Defining Socialism (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
The definition of socialism from page 41 of the Weather Underground’s 1974 manifesto Prairie Fire, courtesy of zombietime:
“Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit. Socialism means control of the productive forces for the good of the whole community instead of the few who live on hilltops and in mansions. Socialism means priorities based on human need instead of corporate greed. Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all.”
The introduction to Prairie Fire was signed by Bill Ayers, who said the book was written for “communist-minded people, independent organizers and anti-imperialists … to all sister and brothers who are engaged in armed struggle against the enemy.”
Compare that with Obama’s economic and tax policies, courtesy of Joe the Plumber:
“Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off [sic] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.“
Socialist soulmates.
UPDATE: Confederate Yankee has more on what Ayers and Dorhn, the leaders of the Weather Underground and authors of Prairie Fire, had in mind for America — re-education camps and the murder of as many as 25 million Americans.
— DRJ
According to an editorial in the Kansas City Star today, socialism is a code-word for black.
JD (6248dc) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:36 pmBarack Obama, the Specter behind the Mask:
http://tinyurl.com/5l8qyg
Soul (348d61) — 10/22/2008 @ 8:59 pmHow nice all you “capitalists” can gather on the government-funded, government-run internet to whine about “socialism.”
Years before the far right develops a sense of irony?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:02 pmsniffles – I thought you were more worried about Gov. Palin’s clothes.
JD (6248dc) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:04 pmI forgot, that story about her clothes, which led off on all of the Leftist shows tonight, is a distraction designed to take your attention away from the incredible words of Baracky’s running mate, Joe Biden.
JD (6248dc) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:05 pmSeems as though Baracky and Joe run into problems when they are speaking at fundraisers.
JD (6248dc) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:06 pmJohn McCain, in his first run for the White House, was asked why rich people have to
pay higher tax rates:
If that’s not “share the wealth,” what possibly qualifies?
steve (a2b623) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:07 pmsniffles shifts the discussion because she doesn’t know anything about taxes or the economy and socialism and communism have too many letters in them to type.
– Yawn –
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:10 pmDRJ – OT, but if you haven’t read the poece in the NY Times today about ACORN you should. As a lawyer you will appreciate what a smoking gun it appears to be, at least from my reading.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:12 pmSo this is what desperation looks like.
Very, very sad.
Winger (b8c7e2) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:24 pmThanks, daley, and I agree it’s an important story. I hope WLS or Karl post on it because they’re better at subjects like that and, to be perfectly honest, I’m lazy.
PS to winger – Maybe laziness looks like desperation. I dunno but I feel better about this election than I have in awhile.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:25 pmDRJ – to be perfectly honest, I’m lazy.
If the entire world was as lazy as you are, the Presidential debates would have revolved around how boring utopia turned out to be.
Apogee (366e8b) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:30 pmThe real reason to oppose socialism is that it is slavery. If I do not control the fruits of my labor I am a slave.
What does Barry have to say to that?
IncPens (fdb917) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:46 pmI agree– socialism is a code-word for black, in that socialism is slavery.
Every thinking man who is free in his soul should oppose slavery.
IncPens (fdb917) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:47 pm“Socialism creates the conditions for a decent and creative quality of life for all.” Someone point me to the country that meets this propaganda statement today or in history. Socialism has only managed to turn productive countries with a good life style, for anyone willing to work for it, into third world crap holes. Ayers and Hussein O may be educated (if you can call anyone with a piece of paper from a liberal college educated) but they are really stupid.
Scrapiron (d4a22f) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:54 pmSo does hard evidence like this change the left’s meme that Ayers was not really a terrorist. He was just another person among a lot of people who were protesting an unpopular war and his group unfortunately chose to take their protests a little too far. He’s not unpatriotic. He’s not against the democratic ideals and freedoms upon which this country was founded.
I’ll stick my neck out and say yes. Being a communist sort of conflicts in basic ways with the democratic priciples of this country. Sorry folks. He was supporting violent overthrow of the government in principle, not just because of the war. Free speech, voting, the American Dream, would those all disappear in Ayers’ utopian America? How many communist countries have you seen them exist in?
Hey, they can always trot out the excuse that it was never done the right way. I’m sure glasnost will be along to try something along those lines. I can envision the chapter in the Obama/Ayers world history texts now:
Russia: 70 Years of Bad Harvests – How Manmade Global Warming Ruined A Glorious Experiment In Self-Governance
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/22/2008 @ 9:55 pmdaley,
I understand enough about socialism to know that few lawyers get by without a paycheck from the government.
To the right, “socialism” means any government program not enriching them personally.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:07 pmTo the left, “capitalism” means any part of commerce where the government doesn’t overtly call the shots or collect the lion’s share of the bounty.
JVW (091fe0) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:11 pmSeems as though Baracky and Joe run into problems when they are speaking at fundraisers.
bob (919e95) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:11 pmThere, JD. Fixed it for ya.
And by “government” I mean to say “trial lawyers” and “community activists.”
JVW (091fe0) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:12 pmDamn thing didn’t take the strike.
Tryin’ again.
Seems as though Baracky and Joe run into problems when they are speaking.
Now it’s fixed.
bob (919e95) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:12 pmbob,
The strike code doesn’t work because you have to spell out strike instead of using a single “s.” Thus, instead of this:
do this:
and omit the spaces.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:16 pmsnuffles – You need remedial socialism and capitalism.
To the left, “socialism” means any government program which is enriching them personally. This is good. The bigger and more the better. Obama promises a lot, a whole shitload, of this.
To the left, “socialism” means any non-government activity not enriching them personally. These are obviously not good. Obama intends to regulate the fuck out of them, tax them out of existence, or force them to locate overseas, in spite of his smooth sounding rhetoric. That will leave nobody to pay for his socialist programs above. It’s guaranteed failure.
K. Glad I could help.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:32 pmSnuffles – Second paragraph should read capitalism!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:33 pmDaley,
Talk about projection.
How do you guys know what Obama’s going to do?
Most of America agrees: he can’t possibly do worse than the Republicans did when they were in charge.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/22/2008 @ 10:53 pmOh, the Left can always do worse.
Think Jimmah Carter.
Think of the wonderful world that LBJ left us.
Think of New York City under Dinkins.
Think of the wonderful social insights of Jack Murtha.
Oh Yes, the Left can, and will, do worse!
Another Drew (6eea17) — 10/22/2008 @ 11:21 pm“How do you guys know what Obama’s going to do?”
sniffles – He’s spelled it out in his freaking platform.
Go ahead and talk about projection if you want, Patterico isn’t censoeing you.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 12:06 amObama’s platform is to raise the top two tax brackets back to where Ronald Reagan set them.
Are you guys in the Empty Slogan Chanting Right now labeling Ronald Reagan a socialist, daley?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/23/2008 @ 12:49 amsnuffles, I think you’re too young to understand. Are you seriously trying to call Reagan a socialist? Really?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 1:35 amSocialism: an economic system that nobody on Patterico’s (pitiful) Pontifications knows anything about. (n)
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/perverted-idea-fairness
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:18 amSocialism: an economic system that nobody on Patterico’s (pitiful) Pontifications knows anything about. (n)
I would have linked a website here, but for some reason this crud-hopper site won’t let outsiders do that.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:19 amBecause he told us. And then all his helpers tried to distract us from it by “vetting” a plumber.
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:29 amWhat would you say if Obama wanted to raise taxes on domestic oil drillers in order to mail checks to every American so that they could share in the wealth of our resources?
Sarah Palin did that. But, you’re going to defend that policy because of the ‘R’ after her name. Go on, tell me why that policy is okay… I am waiting patiently.
Or am I going to get a good old “you’re an a-hole” or “this guy is just a troll” from dmac, JD, or daleyrocks, thereby skirting the issue entirely?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:37 amThe difference perhaps is that Palin is governor and was negotiating a better deal for her constituents against oil companies that likely were heavily influenced by the corrupt pols she ousted. Obama is not going to be negotiating. He’ll have his corrupt Reid/Pelosi pushing legislation for crap like windfall profits taxes. Of course the resultant increased prices will be passed on to the consumers all along the line. Obama has said he wants to discourage the use of “dirty” fossil fuels. Somehow I doubt that people like the Obama, algore, lurch or the breck girl will be decreasing their own usage of electric, limos and private jets. So amusing that algore’s Tenn. digs use something like 21 times more power than the normal citizen does. It is do as I say, not as I do. Kind of like the liberal call for free speech, but only for liberals.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/23/2008 @ 4:08 amAre people really that clueless about what is happening? Obama and the dems are opposed to drilling offshore. China has no problem drilling in the Florida straits with blessing of Cuba. Obama does not want the US buying any output from the Canadians’ oil shale production. Canada has already said they’d be more than happy to export their product to China. It isn’t brain surgery. And yes, tnj remains a mere pimple on obama’s ass.
So those high prices were passed on to the American consumer to the advantage of only Alaskan citizens under Palin, and that is a better situation? Nice reasoning.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 5:30 amThanks, DBJ. Appreciate it.
bob (919e95) — 10/23/2008 @ 5:44 amHey dipwad- why won’t your liberal legislators beholding to the green wackos allow opening up of ANWR? That would increase domestic supplies down the road and lower futures prices now? Where were you when Houston and Texas in general was suffering from oil prices around $10 a gallon around 1980?
Your ilk wants to nationalize the oil industry a la Hugo Chavez. As if the government wouldn’t run the industry into the ground with incompetent liberal drone management. Alaska citizens were deriving income from the oil trusts for a quite a few years. What with the price of oil rising, why shouldn’t Palin have negotiated better terms? I thought she was a stupid c*** who had NO experience, hobnobbed with the rest of the crooked Rethugs and was a disgrace to the ticket?
The fact is that your govt. at every level taxes oil to the extent that taxes are much more than actual profits and the oil industry has lower profit margins that other industries. The dividends go out to the widows and orphans and other investors. What you libtard fools want is for people to use much less energy or at least pay far more while India and China use as much as they desire for future economic growth. Dems would only diminish domestic exploration and have blocked building new refineries for over 30 years plus are also down on any new nuclear power plants, despite the much beloved socialists in Fwance being happy to make use of nuke power to supply much of their electricity needs.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/23/2008 @ 6:10 amWe will see the same BS with the drug industry. Why would they seek out new drugs if govt. wants to put brakes on spending? Most drugs fail in long trials and someone has to absorb the costs, no?
tnj, Alaska has an enormous budget surplus. What do you suggest should be done with their oil royalties? Should they be cut so that oil companies don’t have to pay the state for taking the oil Alaska (and Alaskans) own? Or, once Alaska has its bills paid, should the state’s excess money be returned to the people who own it, Alaskans?
Or, maybe you think it should just be handed over to California, because they need it, but can’t bear any of that awful oil drilling.
What should be done here, in your estimation? Do you have a reasonable solution, or just complaints?
Pablo (99243e) — 10/23/2008 @ 6:31 amNo, any oil producing state (or landholder) benefits from higher prices. Or from being able to produce more oil.
What’s your solution here?
Pablo (99243e) — 10/23/2008 @ 6:32 amPablo… you are basically defining socialism/communism for me. Thanks! Should we vote for Palin the commie or Obama the (not so) socialist?
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:32 amSocialism: an economic system that nobody on Patterico’s (pitiful) Pontifications knows anything about. (n)
I would have linked a website here, but for some reason this crud-hopper site won’t let outsiders do that.
Comment by truthnjustice
Then he writes this:
So those high prices were passed on to the American consumer to the advantage of only Alaskan citizens under Palin, and that is a better situation? Nice reasoning.
Comment by truthnjustice
So you don’t understand socialism, yourself !
The residents of the state of Alaska own the mineral rights from which oil is taken. The same is true of the city of Long Beach, California. The state of Alaska returns a share of the oil revenue to the residents in the form of a check. The city of Long Beach builds grandiose monuments to itself and to the politicians who vote on the projects.
Which system is socialism ? The one that returns the money to the people so they can choose their own uses for it ?
Or the one that spends money by politicians who decide what will be done ?
I can’t think of a more clear definition of socialism with examples.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:34 amOr am I going to get a good old “you’re an a-hole” or “this guy is just a troll” from dmac, JD, or daleyrocks, thereby skirting the issue entirely?
No, the issue for us is this little rant you posted earlier, which you’ve apparently wished down the memory hole in your backside:
None of you can claim to be the responsible, thoughtful republicans. Ninety-five percent of the people that comment on here are raging, babbling, psychotic, homoerotic, clowns. Obama is a terrorist, racist, communist, socialist, white supremecist, catholic, muslim, jew… I think I have read it all on here.
Now, at long last, after repeated postings of this rant, please explain whom among us is prone to name – calling and “skirting the issue?”
Dmac (e30284) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:47 amSo you’re saying that taxing a business and passing out checks under Palin is okay (not socialism) and Obama’s tax plan, which was to roll back the tax cuts that Bush enacted (McCain himself supported this) is not? You can argue it any way you’d like, but to me it smells of hypocrisy.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:48 amdmac- commenting on your own rants is not actually ranting.
Remember the lawyer in the OJ case who brought up Furman’s use of the ‘n’ word? Well, because the lawyer himself had to introduce the word to set the context of the discussion, does that make him a racist? You don’t have to answer, its a rhetorical question… just stew on it.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:51 amNo, I’m not by any stretch of the imagination. And you’re not answering my question. Let me repeat it, and you can try again.
As for socialism, Ayers’ definition works just fine.
Wrong. What Palin did is to say that the property of the state belongs to the people, and that they are entitled to it. What Obama says is that the property of the people belongs to the state and that the state is entitled to it. Those are very different views of the common good, and the latter is socialism.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:52 amThat comment is going to be tied to your backside every time you accuse others of posting thoughts you deem unacceptable. Count on it. Every time.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:09 amdmac: Which comment would that be? The one in which I poked a hole in Palin’s tax and redistribute plan or the one in which I claimed I wasn’t ranting by simply suggesting that you were?
How about McCain busting out the ‘c’ word at a rally the other day? Or during the speech when he suggested he despised Western Pennsylvania? I have to hand it to you republicats, you sure know how to make a mockery of an election.
Pablo: Is it my job to come up with solutiosn for your party’s platform? This should have been weeks (months) ago. I guess the GOP should have spent more time formulating an actual game plan other than ‘mention Ayers’. But, I am obviously not against taxation, but with ailin’ the mavericky maverick palin’s socialism and wealth redistribution charges being thrown it seems awfully hypocritical of her.
The socialism charge is all used up. So is Ayers. What is fun, though, is seeing Palin continually showing how misinformed she is about the actual duties of the VP. Didn’t anybody explain to her the job description? She thinks she’ll be IN CHARGE of the senate? Wow… just… wow. Fifty-five percent of Americans think she’s unqualified to be president. Close to fifty-two think Obama is qualified and are willing to vote for him. You’re boy is in trouble.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:47 amThis is who you are debating with folks. It is like trying to have a discussion with Phil, or being stalked by he who must not be named.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:54 amInteresting excerpt from an article… Socialists themselves claim Obama isn’t one.
“Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist,” said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “I think it’s hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks.”
And this from Bruce Carruthers, a sociology professor at Northwestern University: “Obama is like a center-liberal Democrat, and he is certainly not looking to overthrow capitalism. My goodness, he wouldn’t have the support of someone like The Wizard of Omaha, Warren Buffet, if he truly was going to overthrow capitalism.”
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:55 amtnj – Why do you keep getting trapped by your own hypocrisy?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:55 amThat is an incredibly simplistic view of Baracky’s tax plan, and ignores all of the refundable credits, and his desire to spread the wealth.
This stat might mean something, were they running against each other. It is good to know that the Dems think their Presidential candidate is more qualified that the R’s VP candidate.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:58 amThat argument makes no sense JD. It is circular logic.
“He is a totally illogical and biased person because he suggested I am illogical and biased.”
Dissect that one for me, use mathematical boolean operators.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:58 amSo, if we let the actual people in a party get to decide who is members, then Baracky was a member of The New Party when he ran for Illinois Senate?
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:59 amWhich one? The one where you ignore the foundation of Baracky’s tax plan, or the one where you compare the Dem Presidential candidate to the R’s VP candidate?
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:01 amThe hard copy of literature depicting Obama as a member of the socialist New Party member in 1996 has finally surfaced and you can see them here with your own eyes.
Official Internet Data Office (e53e3b) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:01 amThese are assertions you made. Your words. As Dmac said, wear them proudly.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:02 amOIDO – It is racist of you to point that out.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:02 amWell, if you want to compare Rush McCain to Barack… Obama seems to be able to keep his language clean at his rallies.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:06 amThe hard copy of literature depicting Obama as a member of the socialist New Party in 1996 has finally surfaced and you can see them here with your own eyes.
Official Internet Data Office (e53e3b) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:06 amI stand by them. You people are clowns.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:06 amtnj – You’re looking like a pretzel again. Get help!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:20 amI would have linked a website here, but for some reason this crud-hopper site won’t let outsiders do that.
Comment by truthnjustice — 10/23/2008 @ 3:19 am
So, Leave!
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:22 amAnd let the inmates run the asylum?
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:31 amFound this, couldn’t have said it better myself…
Calling Obama a “socialist” simply isn’t logical. He doesn’t share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government or even taken over by the workers as many American Marxists espouse. He may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn’t want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants “capitalism with a human face.” He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism.
I detest conservatives throwing around the words “socialism” and “Marxism” when it comes to Obama as much as I get angry when idiot liberals toss around the word “fascist” when describing conservatives. I’m sorry but this is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism represent as well as an ignorance of simple definitions. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not as president, require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies (unless it is negotiated between unions and management. It is not unheard of in this country and the practice may become more common in these perilous economic times.).
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:34 amComment by truthnjustice — 10/23/2008 @ 9:34 am
If you use another’s words, you have a moral and ethical responsibility to credit those words to them.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:36 amCite please.
Since you said please… Rick Moran.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:38 amAgain, because I can’t post actual links on here I am forced to do that.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:39 amOh, you’re on the public library computer. Who the hell is Rick
Official Internet Data Office (e53e3b) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:41 amMoronMoran?Chew on that.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:41 amIllinois Obama 61% McCain 32%
Indiana Obama 51% McCain 41%
Iowa Obama 52% McCain 39%
Michigan Obama 58% McCain 36%
Minnesota Obama 57% McCain 38%
Ohio Obama 53% McCain 41%
Pennsylvania Obama 52% McCain 41%
Wisconsin Obama 53% McCain 40%
from battleground. 🙂 have a nice day!
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:41 amSo you’re saying that taxing a business and passing out checks under Palin is okay (not socialism) and Obama’s tax plan, which was to roll back the tax cuts that Bush enacted (McCain himself supported this) is not? You can argue it any way you’d like, but to me it smells of hypocrisy.
Comment by truthnjustice
You still don’t get it. I think the comment about links may give you away. What computer won’t let you use links ? Not this site because I post them all the time. I think you are using the computer lab in your junior high school. Certainly the logic you use, or lack of it, suggests an adolescent mind.
I think we have another teenage troll, folks.
Take a civic course and come back. A looong civics class.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:48 amHa. I am 28. Try again? I hope you’re not a criminal profiler. I am smarter than you.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:49 amBTW, “you still don’t get it” was by no means a counterpoint. You offered nothing.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:50 amHa. I am 28. Try again? I hope you’re not a criminal profiler. I am smarter than you.
Let us know when you get that GED!
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 9:58 amNobody said he would. He will just tax the holy hell out of it.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:00 amYou just posted fabricated nonsense.
The Battleground Poll from George Washington University (recognized as the #1 most accurate poll in predicting results of the 2004 election) doesn’t publish individual state results.
In any event, when you have no links, you have no argument, anyway.
Official Internet Data Office (e53e3b) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:04 amIt’s funny because the post you take that quote from sums up thusly:
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:06 amNobody said he would. He will just tax the holy hell out of it.
I, for one (and I think I’m speaking for a lot of other very-small businessmen) can predict that it will be a very cold day in Hell before I show any profit on my bottom line.
Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama! You have just enriched the accountants of America – now you can tax the Hell out of them.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:07 amDesatio. Are you going to cite that post or are you going to burn your ethics and morality at the door?
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:09 amAnother Drew… at least your honest, unethical as hell, but honest. Congrats. Your mommy would be proud… sort of.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:10 amtmj – CW did cite the post, you imbecile. That is what that link thing was.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:11 amComment by CW Desiato — 10/23/2008 @ 10:06 am
Another example of the intellectual honesty of the trolls who infest our tide-pool.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:11 amIs it any wonder they are reluctant to cite their sources?
I meant from battleground states. The battleground poll org is a conservative ‘we wish this were true’ type of deal.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:11 amIllinois Obama 61% McCain 32%
Indiana Obama 51% McCain 41%
Iowa Obama 52% McCain 39%
Michigan Obama 58% McCain 36%
Minnesota Obama 57% McCain 38%
Ohio Obama 53% McCain 41%
Pennsylvania Obama 52% McCain 41%
Wisconsin Obama 53% McCain 40%
from battleground STATES. Enjoy! Have a nice day!
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:12 amComment by truthnjustice — 10/23/2008 @ 10:10 am
You need to come here and say such things to my face.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:14 amHowever, please be sure to complete the neccessities beforehand.
I’m not the easy-going guy that JD is, you might need to work on your inter-personal skills with me.
Comment by truthnjustice — 10/23/2008 @ 10:10 am
Also, you need to work on your syntax too.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:16 amAD – It is what we thought it is, a mendoucheous little troll.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:16 amConsider getting your “POWER READING AND COMPREHENSION CORRESPONDENCE COURSE / RAISING FROGS FOR FUN AND PROFIT” money back.
I posted the link in the first sentence I typed.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:19 amComment by JD — 10/23/2008 @ 10:16 am
I have to think that “we” would be standing at the end of a very long line that has formed for the express intent of adding an “ex” to “mendoucheous little troll“.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:27 amGo ahead and post your address and I’ll be there, Drew #2.
Now that I have succeeded in proving that Obama is not a socialist and you are either lying or simply don’t know the definition, I will move on to other boards.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:28 amAll that you have “proven” is that you can spit out talking points.
But it is SOP for trolls to declare victory and scurry back underneath their rocks when called on their asshattery.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:34 amComment by truthnjustice — 10/23/2008 @ 10:28 am
If you’re serious, ask PP. He has my address, and my permission (with this comment) to give it to you. I welcome the opportunity to bring closure to this matter.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:42 amSounds like a threat.
You done no such thing.
They’re not and do.
After your embarrassing exhibition of reading skills, I understand.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:48 amSocialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
wikipedia. Obama has offered no such plan. He does advocate for equal opportunity. Are you against equal opportunity?
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:53 amNo, he does not even advocate for equal opportunity. He said he would spread the wealth/opportunity/other people’s money. Get your talking points straight.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 10:59 amComment by steve — 10/22/2008 @ 9:07 pm:
I don’t know the context of your McCain quote but I think there is a difference between progressive taxation and redistribution.
The US taxes people at different rates and while flat taxers don’t like the progressive nature of our tax code, the revenues are generally used to fund government projects and programs. The problem with Obama’s policies is that he wants to redistribute taxes to spread the wealth to specific people. This started with the EIC but Obama wants to take it to dramatically new levels.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/23/2008 @ 11:02 amtruthnjustice,
I take it that you reject Bill Ayers’ definition of socialism?
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/23/2008 @ 11:05 amDRJ – It ran out of tokens. It will be back later, after someone else has their turn. However, do not for one moment, believe that it will look at anything other than wikipedia for its positions. Maybe some talking points from TPM …
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 11:07 amComment by JD — 10/23/2008 @ 11:07 am
It can come by here and I’ll impress some very distinctive definitions of socialism upon it
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 11:12 am(though I’ll have to clear them with my Mommy first).
I keep seeing this progressive taxation = socialism idea here. As the Weather Underground said:
So, to fit that definition for socialism, one must establish a ruling class made up solely of the working class, abolish profits, and nationalize ALL industries–I think the Mormon colonization of Utah is a good example of that. To say that “spreading the wealth around” is the very same thing thing is absolutely preposterous. You might call it vaguely socialistic, as Karl Marx supported a progressive tax, but so did Adam Smith in The Weath of Nations:
McCain also supported such an idea in the recent past (around 2000):
Russell (9fcb7a) — 10/23/2008 @ 11:45 amJD-cite a source/video of him saying that, specifically, he is not looking for equal opportunity but to spread the wealth, otherwise it didn’t happen.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 12:15 pmAhem…
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/23/2008 @ 12:18 pmI moved on. I am back now. Enjoy me while you can. After the 4th I will allow myself just a bit of gloating then it is on to bigger and better things.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 12:23 pmNo video? Weird. Another in a long line of commentary that has not been backed up on good old Patterico.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 1:03 pmHere’s some real Socialism from the Democrats for you: a plan in the House of Representatives to nationalize your 401k and abolish the tax-deferred feature!
Official Internet Data Office (e53e3b) — 10/23/2008 @ 1:04 pmIt seems to be the way Argentina’s going as well.
I’m gonna have to put my retirement in “First Box Spring of California King.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/23/2008 @ 1:09 pmAgain, because I can’t post actual links on here I am forced to do that.
At least we got to the truth of the matter – once you’ve been outed on this issue, you’re basically done here. No one with any credibility doesn’t have the minimal skills necessary to post links.
After the 4th I will allow myself just a bit of gloating then it is on to bigger and better things.
Did that Cabana Boy job just open up at Gleenwald’s place?
Dmac (e30284) — 10/23/2008 @ 1:34 pmtruthnjustice:
Obama said spread the wealth. I blogged about it here and included a link to video.
I’m tired of your games so you have two choices: Pay attention to what others say before you post a comment or take a time out. As for your problems with links, it’s a problem everyone has. Some comments/links will end up in the filter but they will be rescued eventually. In the meantime, you can work on your patience.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/23/2008 @ 2:05 pmI’ve updated the post with a link to Confederate Yankee’s post on the Weather Underground’s plans for capitalists.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/23/2008 @ 2:13 pm“…re-education camps and the murder of as many as 25 million Americans.”
I wonder who they’re planning on having enforce that plan?
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 2:18 pmThey better bring lot’s of body-bags (and not for the aforementioned 25M)!
Yes… For them…
Scott Jacobs (89480a) — 10/23/2008 @ 2:20 pmI’m tired of your games so you have two choices:
FWIW, we’re all tired of the poseur’s games at this point.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/23/2008 @ 2:20 pmtnj and Russell – The Democrats have threatened to nationalize the oil industry. Obama wants single payer health care ultimately. Those would both be means to rationing, planning production of large segments of outr economy. Your quibbling with definitions is amusing but fundamentally as dishonest as Obama in discussing his past. Did euroweenie countries that are considered socialist or quasisocialist have “overthrows” of the legitimate government by the people? Get a life!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 2:44 pmOkay, but you just typing out ‘the democrats have threatened….’ blah blah blah does not actually make it true, nor does it prove that Obama himself explicitely stated this. I can write “daleyrocks’ family takes inappropriate photos of each other and makes china from the images for use at Thanksgiving dinner” but it doesn’t necessarily make it true.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:24 pmI find it interesting that nobody directly responded to Russell’s comment. Very good, Russell! Nobody wants to tackle comment 100? Probably because there isn’t much to defend; the McCain of 2000 wouldn’t support or even vote for the McCain of 2008.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:32 pmSocial security, medicaid, medicare, those are all programs that have been espoused by both parties in some form or another. Are GOPers that want to continue social security socialists now?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:35 pmtruthnjustice,
Either accept that there are degrees of socialism or stick with your apparent claims that socialism doesn’t exist except in a pure state. You keep going back and forth. Furthermore, I addressed the difference between progressive taxation and socialism in comment 96, before Russell even left his comment 100. I assumed there was no need to duplicate my comment, but it’s becoming painfully clear that you don’t read all the comments here.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:42 pm“Are GOPers that want to continue social security socialists now?”
tnj – I think the ones who want to preserve an established program in a different form going forward, private accounts, cannot be labeled as such.
What do you think? Do you ever venture opinions?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:45 pmtmj @ #101 – Have you not seen the Joe the Plumber question where Baracky specifically indicates that he would “spread the wealth”? After 5 days of criticism, he has now changed to spread the opportunity.
Except when he actually stated those exact words !!!!!!!!!! The Leftist will freaking lie about anything.
Funny you should mention those. They will all be pummelled by Baracky’s taxation welfare plan.
JD (6248dc) — 10/23/2008 @ 3:52 pmexcellent polemical exercise aimed at the Undecided voters by Neal Boortz:
http://boortz.com/nuze/undecided.html
He even takes the GOP to task for losing their way. I don’t see that McCain will be all that much a blessing as Potus. The potential for a filibuster proof Senate means the libs can ride roughshod like they did under FDR and LBJ…more of the BS agencies and programs that we’ve learned to loathe.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/23/2008 @ 4:13 pmOk, first of all, this is moving the goalposts, because DRJ’s original point was that the Weather Underground and Obama are “socialist soulmates.” In order for that to be true, it must fit with the quote she gives, not to some version of socialism redefined by you as national health insurance and nationalizing the oil industry.
Second, show me where Obama has threatened to nationalize the oil industry. Remember, the original point was about Obama and the Weather Underground.
Third, “euroweenie” countries are not “considered socialist.” I think the use of the passive voice is telling when you’re making such a ridiculous claim. Words have meanings, and you can’t just erase a theoretical discussion by calling it “quibbling with definitions.”
Russell (9fcb7a) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:02 pmYou know what Russell?
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:20 pmNobody gives a good crap what you think about anything.
Have a nice day.
Russell,
The Prairie Fire definition of socialism puts the good of the many above the good of the few. Similarly, Obama wants to spread the wealth from the few to the many. I’m sure you see the parallel.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:28 pmJoe the plumber is a complete and total fraud. Do you know how much a company that makes over 250k a year would sell for? All my sources say AT LEAST 2-3 million bucks. Since when is a plumber producing that kind of coin? Does he plan to save for 75 years before making that purchase? He darted to Obama pissed off at the world and determined to make a point. He didn’t make it. Americans don’t care about Joe the plumber. They are choking on him. Let them spit him out to the tiny little poop-hole he’s from.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 7:58 pmI thought it said it was leaving …
Russell – Do you agree with Ayers definition of socialism?
It was Dem members of Congress, not Baracky, that threatened to nationalize the oil business.
I see that tmj is off its meds …
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:09 pmtruthnjustice, actually you are the fraud. First you are confused about how to value businesses, and second you are confused about revenue versus profit. Different kinds of business are valued in different ways. In some businesses, with little capital but requiring a lot of owner labor, a business might sell for as little as one or two years revenues. In other forms of business with different capital to revenue ratios, and more passive forms of income, the multiple would be more.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:13 pmNot only off his meds, but completely divorced from reality.
Earth to tnj: BarackObambi came to Joe’s front yard and approached him. Joe was just having a game of catch with his son.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:15 pmThe amusing part about that is that Joe the skinhead plumber doesn’t know that Obama’s plan would actually get him to that goal of owning his own company much faster with his tax cuts.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:16 pmtruthnjustice, no it would not.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:19 pmAD – tmj is not the least bit concerned with the facts.
Only the ones that submit their wills to Teh Messiah will be spared.
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:19 pmYou’re right, the people I talked to, who actually own plumbing companies, must not know what their companies are worth. That makes sense… them not knowing the worth of their companies, you know, for insurance purposes and all. I am going to call these gentlemen first thing in the morning and tell them that these two blog posters disagree with the value of their companies. They are both going to be devastated.
Secondly, I have seen the video and Joe darted through a large crowd to confront Obama. I am not even going to debate this because I have seen the f-ing video. It’s not like Obama was on a street alone and happened to see this guy.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:20 pmtruthnjustice, I’ve actually conducted sales of such businesses. Rather than talked to my cousin’s uncle’s hair dresser’s retarded boyfriend about it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:22 pmThe only plumber that you know is the plumber’s crack.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:22 pmSince you have obviously not watched the entire video, I recommend doing that before testafying as an expert on it. Comprende?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:22 pmNicht verstayenzie!
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:24 pmIf you know of anybody selling a 250K a year business for 250K, tell them I am interested in buying it… now. Otherwise, I would be awfully curious how a 40k a year plumber saves up enough to purchase this business. And secondly, a 40k worker gets a tax break under Obama, so he can save up a lot quicker under Obama’s plan. Are you stupid? Have you not seen the comparisons? How on earth can a guy save up more money with no tax cut (McCain’s plan) than with one (Obama’s). That is a plain nonsensical argument.
Got any other whoppers? Like, voting for Obama will make more people gay? Or, only small-town America counts as real America?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:26 pmChicago Boys has an interesting response from someone who maps out a detailed Obama/ Ayers/ banking scheme. Excerpt:
more….
Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:35 pmtruthnjustice, I have seen Obama’s claims for his tax plan. And I’ve seen real analysis of his tax plan by tax professors who reveal how much of it is a fraud, where Obama continues existing tax rates but because they are set to expire, claims continuing them as “cuts”.
But that takes actually understanding tax policy, something you’ve already shown you are not capable of doing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:35 pmtruthnjustice,
I think a small business owner of a 2-3 person plumbing firm would be more likely to sell his business to an employee. The employee would either borrow money to purchase the business or make payments to the previous owner over time.
Valuation for the purposes of a sale is generally based on a percentage of annual revenues plus inventory, equipment, and goodwill. It seems to me a 2-man plumbing business could easily have annual revenues in excess of $250,000: 2 men x 8 hrs/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year x $75/hour = $300,000.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:37 pmAnd the part not to miss:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6350.html#comment-275523
Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:38 pmComment by Vermont Neighbor — 10/23/2008 @ 8:38 pm
A frightening thought, that.
If this comes to pass, there will be anarchy.
Dick the Butcher said: First thing, we’ll kill all the lawyers.
Another Drew (b4e6e5) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:46 pmThis time, we’ll start with the journo’s.
DRJ–you’re forgetting that plumbers have to travel between jobs, which means the employee won’t produce 40 hours of revenue a week, unless he gets paid proportionate overtime. (The owner/plumber presumably doesn’t bother about how much overtime he works.) Also you need to deduct from that salaries and expenses (such as the vehicles used to travel between jobs). A revenue producer would the profit from parts sold as part of an individual job (Mrs. X, you’ll need a new thingummy for that leaky toilet. I can get you one for only $50 dollars.) But I think a two man business would stay under the 250K limit, unless they have a real lousy accountant. The way I figured it, you would need a three man outfit to get $300k.
kishnevi (830204) — 10/23/2008 @ 8:52 pmDRJ… I found this on go politico. I think you’ve been beaten, sir. In fact, Obama’s plan taxes PROFITS, not REVENUE.
Business Tax is on Profit, Not Revenue
Obama’s tax plan is coming under some scrutiny after Joe the Plumber became the centerpiece of John McCain’s debate. I just want to make an important distinction that I think many people are missing.
My friend recently reminded me that the business tax about which Obama spoke with Joe the Plumber would apply only to Profits of the business, not the Revenue. Very few small business have profits of 250K per year, after paying the owner’s salary.
Expense, interpreted broadly by the IRS, allows a business owner to include his or her own salary in expenses, which are not taxed. So there is almost no incentive for a business to show a profit, unless they really want to show a profit. The vast majority of business owners take whatever profit they make as salary, leaving very little profit of the business to be taxed.
UPDATE: As ABC news points out, Joe the Plumber would actually be getting a tax cut under Obama’s plan!
I just want to address the idea that the NYT was quoting Obama. Clearly Obama mispoke and said revenue, when he meant profit, but that does not relieve the news media of its responsibility to point out the facts. The fact is that no tax plan taxes business revenue. Obama is a Harvard Law Graduate, I think he knows this. He mispoke, but that does not mean that the tax plan would tax revenue. It simply means Obama mispoke.
So maybe he misspoke. I think we can grant him that considering McCain is going around yelling out vulgar terms for lady-parts (instead of ‘cut’) at his rallies, can’t we? To borrow a phrase, “yes we can”. 🙂
I know it would fit your argument better if Obama was taxing revenue, but he’s not. You lose. Want to try some new math? Maybe some with 10-15 employees valued at say, 2-3 million dollars?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 3:06 amComment by Another Drew
I believe Another Drew even confirms it. Senator Obama’s tax plan, if I may infer from Drew’s “I am going to cheat on my taxes” statement, taxes businesses with profits of over 250k. Beaten by your compadre’s own words. Busted.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 3:35 amThe fact is that no tax plan taxes business revenue. Obama is a Harvard Law Graduate, I think he knows this.
Misspoke is the new Leftist phrase for “Oops, I accidentally told the truth”.
tmj – Being a Harvard Law School grad in no way reflects on his ability to know tax codes.
You may infer no such thing. Seeing as though he did not say that.
And, declaring yourself the victor after a dishonest argument does not, in fact, make you the victor.
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/24/2008 @ 5:17 amtmj – You can believe in unicorns and leprechauns, but that will not make them real.
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/24/2008 @ 5:18 amInference is one of the most important literary tools. You should should know about tools, being from the same family and all. The fact is that all of the statements made by the conserva-crazies on this site have to be labeled logically flawed conjecture at best… and downright lies and make believe at worst. Which one of those are you going to admit to?
What else would Drew’s “creative accounting” be labled as if not for tax cheating? I am a little disappointed that you are not coming down on this statement, considering you’re the party of black and white truth, and hellfire and brimstone.
You can put lipstick on a pitbull, but that doesn’t make it a good VP. Eh, guys? Eh?
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/24/2008 @ 8:35 amJD… seriously? The statement you picked out and italicized in your comment 145 further proves my point concerning Obama’s tax plan. The only comment you had concerning this was that he misspoke? Yeah, so? Are you suggesting that McCain meant to call Western Pennsylvania deserving of the disgust that apparently exists from the rest of the country (I personally don’t mind Western PA-I think he was pandering)? Is a verbal misstep okay for McCain and not for Obama? Seems awfully hypocritical to me.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/24/2008 @ 8:40 am“Clearly Obama mispoke and said revenue, when he meant profit, but that does not relieve the news media of its responsibility to point out the facts.”
tnj – Clearly the easiest way to resolve the issue is to refer directly to Obama’s plan on his website rather than an interpretation from a media source. Any dishonest libtard troll worth their verbal diarrhea knows that. Why don’t you fetch us a source link directly from Obama cupcake? Maybe then your comment might be worth some attention.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/24/2008 @ 8:48 amNo. Don’t call me cupcake then ask me for a favor. You go to his website and fetch the information you obnoxous booger-eater.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/24/2008 @ 9:08 amComment by truthnjustice — 10/24/2008 @ 3:35 am
No, I don’t confirm that.
What I do confirm is that I will structure my business in such a way as to take every advantage of the existing tax codes to maximize legal deductions, and minimize reported gross receipts, to minimize, or eliminate, any reported profit.
You, like all dishonest Liberals (redundancy alert) attempt to argue a point I didn’t make; therefore, that makes you a LIAR!
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 9:09 am“Don’t call me cupcake then ask me for a favor.”
tnj – Get the order right. I made the suggestion that you do something to give yourself a shred of credibility THEN called you cupcake. Get it right, sport.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 10/24/2008 @ 9:15 amYou don’t have to explicitely state that you’re going to cheat on your taxes to be guilty of it. The fact that you wrote that you were going to shift numbers on your reports to affect your bottom line is actually more than an inference, its an admission.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/24/2008 @ 9:18 amHuh? More research, less name-calling, daleysucks. And seriously? Daleyrocks? Is that a joke? I used to say that I ‘rocked’, back when I was 12 years old. If you have to say that you ‘rock’ then you don’t.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/24/2008 @ 9:19 amI, for one (and I think I’m speaking for a lot of other very-small businessmen) can predict that it will be a very cold day in Hell before I show any profit on my bottom line.
Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama! You have just enriched the accountants of America – now you can tax the Hell out of them.
Comment by Another Drew — 10/23/2008 @ 10:07 am
Now, please show me where I said “…you were going to shift numbers on your reports to affect your bottom line…”.
Since you love inferences, didn’t I infer that I would be working closely with my accountant to utilize all available aspects of the tax code to minimize, if not eliminate, reportable profit?
The problem is your perception. Please replace the depleted tin-foil in your head-cover.
A Liar, and a Moron!
Oh, BTW, when can I expect that visit so that you can explain socialism, and why my “mommy is so proud” of me?
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 10:27 amDrew:
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/24/2008 @ 10:31 amI’ll visit you when you start accurately reporting your profits on this phantom business you own, like any self-respecting,”Country First” American citizen.
What part of that isn’t claiming to be a tax cheat? The part where you’re working with your accountant to produce different numbers in order to pay less taxes than you should, or… riiiiight. Note to self: Drew doesn’t actually own a business or have any ethics; don’t hire him to mow my lawn.
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/24/2008 @ 10:34 amThis is beginning to sound a lot like Levi claiming to not have to actually read a book to know all about it.
No, cupcake, it is not.
Last week.
Again with the making shit up …
A statement that he will work within the tax code is now and admission of cheating. Telling the truth is a smear. Telling the truth is racist. The Left is absolutely turning the English language on its ear.
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/24/2008 @ 10:57 amOh, please hire me to mow your lawn.
I’ve got all these illegals that need to be kept busy so they can put arugula and fresh fruit on the table for their families.
BTW, how is that GED thing working out for you?
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:00 amDoes it get you extra time on the PC at the Library?
How long before a new bail-out is proposed?
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:13 amhttp://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081024/FREE/810249995/1084/toc
JD… you are cut off. I now can rule out ‘juris doctorate’ as the actual meaning for your handle, because you are simply not qualified to be a lawyer. You may join Drew in mowing their lawns, though. The fact is that you STILL have not come up any sort of response to the Joe the Plumber argument I had made. Your boy was wrong about the taxation of revenue vs. profit. Joe the Plumber is much better off under Obama’s plan. Ironic, isn’t it?
truthnjustice (3d65f9) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:14 amYou are banning me from someone else’s site?
I challenge you to show one single inaccuracy in my statements.
Then, I can tell how strongly you feel about your response, because you immediately attempted to switch topics, again. Nice try.
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:18 amFeeding trolls runs up Patterico’s comment count but I can’t say any more for it.
“If you know of anybody selling a 250K a year business for 250K, tell them I am interested in buying it… now.”
That’s my contribution to the lie of the day.
Mike K (531ff4) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:22 amEveryone, EVERYONE _LEGITIMATELY_ uses deductions to reduce their tax liability. If _YOU_ wish to add up the money _YOU_ made throughout the year and just send X% (whatever tax bracket that puts you in) in at the end of the year, regardless of the bevy of deductions you’re LEGALLY ENTITLED TO, go right ahead.
This is especially true with people, like me, whose entire income is and has been 1099-based. I have to file QUARTERLY income taxes which is a lot like switching from “Charmin” to “150-grit” Some folks might have an entirely different take on taxes if they had to write out an actual check to the gummint four times a year versus having it quietly taken out of their check each pay period.
However, if you don’t understand what we’re talking about and think it’s a “scam” because it rubs your lefty “sensibilities” the wrong way, that is, as they say, “tough titty.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:25 amCW – It knows not of what it speaks.
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:27 amIt is a LIAR, and all of its’ reality is a LIE!
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:36 amI am not quite sure how pointing out your dishonesty, or just basic grasp of the English launguage, has any bearing on whether or not I would be qualified to be a lawyer.
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:41 amSorry to interrupt the trolls at feedng time but those interested in the thread topic might be interested in this. Now we see what Obama means by his 95% get a tax cut.
Mike K (531ff4) — 10/24/2008 @ 11:54 amMike K – That is a great article, and it does a great job of pointing out the structural deficiencies of Baracky’s welfare plan. What is left unsaid about his plan is where he will find the additional dollars in general revenue funds to make up for the income tax dollars refunding the social security system, and how he plans on ensuring that Congress actually covers those SS shortfalls in the budgets. If the tax increases do not produce the necessary revenue, as history has shown, what will he cut?
JD (a9d6c5) — 10/24/2008 @ 12:08 pminteresting anecdote… I guess you people really don’t have a clue, and you’re not just faking it.
I went to vote last night, and a McCain supporter came in behind me. She was all decked out in McCain/Palin pins, stickers, etc. She was, of course, immediately directed to remove everything. I thought it was common sense that you would not be allowed to wear those things at a polling place. I figured all the signs saying to keep those things 100 ft away would do the trick, too. I guess not. BUT IT GETS WORSE. She took off her stuff and got in line behind me. She was talking loudly about who she is voting for, that she is a republican, etc. That’s fine – vote for whomever you choose, but that’s really uncool at a polling place. BUT IT GETS WORSE. She then starts talking about how she’s going to be serving as an election judge on election day. She will be working at a polling place on Nov. 4. A WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN TRAINED AS AN ELECTION JUDGE DIDN’T KNOW TO KEEP HER CAMPAIGN MATERIALS OUT OF THE POLLING PLACE. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. The republican VP candidate who is a governor doesn’t know what the VP’s job is. My expectations shouldn’t be so high for “those on the right.”
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 12:56 pmAlso, Drew… you haven’t added a single thing to any thread I’ve read through other than typing out “LIE, LIE, or LIAR”. Are you typing with all 10 fingers?
Secondly
That is the dumbest thing I have read to day… calling that a lie? I would LOVE to buy a company that that would pay for itself in a year’s time. So would anybody who has ever conducted business outside of the twilight zone. Don’t try to enter the conversation unless you’ve read the entire thread, genius.
Third:
It is common sense that tax payers are using the incentives, etc. to pay the lowest tax rates they can. To insinuate that something can be done to change the numbers around is to insinuate cheating. No ifs ands or buts about it.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:00 pmI call bullshit on tmj’s fantasy.
I challenge you to show one single inaccuracy in my statements above.
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:05 pmYou can call BS all you want, but that doesn’t make it untrue. You wish it were untrue that your boy’s supporters weren’t clueless… but sadly they are.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:07 pmSo, prove it. I assume you registered a complaint with the monitors, or election officials. Given this blow to democracy, and you being a good citizen and all, surely you filed a protest to ensure that this type of bastardization of the voting process would not continue to take place.
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:15 pmIt wasn’t my protest to file. It was a friend. Are you trying to misread the facts of these posts or does it just come natural to you?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:17 pmWhen I say I, I mean me, not a friend. Not one time in your post did you say, or even imply that those were someone else’s words. Now I know it was BS.
Who did you fail to attribute that to?
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:23 pmNot a personal anecdote. It happened in Illinois. I am shocked that McDreamy got even one vote in that state.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:24 pmI can’t imagine that that particular mistake is unforgivable, considering McDreamy yelled c*nt in the middle of a rally not too long ago. 🙂
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:28 pm“The Past is Prelude”
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:33 pmSo, you often go around plagarizing other people’s work? I guess that explains the Biden-love.
You, in no way, indicated that it was someone else’s story.
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:34 pmtruthnjustice,
I certainly hope Obama only plans to tax profits but he’s never said that. He has said is he will tax people/businesses who “make” over $200K-$250K, but his website doesn’t clarify what that means for individuals or small businesses. You think “make” clearly means profits. I think it’s vague and means whatever he wants it to mean.
Finally, I’m tired of looking up your links. You need to provide your own links from now on.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:35 pmWhen someone has a tenuous relationship to reality,
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 1:36 pmwhy would their complete divorce from the truth be surprising?
Another Drew providing nothing but his standard ‘liar liar pants on fire’ routine. Par for the course. I guess we’ll give him a cookie on 182 since he phrased it differently this time.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 4:19 pm181: Obama probably didn’t feel the need to spell out for you what lower taxes means (or list it out on 8 different places on his website). He doesn’t need to spell it out for me. The link you provided above was specifically directed at other things he was planning to do to encourage small business. Do you need a tutor?
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 4:24 pmObama’s website shows he likes tax credits. Tax credits are direct $-for-$ offsets of taxes paid, which means he will need to raise even more money in taxes to pay for those credits, let alone all the money he needs to pay for his other plans and programs. Thus, Obama should spell out how he plans to raise those funds … but I don’t think he wants to because he knows most Americans won’t like his answer.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/24/2008 @ 5:14 pmComment by DRJ — 10/24/2008 @ 5:14 pm
Well, I could suggest an Internet/word tax.
