In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 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. there's no trap and I think you've made it clear in the past that you're not for McCain. You obviously don't like the idea of redistributing wealth, but how come you don't jump all over McCain for his plan as being socialist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 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. So when I pay sales taxes in Seattle and the money goes to build a road for the wingnuts in Spokane, what is that? They don't have enough of a tax base over there to build sufficient roads, adequate schools, etc. The roads are a service to all. The schools are a service to some directly but arguable benefit the country as a whole. So what's THAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 You know whats funny? Obama's taxes are lower than Clintons.. and I never heard anyone ever call Clinton a socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 So when I pay sales taxes in Seattle and the money goes to build a road for the wingnuts in Spokane, what is that? They don't have enough of a tax base over there to build sufficient roads, adequate schools, etc. The roads are a service to all. The schools are a service to some directly but arguable benefit the country as a whole. So what's THAT? Alaska taxpayers receive more federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Alaska citizens received approximately $1.84 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 3rd highest nationally and represents a large rise from 1995 when Alaska received $1.21 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (then ranked at 17th highest nationally). The nearest states and the amount of federal spending they received per dollar of federal taxes paid were: Hawaii ($1.44), Oregon ($0.93), Washington ($0.88) and California ($0.78). http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/11.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/11.html LOL, don't these "rugged individualists" also get free oil comapny money too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 LOL, don't these "rugged individualists" also get free oil comapny money too? Yup, but somehow that's different............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 there's no trap and I think you've made it clear in the past that you're not for McCain. You obviously don't like the idea of redistributing wealth, but how come you don't jump all over McCain for his plan as being socialist? McCain is more of a socialist than a conservative. There...better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 McCain is more of a socialist than a conservative. There...better? I heard someone say that he's gone from being a social conservative to being a conservative socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 yellowlinesandarmodillos.. you gotta admit, that is open to interpretation. General welfare doesn't mean welfare checks. There is no interpretation, that's socialism. Are you going to tell me that general welfare for common use means welfare checks? There is nothing general when the general public doesn't have use. Are you stupid enough to tell me that the framers intended taxes for welfare checks and "spreading wealth"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 General welfare doesn't mean welfare checks. There is no interpretation, that's socialism. Are you going to tell me that general welfare for common use means welfare checks? There is nothing general when the general public doesn't have use. Are you stupid enough to tell me that the framers intended taxes for welfare checks and "spreading wealth"? Maybe, maybe not. The framers were intelligent enough to use words like "general"... They knew they need all 13 ex-colonies on board... They were enlightened enough to know the country would change AND WOULD NEED CHANGE. Living, breathing, vague words my friend! Nothing was framed totally static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts