Might as well start calling liberals Marxists.

[MonsterMark]

By supporting Obama, that is exactly WHO YOU ARE!

YouTube - Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

 

[MonsterMark]

Obama's Harvard Law School Professor buddy is trying to downplay this recording with this comment:

"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn’t mean in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."


The Obama campaign will say and do anything.

 

[foxpaws]

So, since you live by labels Bryan...

Are you claiming us liberals to be Neo Marxists, Humanist Marxists, Leninist Marxists or do you really have any concept of what you are talking about?

 

[Joeychgo]

eh, he just likes to toss words around.

If it was Hillary running, he would be saying many of the same things.

 

[MonsterMark]

So, since you live by labels Bryan...

Are you claiming us liberals to be Neo Marxists, Humanist Marxists, Leninist Marxists or do you really have any concept of what you are talking about?

I have no concept of what I am talking about. Happy now?

Still doesn't change the fact that YOU PEOPLE will have to live with your decision and I will be here to jump all over you and make you feel like crap when the day comes you suddenly wake up and whine about the media failing to report this election fairly to you and had you known all of this about Obama, you wouldn't have supported him, yadayadayada.

Simply admit you are intellectually lazy and incapable of your own thoughts and that anybody with a (D) behind their name will have your unconditional support, no matter the whos, whats, wheres or whys and you will feel so much better about yourself.

I could never support Kerry because he lied about his military records and acted like a traitor when he returned from the Vietnam War. This Obama guy makes me actually fear for the future of this country. The new country that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, the liberal Supreme Court and the new nanny state they will create and force my kids to live under is a very saddening thought.

For the 1st time on our Country's history, our children will not be better off than we were.

 

[MonsterMark]

If it was Hillary running, he would be saying many of the same things.

I voted for Hillary. Who did you vote for?

 

[Joeychgo]

Bet you cant guess who I voted for... My vote was sincere.

Did you vote for hillary because you wanted her to win, or you thought she would be easier for McCain to beat?

 

[foxpaws]

I have no concept of what I am talking about. Happy now?

Still doesn't change the fact that YOU PEOPLE will have to live with your decision and I will be here to jump all over you and make you feel like crap when the day comes you suddenly wake up and whine about the media failing to report this election fairly to you and had you known all of this about Obama, you wouldn't have supported him, yadayadayada.

And if, by some weird fluke of the stars aligning correctly, the mystics are praying to the correct gods, and certain right wing sacrifices will be thrown into a fiery pit (volunteering Bryan?), and maybe, just maybe a good idea or two thrown in, the country does turn around - will you say you are wrong Bryan?

Will you even give Obama a chance if he wins? It sure doesn't sound like you will. It sounds like you hope he fails. You hope that the most powerful man in the world, voted in by a majority in the greatest country in the world fails....

Wow - that just is terrible. If McCain gets in I hope he succeeds far beyond what I think he can do. I want his policies to succeed and the country to be successful again, and for American to have respect again in the world community. This is my country, I want my country to succeed. You apparently are hoping for failure to prove your tiny silly point.

How narrow minded of you. (I have self edited severely this section - it went on and on and on....)

Simply admit you are intellectually lazy and incapable of your own thoughts and that anybody with a (D) behind their name will have your unconditional support, no matter the whos, whats, wheres or whys and you will feel so much better about yourself.

Since you have no idea of how I vote - boy is this silly - I have voted for many Republicans in the past - even this time there a couple of races locally where that old 'D' lever won't be pushed...

I voted for Hillary. Who did you vote for?

I am really curious - how did you vote for Hillary - aren't you a registered Rep? Could you vote for her in the primary? Didn't you have to vote your own party? I thought you voted maybe for Romney or Thompson or someone like that....

 

[Joeychgo]

Will you even give Obama a chance if he wins? It sure doesn't sound like you will. It sounds like you hope he fails. You hope that the most powerful man in the world, voted in by a majority in the greatest country in the world fails....

Wow - that just is terrible. If McCain gets in I hope he succeeds far beyond what I think he can do. I want his policies to succeed and the country to be successful again, and for American to have respect again in the world community. This is my country, I want my country to succeed. You apparently are hoping for failure to prove your tiny silly point.

I concurr.... Regarless who wins, I wish them all the success and sincerely hope they improve things for the American People.

 

[MonsterMark]

the country does turn around - will you say you are wrong Bryan?

What is the country turning around from and where is it going to? Let me know and then I'll get back to you.

Will you even give Obama a chance if he wins?

A chance to do what? Institute his socialist plans? Nominate far-left justices that will create law from the bench?

It sure doesn't sound like you will. It sounds like you hope he fails. You hope that the most powerful man in the world, voted in by a majority in the greatest country in the world fails........

You think I hope that he fails? Fails to do what? Tell me, foxy, what are Obama's plans for America? Tell me his plans then I'll tell you why they will fail. But I am not hoping against something until I know what it is I am hoping against.

Wow - that just is terrible. If McCain gets in I hope he succeeds far beyond what I think he can do. I want his policies to succeed and the country to be successful again, and for American to have respect again in the world community. This is my country, I want my country to succeed. You apparently are hoping for failure to prove your tiny silly point.....

Well aren't you full of the Dem talking points today. Looks like you got a fax this morning and are reading from the script. Nice job comrade.

Respect around the world again? LMAO. We never lost respect around the world. In fact, I will argue we ARE MORE RESPECTED now than ever. Take a look at what ideology won elections around the world. Start with Germany and France, then try Canada. Take a look at how N. Korea folded without us taking a shot. The list goes on and on.

How narrow minded of you. (I have self edited severely this section - it went on and on and on....)....

Let it out. You might find it an orgasmic experience.

Since you have no idea of how I vote - boy is this silly - I have voted for many Republicans in the past - even this time there a couple of races locally where that old 'D' lever won't be pushed.......

You know that you are in the minority if you are a Dem. But I congratulate you none-the-less if you are able to vote for the BEST person, and not vote based on party affiliation.

I am really curious - how did you vote for Hillary - aren't you a registered Rep? Could you vote for her in the primary? Didn't you have to vote your own party? I thought you voted maybe for Romney or Thompson or someone like that....

Open primary. Hunter was my #1 choice going into this election.

 

[TheDude]

By supporting Obama, that is exactly WHO YOU ARE!

I thought Obama was a Socialist?

 

[Joeychgo]

A chance to do what? Institute his socialist plans? Nominate far-left justices that will create law from the bench?

Socialist? You mean like 700 Billion to bailout the banks, etc... ? That kind of socialism?

You know that you are in the minority if you are a Dem. But I congratulate you none-the-less if you are able to vote for the BEST person, and not vote based on party affiliation.

Didnt want to guess who I voted for?

Here is a hint.. I voted for Ronald Reagan and George Bush I. In the 2000 primary I voted for McCain.

So who do you think I voted for this primary?

 

[foxpaws]

Let it out. You might find it an orgasmic experience.

Hopefully multi orgasmic....

Open primary. Hunter was my #1 choice going into this election.

Hunter S. Thompson was on the ballot - cool - even though he has been dead and shot out of a cannon for a while.... Great vote!!!!

Speaking of multi orgasmic... meet him in a bar in Aspen one snowy night...

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Barack Obama is a socialist?
McCain, Palin on record supporting similar proposals as Democratic rival

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397938/

On October 12th, in conversation with a voter forever to be known as Joe the Plumber, Obama gave one of his fullest summaries of his tax plan. After explaining how Joe could benefit from it, whether or not he achieves his dream of owning his own plumbing business, Obama added casually, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” McCain and Palin have been quoting this remark ever since, offering it as prima-facie evidence of Obama’s unsuitability for office. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

Young woman: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
McCain: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

So, when a Democrat suggest "spreading the wealth", it's labeled "socialism", but when a Republican does the same thing, it's not. Double standard.

 

[SilverSweetness]

I gotta Chime In...

A-Friggin-MEN!!!

For calling the bastards out there on their BS.

I would like to hear a definitive argument against this.

Especially the quote from McCain himself

McCain: "Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

AND all the stuff about Alaska's tax policy...

Hoo Boy this was worth the he!! I am gonna catch from all the right wingers out there.

