth? Who pays for those things and at what rates is politics. Control of pricing on the other hand is socialistic, regulating the service is not or if it is according to your broad based definition, it is written into our Constitution..."provide common defense and the general welfare of the United States."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chef Jim Hall of Famer

Chef Jim

Posted
Posted
"General Welfare"

 

If wealth becomes too concentrated, than the welfare of this country suffers. Spreading wealth provides for the "General Welfare of the United States. Very simple when you think about it.

 

How is the wealth becoming too concentrated hurt the country? It sounds like socialism when you take from the minority and give to the majority just because that minority has more shiney things. Give me the justification for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YellowLinesandArmadillos Veteran

YellowLinesandArmadillos

Posted
Posted
yellowlinesandarmodillos..

 

you gotta admit, that is open to interpretation.

 

 

 

Chef Jim...

 

you gotta admit, taxes are there to benefit society as a whole, not just the people who paid the most.

(and which Obama policy is supposedly socialist? I dont see it)

 

Nice post, I agree, but that is what makes this country great, the framers made this generally vague so we could argue and adjust depending on the circumstances. Whatever works, if it is good to redistribute funds at a certain point to help out the country do it, if we need tax breaks do it. If reducing the debt and deficit become important, do it. If it works, you can call it whatever you please, labels don't really matter, but the Repigs and many Dems think they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YellowLinesandArmadillos Veteran

YellowLinesandArmadillos

Posted
Posted
How is the wealth becoming too concentrated hurt the country? It sounds like socialism when you take from the minority and give to the majority just because that minority has more shiney things. Give me the justification for that.

I believe in personal responsibility, yes. But using tax policy to balance out, not penalize rich people, who because of their richness are able to concentrate wealth and take advantage of economies of scale that those of lesser means can only dream about, is a good thing.

 

It helps spread out wealth, provide for a freer market and a more vibrant economy. It is the difference between trickle down which has been proven not to work and a help up. The money still ends up back in rich peoples hands but it helps other obtain wealth. This is what was practiced under Clinton and we saw one of the greatest economic expansions in our country's history. So you tell me which works better????

 

I agree you can go too far with each deal and end hurting what you are trying to fix, everything in moderation, but we are far from that. When the rich pay far less than the marginal rate because of tax loopholes, do you think this a bad thing. Do you think the rich folks because of their privilege and ability pay more, or should the majority of the tax burden be stuck on the middle class as it currently is.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/2007/0...hifts-downward/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Veteran

In-A-Gadda-Levitre

Posted
Posted
No, taxes are to provide services too all not to move money from one segment of the population to the other. Only a socialist would say that's what taxes are for.

what is it called when you begin taxing an existing component of compensation (employee-based health care benefits) and redistribute that tax revenue by sending checks to all eligible citizens, including those who do not currently receive that benefit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drnykterstein Veteran

drnykterstein

Posted
Posted
what is it called when you begin taxing an existing component of compensation (employee-based health care benefits) and redistribute that tax revenue by sending checks to all eligible citizens, including those who do not currently receive that benefit?

 

I haven't paid a lot of attention to health care.. but .. to be clear.. is that McCains plan you are alluding to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chef Jim Hall of Famer

Chef Jim

Posted
Posted
I haven't paid a lot of attention to health care.. but .. to be clear.. is that McCains plan you are alluding to?

 

Yes, he was trying to trap me into saying it's Socialism. He thinks I'm a McCain guy. Let's face it folks we are already a socialist country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
molson_golden2002 Veteran

molson_golden2002

Posted
Posted

I guess by "change" Obama means he will try and actually pay for all this government action--instead of simply borrowing and printing money-- to save all our arses:

 

WASHINGTON – With a timely endorsement from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, there's new life to the idea of Congress returning to Washington next month to pass a second round of measures aimed at injecting life into the economy.

 

The White House said Monday that President Bush was at least willing to consider a second stimulus measure to follow a $168 billion stimulus measure passed in February and a $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan passed 2 1/2 weeks ago.

 

Democrats say any stimulus bill would include items previously rejected by Bush such as road and bridge construction money and help for state budgets. Another round of tax rebates is possible as well to make the measure big enough to jolt the economy.

 

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., predicted Congress would return after Election Day to work on a measure equal to or exceeding February's $168 billion stimulus package, which included $600 tax rebates for most individuals and tax breaks for businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...