Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism.

[Anonymous]

Republicans took my money to pay for senior citizens prescriptions.

[Anonymous]

This is going better for me than it's going for Democrats around the country. You can scream and holler and crack jokes but that doesn't take away from the point that Democrats in Congress want to take more from the most productive and give to those who don't earn as much. And as tomorrow will show most Americans don't want that either.

[Anonymous]

Well, we designed a system that allowed a select few to be more productive than others, for no other reason than circumstance of birth. But you'd prefer to pretend that the more productive among us achieved what they have solely on merit. And the rest of us are just lazy ingrates, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is going better for me than it's going for Democrats around the country. You can scream and holler and crack jokes but that doesn't take away from the point that Democrats in Congress want to take more from the most productive and give to those who don't earn as much. And as tomorrow will show most Americans don't want that either.

Your party just did that to me two years ago. You took my money and gave it to retirees to pay for their drugs. They are retired. They don't produce anything anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is going better for me than it's going for Democrats around the country. You can scream and holler and crack jokes but that doesn't take away from the point that Democrats in Congress want to take more from the most productive and give to those who don't earn as much. And as tomorrow will show most Americans don't want that either.

Tomorrow is not going to be about economic redistribution. Tomorrow is going to be about people frustrated at 9.6% unemployment. You can pretend otherwise, but the current economy, not the government's future tax policy, is the issue. And the exit polls will show this.

And by the way, you are only going to get half the job done. Thank the Tea Party for f'ing up the Senate.

[Anonymous]

If you don't think this election is about Obama and Congress and how far the pendulum has swung to the left then believe me Obama is bound to be a one termer who will suffer the same fate as Jimmy Carter. In just 2 years after your first majority in over a decade you've been bounced. I see another 20 in the wilderness. But go ahead and be the smug liberal that is out of touch with most of America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think this election is about Obama and Congress and how far the pendulum has swung to the left then believe me Obama is bound to be a one termer who will suffer the same fate as Jimmy Carter. In just 2 years after your first majority in over a decade you've been bounced. I see another 20 in the wilderness. But go ahead and be the smug liberal that is out of touch with most of America.

just like 2008 was the end of the GOP for the foreseeable future. Trouble is, nobody can foresee the future. My take is that there is every chance that the GOP, with the help of their new Tea Party contingent, will do an even better job than Obama of turning people off if they succeed as well as expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think this election is about Obama and Congress and how far the pendulum has swung to the left then believe me Obama is bound to be a one termer who will suffer the same fate as Jimmy Carter. In just 2 years after your first majority in over a decade you've been bounced. I see another 20 in the wilderness. But go ahead and be the smug liberal that is out of touch with most of America.

You are projecting your belief system onto the current political climate. The polls say you are wrong. Here is an excerpt from yesterday's CNN poll:

Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today?
The Economy: 52%
The federal budget deficit: 8%
Education: 8%
Health Care: 8%
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: 8%
Illegal Immigration: 8%
Terrorism: 4%
Energy and Environmental Policies: 4%
Other: 1%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/10/31/5a.poll.release.pdf


It's still the economy, stupid. If you misread the lesson of the midterm elections, your boys are going to blow it all over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the fait accompli assumption in your statement that socialism is so automatically bad that once you've conclusively asserted it you've proved something, what you're describing is democratic government (taxing and spending). Socialism requires shared ownership and control over the means of production (wealth generation), which we don't have, as our society's means of production are all privately owned. Communism requires state-controlled shared means of production, which we also don't have, as the government is not involved in independently generating wealth or profiting from manufacturing.

Social welfare programs and government policies to minimize the impacts of wealth inequality rely on some principles of equity that socialism also relies on (everyone in society should have access to similar public resource and opportunities, there should be a baseline of general welfare below which nobody is allowed to fall, those systems upon which we all rely like roads, bridges, schools, and fire departments [doh!] should be well-maintained), but they are not the same.

It's ignorant to attempt to describe our democratic capitalist society as socialist, and small-minded to attempt to move from shared principles to a structural label that by definition doesn't apply. Which is totally separate from the facile judgment that even if we did move to a socialist democratic state, that would always and automatically be a terrible thing.

Don't go cluttering up OP's mind with, you know . . . facts. Glenn Beck has told her that a progressive tax system with modest social welfare programs = socialism, and will lead to the demise of the Republic and all that's good and pure in America. Didn't you know that the US operates on a pure capitalist system? Wait - it doesn't, you say? Blasphemy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think this election is about Obama and Congress and how far the pendulum has swung to the left then believe me Obama is bound to be a one termer who will suffer the same fate as Jimmy Carter. In just 2 years after your first majority in over a decade you've been bounced. I see another 20 in the wilderness. But go ahead and be the smug liberal that is out of touch with most of America.

You are projecting your belief system onto the current political climate. The polls say you are wrong. Here is an excerpt from yesterday's CNN poll:

Which of the following is the most important issue facing the country today?
The Economy: 52%
The federal budget deficit: 8%
Education: 8%
Health Care: 8%
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: 8%
Illegal Immigration: 8%
Terrorism: 4%
Energy and Environmental Policies: 4%
Other: 1%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/10/31/5a.poll.release.pdf


It's still the economy, stupid. If you misread the lesson of the midterm elections, your boys are going to blow it all over again.

You do realize that the taxes are lumped in to the "economy" when we talk about it in the colloquial sense. I don't understand how someone can say with a straight face to the most productive people "Hey you need to take home less money because I'm going to forcibly take it away from you and give it to less productive people."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the fait accompli assumption in your statement that socialism is so automatically bad that once you've conclusively asserted it you've proved something, what you're describing is democratic government (taxing and spending). Socialism requires shared ownership and control over the means of production (wealth generation), which we don't have, as our society's means of production are all privately owned. Communism requires state-controlled shared means of production, which we also don't have, as the government is not involved in independently generating wealth or profiting from manufacturing.

Social welfare programs and government policies to minimize the impacts of wealth inequality rely on some principles of equity that socialism also relies on (everyone in society should have access to similar public resource and opportunities, there should be a baseline of general welfare below which nobody is allowed to fall, those systems upon which we all rely like roads, bridges, schools, and fire departments [doh!] should be well-maintained), but they are not the same.

It's ignorant to attempt to describe our democratic capitalist society as socialist, and small-minded to attempt to move from shared principles to a structural label that by definition doesn't apply. Which is totally separate from the facile judgment that even if we did move to a socialist democratic state, that would always and automatically be a terrible thing.

Don't go cluttering up OP's mind with, you know . . . facts. Glenn Beck has told her that a progressive tax system with modest social welfare programs = socialism, and will lead to the demise of the Republic and all that's good and pure in America. Didn't you know that the US operates on a pure capitalist system? Wait - it doesn't, you say? Blasphemy!

Oh my aren't you smug. Except these aren't facts. They're opinions that liberals believe to be fact. But as our failed welfare system has proven, when the government keeps giving more and more you just breed lazy generations that don't want to learn how to fish but want the government to give them the fish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the fait accompli assumption in your statement that socialism is so automatically bad that once you've conclusively asserted it you've proved something, what you're describing is democratic government (taxing and spending). Socialism requires shared ownership and control over the means of production (wealth generation), which we don't have, as our society's means of production are all privately owned. Communism requires state-controlled shared means of production, which we also don't have, as the government is not involved in independently generating wealth or profiting from manufacturing.

Social welfare programs and government policies to minimize the impacts of wealth inequality rely on some principles of equity that socialism also relies on (everyone in society should have access to similar public resource and opportunities, there should be a baseline of general welfare below which nobody is allowed to fall, those systems upon which we all rely like roads, bridges, schools, and fire departments [doh!] should be well-maintained), but they are not the same.

It's ignorant to attempt to describe our democratic capitalist society as socialist, and small-minded to attempt to move from shared principles to a structural label that by definition doesn't apply. Which is totally separate from the facile judgment that even if we did move to a socialist democratic state, that would always and automatically be a terrible thing.

Don't go cluttering up OP's mind with, you know . . . facts. Glenn Beck has told her that a progressive tax system with modest social welfare programs = socialism, and will lead to the demise of the Republic and all that's good and pure in America. Didn't you know that the US operates on a pure capitalist system? Wait - it doesn't, you say? Blasphemy!

Oh my aren't you smug. Except these aren't facts. They're opinions that liberals believe to be fact. But as our failed welfare system has proven, when the government keeps giving more and more you just breed lazy generations that don't want to learn how to fish but want the government to give them the fish.

Welfare has not failed. It's a safety net for people who cannot be self-sufficient. Not everyone's like you, you know. Many are better at things and many are worse. If you want to live in the richest nation on the planet (for now) and still let almost 1/4 of our American children live in poverty, then more power to you. I don't. Children are innocent and need to be taken care of. If their parents cannot, then society must.

[Anonymous]

Oh my aren't you smug. Except these aren't facts. They're opinions that liberals believe to be fact. But as our failed welfare system has proven, when the government keeps giving more and more you just breed lazy generations that don't want to learn how to fish but want the government to give them the fish.

What precisely are the liberal opinions that you benieve have been represented as facts? The definition of socialism? Poltical theory in general? Do you really believe that the US is a pure free-market, capitalist economy? When you come out with these non-specific, foaming at the mouth rants about socialism, taxes, liberals are bad people, and poor people are lazy, you just make yourself look silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh my aren't you smug. Except these aren't facts. They're opinions that liberals believe to be fact. But as our failed welfare system has proven, when the government keeps giving more and more you just breed lazy generations that don't want to learn how to fish but want the government to give them the fish.

Ewwww, the smug conservative called the liberal smug! Devastating critique! Oh I may faint!

[Anonymous]

I've been on welfare for 3 months when I was laid off. I have a degree, work 6 days a week, make $60K/year, pay my own health insurance and my taxes.

I guess Republicans would rather us starve to death because my job doesn't make as much as theirs?