Obama Supporters: Is Socialism The Answer?

[PHX-SOXFAN]

People in a certain income tax will pay more. For them, their taxes are raised. For someone who pretends to be against spin...

as a whole he's not raising them. He's restoring the progressive income tax system and giving tax breaks.

[Padres Son]

Anyone want to tell me why conservative capitalist GWB used taxpayer money to bail out Bear Sternes, is in the process of bailing out Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac, and may be providing additional bank bailouts soon?

The very foundation of capitalism lies upon the risk/reward principle. When you bail out banks who approved bad loans, and homeowners who took out mortgages they couldn't afford, you're destroying capitalism.

I don't appreciate having the government use my tax dollars to rescue greedy banks who gave out loans they shouldn't have, stupid people who took out mortgages they shouldn't have, and stockholders who should assume the risk of investing in these PRIVATE companies. This trend of bailing out private companies is a great step towards socialism.

[blenderboy5]

as a whole he's not raising them. He's restoring the progressive income tax system and giving tax breaks.

Do you read a single ****ing thing I type?

I said the same thing. If you read it. You are spinning facts by constantly posting that Obama isn't going to raise taxes. while in fact he's raising and lowering taxes. Then you defend your spin with more spin. Pathetic.

The very foundation of capitalism lies upon the risk/reward principle. When you bail out banks who approved bad loans, and homeowners who took out mortgages they couldn't afford, you're destroying capitalism.

Go talk to FDR about that

[PHX-SOXFAN]

Do you read a single ****ing thing I type?

I said the same thing. If you read it. You are spinning facts by constantly posting that Obama isn't going to raise taxes. while in fact he's raising and lowering taxes. Then you defend your spin with more spin. Pathetic.

Of course I do, you spin it in the GW/Karl Rove talking point as usual and I look at facts and numbers.

[blenderboy5]

hahahaha unbelievable.

I say Obama's raising and lowering taxes, and until this thread you've continued to say Obama won't raise taxes. How is my position a GW position?

And I doubt you've ever looked at facts, as you spend more energy coming up with people to associate me with than doing actual research.

I never thought I'd say this, but your posts make me miss moonman's constant "McCain's McShame" threads.

[ari1013]

Great. So, like I said from the onset, Obama is supporting raising taxes. Of course, it's just on those evil, wealthy people who don't deserve the money that they earned anyways. He's in favor of wealth redistribution, and taking from those who are successfull.

What was my point to begin with?

Redistribution would involve taking tax dollars from the taxpayers and giving them to the poor non-taxpayers in the form of an EITC (which is something that we do right now).

What Obama is proposing is just going to increase the net disposable income a person has from each paycheck. That has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. It's the same type of thing that happens during each recession.

[ari1013]

Do you read a single ****ing thing I type?

I said the same thing. If you read it. You are spinning facts by constantly posting that Obama isn't going to raise taxes. while in fact he's raising and lowering taxes. Then you defend your spin with more spin. Pathetic.



Go talk to FDR about that

The New Deal didn't involve nationalizing banks. It provided for bank insurance guarantees.

I completely disagree with the government taking over IndyMac. The banking system is run separate of the government for a reason.

[SmthBluCitrus]

Go talk to FDR about that

Right ... the same FDR that worked to help put restrictions in place to regulate areas of capitalism so we wouldn't have to deal with another full fledged depression.

Am I necessarily for bailouts of corporations like Bear, Fannie, and Freddie? Not in the slightest. But, just like the S&L scandals of the 80's, we've shown a propensity for a low risk/high reward system of quasi-socialism for the rich.

These semi-private corporations are supposed to be operating under federally regulated mandates. But, they gambled big in the housing bubble with subprime mortgages (and lost). Had they made profits, they would've kept them. Now that they're on thin ice, we have to bail them out.

Krugman put it best this morning:
"If Fannie and Freddie do well, their stockholders reap the benefits, but if things go badly, Washington picks up the tab. Heads they win, tails we lose."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/op...rugman.html?hp

[KingJamsI]

That's exactly how I would've written it were I campaigning for Obama. Unfortunately I was attempting to talk about a principle, not argue about which candidate is better or who I would like to see elected. I would like to thank you for being honest enough to admit that Barak does, in fact, believe in wealth redistribution. Based on that admission, were you also able to allow yourself to vote for the first option in the poll?

I suppose that if you view a true progressive tax system as being tantamount to wealth re-distribution than I did admit that. And if so, your certainly entitled to being a crazy person. And no, I did not vote in your poll, less because it is skewed (though it is) and more because my opinion on the topic would be infinitely more complex then those statements.

