« If I Weren't Retired, I'd Still Be Working | Main | Retirement: Life Doesn't Suck »

October 21, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Obama isn't a socialists for proposing a 39.6% tax rate. The socialism comes in when Obama states he is going to raise taxes on a certain group of people, who earn more than $200,000 to $250,000+ and take those taxes and just give them to people who either earn less or don't even work at all, in the guise of 'wealth distribution'. By playing symantics and calling the wealth distribution 'tax credits' when in reality it's really welfare is preposterous. Here's a better description than what I can say:

Socialists, who are in perpetual revolution, who believe that the end justifies the means, have worked through educational institutions, non-government organizations such as ACORN and by electing socialists to public office to silence teaching the virtues of free enterprise, capitalism, private property, individual responsibility and personal achievement. For nearly two generations, students have been fed a steady diet of socialism under a variety of disguises, including Outcome Based Education, No Child Left Behind, School-to-Work and a host of other "feel good" slogans.

Students and young adults no longer know why capitalism is better than socialism. Like Obama, young people really believe that when government redistributes wealth, "it's good for everybody." They do not realize that wealth redistribution is no substitute for wealth creation. They are never taught that the only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his energy and intellect with resources to produce a product that improves his life, or for which someone else is willing to pay.

Private property, the accumulation of personal prosperity and individual achievement are anathema to socialism. Socialism sees the individual as nothing more than a cog in a government-run machine designed to ensure equity for all.

Capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks equity. Freedom increases as prosperity increases. In a socialist system, there can be neither.

BTW, you didn't state the income caps on the tax rates, but it was nice to see that both Bush's had the lowest tax rates in history.

Hope you enjoy the rest of your numbered days in retirement. Never know if our new socialist government may decide that only people who have worked to the age of 70 can actually stop working. After all, it's all for the common good of man, isn't it? Maybe the gov't might decide how much money you need in your savings account. The way things are going, nothing will surprise me anymore. Considering that your early retirement relies on the wealth of capitalism in order for you to remain in retirement, I would think that you are walking a very fine line. Geeze, the gov't may decide you can't own two homes either? Didn't that happen in Russia?

Carefully think about what you are doing when you pull that lever on November 4th. Joe Biden already stated that the terrorists are going to test Obama as soon as he gets into office. I just hope your town or your loved ones will not be the next targets.

Retired Syd

The income caps on the rates are in the link in my post "progressive tax system." You can also see in that link, more history of the tax rates from before where I started. Lowest ranking is actually 1) Coolidge, 2) Reagan, 3)Bush (HW), 4) Bush (W), 4) Clinton (same as Obama's proposed rate), followed by all the other preceding (socialist?) 11 presidents taking the next 11 positions in the rank. Putting the Obama in the top third of lowest rates since 1917.

As to giving refunds to people that don't pay taxes, we already do that under the current tax structure. Maybe that will make you less scared.


Is giving 700 billion of tax payer money to help banks in trouble not also a retreat from pure capitalism? FYI: I have already voted for Obama.


Obama has been honest and steadfast with who he is and how he will govern. Obama has played upfront and on the line and hasn't waivered. The decision is: do you (plural) agree with him and his extreme left policies? Obama has not denied that he leans towards socialistic policies.

Retired Syd

@Leslie: Yep, clearly the $700 billion bailout fits more within the true definition of socialism than raising the the top tax rate (and lowering the bottom).

Socialism is where the government controls the means of production (owns industry). Government ownership of our "private industry" as we are doing with the banks is what former Treasury Secretary, Robert Reich calls "socialized capitalism."

I'm not sold on the argument that proposed changes in tax policy are in any way the same as the real definition of socialism. If it is, than we were a socialist society up until Reagan was elected president. Really?


You know, all these people who complain about their ohno 39.5% tax rate and how it will stifle business and be given to lazy schmoes, don't seem to realize that so many of the things they hold dear (roads, libraries, fire departments) are brought to them courtesy of taxes.

Does your tax money also go the less advantaged? Well, yes. But I'd be willing to bet that something like half a percent of the taxes you pay go to support the welfare system in this country.

Maybe before we criticize the welfare system we should look at why it is needed. Would it be as needed if businesses paid a fair wage? I seem to recall these same people who are against a 39.5% tax rate are also against raising the minimum wage, too. Because we know if businesses pay less taxes and rake in more money, at the end of the day, they're going to pay that forward, amirite? *rolls eyes*

These people also fail to realize that disaster could strike them and they may need to make use of these services, too. We're all against socialism until we have to pay out of pocket for our heart attack, or until we lose our job of 20 years and have no skills to get back to work, and our house gets foreclosed on, or until our public library closes.

I have no problem with the wealthy paying more than their fair share, and I don't even care if you call it socialist (even though, as Syd points out above, that's not the definition of socialism). Do you call France a socialist country? When I lived there (1996), doctors still made house calls. The poverty rate was very low, and there was a vast middle class that puts the U.S.'s to shame. Education was free or affordable.

To those who say, "why don't you go live there?" well, if it weren't for the fact that my husband doesn't speak French, and it's nigh on impossible for an American to get hired there, I might.

I cannot imagine a man who has nothing in common with me, who cannot even use a computer, who doesn't even know how many houses he owns, who is approaching senility, running this country. He has no grasp of what my life is like, and his ethics are straight out of the 50s. Obama, to my mind, is only slightly better, but I'll vote for the lesser of two evils.

And let me just say boomie's "I pray your family is not affected by terrorist attacks" line is cruel and sensationalist - just what I would expect from a right-winger who's acknowledged that facts have nothing to do with this election.


I also don't understand how people can consider themselves patriotic yet not pay taxes on services and for a country that they say they would do anything for. For some reason we can't afford social programs like health care for all children but it didn't take more than 2 weeks for the bailout package of 700 billion to pass both houses. The current welfare system is insignificant compared to what we spend every week in Iraq.


Thank you for showing the top marginal rates. I haven't seen it before. It helps out a couple arguments I've had in regards to Obama's tax plan.


People toss around words like "socialism" like it's the F word or something. Just call it what it is and forget the labels.

I'm voting for Obama.


What's with all this name calling?

Socialist. Liberal. Conservative.

Whether it's the Mets or the Yankees, aren't they all playing the same game?


@ Boomie
"Carefully think about what you are doing when you pull that lever on November 4th. Joe Biden already stated that the terrorists are going to test Obama as soon as he gets into office. I just hope your town or your loved ones will not be the next targets."

As a trained intelligence analyst, I can tell you this statement is just crap. It's pure rhetoric. The terrorists will attack whenever they can and it has no bearing on who is in office. Your arguement will be that Obama will weaken our security. How? An agreement on leaving Iraq will already be in place by the time he gets in office. He has no plans of pulling troops out of Afghanistan. All the previous Bush security procedures at the borders, though not good, will be in place. Give me one factual piece of information that supports your opinion.

Actually, it's more likely your town and your loved ones will be safer with Obama. Why? Because another direct attack on the U.S. would require any President, even if it was Mother Teresa, to attack the host country (ala Afghanistan). Initially, they will refrain from forcing Obama's hand, as they will hope he won't go after them if they don't attack the U.S. directly. Of course, they will realize after 6 months or a year that you he is still going after them, just not with random wars. There are more effective ways. It's at this time that the risk of terrorist attack under Obama will increase to the current level.

I didn't bother shattering your socialist arguments, as everyone else seems to have done a good job. It's blatantly obvious you don't think for yourself, as I can go down your argument and check off talking points provided by some Republican pundit. I'm not saying the Democrats are better, just that your programing by the Republican party is complete.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter