• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Obama a Socialist or a Communist?

Which is he

  • Total voters
    31
jonny5 said:
You are not required to have car insurance and thus not punished for not having it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... That's funny because that isn't so. I had to buy auto insurance before I could be a licensed driver unless the laws changed in the past 3 months
 
jonny5 said:
I agree. How much do you think every american should pitch in as a minimum?
Click to expand...

Flat tax at 15%. That will raise revenue, quell the "fair share" bs, and lower some people's taxes. I think that's an all around win don't ya think?
 
zstep18 said:
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book V: Of the Revenue of the Sovereign or Commonwealth,

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. 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. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. 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"
Click to expand...
Now look through the other 900 pages and find where he says that the rich ought to pay for everything.

His book explores why some nations are wealthy and others are not. His book was not about fleecing the rich. He left that task to the Democratic Party.
 
Das Sozialist said:
Do you mind sourcing that? You've linked a video that does not prove your statement.
Click to expand...
My source was the indented portion.


Again, how do you know he could recite the prayer? Do you have proof? Video, Audio, a statement from Obama? What's your proof?
Click to expand...
My source was in the indented portion.
 
Like all modern day US presidents, the best way to describe them is "Corporate Welfare Statists" - in other words tyrannical fascist puppets.

TO even call a US president a socialist under any context other than a "corporate welfare nanny state puppet" is totally laughable

I doubt whether many US citizens even understand what socialism is let alone apply the title to any of their presidents

Is this a comical thread?
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Now look through the other 900 pages and find where he says that the rich ought to pay for everything.

His book explores why some nations are wealthy and others are not. His book was not about fleecing the rich. He left that task to the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

Weren't you saying that Adam Smith would not favor higher taxes on the wealthy?
 
Misterveritis said:
I am sure you will not object to first taxing those working Americans who pay no federal income taxes.
Click to expand...

In 1955, the top 400 income earning Americans brought home about 13.8 million dollars per year and paid about 52% tax on that income.

In 2007, the top 400 AMericans earned about 300 million dollars per year and paid about 18% tax.

And remember ladies and gentlemen, the 1950s were the supposedly the Golden era of prosperity, jobs and wealth in the USA (even though there were still social problems to contend with during that time)

So which class isnt pulling its weight in the USA?

Can an ordinary worker in the USA set up bank accounts in offshore havens so that they can further limit their tax liabilities?
 
zstep18 said:
Weren't you saying that Adam Smith would not favor higher taxes on the wealthy?
Click to expand...
No.

I said that he believed there were some things the rich ought to pay for. He never made the case the rich should pay most of the taxes. It is a very large book. And I could only find one place in my copy where he made the case that the rich ought to pay more of their wealth in proportion to the poor. He did not make the case that the wealth should be fleeced.
The rich will always pay much, much more than the poor even with a flat tax.
 
Klown said:
In 1955, the top 400 income earning Americans brought home about 13.8 million dollars per year and paid about 52% tax on that income.
Click to expand...

First, I do not believe you. 52% may have been the top marginal rate. The effective rate has always been lower.

In 2007, the top 400 AMericans earned about 300 million dollars per year and paid about 18% tax.
Click to expand...
And this looks like an effective rate.

And remember ladies and gentlemen, the 1950s were the supposedly the Golden era of prosperity, jobs and wealth in the USA (even though there were still social problems to contend with during that time)

So which class isnt pulling its weight in the USA?

Can an ordinary worker in the USA set up bank accounts in offshore havens so that they can further limit their tax liabilities?
Click to expand...
Go back and look at the myriad options available for sheltering wealth from the confiscatory tax rates of the 1950s. Now compare today's shelters.
 
Last edited:
zstep18 said:
Weren't you saying that Adam Smith would not favor higher taxes on the wealthy?
Click to expand...

Its common in the USA and in the west in general to selectively quote people like Adam Smith.
If you read Smith's famous "Wealth of Nations" book, you will see that Smith is quite critical of many aspects of Corporatism. SO is Keynes for that matter. Keynes is used by free market and capitalist advocates all the time. They regularly neglect to mention that Keynes warned about how unstable and prone to collapse Capitalism and free markets are. In fact Keynes also highlighted the inherent immorality of a purely capitalist system - thats why no nation allows pure capitalism and free markets to operate within their societies (as much as you are told you live in a free market and capitalist society - you dont. The USA for example is a Corpocracy - a type of tyrannical fascist Corporatist welfare state)

If you honestly compare the economic systems that function in the USA and China, I doubt you would find much difference, One is state controlled pseudo-capitalism and the other is Corporate controlled pseudo-capitalism. In fact there are grounds to suggest that CHina is the more capitalist system as far as the economy is concerned.

And to link capitalism to democracy is the most successful propaganda achievement of any state in the history of humanity. Capitalism is NOT a political system - its an economic model (such as bartering or some other economic model)

So the opposite of capitalism is not socialism as many would like to think.
 
You forgot the "facepalm, my countrymen are politically and economically illiterate" option. That's the one I would have picked. I feel like we're in a library full of elite historical texts by learned scholars and my fellow Americans choose to get their history from "Shoot'em up War Comics: The good and the bad in clear black and white." I think some Americans are watching an old B Ronald Reagan movie with a creepy narration, "And then the bad Muslim guy came to town to had been yelled at by his preacher to hate America... he had been instilled with MARXIST ideas and was a bad guy pinko COMMIE." I think most Americans could not even begin to correctly define Marxist or socialist political philosophy, much less have an intelligent conversation about the merits or lack thereof of such systems. They're stuck in comic book mentality.
 
Fiddytree said:
I would suggest that he didn't have sufficient suspicion of populists and counter-cultures. He saw the Tea Party and wanted an equivalent message from the Left. It was still new enough to make it more difficult to predict that it would value arrests over political influence, but I had my cynical thoughts immediately.
Click to expand...
He is one of them. He is a political agitator. He knows them well and they know him.

He must be defeated. Crushed. And tossed onto the ash-heap of history. Remember to get out there and vote for president Obama on November 10th!
 
he is the president............
 
Luna Tick said:
You forgot the "facepalm, my countrymen are politically and economically illiterate" option. That's the one I would have picked. I feel like we're in a library full of elite historical texts by learned scholars and my fellow Americans choose to get their history from "Shoot'em up War Comics: The good and the bad in clear black and white." I think some Americans are watching an old B Ronald Reagan movie with a creepy narration, "And then the bad Muslim guy came to town to had been yelled at by his preacher to hate America... he had been instilled with MARXIST ideas and was a bad guy pinko COMMIE." I think most Americans could not even begin to correctly define Marxist or socialist political philosophy, much less have an intelligent conversation about the merits or lack thereof of such systems. They're stuck in comic book mentality.
Click to expand...
Wow! I am convinced. LOL. NOT.

Are those of us who post here indicative of most Americans? I tend to doubt it. There is good. And there is evil. We are in the midst of evil. We can, and we must defeat the one term Marxist in November. That is true even if you see it through a comic book lens.
 
Misterveritis said:
First, I do not believe you. 52% may have been the top marginal rate. The effective rate has always been lower.
Click to expand...

Youre right of course - the top tax rate in the 1950s was NOT 52% - it was around 90%.

See what happens when you are not up to speed with the facts?

You paint yourself into a corner you cannot possibly extract yourself from - lol

The 52% is an average tax rate for the top 400 income earners in the 1950s.

I can only suggest that you look at the data rather than just saying "I DONT BELIEVE YOU" and assuming that I am fabricating the data to make a political point
View attachment 67134211
 
Klown said:
Youre right of course - the top tax rate in the 1950s was NOT 52% - it was around 90%.

See what happens when you are not up to speed with the facts?

You paint yourself into a corner you cannot possibly extract yourself from - lol

The 52% is an average tax rate for the top 400 income earners in the 1950s.

I can only suggest that you look at the data rather than just saying |I DONT BELIEVE YOU" and assuming that I am favricating the data to make a political point
View attachment 67134211
Click to expand...

I still do not believe you.
 
Misterveritis said:
Or more accurately, he is the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies and his friends, president Barrack Hussein Obama. :)
Click to expand...



i cant see that flexible action here. all teh presidents look like each other when it comes to your imaginary enemies

.)))))
 
Medusa said:
i cant see that flexible action here. all teh presidents look like each other when it comes to your imaginary enemies

.)))))
Click to expand...
He told Putin to cut his some slack. He told Putin that he could be more flexible after his re-election. Obama, the one term Marxist, is our enemy. He is not our friend. He must be defeated and sent out to play with Slick Willie.
 
Misterveritis said:
Or more accurately, he is the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies and his friends, president Barrack Hussein Obama. :)
Click to expand...

It's hard to take you seriously when you don't know what Marxism is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom