|
Current Conditions: Light Snow, 33.1˚F
|
| Print Subscription Login Register |
Published:Monday, October 6, 2008
What do liberals want?
EDITOR:
Liberals champion women’s rights — but when a woman not of their liberal persuasion is nominated for the second highest office in the land, they scorn her.
Liberals champion minority rights — but when a black man or a black woman not of their liberal persuasion is named to the U.S. Supreme Court or to the president’s cabinet, they vilify them.
Liberals want massive new taxes to fund expansive new government programs because they believe that government can spend and manage your money better than you can — this despite the fact that every socialist economy in the world is in decline.
Liberals want peace at any price. When we were attacked by the Islamic terrorists, they believed that our chickens merely “came home to roost.” If we are attacked again and they were in control, we might just as well surrender. Why else do you think the Muslim world is cheering for an Obama victory? Do they believe he is one of them?
The penultimate champion of these liberal causes is none-other than Barack Obama. He is rated the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Before coming to the Senate, he distinguished himself as a “street organizer” for such left wing groups as ACORN. He is an unapologetic, brazen liberal.
So is this year’s presidential election really about “change” as Obama and his liberal surrogates would have us believe? Or is it more about the economic shell game and class warfare that is synonymous with the liberal doctrine itself?
SHAWN RYBACZENKO
Lisbon
Who promises real change?
EDITOR:
We have two individuals expressing the single concept — the need for change. Both say that our country is on the wrong course on major national and international issues.
One individual — Obama — from the very first based his campaign on the need for change. He has stated at least three major areas for change: the war in Iraq, health care, and federal tax laws.
One individual — McCain — adopted the same concept of change in his bid for the presidency, but yet has not been specific where he plans to alter the direction of our country in any significant way on any of these issues.
He has been a member of the Republican Party in Washington for twenty-six years and has supported and advocated its agenda over these years and wants us to believe that once he becomes our president he will forsake many of the principles of his party which he has believed in and advanced for nearly three decades.
I am not trying to change any Republicans or Democrats by this correspondence since I believe that these individuals honestly believe in their respective political perspectives.
The voters I am trying to reach are those true independents who feel thus country must change course. To those individuals I ask them to think beyond all the spin and campaign advertisements.
EDWIN DOLBY
Poland
Just more of the same
EDITOR:
I’m appalled that after the trick of “the weapons of mass destruction,” the lemmings of our Congress followed the White House over another cliff. Some in the Senate tried to veer off to safer ground, but the Hounds of Wall Street herded them back in line. Our presidential candidates rushed back to Washington to do more of the same.
We get what we deserve.
PAT MOGG
Canfield
Search Options
Mr. RYBACZENKO, all due respect, but your statements about liberals are dramatic and over-reaching at worst and uninformed at best. Also, by any real political barometer, Obama is pretty centrist. The country's politics have shifted so far right that we mistake the middle for the left. We haven't seen real liberalism in a long time.
George,
No way is Obama a centrist. He is a Socialist. His policies are Socialists. They groups he worked with in the past (ACORN), and the friends he keep today (Bill Ayers) are Socialists.
Did you see Barry's new ad on insurance regulations? Looks like his policies will drive insurance companies out of business. Then guess what, Big Government will have to step into provide those services as well. MORE SOCIALISM!!
Obama is not a Liberal or Socialist. That's a figment of your Neo Conservative mind. He's about as Centrist as one can get. The only people who think he is a Liberal are the FOX Network and you GOP Neo Cons. His economic tax cut plan for the middle class is a good one - fair and balanced for the middle class. Let the wealthy pay more who make over $250,000 the taxes like they should. They have had it too easy for the past 8 years while the middle class has suffered.
Did you mention Socialism? Your good friend & Neo Con GOPer Bush pushed and got passed the biggest socialism package ever last friday to help out wall street. Don't you love him?
Grump,
I am not a fan of the package that Bush pushed pass congrss. It was a package put together by Paulson, a former wall street guy to bail out his friends. I was glad when the house rejected it at first. Next day the market rebounds. They should have just let the free market work.
Bush is a NEO Con in name only.
