[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL Ben C comment on reply...

[Steven Alm]

Hell, I'll take some of Brad's money!

Comrade Slim

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com>wrote:

> David,
>
> It's pretty easy to get "the majority" to agree to taking from "the
> minority".
>
> Some of us have been opposed to the progressive tax burden for a long
> time. I for one have since I first understood it. I believe we should
> have a flat rate on individuals, and no income tax on corporations
> (business don't pay taxes, they collect them).
>
> My issue on Obama's plan is he is taking cash from one group, and giving
> it to another.
>
> Not putting it into another program, efficient or inefficient, he is
> taking Brad's money, and handing it to Me.
>
> That's wrong.
>
>
> David Bradley wrote:
> > Ed, et al., a question for you.  What do you call it today when we
> > have a progressive tax rate?  Are we living in a Socialist system
> > already, by your definition?
> >
> > I participate in a transfer of weatlh 24 times a year with every
> > paycheck.  Each year I look at a summary of a large payment to the US
> > government for services rendered to me and others.  I don't begrudge
> > any of it other than the parts that go to inefficient programs and a
> > war we shouldn't be in (but that's a different debate, please).  I
> > don't believe we will live long enough to see a world without war or
> > inefficient programs, but I think there can be proress.  I believe the
> > government has to play a role in determing the use of those funds,
> > because voluntary giving by individuals will not address major needs
> > in our country.
> >
> > When the Federal tax rate went down a couple of (few?) points, it had
> > no impact on my investment or consumption patterns.  I don't believe a
> > change in the tax rate upward by a couple (or few?) percentage points
> > will change my investment or consumption patterns anywhere near as
> > much as, say, not being able to rent my house in CT will.  Most if not
> > all of the people I know (which actually represents a cross section of
> > left-to-right) feel the same way.  Some are less inclined to give back
> > the tax cut, but this is not top of anyone's list of concerns and no
> > one in our extended circle views it as a shift to a Socialistic form
> > of government.
> >
> > I do not view a marginal shift in the progressive tax rates as
> > Socialist, never mind Marxist.  I don't believe there has been any
> > discussion of the government rescinding private ownership of anything.
> >
> > I think a majority of people share in this opinion, or one close to
> > it.  We live in a 50/50 society which right now may be more like a
> > 55/45 split.  You seem to live in a 90/10 world of extreme opinions
> > and rhetoric.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Ben:
> >>
> >> Thank you for your reply
> >>
> >> Ben said, "The problem I have is that I don't carry the same suspicion
> of
> >> the MSM as you and some others do.  I think back to Woodard and
> Bernstein
> >> and Watergate and I conclude that any reporter who could "nail" Obama
> with a
> >> credible story of the kind of involvement with Ayres which would be
> >> significant would win a Pulitzer, be the toast of the town, get all the
> >> great women, and be a multi-millionaire forever. Who could resist that?
> >>
> >> The aspects that I look here are recent track record for finding all the
> >> truth.  Where are those investigative reporters like Woodward and
> Bernstein
> >> looking?  I do not see most of the MSM looking and analyzing Obama's
> >> philosophy in terms of what it means in 'economics'.  In fact I do not
> >> believe 90 % of the reporters understand economics, economic history,
> >> American history, etc.
> >>
> >> Why do I make that statement?  I make it because I am a product of the
> same
> >> education system that they are.  Most teachers in public schools,
> private
> >> schools and on to the college level do not study no less understand
> >> economics and economic history.
> >>
> >> If the reporters do not understand what they are looking at, why expect
> them
> >> to ask questions that distinguish the nuts and bolts of what makes the
> >> traditional American system work?  How can a search for truth be
> expected
> >> even if they want a Pulitzer Prize if they do not understand the
> traditional
> >> economic
> >> system.[see:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams100208.php3]
> >>
> >> Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams are two who currently write well
> about
> >> economics.  George Soros also writes about a narrow field of economics.
> >> Soros is a lucid writer but has developed his opinions, theories, views
> from
> >> his experience in a narrow sophisticated area and tries to apply them to
> the
> >> whole world and America.  [see:
> >> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102108.php3 ]
> >>
> >> I like Soros's concepts of openness and democracy.  I have a problem of
> his
> >> acceptance of socialist means or government compulsion as the best
> >> solutions.
> >>
> >> What I am saying is that Obama says he wants change.  The problem I have
> is
> >> that most of the change he espouses is based on Socialist concepts that
> have
> >> been failed concepts during the 20th century.
> >>
> >> You have suggested in the past that you would like to get rid of the
> whole
> >> bunch in Washington.  Fine, I have no problem with that.  But, I ask
> what
> >> change are we going to put in place?  Who are the people that are going
> to
> >> make that change?  Obama has not demonstated more integrity, rather he
> has
> >> walked with devils.
> >>
> >> I cannot agree that changing to a socialist system or socialist programs
> are
> >> a real solution based on those concepts and programs track record.
>  Those
> >> systems have not been the economic systems that have made America the
> place
> >> it is today, nor are they the economic systems that have made the world
> a
> >> better place.
> >>
> >> I recognize two social and economic systems that have made a difference.
> >> First, Democracy that keeps dictatorships in check and, second,
> individual
> >> initiative exercised thru free enterprise.
> >>
> >> I see Obama's ideas as ultimately placing excessive tax burdens on free
> >> enterprise.  I see the upcoming supermajority as the road to serfdom.  I
> see
> >> Obama as an evangelist type person, that is giving a persuasive sermon
> and
> >> when he leaves the tent living a different life style.
> >>
> >> Ed K
> >> Greenville, SC, USA
> >> Addendum:  "Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral
> authority
> >> and character increase as the importance of the position increases."
> John
> >> Adams
> >> {I am sure you can and will nit pik this post}
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ben Cittadino wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ed;
> >>>
> >>> You have raised two legitimate questions for me to wrestle with so let
> me
> >>> give it a shot.  As I understand it you want to know what I think on
> the
> >>> issue of whether Sen Obama is using "deception or evasion about his
> prior
> >>> economic and politcal concepts".  As a corollary to that, you posit
> that
> >>> if he is being deceptive or evasive does that disqualify him on honesty
> >>> and integrity grounds from being entitled to our vote.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think I have ever suggested that inquiry into the Senator's
> past
> >>> associations is improper.  The problem I have is that I don't carry the
> >>> same suspicion of the MSM as you and some others do.  I think back to
> >>> Woodard and Bernstein and Watergate and I conclude that any reporter
> who
> >>> could "nail" Obama with a credible story of the kind of involvement
> with
> >>> Ayres which would be significant would win a Pulitzer,
> >>> be the toast of the town, get all the great women, and be a
> >>> multi-millionaire forever. Who could resist that?
> >>>
> >>> There is plenty of rumor, innuendo, and conspiratorial stuff out there,
> >>> but I don't see persuasive proof.  I think Colin Powell, as a former
> >>> National Security Advisor probably has sources better than ours which
> >>> would steer him away from this endorsement if there were anything to
> worry
> >>> about.  Powell is old, rich, respected.  He has lived his life.  All he
> >>> has is his legacy.  I can't believe a man like him or the other
> prominent
> >>> Americans who have vouched for Obama's patriotism would or could be
> >>> mislead.
> >>>
> >>> Look, there are lots of reasons to vote for John McCain.  If his
> policies
> >>> are closer to yours that's just fine.  I just think it would be a shame
> to
> >>> reject Obama solely because, what?, he hasn't made a full enough
> >>> disclosure of , what?, some plot to turn us into welfare state zombies?
> >>>
> >>> I don't see the persuasive, proof, the weight of the evidence that we
> have
> >>> anything to worry about.
> >>>
> >>> On your second point, if he lied about something important, then I
> won't
> >>> vote for him.
> >>>
> >>> Ben C.
> >>>
> >>> Tootle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ben,
> >>>>
> >>>> Start from the top.  I did not call you a Marxist.  The 'he' was
> >>>> referring to Obama, if you go back and read the whole paragraph.
> >>>> Furthermore, I do not know if Obama is a Marxist.  But he fails to
> >>>> distinguish himself from them so that a dummy can tell whether he is
> or
> >>>> is not.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that that association alone does not make him a Marxist.
> >>>> However, his stated political philosophy one ago year ago was parallel
> to
> >>>> Marxist style thinking, also know as Socialist thinking.  That is, his
> >>>> taxing proposals intimate a Marxist style or Socialist style thinking.
> >>>> Specifically, tax the hell out of those earning a high income and
> spread
> >>>> the wealth.  Or were his words, share the wealth?
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a problem with this concept for several reasons.  First, it
> takes
> >>>> property in the form of money from one group and gives it to another
> >>>> group.  What ever the reason, it is using the huge coercive power of
> the
> >>>> government to take property from one group and give it to another.
>  Now
> >>>> all kinds of social reasons can be given for doing this.  Bob Skinner
> is
> >>>> good at explaining some of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, another reason I recognize it as a problem is that that kind
> of
> >>>> transfer of wealth kills or severely harms individual initiative.   I
> >>>> recognize that it is people, both ordinary and extra ordinary that
> thru
> >>>> personal effort, also called initiative, has made great strides in
> >>>> raising the standard of living or wellbeing of all people.
> >>>>
> >>>> My question to you is still to discuss if Obama is using deception or
> >>>> evasion about his prior economic and political concepts?
> >>>>
> >>>> You are one guy who should be able to discuss that issue from all
> sides.
> >>>> Understand to some it is an honesty or integrity question.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please take your time to do so, and Thank You.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed K
> >>>> Greenville, SC, USA
> >>>> (Sorry Andrew no attachment)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Ben-C.%2C-thank-you-for-your-reply...-tp20095304p20110156.html
> >> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> __________________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>