[moonman]

Right ... the same FDR that worked to help put restrictions in place to regulate areas of capitalism so we wouldn't have to deal with another full fledged depression.

Am I necessarily for bailouts of corporations like Bear, Fannie, and Freddie? Not in the slightest. But, just like the S&L scandals of the 80's, we've shown a propensity for a low risk/high reward system of quasi-socialism for the rich.

These semi-private corporations are supposed to be operating under federally regulated mandates. But, they gambled big in the housing bubble with subprime mortgages (and lost). Had they made profits, they would've kept them. Now that they're on thin ice, we have to bail them out.

Krugman put it best this morning:
"If Fannie and Freddie do well, their stockholders reap the benefits, but if things go badly, Washington picks up the tab. Heads they win, tails we lose."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/op...rugman.html?hp

Exactly what I've been saying for years with fewer words;

Privatize the gain, socialize the loss, or Profit is private, loss is socialized.

[Doc Fluty]

Obama does not support higher taxes, is far from a socialist

Obama is lowering taxes for 99% of the population, while increasing them for a small percentage. Overall keeping taxes roughly the same.

as a whole he's not raising them. He's restoring the progressive income tax system and giving tax breaks.

Redistribution would involve taking tax dollars from the taxpayers and giving them to the poor non-taxpayers in the form of an EITC (which is something that we do right now).

What Obama is proposing is just going to increase the net disposable income a person has from each paycheck. That has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. It's the same type of thing that happens during each recession.

PHX.... by reading some of your post i would assume you are smarter than me. but even you cant deny the very thing you typed yourself is socialism at its base.

you said obama wants to take money from people who have disposable income and make up for it by lowering taxes for lower income people

that doesn't sound like socialism to you?

People in a certain income tax will pay more. For them, their taxes are raised. For someone who pretends to be against spin...

[blenderboy5]

That's the exact definition of socialism, but PHX still doesn't understand that raising taxes for certain income brackets is raising taxes for certain income brackets. So give him some time.

[Doc Fluty]

Exactly what I've been saying for years with fewer words;

Privatize the gain, socialize the loss, or Profit is private, loss is socialized.

this is too simplistic a view.

if a company profits.. say wal-mart, then they take that money and open new stores, hire more people, PAY MORE IN TAXES, advertise more and generally make life better for EVRYONE involved... not just ceos.. but even the truck driver that has to take old spice to wal-mart... if they didnt sell it then the truck driver wouldnt have a job.. so he is indirectly benefiting from wal-marts success. even the garderners, electritions, plumbers, office depot and people who sell the steel to make the buildings all benefit from wal-mart (and other companies) success

so if a company fails.. then all the people directly and indirectly are affected also. imagine if the gov didnt bail out the airlines... and we only had 2 airline companies left... thousands of poeple making 20-30-40-50-60-70-80 thousand a year and more would be out of a job. so they wouldnt be paying taxes, buying homes or shopping at lowes, buying chevy trucks, dinner at applebees and going to get that new cd which gives the lil teen age girl at the mall a job also.

gains one way or another ARE shared as well as some losses... were in this together.. there is no us vs the coroporations

[moonman]

^^^^Excellent points Doc Flutey. I really appreciate your moving the discussion to public policy rather arguing the philosophical.

The question is bailouts. More specifically, should we bail out the banks, both commercial and investment. I say no, let them go under. The scenario you draw, of massive hardship as bank closures permeate society doesn't tell half the story.

The fact is Doc, we are now committed to bailing out the Mae's. This could add another 5.3 trillion to our current debt of 9.5 trillion. Indymac will eat somewhere between 8-12% of the FDIC's reserves. There is chatter in the financial press that commercial real estate is about to bust and take down hundreds of small local banks. It will only take a handful of Indymac's to exhaust teh ability of the FDIC to make good on deposits. What then? Currently the FDIC claims it has 90 to 150 banks on its "troubled list." Indymac was not one of them.

We haven't got it Doc. We don't have the money and beside that it's only money. Money is the virtual simulation of the economy. Finance is not the real economy. People will still buy, sell and trade. People will still invent and grow crops and build and make things. It's what we do.

If we continue to bail out the next Chrysler or the next Indymac, pretty soon we'll go bust anyway because we can't pay the tab. All we can do is inflate, as the Fed is doing, devalue the currency, which is the direct result of inflation and pray.

In the short term, you are right Doc. It will be devastating. In the long term it will be less costly and the depression will be of shorter duration. I'm convinced we are headed for a depression and the only decision is to have it now or postpone it a year or two at most.

[v3n0m]

Well not socialism for what it is, but to use the best out of it combined with capitalism... like free health care for everyone...