First of all, you don't know what neocon even means. A NEOCon, was originally used during the Reagan years to refer to DEMOCRATS who supported Reagan. They were moderate Democrats who did not support the LIBERAL, wacko, socialistic policies of the left-wing of their own party. Using NEOCON to refer to those who are Republican/conservative is stupid. If you goof-balls think that Obamamama is a moderate centerist Democrat, then you're truly clueless. In your world then, Karl Marx was a capitalist. It may sound good to think that if the folks who make higher salaries would pay higher taxes, but you don't know what your talking about and you're just buying into faulty logic. Do you know that about 60% of ALL income taxes are paid by folks making the top 5% of wages? They are the folks who own businesses where YOU work. If they are more highly taxed, then they invest less, expand businesses less, lay YOU off, don't increase wages, etc. YOU end up paying more taxes to cover the nanny-state policies proposed by Obama. Taxing "the rich" is a socialist/Marxist view that doesn't do anything, other than cause YOU pain. History has shown that cuts in taxes spur business development, create more jobs, increases spending resulting in MORE taxes from business and individuals being paid into the US Treasury. You Dumbassocrats who swallow the socialist crap just don't get it or understand how economics works. Obscenely high salaries that some CEO's make, or leave with, should be restricted somehow without imposing goverment/socialist policies. I have major heartburn with the Democrat Party's continual attack on people who take risks, bet their financial security, and invest, save, own businesses, and maybe get lucky and do well. (Most businesses fail) The Democrat Party's view is the THEY want to determine what "rich" is, what THEY think you should earn, and what "THEY" think you should keep, all the while claiming that they are "HELPING" the middle class by taking someone else's earned money and giving it to people who didn't earn it or aren't smart enough to get a higher education, or smart enough to take risks and make money, or can't pay attention to all the preachings of getting an education, having personal discipline and responsiblity, etc. I'm buying stock today since the whole market is on sale.
Obama 08!
Old Man Stump is suddenly a tax and economy expert. Everybody is though. When you get your news from CNN, FOX, and MSNBC you think you know it all.
The people making over 250k are now and have been shouldering the tax burden of our country. I don't want to get into real facts that may get some of you upset, but have no doubt that the top 10% of earners in this country shoulder 90% of the burden. That is the way it has been for several decades now.
There is also no question that our society has been on a fats track to socialism for since 1964.
To the guy who thinks the country's policies are too far right, I would love to know what country you are talking about. Government bailouts, out-of-control spending, no moral fabric whatsoever, and pandering to illegal immigrants and the poverty class, sounds real right wing to me. Jagoff.
Shawn's editorial makes me laugh so much..... ahhhaaaa. It's just too funny.
Shawn, for kicks, look up the definition of "penultimate" and you'll see why it's funny that you said that.
Then think about what you're trying to say: that "liberals" are so dumb that they are supposed to agree with everything any woman says or any black person says?? Is that how "conservatives" make their decisions? As long as a white male says it, they are supposed to agree with it?
Also, why should someone be apologetic for being a liberal? How is being liberal "brazen"??? Ha, you're really cracking me up.
Oh please send in another editorial- I needed that laugh this morning. :)
Doctor Garbage is good at partial information.
Don't you just love how Republicans use the "federal income tax" as the measurement of who pays those real high percentages of income to the government? Yet, they always fail to include social security and medicare taxes that aren't called income taxes but go to the federal treasury just the same. In fact, the poor and middle class pay a much higher percent of those taxes. 14 plus percent really using the Republican mantra that says corporations pay no income taxes and therefore the employee pays ALL of that 14 plus percent. In effect, I pay a higher percentage in federal taxes (including SS and Medicare) than Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. I pay about 15% in federal taxes and another 14% in SS and Medicare. Gates and Buffett pay 15% only because their incomes are almost exclusively capital gains. (because the capital gains tax is only 15%)
Fast track to socialism? Only because of the corruption and greed from the mostly Republican wall street and corporate CEO's.
clarkkent says: "Obscenely high salaries that some CEO's make, or leave with, should be restricted somehow without imposing goverment/socialist policies."
Eh??? You want to restrict what CEO's earn then turn right around and say you hate socialism???????? Do you even know what socialism is?
Dumb Cluck:
I am not a republican, democrat or any of the above.
So you are a tax professional? And I bet you work all day long with the tax code, businesses and the self-employed right. Or did you get your knowledge from Keith Olberman?
The social security and medicare tax is 7.65% for individuals and the self-employment tax is 15.3%.
"In fact, the poor and middle class pay a much higher percent of those taxes."
This statement is so stupid that I should not waste time addressing it but since I am here: My original statements were about taxpayers making 250k. These people probably have a marginal tax rate of 33% plus 7.65% on their first $102,000 made. The poor and middle class probably have a marginal tax rate of 15% plus 7.65% or 15.3% if they are self-employed. You do the math genius.
Also, the people in the upper tax brackets are phased out of just about every credit and most deductions available to the poor and middle class, especially Earned Income Credit which actually gives money back to the poor thereby decreasing their tax rate even more. I assume you know about the Earned Income Credit because I bet you qualify for it based on your earlier statements about the U.S. Tax system.
I have no idea where you pulled most of your information but the poor are paying 7.65% in SS and medicare and that is only on their income. In most cases theses people actually get a third of their wages back at tax time due to Earned Income Credit.
Unless you are self-employed you are not paying 14% in SS and Medicare, you are paying 7.65% which adds up to about 22.65% of your income (which I bet is very low). This seems quite a bit less than the 33% income plus 7.65% SS and Medicare the 250k earners pay. It should be noted that the SS and Medicare are only due on the first $102,000 made in 2008.
Sorry this was so long, and I am sure you do not understand it but it was fun for me.
Doctor Garbage OUT.
Obama 08!
Socialism:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
What do you call the "Mnadatory" bailout?
What do you call Obama's healthcare plan?
What do you call all the lobbyists in D.C.?
What do you call the direction this country is headed?
These are facts, not opinions. This country is on the fast track to socialism. The government will be ultra cetralized and have a hand in everything because society is too weak to think or desire otherwise.
At least it's an ethos.
Socialism:
A non-corporate economic system. An integral (but shrinking) part of American life as we know it. Some examples:
Libraries
Police Department
Fire department
Public schools
Roads, traffic lights, street lights, etc.
Sewers
Parks
Free museums
The bailout is not really socialism because it's only helping the rich folks... It's more of a final transition from the US being a republic to being a corpocracy.
Ohio Person is ill informed. In my previous comment I said that obscene CEO should be limited by non socialistic means is just that. I didn't say that it had to be limited by government..... especially government! Duh! Boards of directors of publically owned companies approve pay for officers. The pay is usually set at a comparble rate to other corporate leaders who manage similiar organizations. The SEC can intervene at this particular time The recent mortgage mess was created by liberal policies of no documented loans, and unregulated securities being bundled and sold as investment vehicles. The CEO salaries and compensation packages were far an away too high. They were greedy pigs and in the case of securities dealers who are intrusted with the public's money, they should be regulated more closely by the SEC and Treasury. As to you example of socialist organizations, you don't know what you're talking about and your examples are stupid. The bailout is a degree of socialism since the goverment will control about 20% of the public mortgage debt.
My definition of socialism was from an actual dictionary that has standing in our society, not a made up definition. I never said the ballot is socialism, but if you do not believe our country has and is moving towards a socialist society then you are delusional, ignorant, or both.
The governmant has done nothing but involved itself in things that should remain under a laissez faire umbrella in our society and when Obama gets in next month this trend will not stop. In actuality, it is unlikely to stop no matter who gets in next month.
But keep your head in the sand and hope for the best. We will see what actual change occurs.
Clark and Dr.,I appreciate your trying to inform these basically uninformed people, but as I have learned in the past is that these people have their craniums(in their case the bones enclosing nothing) stuck up their rectums. If you want to see total bewilderment, ask a democrat why they are democrats or what could they say to you to convince you to become a democrat. If they mention President Bush or any individual, say it's not about the person, it's about what your party stands for, and that is ????? Watch out for a boisterous, red faced tirade, spewing talking points and Vindicator headlines.
It is not about dems or reds, it's about common sense and suckers born every minute.
This country is on the fast track to the crap hole and no matter who gets in next month, the decline will continue.
Picture a two class society and then try and figure out which class you'll be in. I can assure you it will not be the one you want to be a part of.
It's interesting that all of the self-identified Democrats here are engaging in civil dialogue and all of the self-identified Republicans are using folksy descriptions of craniums and rectums and expressions like "crap hole." Who are the "suckers?" My guess...those who can't articulate their thoughts without resorting to namecalling and anus references.
I think I'll vote for the smart guy who just won the debate.
"As to you [sic] example of socialist organizations, you don't know what you're talking about and your examples are stupid."
I'm sorry you can't refute my examples of socialism any better than a first grader. Speaking of grade school, remember sharing? That's really all socialism is. All pay in, all benefit (in a perfect world). Give according to your ability, take according to your needs.
Each example I named is based on that- we all pay for police protection and can use it when we need it for free. We all pay for all the roads and use them without paying (except toll roads). We all pay in to support the library system and use that system for free. There it is- socialism- oooo scary!!!
Not saying there haven't been bad manifestations of socialism in certain nations that mix socialism with fascism, because that is definitely a problem and plenty scary. But a socialist economic system is not *on its own* a threat to anyone except the very rich.
This sort of argument is absolutely how we elected a President as bad as President Bush and how we got in the mess we're currently in. The detailed points of disagreement implied in Ms. Rybaczenko's post--e.g., whether Obama tax policies could possibly be as bad as the deficit spending that seems inevitable under McCain--are not the real point. (Nor is incorrect use of the word "penultimate" or even the racism subtly implicit in the post.) Instead it's that this post is everything that's wrong with American politics and a lot of what seems to have been wrong with GOP campaigning at least since Lee Atwater. That is, instead of any meaningful discussion of real substance, Ms. Rybaczenko throws around a hollow, straw-mannish category word--"liberal"--like it's a swear word, and tries to prove that "liberals" are bad.
