Tea Bag Socialists

[gypski]

"Seventy percent of those who identify as Tea Partiers -- a platform that strongly decries government intervention in public life -- want an interventionist government to create jobs, and only about one in three believe Medicaid and Medicare are "socialist" programs, according to a new Bloomberg poll."

Gee, they can call Obama a socialists and then want a government socialistic jobs program. What a dichotomy!!!

Is Promote the General Welfare a socialistic idea put forth by the Founding Fathers???

Poll: ‘Anti-socialist’ Tea Party activists want government to create jobs | Raw Story

gypski Reviewed by gypski on 03-26-2010. Tea Bag Socialists "Seventy percent of those who identify as Tea Partiers -- a platform that strongly decries government intervention in public life -- want an interventionist government to create jobs, and only about one in three believe Medicaid and Medicare are "socialist" programs, according to a new Bloomberg poll." Gee, they can call Obama a socialists and then want a government socialistic jobs program. What a dichotomy!!! :D Is Promote the General Welfare a socialistic idea put forth by the Rating: 5

[pepurr]

"Seventy percent of those who identify as Tea Partiers -- a platform that strongly decries government intervention in public life -- want an interventionist government to create jobs, and only about one in three believe Medicaid and Medicare are "socialist" programs, according to a new Bloomberg poll."

Gee, they can call Obama a socialists and then want a government socialistic jobs program. What a dichotomy!!!

Is Promote the General Welfare a socialistic idea put forth by the Founding Fathers???

Poll: â??Anti-socialistâ?? Tea Party activists want government to create jobs | Raw Story

Yeah! What a bunch of dick-otomy heads.

[killerweed420]

First of all its a poll by Bloomberg so doubtful about its authenticity. I'm not a tea partier but I am a Libertarian, who hold alot of the same beliefs. Yes Medicare, medicaid, social security are socialist programs, no doubt about that and as a libertarian I'm against them because the federal government does not have legal authority to have these programs along with organizations like the FCC,ATF,TSA,DEA and lots of others. Libertarians believe in the constitution and bill of rights as they were first signed, we believe they are all equally important. Every time a bill is passed by congress that violates the constitution you just lost a little of your civil rights and I don't want to see that happen.

[gypski]

First of all its a poll by Bloomberg so doubtful about its authenticity. I'm not a tea partier but I am a Libertarian, who hold alot of the same beliefs. Yes Medicare, medicaid, social security are socialist programs, no doubt about that and as a libertarian I'm against them because the federal government does not have legal authority to have these programs along with organizations like the FCC,ATF,TSA,DEA and lots of others. Libertarians believe in the constitution and bill of rights as they were first signed, we believe they are all equally important. Every time a bill is passed by congress that violates the constitution you just lost a little of your civil rights and I don't want to see that happen.

....and the philosophy of Libertarian socialism, which argues that genuine free-markets weaken the capitalist class and empower the working class. :thumbsup:

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[killerweed420]

The constitution certainly grants the government the right to tax and regulate interstate businesses and foreign businesses selling there products in the US. Which is a sign of socialism. The foreign companies are our biggest problem, they're pretty much unregulated and not easily taxed. My preference is to not tax businesses but tax income with an income based flat tax instead. No tax deductions for any businesses, the businesses can do what ever they want with there money but if its taken as personal income then its taxed. The problem is this would be unfair with foreign companies doing business in the US, they wouldn't be taxed.

[yokinazu]

My preference is to not tax businesses but tax income with an income based flat tax instead.

my problem with thet is that a buisnesses income is not called income but earnigings and yes they should be taxed.

the answer is a flat tax. no matter if a buisness or a person what ever money is made should be taxed. and all equally. a percantage sounds good to me. no loop holes no deductions, no earned income, no bullshit. if you make 100,000 grand a year say at 10% you pay 10,000 of that to the government. if you make no income you pay nothing. but lets face it i know people who have paid less than $1000 a year and got on a return 4500. and people who make 1,000,000 a year who pay less than 1000. and why is the tax system fucked. it dont take a genuis. you cant give people more thean they paid.

and as far as gettin rid of social programs well lets see where we will be with absolutly no social programs: that means no welfare, no "obama" care, no medicaid, no SOCIAL securaity, no fireman, no police, no un-employment. anyone who knows history shoulkd agree with the fact that when the fire deparment become city or state run by the governmetnt of city or state, still socialist but not on the federal scale, they became more efficint and saved more lives and property than 2 companys fighting over the territory. my point is socialist programs do have their good points.

[gypski]

The constitution certainly grants the government the right to tax and regulate interstate businesses and foreign businesses selling there products in the US. Which is a sign of socialism. The foreign companies are our biggest problem, they're pretty much unregulated and not easily taxed. My preference is to not tax businesses but tax income with an income based flat tax instead. No tax deductions for any businesses, the businesses can do what ever they want with there money but if its taken as personal income then its taxed. The problem is this would be unfair with foreign companies doing business in the US, they wouldn't be taxed.

I have no problem with a graduated flat tax. Face it, the more you make the more you give up. I'm not saying rob the rich, but make them ante up. Most of the corporate CEOs could afford to pay 50% flat and still live high off the hog. Thieves must pay their far share. Then start down the ladder from there. If you only get paid minimum you pay nothing.

And still place tariffs and taxes and duties on imports. Keep the sin taxes stable and quit fucking everybody on them too. :smokin:

[WashougalWonder]

Everyone should pay an equal percentage from rich to poor.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

....and the philosophy of Libertarian socialism, which argues that genuine free-markets weaken the capitalist class and empower the working class.

quoting a wikipedia entry on libertarian socialism is disingenuous at best. there are so many ideologies concerning economic and political theory and they are labeled in such an obtuse manner that those labels become almost meaningless. the concept of a libertarian socialist is nearly an oxymoron. there are certainly deluded fools out there that believe a libertarian's minimal government is capable of controlling a massive nation's economy, as in the socialist model, but those are the sort of naive, ivory tower idiots that have gotten us into the mess we are in now. the u.s. began its life as a libertarian society, a loosely knit alliance of separate states with the federal government as the final arbiter in assuring the liberty of the individual. in about two centuries that limited federal authority has become the oppressive voice of control through its use of federally mandated programs and overreaching power grabs, centralizing control to a nearly totalitarian degree. this is the outcome of mixing the near anarchism of libertarian thought with the stringent control required by socialist dogma. the liberty assured by one is overridden by the necessary centralized power of the other.

.....as far as gettin rid of social programs well lets see where we will be with absolutely no social programs.....
my point is socialist programs do have their good points.

there are very few who would demand the abolition of all social programs. a certain amount of charity within government is a sign of a healthy society. the dilemma is deciding at what point does the scope of those programs become oppressive to the nation as a whole and where should the power to control those programs reside. the expansion of liberty demands that such charitable causes be gradually taken over by the private sector and placed in the hands of regional authority. this country is on the opposite course, centralizing that authority at the expense of the individual's freedom of choice. the quest for moral solutions to the ills of society is leading to the creation of the same sort of totalitarian regime that has failed time and again in nations across the globe.

I have no problem with a graduated flat tax. Face it, the more you make the more you give up. I'm not saying rob the rich, but make them ante up. Most of the corporate CEOs could afford to pay 50% flat and still live high off the hog. Thieves must pay their far share.

i'd say you haven't the faintest idea what the term "flat tax" means. what you describe is the progressive taxation that penalizes success, inhibiting growth for the sake of some illusory concept of "fairness". while you may deny it, what you are really saying is "steal from the rich to give to the poor" and your reasoning is based on the same tired rhetoric of envy that all of modern liberalism is based on. you equate the accumulation of wealth with evil and seem to see some inherent nobility in poverty.

the debt owed by the successful is one of ethics and of gratitude, not of the law, and the use of government's force to exact revenge on the mob's chosen scapegoats is no more moral than the outright theft you claim to abhor. just because the rich can afford to pay does not mean that we should be allowed to demand the payment of such usurious taxation under the threat of government's violent force. we should not allow some vague notion of social benefit to override the inviolate freedom of choice and personal ownership of self that is promised to us all by the constitution. we may praise those who engage in charity and damn those who hold the material above the welfare of their neighbor, but to demand conformity through force is nothing more than the mob's sin of envy. perhaps you would have us all believe that we are nothing more than beasts of the herd, but i certainly hope that we are capable of better.

[gypski]

i'd say you haven't the faintest idea what the term "flat tax" means.

I know exactly what a flat tax is. Its been talked about as along as I can remember. I still believe in parity. Pay what you can afford. The wealthy or super wealthy used to pay nearly 90%. Now they pay nearly nothing. always loop holes. Its a part of citizenship to pay taxes, but not for legislatures to piss away. The tax argument will never end. Maybe we should just say every man for himself, starting now with no level playing field. I'm on disability. I had a business and paid all the taxes including soc sec matches, unemployment and never bitched about it. I'm not greedy. But right now what I'm surviving on, no one should be placed in that position. Especially because they had marijuana offenses and are discriminated against. I take you you don't have any marijuana felony. And, I'm 61. I used to have a construction company. Its not just one easy solution. As a matter of fact, my family was once well to do, but several depressions and other things seemed to winnow it down. We've been in the US for nearly 300 years and are in every state. :jointsmile: No bragging, just saying. And, they associated with the Founders. Don't believe it, I don't care. :thumbsup:

Hypothetically, If I made a million bucks a years, I'd have no problem giving up 50%. but that's just me.