Granny yells Socialist as Obama enters eatery

[naked gent]

If you don't believe in spreading the wealth then you should support a flat tax.

If you don't support a flat tax then you believe in spreading the wealth.

If your aversion to socialism does not extend to the tax increase most will experience under a flat tax then I'd say your philosophy is located in your wallet and not the empty words you enjoy spouting if not actually meaning.

 

[CoolBlue71]

We may be living in a period where the Republican brand is being destroyed. Not just by the far right, but by an unhinged base and constituency that is poisonous and all about…power.

In reality, the far right comes across as far-out, and they are aware they're on the outs. But they're poorly handling themselves, and giving to their party's image an insane greed.

It is undignified and unacceptable. There are real people in the Republican Party with plenty of good to offer their constituents. (I don't have to agree with them to point this out.) They are keeping their dignity in tact. Those are ones deserving of respect because they are still respectful.

The lethal individuals, who see of no low for one to go, need to look to the future. Their future. Their political party's future. While we are used to seeing political party switches in the White House every eight years (pretty much the average over the last, say, 50 years), this same group brings about potential damage to the following point: The electorate can tire of them, and entrust the competition more with Democrats for three, four, five elections in a row. That may seem crazy. But Republicans won six-in-a-row in 1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, and 1880. Democrats did it five-in-a-row in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, and 1948. Smart Republicans—now the party in the dog house—will not want to risk this happening.

 

[Kulindahr]

Let me just say that if someone calls me a Socialist, I'd take it in stride, because it's a government system that works to eliminate the class system and make everyone equal in power. Now, if someone called me a Stalinist, I'd knock their fucking lights out.

Socialism is NOT an evil government system. To call it that based on the most famous leaders is like saying that the US is a corrupt government based on Nixon and Bush.

So can we stop with this bullshit.

Obama's no more a socialist then McCain is a war profiteer.

Socialism properly speaking is an economic system, not a government one -- in fact it's possible to design a socialist system without any government.

Anyway, technically both Obama and McCain are socialists. I doubt there are more than a couple dozen members of the Senate who aren't socialists -- certainly those who voted for the bailout qualify!


BTW, if someone called me a Stalinist, I'd laugh and reply, "Is that all you got? My niece can insult better than that, and she can't even read!"

 

[Tizinsane]

Go Granny!

 

[Kulindahr]

If you don't believe in spreading the wealth then you should support a flat tax.

If you don't support a flat tax then you believe in spreading the wealth.

If your aversion to socialism does not extend to the tax increase most will experience under a flat tax then I'd say your philosophy is located in your wallet and not the empty words you enjoy spouting if not actually meaning.

If you support ANY tax, you believe in spreading the wealth: you end up paying people to collect, and account for, the tax money. They're getting other people's wealth distributed to them.

 

[naked gent]

I support the Fair Tax. Frankly, anyone who wants the people to have more power should. You can vote via your money that way.

Voting via your money is most appealing to those who have money. Living in a country in which wealth is concentrated it appears you're advocating a diminution of your own voting significance.

It's shocking that the Democrat base isn't more on-board with it. Not shocking is why Dem politicians (and many Reps) aren't. If you depend on the IRS for power, you'll likely be against the Fair Tax.

No need to suggest some unsavory connection when simple self interest will do. Given that our current system is quite progressive for most a true flat tax means a tax increase of anywhere from 25-300%.

Politically such a proposal indicates a disdain for voters as well as the IRS.

 

[Shafted]

"Spread the wealth"...all I'm sayin'.

Yes, let's spread the wealth among the working class, as opposed to the top 1/2 of the economic ladder who spent more money this year than the entire population of Italy.

 

[Spensed]

That's the point. The wealth is already being spread upwards.

- 0.1% earn more than 50%

- 1% own more than 90%

While the middle class collapses, the richest people in this country have made out like bandits and have not had it so good since the 1920s. The top 0.1 percent now earn more money than the bottom 50 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president. In the midst of all of this, Bush lowered taxes on the very rich so that they are paying lower income tax rates than teachers, police officers or nurses.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=303313