Obama is husband!
Obama is a father!
Obama is an American!
Obama is human!
Obama is a presidential canidate.
(why the hell do we look at skin color in this day and age, unlike most other countries, we were made in all kinds of hues and are the same on the inside, but we still have racist people, you know who you are.
Although McCain is all of the above also. I can think of one other good name for McCain........WARMONGER!!! That's all he talks about ....to his friends...I thought friends were there for you in a time of need. How am I going to reach him when this economy starts affecting me so much, like when I can't afford a bill or a dinner? Some friend he is to me.
Obama 08!
George,
Me want to put foot in you crap hole. You stink. Me unlike you and you talk down on me. Me hope you take long walk off short bridge.
Obama all the way! I can not vote for a woman who is not a good exapmle of women in the US. She comes across as uninformed and a hugh airhead. Sorry but when did she decide to dye her hair brown? She is all over the place and not good at answer a hard question let alone a easy one. I am not one to vote a staight ticket ever! I will be voting for Obama Biden! Hands down they will do so much more for the middle class, they have been there and done that!
Obama Biden in 2008, to FIGHT for the MIDDLE CLASS!!
OhioPerson, you're still off base on your examples. The services you reference are VOTED for (or against) by the people. We don't use those services for free. If they were really "free", and you used them, then they would be provided by the government without any public input. That would be more socialistic. Since you (if you're old enough to vote) and I vote for or against tax levies to support those organizations, they are not examples of socialism in action. If the folks of Trumbull country didn't vote for the library levy in a recent election, they would close or restrict access. IF you don't vote for the police levy, what happens? If they were creations of a socialist government policy, it wouldn't matter if they never got any taxpayer money since they would continue anyway. Try again. Your logic is off base.
Holy Moly.
Gonzo is cracker
Gonzo is hungry
Gonzo is tired
Gonzo is laughing
Great poem Aprilshowers. If you are worrying about paying that next bill or for your next meal at McDonald's, you should try selling some poems. I would love to read some more.
Also, I cannot believe Sarah dyed her hair brown either. Screw her. I would never vote for someone that out of touch with her hair color.
I truly hope you are all right about the annointed one, and he really does infuse change. The reality is that neither one is going to change anything. Right George? Me sorry to ramble.
Gonzo, if you think I'm talking down to you, why don't you try talking up instead of becoming increasingly disgusting and incomprehensible? Oh, that's right, you're a Republican. Cheap shots, false accusations, and rectum jokes are all you've got. Such a maverick, you are!
I am really not a republican, nor a democrat. I consider myself a hardcore independent with views that stretch to both sides of the aisle on different issues.
I like the monikers disgusting and incomprehensible though. I really am both.
Rectum.
Gonzo, that was actually kind of smart. Well played.
clarkkent, you're getting fascism (a form of authoritarian government) mixed up with socialism (an economic system). You can still have democracy (voting) and a socialist economy. We vote to pool our resources together for a shared common purpose. That's a socialist democracy.
There have been socialist economies in nations (like Russia, Cuba) that are also fascist- YES. And these are bad examples of socialism because the economic system was/is controlled by fascist governments instead of by the people. The problems in these systems are not because of socialism, but because of fascism, authoritarian dictators, etc.
You hear bad things about socialism from corporate-controlled media outlets. WHY? Is it because socialism is a poor "misunderstood" economic system that has never worked? No, it's because socialism would threaten the rich who run these very large corporations who benefit from capitalism and would lose a LOT in a socialist society where went untreated for health problems, no one suffered from hunger on a daily basis, etc. The rich can thank the existence of the hungry and the sick for their wealth. A more even distribution of the wealth would involve these people paying up. Sharing. Taking care of other people.
does anyone know how obama stands on abortion, gun control, crime, border security and immigration?
Unfortunately, abortion, gun control, crime, border security, immigration are all off the table at this time. I do know obama's record on gun control is bad, as he would like to ban guns and repeal the Second Admendment, regardless of what some of his radio commercials say. He is NOT a friend of the Castle doctrine, which allows a homeowner the right of self defense in your own home.
Vindyak, where did you get that propaganda? Direct from the NRA I presume.
Obama is for banning assault weapons only. He's tough on crime just like Clinton was with his 100,000 more cops on the street. He doesn't agree with a border fence but believes in controlled immigration.
The stuff that passes as truth from you Republicans is simply ridiculous.
Obama is pro choice. He believes a woman can make her own decision, and has the right to privacy.
"THAT ONE" 08!
lol, your so funny cambridge! And I agree with you!