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 5:20 pmAt least we would be rid of trolls, and other non-serious posters.
I think Obama does in fact need to spell it out for the voters. There is an issue of transparency that he seems to have trouble with in many areas, one of them being these rather important details. I agree that he doesn’t want to not only because most Americans won’t like it but it will reveal about him what he really can’t afford to allow the public to see.
Dana (658c17) — 10/24/2008 @ 5:30 pmDrJ… I am glad you feel the need to speak for a presidential candidate. You must consider yourself a pretty important individual, in your own mind.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 5:52 pmtruthnjustice just keeps making stuff up. Obama is not cutting anyone’s taxes ( besides the fact that his plan won’t make it through Pelosi’s incompetent House leadership ). Obama’s “plan” is to continue the Bush tax cut for most people. Which Obama is claiming as a “cut”. That’s how dishonest Obama … and truthnjustice … is.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 5:53 pmIt grows more and more belligerent as the day goes on …
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 5:55 pmYou havent read his plan. He wishes to cut taxes for those making under 250k. I make under 250k, so I am glad. 🙂
It places the lotion in the basket. Creepy, Junior Detective (JD), creepy.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:03 pmtruthnjustice,
It’s DRJ, not DrJ, and I would appreciate a substantive response. We know Obama has said he wants to cut taxes for individuals but we’re talking about his tax plans for small businesses.
DRJ (c953ab) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:08 pmtruthnjustice, I’ve read analysis by tax law professors. He continues the Bush tax cuts for most people. You on the other hand just make stuff up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:09 pmNo he does not cut taxes. He gives refundable tax credits, which are substantially different.
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:10 pmSPQR: save it for your resume. It is Friday night. I am going to go hang out in the non-virtual world for a bit. Take care, guys.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:13 pmWhat exactly is creepy about noting how you have grown increasingly belligerent over the course of the day?
That whole lotion in the basket thing sounds kind of personal. You ought to keep that to yourself. Or, blame it on “your friend”.
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:13 pmIt’s easy to scoff at socialism when you are rich and famous. It is also understandable why the lower members of the food chain, love the idea of socialism. Depends on where you are. By the way, what kind of economy does China have? Are they Socialists or Capitalists?
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:16 pmAuthoritarian Fascists!
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:18 pmlove2008, its easy to scoff at socialism because it has universally made the “lower members” worse off. Socialism increases poverty. And socialism has been responsible for murdering more people than any other ideology in human history.
China has a mixed economy that is still largely socialist. The largest of China’s industries are still government run. The PLA is still the largest manufacturer in China.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:18 pmLove2008. Drew will call you a liar, JD will make stuff up, DrJ will correct his name, and SPQR will spout off his resume. Nothing to see here… save yourself. I’m outtie! Love you all.
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:19 pmFor those in Rio Linda, and lovie, PLA stands for
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:20 pmPeople’s Liberation Army!
truthnjustice, actually you are the one making stuff up, DRJ is a she, and I don’t post my resume on the internet.
So once again, you are batting a 1.000
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:22 pmAll I have ever done with alphie/tmj/trollboy is to take its words, and point out the inherent flaws in its logic, or lack thereof.
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:34 pmJD, and its a full time job.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:46 pmBetween this one and JerrySpringer, it would take 4 people,working overtime.
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:48 pmLet’s hear it from the guru of capitalis (or is he talking socialism?) as quoted by Steve Coll this week in The New Yorker:
In “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), his seminal treatise on capitalism, (Adam) Smith wrote:
“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
Looks like ya gotta throw even Adam Smith on your kindergarten dung heap……put him over there with Charles Fried, that mouth-breathing, low-intellect turncoat.
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:52 pmFollow up. The prosperity of China, did it come through Socialism or Capitalism? I mean if America is indebted to them, we need to know how they grew so rich.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:53 pmLarry Reilly, your attempt to insinuate that the wealthy in our country do not already contribute to the public expense in more than their proportion is in fact false.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:55 pmlove2008, the growing prosperity of China has come from their increasing tolerance of capitalist principles, but China is not a capitalist country per se yet.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 6:56 pmDear SPQR,
Larry Reilly (d11f9a) — 10/24/2008 @ 7:04 pmMethinks your argument is offshore….you know, outside the country where so much American wealth resides untaxed….at least those amounts not protected by Bush tax cuts
And perhaps you haven’t noticed that Milton Friedman’s legacy is persona non grata at the U of Chicago now. Turned out nothing trickled down even the pants leg after the monetarists had their way.
I’m still amazed that multi-millionaires bother to pontificate in this little room. I mean, anyone making less than megamillions is working against their own interest pushing this crap. And if you work against your own interest, how can you be a capitalist?
You are to be commended SPQR
L.R.
Larry Reilly, yes well after reading through your vacuous sputterings, I see nothing substantive.
That’s because you remain willfully ignorant of the reality of tax policy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 7:06 pmThis article would be enlightening to Larry Reilly, alas were it not so far above his reading level.
Note things like:
Top 1% AGI have 22.06% of AGI but pay 39.89% of the taxes paid. Not 39.89% tax rate but 39.89% of all revenue even though they only have 22.06% of the total adjusted gross income.
Top 5% have 36.66% of AGI, but pay 60.14% of all of the income taxes paid.
Larry is of course ignorant of this, not merely because of his poor reading level, but because he wants to be ignorant of the fact that the tax burden in this country is already heavily weighted toward the wealthy out of proportion to their share of income. And that over the length of the Bush administration, the progressive nature of the tax burden has increased.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 7:12 pmBy the way, the Bush administration’s tax policy has also increased the percentage of people and incomes who are not required to pay tax at all in the lower brackets.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 7:14 pmFurther illustration of the increasing progressiveness of the tax policy. In 2000, the top 1% of tax payers by AGI paid 37.42% of the total income tax paid, in 2006 their share was 39.89%.
All of this is data based on IRS statistics and published by the non-partisan Tax Foundation. And its all facts that Democrats don’t want you to know, and Larry Reilly is too ignorant to know.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/24/2008 @ 7:19 pmFor fairness, we need to institure a flat tax regime where everyone, from the homeless guy begging on the corner, to George Soros pays a Federal Income Tax of 10%!
Another Drew (b199b1) — 10/24/2008 @ 7:54 pmIf it was good enough for Caesar, it should be good enough for us.
Of course, to then really make it fair, we should institute a Death Tax of 100%, less $10K/bequest.
No Trusts…No Foundations…No Scams…Spend it, or Lose it!
It is like moths to a flame. One leaves, tmj, and another mendoucheous one takes its place, Mary Reilly.
This against your own self-interest is a meme the Dems started to push in ’06 and it keeps getting traction. Like all Dem memes and policies, ultimately, it is simply class warfare.
JD (59c800) — 10/24/2008 @ 8:27 pmWeird. My roommate just got his absentee ballot and there is somebody else listed under the Socialist Party for president. I guess you guys were wrong. Retraction/apology? ASAP? Thanks in advance!
Yours truly,
Yours truly
truthnjustice (c313be) — 10/24/2008 @ 8:51 pm