• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Proof that the Democrats are Socialists

Status
Not open for further replies.
umm socialism isnt a bad thing to have though if you really think about it
in a republicans eyes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
democrats are more on bored with taxing the rich instead of the middle man (which if you really think about the majority of these forum members are middle men, average paid americans) republicans give tax breaks to the rich where the rest suffer.
democrats are definetly no better, not by any means.
our nation is screwed regardless but you have to keep an open mind about the situation. i think we should look at the movie Eagle Eye and implement that solution :p
 
VoidedSaint said:
umm socialism isnt a bad thing to have though if you really think about it
in a republicans eyes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
democrats are more on bored with taxing the rich instead of the middle man (which if you really think about the majority of these forum members are middle men, average paid americans) republicans give tax breaks to the rich where the rest suffer.
democrats are definetly no better, not by any means.
our nation is screwed regardless but you have to keep an open mind about the situation. i think we should look at the movie Eagle Eye and implement that solution :p
Click to expand...

So taxing the hell out of people who create jobs and forcing them to outsource is the solution? Most people work for large corporations that are run by the rich. Taxing them heavily could mean us forum members will lose their jobs to someone in India or China.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
So taxing the hell out of people who create jobs and forcing them to outsource is the solution? Most people work for large corporations that are run by the rich. Taxing them heavily could mean us forum members will lose their jobs to someone in India or China.
Click to expand...

If these people are really job creators and they are getting huge tax breaks from the Bush tax cuts, where are the jobs? There is absolutely no proof that taxing the rich will create job losses. In fact, there is more evidence that the opposite is true. Just look back throughout the 90s when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy - keeping in mind we're talking about the extremely wealthy. Take a look back to the 50s and 60s when the rich were taxed, but still quite rich, and the middle class was doing great. Hell, just look at what happened recently in Ireland. That country was a tax haven for corporations, was doing well for a few years, and then they crashed hard.

Trickle-down economics is a farce and just doesn't work. The wealthy don't create jobs; they hoard their money or make very risky investments - see 2007/2008 housing market. If you really want the wealthy to create jobs then give them tax incentives for creating jobs, but don't just give them broad cuts across the board.

Finally, tax rates aren't the only factor corporations take in to account when deciding where to set up shop. Corporations like free and stable environments, like Canada, the US, Britain, Germany, etc (the G8/G20)... Corporations love it in Canada because they don't have to worry about providing basic health care benefits. Our universal health care is a huge incentive for corporations to invest in Canada. Also, if it's so obvious that low corporate taxes creates jobs, why not just get rid of corporate taxes altogether? By that logic if we just got rid of corporate taxes altogether everyone would have a job. We all know that's just not a serious position to take.
 
avenuePad said:
If these people are really job creators and they are getting huge tax breaks from the Bush tax cuts, where are the jobs? There is absolutely no proof that taxing the rich will create job losses. In fact, there is more evidence that the opposite is true. Just look back throughout the 90s when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy - keeping in mind we're talking about the extremely wealthy. Take a look back to the 50s and 60s when the rich were taxed, but still quite rich, and the middle class was doing great. Hell, just look at what happened recently in Ireland. That country was a tax haven for corporations, was doing well for a few years, and then they crashed hard.

Trickle-down economics is a farce and just doesn't work. The wealthy don't create jobs; they hoard their money or make very risky investments - see 2007/2008 housing market. If you really want the wealthy to create jobs then give them tax incentives for creating jobs, but don't just give them broad cuts across the board.
Click to expand...

The extremely wealthy are not the ones being taxed more if the Bush tax cuts expire. Anyone making $250,000 or more would be paying more taxes. Clinton couldn't raise or lower taxes on anyone; and neither could Bush nor can Obama. Tax policies is the domain of Congress. The Republicans controlled Congress for three-fourths of the Clinton adminstarion. In contrast, the Democrats controlled Congress during the 110th Congress (2007-2008).
 
About all I can say is it is painfully obvious that some people on this list do not know their American and World History and what socialism really means and so few actually understand what our founding fathers envisioned for us as expressed in our founding documents. So very sad; no wonder we are slowly being killed.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
That bill is so unpopular that it caused the Democrats to have their asses soundly kicked in the 2010 elections.
Click to expand...

Good thing popularity has nothing to do with effectivness. Socialism is the best of both worlds.

and Outsourcing is another topic in itself.
 
Knewz said:
Good thing popularity has nothing to do with effectivness. Socialism is the best of both worlds.

and Outsourcing is another topic in itself.
Click to expand...

Popularity is a big deal here when we have nationwide elections every 2 years. They Democrats saw what happens when they try socialism. They got their asses booted out of office in droves. The Obamacare law has been delcared unconstitutional and is unenforcable pending appeal. The Supreme Court (which has a conservative majority) will now have the final say on Obamacare. The Democrats better hope that one of the conservative Justices croaks because they won't be retiring until they can undo this monstrosity.

Ah, the American system does work!
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
The extremely wealthy are not the ones being taxed more if the Bush tax cuts expire. Anyone making $250,000 or more would be paying more taxes. Clinton couldn't raise or lower taxes on anyone; and neither could Bush nor can Obama. Tax policies is the domain of Congress. The Republicans controlled Congress for three-fourths of the Clinton adminstarion. In contrast, the Democrats controlled Congress during the 110th Congress (2007-2008).
Click to expand...

OK, under the Clinton Administration, or while Clinton was in power. Though, I'm pretty sure it's job of the president to try and steer or influence where Congress goes. Wouldn't that be why the Bush tax cuts are called the 'Bush tax cuts'? Anyway, that's really neither here nor there. I wasn't trying to defend Clinton or the Democrats, since there really isn't that much difference between the two.

Here's a dose of reality illustrating the differences between the Dems and Reps in regards to taxes. As you can see, the people largely being affected by the Democrats tax plan is, in fact, the extremely wealthy.

rachelmaddowtax.gif
 
avenuePad said:
OK, under the Clinton Administration, or while Clinton was in power. Though, I'm pretty sure it's job of the president to try and steer or influence where Congress goes. Wouldn't that be why the Bush tax cuts are called the 'Bush tax cuts'? Anyway, that's really neither here nor there. I wasn't trying to defend Clinton or the Democrats, since there really isn't that much difference between the two.

Here's a dose of reality illustrating the differences between the Dems and Reps in regards to taxes. As you can see, the people largely being affected by the Democrats tax plan is, in fact, the extremely wealthy.

rachelmaddowtax.gif
Click to expand...

It makes sense that the higher income brackets get more tax cuts because they still pay more of their income in taxes. Even under the Bush tax cuts, those people pay 35% of their income in taxes while the bottom pays nothing at all to less than 10%. We believe in a flat income tax rate, and our tax policy attempts to achieve that.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
It makes sense that the higher income brackets get more tax cuts because they still pay more of their income in taxes. Even under the Bush tax cuts, those people pay 35% of their income in taxes while the bottom pays nothing at all to less than 10%. We believe in a flat income tax rate, and our tax policy attempts to achieve that.
Click to expand...

This. People fail to realize how percentages work.

The numbers show that the top 25% of society pays more than 80% of the overall income taxes. The bottom 50% of society pays a mere 3% or something. The progressive tax scale not only throws a higher perecentage on richer people, but it also takes a percentage from a much larger pool.

My Income Tax Class professor actually did a study because he felt that the general public didn't understand the different system of taxes and how they work. A flat tax rate is everyone is charged the same percent. His studies showed a large majority thought a flat tax rate meant everyone would say for example pay $10,000 a year and that's it. Even with a flat tax rate the rich will still pay way more than the rest. Shoot, even a regressive tax rate where the rich pay a lesser percentage, the rich would still carry the burden of most of the taxes.
 
back to original topic, what's bad about socialism? Yes the united states is currently capitalistic but, why is socialism bad again? A Flat-Tax rate sounds pretty socialisticy(not a real word) to me.
 
Knewz said:
back to original topic, what's bad about socialism? Yes the united states is currently capitalistic but, why is socialism bad again? A Flat-Tax rate sounds pretty socialisticy(not a real word) to me.
Click to expand...

A progressive income tax rate is socialistic because it a part of the socialist wealth redistribution scheme. Socialism is bad because it rewards those who do not work by entitling them to what working Americans have earned.

Watch this for lulz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-iM9Wmdgo
 
Whats so bad about Market Socialism - look at Sweden for example

Socialism doesn't require the government owning everything, just them ensuring everyone is cared for

A helluva lotta people were got out of poverty by targeted welfare etc, and the Government providing for a single tier health service ensures lower costs and fairer care (bear in mind the US spends more then twice per person what most developed countries spend on healthcare and still achieves lower life expectancy and worse infant mortality)

The tax burden issue needs another thread
 
What I laugh about is this all started from a video of a Democrat saying they are socialists, and therefor it must be true. Some people...
 
lordofthereef said:
What I laugh about is this all started from a video of a Democrat saying they are socialists, and therefor it must be true. Some people...
Click to expand...

No . . . it starts whenever the current administration announces a new, well, anything they announce. It ends when we have a strong republican president and an equally strong congress that is dedicated to the document very few democrats know, or have ever read: The Constitution of The United States of America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom