Welcome to PatsFans.com

McCain the socialist

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PF1996, Nov 1, 2008.

  1. PF1996

    PF1996 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Take a look at McCain supporting "spreading the wealth", before he was against "spreading the wealth".

    YouTube - John McCain On Taxing Rich People



    The lack of attention given to this flip flop by the mainstream media must be one of those examples of media bias and lack of objectivity that RW is always ranting about, except that he always gets it wrong about which group the media bias helps.


    P.S. - Also, make sure to let the video run long enough to hear this rightwing student's, who doesn't understand why her doctor dad has to "pay more", definition of slavery. Makes for a good laugh.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    definitely a flip flopper. you have more respect for him then than now. it appears he sold out.

    we're all slaves!!!
  3. Roland

    Roland Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    McCain is a liberal like who doesn't know that? That's why he picked Palin, to appear to be a conservative,which he is not.
  4. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the average Republican; Paris Hilton.
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,728
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    It's not the progressive system of taxation that is at question here. It's the matter of taking someone's money, and handing it to someone else (spreading it around). When a dude pays $5k in taxes persay, files his return, and the gubmit gives him $8k back, that's highly objectionable. That extra $3k that was not earned by this indivdual, as it was stolen from someone else's sweat. Furthermore, if you listen to what McLame says, he points out that he thinks the progressive system's rates need to be within reason, or as he put it, porportion:

    He then reminds people the debate is about cutting taxes. Obama wants to raise them substantially for higher earners. No where in that video does he propose raising taxes on anyone. He only emphasizes that middle class earners should get a break before anyone.

    Remember, McLame voted against GW's tax cuts. Of course now he's all luvy over them, cuz he has to be. A progressive system doesn't spread wealth. It simply lets lower earners keep more of their own money. Spreading wealth is when you give those earners money stolen from someone else. This point is lost on some people. I'm all for lower taxes for everyone. I personally would love to see people making under $100k not pay a dime of income tax. Of course, I'd slash gubmit to accomplish that, which no politician ever proposes to do. That being said, McCain looks compentent in that video. He actually looks like someone who kinda knows what he's talking about. He's almost incoherent at this point though. I really don't have any confidence in either ticket. I hope whomever wins does a great job though.
  6. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    the larger question is where is the money going to come from. we have a 10 trillion dollar debt. taxes ain't gonna get cut.

    what people want to see is the lower classes get more money so they can start buying useless junk most of which comes from china. but that consumerism drives 2/3rd of the economy.

    this whole socialism argument is so idiotic. each candidate has eluded to it. candidates in the past have. what else are you going to say as a candidate to the people?

    we want government to get smaller but that will put more people on the streets. if this is done the unemployment rate will skyrocket.

    you can't fix 8 years of poor management within 1 yr let alone 4. the fix is going to be painful. people's lifestyles are going to change radically.

    the bailout has turned into corporations paying out dividens and bonuses. trickle down doesn't trickle down.

    and since it doesn't trickle down it's a good thing that the government will trickle it down through redistr. of wealth whether we like it or not. the progressive tax is socialism.

    how about welfare? how about social security? how about unemployment benefits? some people get more back than they put in.
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,728
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2


    You really think that the last 8 years are the problem? They only added fuel to the fire my friend. Do you know the one "industry" that grew this year? Government. 13.9% according to CNBC's Erin Burnett.
  8. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    I don't really think the last 8 years is the problem. we've had a problem since 1961, but the evidence shows debt was going down in clinton's years and he was going in the right direction and bush just totally killed it.

    bush doubled the national debt. reagan killed it too. in fact it looks like the GOP has put us in this problem.
  9. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,698
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +476 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey


    One of the reasons I was pro Hillary this election. I think she would have assembled pretty much the same staff with pretty much the same philosophies ... but ... that's old news.
  10. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    if obama wins do you think there is any spot for her in his cabinet?
  11. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    37,698
    Likes Received:
    257
    Ratings:
    +476 / 2 / -10

    #87 Jersey


    I sure hope so ... but then again would she take it?

    She gets in his cabinet and she can kiss 2012 goodbye.

    Also ... I really hope to see more women in D.C., and women of different heritages if possible ... we need to breakup that old boys club scene. The names and faces change but the same games remain behind the scenes.
  12. PF1996

    PF1996 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    762
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    Please provide your evidence that under Obama's tax plan that someone will pay $5,000 (or pick your number) in taxes and get an $8000 tax return.

    Do you NOT understand, that public services given to others, say like public funding of private education which you (and other rightwingers) so ardently support, is "taking someone's money and giving it to someone else". Do you still support public funding of private schools? :rolleyes:

    Do you propose getting rid of all public services such as welfare since such services are disproportionately paid for by higher income earners and essentially entail "taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else"?



    Yeah, by letting Bush's tax cuts expire for the top earners expire, Obama will "raise taxes" to the levels that existed under Bill Clinton. Was Bill Clinton a socialist? Were wealthy people under duress during those years? Did they let profitable investments go by because, gosh darn it, they would have to pay more taxes on the additional income? :rolleyes: By the way, McCain also supported those exact tax rates for the top earners. Was McCain a socialist who has since reformed? :rolleyes:







    In your brainwashed mind "spreading the wealth" is "stealing money from people". To sensible people, "spreading the wealth", means that one doesn't think it's best for a society when wealth is concentrated in a small group of the population; thus one consequence of the progressive tax system is to SPREAD WEALTH AROUND by placing a LARGER PORTION OF THE BURDEN FOR PUBLIC SERVICES ON HIGHER INCOME EARNERS.

    McCain does look competent in that video which is the irony of this election. Had he actually had integrity and guts, he would have stood up to the insane rightwingers in his party and picked a competent running mate and he, not Obama, would have the large leads. Nothing would have kept the righty racists from rushing to the polls to prevent Obama from winning (even a pro choice, Jewish VP) and he would have gotten the independents and other Democrats fooled by his BS story about having "integrity and being independent".
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +283 / 5 / -8

    And how does Erin Burnett break that down? Anybody wanna bet on the percentages to the Pentagon (INCLUDING the tricky budget games we play on the war,) and Homeland Security?
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,000
    Likes Received:
    179
    Ratings:
    +283 / 5 / -8

    To continue in PF1996's vein:

    Under Reagan the top marginal rate was 50%. In the 60s it was 70%. During and just after WWII, it was 90+. Look it up.

    Now let's look at the results:

    Reagan, Clinton, WWII and post-war period: US nationalized no industries, and occasionally withdrew government ownership of industries (e.g., the Postal Service.)

    Under Bush: The government has partially nationalized the Insurance and Financial sectors, owning some institutions outright and buying parts of many more... on the taxpayer dime of course.

    Granted, the unrealistically low top marginal rate was nowhere near the sole cause of the recent meltdown. It was one of many contributing causes, and an indirect one at that.

    The point is that we have a walloping example of REAL, LIVE socialism unfolding before our eyes. And McCain has the gall to tell us that a very normal aspect of a presidential campaign disagreement -- one that is a stock argument, in fact -- amounts to his own position versus "socialism."

    This aspect of the 08 campaign will be looked at by historians as a funny little footnote. We'll look back and think how quaint it was to argue that a 5% disagreement on the marginal top tax rate was "socialism," whereas nationalizing of the banks and the largest wholesale international re-set of the economic order since Bretton Woods was, well, just one of those things.

    Of course, the "re-set" we're in the middle of may not ever work, and it may. We don't know. We have no idea what we're looking at down the road.

    We do know, however, what we've seen in the last few weeks... and believe me, if there were 1 single moment I would typify as "socialism" it was not a campaign trail description to a plumber based on the phrase "spread the wealth around."

    Although nobody here is personally an idiot in any way, it is idiotic to propose the argument that this choice of phrase equates to some sort of secret agenda. And although nobody here is personally a moron with an IQ below that of a rhesus monkey, I think a rhesus monkey could come up with a better closing argument for the end of one of the more important presidential campaigns in history.

    "A plumber called you socialist."

    Jeez.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2008

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>