 

[cammerfe]

'Paying somewhat more'....
Weatherby instead of Remington
Orvis instead of Sears
Lincoln instead of Ford
The list goes on

KS

 

[Joeychgo]

So, when a Democrat suggest "spreading the wealth", it's labeled "socialism", but when a Republican does the same thing, it's not. Double standard.

Exactly. Now your catching on.

THEY LOE TO throw around the wrd "socalism" -- but they misuse the term in order to scare people.

But how far do you want to take that word? How about this. No more school property taxes, you pay for each and every kid you have that goes to school. You have how many bryan? 5? That should be around $100k a year for their schooling. You can afford it can't you Bryan?

I like it. No socialism anywhere. Great idea, I can save $5k a year in taxes that way.

How about social security and medicare? Thats socialistic also. Lets whack that too and give me my 15% back. Im starting to like this "no redistribution of wealth" thing.

What else? Oh, lets cut all government backed college grants too. Thats redistributing wealth isnt it?

You see, I have no kids and im not going to school, so these things can go away because its redistributing wealth. I like this. I can take that money and invest it which will create jobs and everything will be great, dont you think?

 

[fossten]

So, since you live by labels Bryan...

Are you claiming us liberals to be Neo Marxists, Humanist Marxists, Leninist Marxists or do you really have any concept of what you are talking about?

Do YOU know what Marxism is? Are you aware that one of the prime tenets of Marxism is the government-forced redistribution of wealth?

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[foxpaws]

Marxism doesn’t occur in highly advanced capitalist countries. It just doesn’t make sense. Marxism appeals to Third World countries, or counties with a huge strata difference between the ‘haves’ and the have-nots’, with very little middle class to use as a buffer.

Redistribution of wealth via taxes is hardly what Marx had in mind. He wished to remove the idea of wealth entirely and rebase the entire social structure on the labor theory of value, which is totally different (and incredibly wrong). And structure that labor value theory within a totally planned society. Totally planned societies are becoming almost a unfeasible solution with the current expansion of communication and then factoring in scarcity and uncertainty. With all those in play - planned societies crumble, as we saw happen over and over again in the late 1900s. You need isolation to create a planned Marxist society - and no one is isolated any longer.

In the US we have always redistributed the wealth via taxes. Without that redistribution the country cannot even exist. I actually believe that unless we clothe, feed, shelter and educate the poor we are destined to end up in a Marxist society, and not the other way around. Without the ‘sharing of wealth’ the poor will gain in numbers and we will end up with a country severely divided with a tiny upper stratus of ‘haves’ and a huge, socially and economically depressed lower class of 'have nots'. Revolution along the lines of 1917 would be inevitable.

Ah, Foss – yes Jefferson on Taxes….

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

"...the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. (I did remove the front regarding import taxes...)

And maybe the most apropos… to the uproar of election time.
"Excessive taxation... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.
And yes, Foss, I know that last one is something you should quote, and not me...but, I do like it...

 

[fossten]

Marxism doesn’t occur in highly advanced capitalist countries. It just doesn’t make sense. Marxism appeals to Third World countries, or counties with a huge strata difference between the ‘haves’ and the have-nots’, with very little middle class to use as a buffer.

That is pure BS and you know it. It's happened in Europe and it's happening here, has been since the New Deal. It is NOT the government's place to decide life's winners and losers.

Redistribution of wealth via taxes is hardly what Marx had in mind. He wished to remove the idea of wealth entirely and rebase the entire social structure on the labor theory of value, which is totally different (and incredibly wrong). And structure that labor value theory within a totally planned society. Totally planned societies are becoming almost a unfeasible solution with the current expansion of communication and then factoring in scarcity and uncertainty. With all those in play - planned societies crumble, as we saw happen over and over again in the late 1900s. You need isolation to create a planned Marxist society - and no one is isolated any longer.

That's okay, taxes are just the start of things. Your Marxist coke-snorting President Obama will take it much further than that, by taking over the 401k plans next. Once the government has total control of the nations finances, he'll be able to institute a totalitarian government.

And yes, OF COURSE, it's so freaking obvious that Marxist societies crumble. Duh. And ours will too. Just keep it up. Face it, this country became great with capitalism, and now we're on the verge of financial collapse after 80 years of incremental Marxism.

In the US we have always redistributed the wealth via taxes. Without that redistribution the country cannot even exist. I actually believe that unless we clothe, feed, shelter and educate the poor we are destined to end up in a Marxist society, and not the other way around. Without the ‘sharing of wealth’ the poor will gain in numbers and we will end up with a country severely divided with a tiny upper stratus of ‘haves’ and a huge, socially and economically depressed lower class of 'have nots'. Revolution along the lines of 1917 would be inevitable.

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Go look up when the income tax was instituted. Furthermore, we've already transferred ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS to "clothe and feed the poor" since Roosevelt, and it hasn't done jack squat to solve the problem of the poor. Face it Fox, you're full of talking points and devoid of facts. Please stop with the emoting about the pitiful poor and the mean nasty haves. The fact is that the country is already severely divided into class warfare thanks to your lovely Democrats and their constant race and class baiting, setting people against each other by fostering envy and strife. The Democrats haven't done a single DAMN thing to make the poor less poor. All they do is continue to grow the dependency class, making people more and more lazy and more and more with their hands out. Their entire platform is based on taking from those who earn and giving it to those who don't. This country got along just fine for over a hundred years without the income tax, and without redistribution of wealth, and the fact is that the social experiment of transfer of wealth has been an ABJECT FAILURE. ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH.

Ah, Foss – yes Jefferson on Taxes….

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

Got any context for these quotes? This is about property tax, not income tax. Nice try.

"...the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. (I did remove the front regarding import taxes...)

Contributions, not confiscation by the FED. Nice try. He's referring to the contributions of the rich by creating jobs and generating revenues through productivity.

Here's the actual quote:

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the
whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues
liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus
applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see
his government supported, his children educated, and the face of
his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich
alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his
earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

Next.

And maybe the most apropos… to the uproar of election time.
"Excessive taxation... will carry reason and reflection to every man's door, and particularly in the hour of election." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1798.
And yes, Foss, I know that last one is something you should quote, and not me...but, I do like it...

Nice job taking quotes out of context. Gee, I've seen you fuss about that before.

Here's another one:

"The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to
labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a
stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help
themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some
succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance,
supplementary aids are given which enable them to live
comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their
friends. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Note that it refers to people who don't have the strength to labor. How many trillions of dollars has been wasted according to this standard? Hmm?

Here's another one for ya, your Marxist Obama should read:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society
but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened
enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the
remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion
by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of
constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis,
1820.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the
people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe
depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be
improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on
Virginia, 1782.

"Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be
just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

How far have we departed from this?

 

[foxpaws]

Marxism doesn’t occur in highly advanced capitalist countries. It just doesn’t make sense. Marxism appeals to Third World countries, or counties with a huge strata difference between the ‘haves’ and the have-nots’, with very little middle class to use as a buffer.

That is pure BS and you know it. It's happened in Europe and it's happening here, has been since the New Deal. It is NOT the government's place to decide life's winners and losers.

Aren't you getting Marxism and socialism confused?

They are very different.

In fact, yes, in Europe there are quite a few democratic socialist nations. Not a single Marxist nation.

And yes, OF COURSE, it's so freaking obvious that Marxist societies crumble. Duh. And ours will too. Just keep it up. Face it, this country became great with capitalism, and now we're on the verge of financial collapse after 80 years of incremental Marxism.

Planned societies crumble - I guess you could say that for a tiny bit of time there was almost a Marxist society in Russia, right after the revolution. But it quickly crumbled to communism. Since communism is a form of planned society it will crumble as well.

I think you mean to say we have had incremental socialism, but not Marxism...

And I agree capitalism built this country and will continue to build this country - communism and socialism doesn't work in a 'small world', 'huge nation' example like we have in the United States. We are just too big for socialism to work well. Small nations - yes, maybe for a while...

This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Go look up when the income tax was instituted. Furthermore, we've already transferred ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS to "clothe and feed the poor" since Roosevelt, and it hasn't done jack squat to solve the problem of the poor. Face it Fox, you're full of talking points and devoid of facts. Please stop with the emoting about the pitiful poor and the mean nasty haves. The fact is that the country is already severely divided into class warfare thanks to your lovely Democrats and their constant race and class baiting, setting people against each other by fostering envy and strife. The Democrats haven't done a single DAMN thing to make the poor less poor. All they do is continue to grow the dependency class, making people more and more lazy and more and more with their hands out. Their entire platform is based on taking from those who earn and giving it to those who don't. This country got along just fine for over a hundred years without the income tax, and without redistribution of wealth, and the fact is that the social experiment of transfer of wealth has been an ABJECT FAILURE. ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH.

