i'm confused, how did obama....

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
i'm confused, how did obama....
242
Fri, 09-26-2008 - 9:43pm
6 years ago oppose the war in iraq? was he in senate then?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 8:43pm

Sorry, but the amount used was clearly stated as the minimum amount needed.


Having a 6,000 square foot home is not needed to live. It might suit his lifestyle, that is where disposable income comes in.


What I showed is an accurate representation, and far fairer than a flat tax.


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 9:03pm

"I'm afraid we've lost another one to the cult of the Obamessiah."

Someone's obsessed with Obama. Hint: I don't think it's his supporters.

PS Your guy is all over the place on the economy. He will never let us leave Iraq so we can finally focus on catching or killing our real enemy who really was and still is a threat: you know, that guy, that terrorist we never hear about, Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 9:03pm

>>> Sorry, but the amount used was clearly stated as the minimum amount needed.

Stated by "someone" who arbitrarily decided on "minimum standards."

>>> Having a 6,000 square foot home is not needed to live. It might suit his lifestyle, that is where disposable income comes in.

And neither is the arbitrary "minimum standard" you've proposed. The "rich" guy is entitled to the same percentage of his disposable income as the poor guy is. It is inherently unfair to take what one person has earned and give it to someone who hasn't.

>>> What I showed is an accurate representation, and far fairer than a flat tax.

It's only "fair" if you're a socialist. I am not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 9:44pm

There is no minimum cost of basic survival? Hmmmmmmmm...


yeah, there is.


Why do you think our tax plan has exemptions and such? Even some of the flat taxers propose exemptions below certain levels... guess why. Disposable income considerations.


Oh, there is the bloody socialist word again. If you wish to take it that far, any tax is a form of socialism.


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2006
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 10:49pm
I'm getting to kind of like being called a "commie", a "socialist" or a "liberal". It differentiates me from the contemptible egotists who post here, you know?

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/meet_the_new_health_.php

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQTBYQlQ7yM

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 11:04pm

>>> Someone's obsessed with Obama. Hint: I don't think it's his supporters.

It must be. The rest of us know he's a charlatan who's WAY out spend his 15 minutes.

>>> PS Your guy is all over the place on the economy.

Actually, he's pretty focused...unlike your guy who's typically absentee.

>>> He will never let us leave Iraq

Google "enduring bases." That'll give you an idea when we're leaving Iraq.

>>> so we can finally focus on catching or killing our real enemy who really was and still is a threat:

Yes, I did hear that Obama wants to invade Pakistan...good thinking.

>>> you know, that guy, that terrorist we never hear about, Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda.

You must mean the guy who's living in a cave out in the middle of nowhere who hasn't been able to attack us in the last 7 years due to the enhanced national security and intelligent gathering under the Bush administration.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Tue, 09-30-2008 - 11:36pm

>>> There is no minimum cost of basic survival? Hmmmmmmmm...yeah, there is.

No, there really isn't. What you want to push is someone's arbitrary assessment.

>>> Why do you think our tax plan has exemptions and such?

Because of liberalism.

>>> Even some of the flat taxers propose exemptions below certain levels... guess why. Disposable income considerations.

I'm all for it...coddle the poor...cut their taxes...just have the government learn to live with less money rather than trying to make it up on the backs of other hard working citizens.

>>> Oh, there is the bloody socialist word again. If you wish to take it that far, any tax is a form of socialism. So is insurance, and social security is an insurance programme.

I'm afraid not. A tax is a payment for products and services, just as insurance is. Social security is a repayment of contributed funds (more or less).

>>> Sheesh. Can't people talk about this stuff without tossing 'commie' and 'socialist' around? Those two words should join 'nazi' as an automatic loss in a debate.

Run away from the words if you can't debate them, but many of Obama's plans ARE socialist by definition, and it's appropriate to identify them as such.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-13-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 7:07am

Right, because liberalism recognises that there is an inherent unequalness in a flat tax rate in a society that recognises the necessity of basic things like food, clothing, and shelter.


You ignore


Full length fiction: worlds undone

"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 9:50am
Yup.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Wed, 10-01-2008 - 1:39pm

>>> Right, because liberalism recognises that there is an inherent unequalness in a flat tax rate in a society that recognises the necessity of basic things like food, clothing, and shelter.

Who's depriving the "poor" guy of his food and shelter? In most cases, I'd say it was the poor guy himself, but for the sake of argument, I have agreed that you can offer an exemption to everyone who makes only enough to pay for their food and shelter...and then also learn to get along with the balance of the money paid by the remaining taxpayers, not try and make it up on the backs of hard working citizens.

>>> You ignore what profit really is, you ignore basic necessities, and think every person should be allowed to fall however far they will fall with no lending hand.

You're free to provide whatever charity you like, or direct collected tax into one social program rather than fix roads or bail out Wall Street or send aid to foreign countries, but it's not "fair" to provide subsistence to some people by taking more from others just because YOU determine that "they" have "enough."

>>> Societies, progressive societies that is, cannot be structured that way. That is third world stuff, not modern society.

Not liberal, socialist, "modern" societies...but they can, in fact, be structured that way. With everyone who can pay, paying their FAIR share...and limiting government to the scope of that amount.

>>> If you wish the right to make huge profits, then the smartest policy to protect that profit is to promote social stability - as we are seeing right now, the government has a huge role to play, because private markets are inherently incapable of self regulation, and everyone must live with the consequences.

Government was responsible for the failures...as was personal irresponsibility. I'm all for culling the herd by letting the chips fall without MORE government interference. And please get off this insipid "social stability" kick. The fact is that if society were to run amok, the rich would protect their assets just like they have throughout history...and such an environment would hurt "the little people" MUCH more than it ever would "the rich."

>>> None of Obama's plans are socialist in the political meaning of the word, but you can argue they are socialist in the pure sense of the word.

They are exactly socialist in every meaning of the word. He/the government wants to take money from the rich and redistribute it to "the poor" to create a "balance" of wealth. That is socialism. He/the government, wants to control, and distribute, healthcare. That is socialism.

>>> So is defence spending that the right loves so dearly. So is this war.

Defense is for the common good, but it isn't socialist. The enlistment is voluntary and the spending comes from a common fund...tax payers are paying for goods and services.

Pages