Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2008, 07:38 AM
 
8,231 posts, read 17,329,518 times
Reputation: 3696

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by inhocster View Post
I believe they disguised it as an "investment" on our behalf. it that makes you feel better ;-)
I guess that's what Obama should have told the plumber. Taxes are an 'investment'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2008, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,577 posts, read 7,861,363 times
Reputation: 835
no, taxes are so that democrats and republicans can drive $60,000 cars at tax payer expense. I guess the $170,000 salary wasn't enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimimomx3 View Post
I guess that's what Obama should have told the plumber. Taxes are an 'investment'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 07:44 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,962,737 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightofcenter View Post
This is from Obama's site.

""Promote the general welfare" means precisely what it says - promote the well-being of the nation's citizenry as a whole."

Is this a socialist idea or would this be considered an American ideal?
It is a socialist ideal in the way Obama is using it and a twisting of its meaning within the preamble. Anyone who wanted to know its true meaning can read up on the founders and the design of this country. They can understand the purpose of their writings and the protections they instilled.

We used to teach this in the schools (well when I was growing up), but apparently history is a subject that isn't too popular these days or rather it is a subject riddled with revisionist changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Charlotte
12,642 posts, read 15,612,700 times
Reputation: 1680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamama Mia View Post
That is why I addressed the redistribution of wealth, I didn't think was what our forefathers had in mind.
I'm just not a supporter of Socialism, sorry.
Have you read Lincoln? He has a very distinct quote regarding Government and what it is intended to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 08:00 AM
 
11 posts, read 10,421 times
Reputation: 11
You can quote anybody regarding what they think government is intended for, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what is in the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,577 posts, read 7,861,363 times
Reputation: 835
they don't use that anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inhocster View Post
You can quote anybody regarding what they think government is intended for, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what is in the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 08:05 AM
 
11 posts, read 10,421 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise View Post
they don't use that anymore.
I guess that is kinda my point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 08:11 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,285,737 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightofcenter View Post
This is from Obama's site.

""Promote the general welfare" means precisely what it says - promote the well-being of the nation's citizenry as a whole."

Is this a socialist idea or would this be considered an American ideal?
Of course this would be considered an American ideal, historically. As for it being "socialist," the claim is ridiculous. Those who accuse Obama of being a "socialist" are usually those who have no problem with the "redistribution of wealth," as long as that redistribution benefits the wealthy rather than the middle or lower classes. And this is precisely what has happened over the past 8 years, and precisely the same track that McCain is on. The economist Robert Reich was asked by John Stewart why the bailout wasn't being distributed to middle-income Americans instead of to the people responsible for the economic fallout. He was half-kidding, of course. Reich's response was that the "official" reason was that in order for the structure of the economy to continue to function, the institutions need capital. The "unofficial" reason, he said, is because we live in a country where socialism is for the corporate class, and capitalism is for the rest of us. For example, due to tax cuts and tax loopholes, he said 40% of American corporations paid not one cent of taxes last year. McCain wants to continue down this road, putting money in the pockets of his wealthy friends, and forcing middle and lower income Americans to shoulder the burden. Meanwhile, our infrastructure and educational system continues to deteriorate. This type of corporate socialism, conducted under the banner of the Republican party, has not worked. A lighter tax burden on the wealthy has NOT created jobs, and there has been NO "trickle-down" benefit to the vast majority of Americans. Reich said that, adjusting for inflation, the American wage earner today earns less that the American wage earner of 2000.

There is nothing "socialist" about rebalancing the tax structure to benefit the MAJORITY of the citizens of this country. Even if it were "socialist," so what? Most Americans are indoctrinated to inherently distrust the idea of "socialism," and most haven't the foggiest idea what that term actually means, outside of its meaning as a fear-baiting tactic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 08:16 AM
 
808 posts, read 1,149,722 times
Reputation: 173
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Preamble of the United States Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2008, 08:20 AM
 
11 posts, read 10,421 times
Reputation: 11
wow that is a lot to take in. I think Americans distrust socialism, which doesn't need quotes., because socialism doesn't work. As for the bailout, I think there were a lot of people who did oppose it and unfortunately it was passed and passed by both parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top