We have gathered taxes the entirety of this nation - different types of taxes, not only income taxes - I never said 'income taxes'. We had tariffs, taxes on liquor, sugar, corporate bonds, slaves, stamp acts. It wasn't until the Civil War we had income taxes (I knew that much.... to pay for that war, that is why income taxes were imposed to pay for a war). Great - go back to a national sales tax. Or huge import taxes (I bet you thought the luxury tax was a great idea - right?). It isn't a perfect system, but there isn't any system right now that is out there that would do any better.

Did I ever say we have done anything to clothe..... the poor? No. I said we need to, or we will end up as a Marxist state (or at least as close as we can get, before we degrade to communism).

I never said the 'haves' were mean or nasty either - wow Foss.

And they aren't 'my Democrats' anymore than they are 'your Republicans'.

And we did redistribute wealth throughout our history - we raised taxes, the government used that money to educate people - move people across the west, rebuild the south, there were government orphanages, hospitals, there was the Charity Reform Movement...

Oh, that 11 trillions dollars was in a great part cause by war. War is why we started income taxes, war uses a great amount of money. Defense of this nation is why we started income taxes in the first place. I am not questioning the use of taxes in defending America - but don't put the whole deficit on 'redistribution of wealth' we did a few other things with the money...

Got any context for these quotes? This is about property tax, not income tax. Nice try.

Once again, I never said anything about income taxes - Foss - just stop that...

Full quotes...

I like to see a disposition increasing to replenish the public coffers, and so far approve of the young stamp act; but would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than spread it over such a variety of subjects, and pas the money through so many new hands? Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual, but I do not see that the sale of his land is an evidence of his ability to spare. One of my reasons for wishing to centre our commerce at Norfolk was that it might bring to a point the proper subjects of taxation and reduce the army of tax-gatherers almost to a single hand.

Jefferson was speaking about his worry that there would be all sorts of taxes and wouldn't it be better if we had one tax, and one tax collector. And that individuals should be taxed according to what the person can afford to 'spare'.

"[T]he solitude of my walk led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe.
I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable.

But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."

Here Jefferson is talking about how some individuals are using property laws to avoid paying taxes, and that those with larger portions of land (or wealth) should be required to geometrically pay increased taxes.

"...the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. (I did remove the front regarding import taxes...)

Contributions, not confiscation by the FED. Nice try. He's referring to the contributions of the rich by creating jobs and generating revenues through productivity.

Here's the actual quote:
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the
whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues
liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus
applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see
his government supported, his children educated, and the face of
his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich
alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his
earnings."

Nice job taking quotes out of context. Gee, I've seen you fuss about that before.

I even told you I edited the quote- see the parenthetical statement "(I did remove the front regarding import taxes...)"

At this point Jefferson thought the entire taxes of the US Government should be born by the rich - as you can easily see by the whole quote you so kindly added - "The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied." So, we need to tax the goods that only the rich use, so they pay all the taxes needed by the government - nice.... the ultimate luxury tax...

Here's another one:

"The poor who have neither property, friends, nor strength to
labor, are boarded in the houses of good farmers, to whom a
stipulated sum is annually paid. To those who are able to help
themselves a little, or have friends from whom they derive some
succor, inadequate however to their full maintenance,
supplementary aids are given which enable them to live
comfortably in their own houses, or in the houses of their
friends. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Note that it refers to people who don't have the strength to labor. How many trillions of dollars has been wasted according to this standard? Hmm?

So, you will open your house to the poor - the government will pay you to help out.

I do think if you can work, you should, we shouldn't be a welfare state - I have never stated that... where have I stated that? I talked about the poor, not the lazy... duh... they aren't mutually exclusive...

Oh, you keep adding quotes - see why I like Jefferson - he is great for quotes on democracy - the best actually - I like him better than even Adams...

Here's another one for ya, your Marxist Obama should read:
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society
but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened
enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the
remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion
by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of
constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis,
1820.
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the
people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe
depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be
improved to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on
Virginia, 1782.

Well, I am a bit confused on this - Jefferson was endorsing public education in these quotes...

Let's look at this next one in context shall we....

"The government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a particular one because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste or necessary to the health and will therefore be bought, is in that particular a tyranny. Taxes on consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform. I do not mean to say that it may not be for the general interest to foster for awhile certain infant manufactures, until they are strong enough to stand against foreign rivals; but when evident that they will never be so, it is against right, to make the other branches of industry support them." (the bold text is what you used in your quote Foss...

He is saying that sugar should be taxed the same as salt pork - that all consumables should be taxed the same. Just like all income (see even Jefferson had thought about income taxes even in 1823) should be taxed. So income from farming should be taxed just as income from industry. He also thought that certain industries' consumables for a short time should be tax free - until they can stand against imports. But, if it looks like the domestic product can't compete, well, they should be taxed anyway...

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.
How far have we departed from this?

Way too far I fear - probably too far to go back. I find that very sad as well.

Have you ever seen that quote in context Foss? I have looked for context forever on that one. I will be near Monticello later this winter - maybe I can stop by the TJ library and look it up...

 

[shagdrum]

Are you claiming us liberals to be Neo Marxists, Humanist Marxists, Leninist Marxists or do you really have any concept of what you are talking about?

I have yet to actually see a profound distinction between any of them, philosophically. For that matter, Marxists, communists and socialists are all the same, as far as I can tell (and I am reasonably well versed in Marx). At most, they seem to be different in how they impliment their socialism, but philosophically, they are all the same.

 

[foxpaws]

I have yet to actually see a profound distinction between any of them, philosophically. For that matter, Marxists, communists and socialists are all the same, as far as I can tell (and I am reasonably well versed in Marx). At most, they seem to be different in how they impliment their socialism, but philosophically, they are all the same.

Marxists and Communists are pretty close economically - although there certainly are pretty big differences on how Communists evolved as far as governing the people. Currently socialism is defined as primarily an economic system which can be implemented under a variety of governments. I.E. many countries in Europe have democratic socialisms and parliamentary socialisms. Feasibly you could have an autocratic socialist. You could never have a democratic Marxist society however.

Marxism is a be all to end all - all encompassing. Now the ones I mentioned earlier are fairly close, leninist, neo, humanist - but there are some interesting differences. Not that it really matters - all marxist societies are doomed to fail.

I think that socialism may be different - it might survive longer - I think in smaller, more contained societies, where there is a huge national resource (such as Norway and oil) it has a chance to hold on for quite a while.

 

[fossten]

Aren't you getting Marxism and socialism confused?

They are very different.

In fact, yes, in Europe there are quite a few democratic socialist nations. Not a single Marxist nation.

You strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Planned societies crumble - I guess you could say that for a tiny bit of time there was almost a Marxist society in Russia, right after the revolution. But it quickly crumbled to communism. Since communism is a form of planned society it will crumble as well.

I think you mean to say we have had incremental socialism, but not Marxism...

And I agree capitalism built this country and will continue to build this country - communism and socialism doesn't work in a 'small world', 'huge nation' example like we have in the United States. We are just too big for socialism to work well. Small nations - yes, maybe for a while...

Then you should also agree that what Obama plans to do will harm the country. There is no way around it. Oh, and say good bye to your 401k as you know it.

We have gathered taxes the entirety of this nation - different types of taxes, not only income taxes - I never said 'income taxes'. We had tariffs, taxes on liquor, sugar, corporate bonds, slaves, stamp acts. It wasn't until the Civil War we had income taxes (I knew that much.... to pay for that war, that is why income taxes were imposed to pay for a war). Great - go back to a national sales tax. Or huge import taxes (I bet you thought the luxury tax was a great idea - right?). It isn't a perfect system, but there isn't any system right now that is out there that would do any better.

Tsk tsk, fox...

You are undercutting your own point now. You made the point to discuss taxes with regard to redistribution of income. Before the income tax was instituted, taxes that you describe above were used to pay for government services such as roads and defense. Only when socialists like FDR and LBJ came along was income tax used to transfer wealth from those who have to those who refuse to earn. Nice try, but you FAIL.

As far as no systems that would do better, that's a very weak point and I'm surprised you threw that in there. Many alternative plans have been proposed AND EXAMINED IN DETAIL, not the least of which is the FairTax, and have all been ignored by the powerbroker Congresscritters in Washington because it would take away their powerbase. Fact is, until the liberals (and RINOs) in Washington stop getting drunk on the blood, sweat, and tears of the producers of this country, no meaningful tax reform will ever be passed.

Did I ever say we have done anything to clothe..... the poor? No. I said we need to, or we will end up as a Marxist state (or at least as close as we can get, before we degrade to communism).

That is known as poppycock.

I never said the 'haves' were mean or nasty either - wow Foss.

The fact is that Obama has demonized people making $250,000 a year or more (or is it $200,000, or is it $150,000) by promising to punish them for their productivity. Furthermore, he has called them greedy, and "the wealthiest of Americans" numerous times. Not to mention his latest statement of "spread the wealth."

And we did redistribute wealth throughout our history - we raised taxes, the government used that money to educate people - move people across the west, rebuild the south, there were government orphanages, hospitals, there was the Charity Reform Movement...

Tsk tsk again, fox...you're trying to play the red herring game here. I thought this was about redistribution of wealth. Please stay on topic, hmm?

Oh, that 11 trillions dollars was in a great part cause by war. War is why we started income taxes, war uses a great amount of money. Defense of this nation is why we started income taxes in the first place. I am not questioning the use of taxes in defending America - but don't put the whole deficit on 'redistribution of wealth' we did a few other things with the money...

No. That 11 Trillion dollars is the total sum of what has been taken from producers and given to those who do not work. It has NOTHING to do with wartime taxes, it does not reflect gross receipts of any kind. It is the AMOUNT OF MONEY that has been TRANSFERRED. It is the money that was wasted on the War on Poverty. But look - we still have poverty! An obvious and expensive FAILURE.

Once again, I never said anything about income taxes - Foss - just stop that...

Ah, but you're trying to push me off the crux of the argument, which is this: Income taxes are the primary way wealth is transferred. Excise taxes don't transfer wealth. The income tax is literally a form of legalized theft, where money is confiscated from one person and given to another. Sorry, your attempts to deny the topic at hand FAIL.

Full quotes...

I like to see a disposition increasing to replenish the public coffers, and so far approve of the young stamp act; but would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than spread it over such a variety of subjects, and pas the money through so many new hands? Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual, but I do not see that the sale of his land is an evidence of his ability to spare. One of my reasons for wishing to centre our commerce at Norfolk was that it might bring to a point the proper subjects of taxation and reduce the army of tax-gatherers almost to a single hand.

Jefferson was speaking about his worry that there would be all sorts of taxes and wouldn't it be better if we had one tax, and one tax collector. And that individuals should be taxed according to what the person can afford to 'spare'.

Baloney. I can read, fox. He's talking about property tax.

Not interested in trading any more quotes with you. I don't need them anyway, and I don't have time for this.

Call it socialism or Marxism, either philosophy advocates legalized looting from producers and giving to non earners. It's economically unsound, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and your boy Obama wants to increase it. He's wrong and you're wrong for supporting him.

 

[foxpaws]

Not interested in trading any more quotes with you. I don't need them anyway, and I don't have time for this.

Call it socialism or Marxism, either philosophy advocates legalized looting from producers and giving to non earners. It's economically unsound, it's immoral, and it needs to stop, and your boy Obama wants to increase it. He's wrong and you're wrong for supporting him.

Ah, brave Sir David - run away, run away...

Now, if you want to find out why I agree that these programs could degrade into furthering socialism if not held into check (and yes, I am as afraid of a liberal congress as anyone out here) I would be happy... But, Marxism, come on...

Many alternative plans have been proposed AND EXAMINED IN DETAIL, not the least of which is the FairTax, and have all been ignored by the powerbroker Congresscritters in Washington because it would take away their powerbase.

Let's hope we repeal the 16th before that happens - otherwise, talk about drunk and out of control, both a national sales tax (which probably wouldn't work either) and constitutionally allowed income tax... whoa!!!!