Say what?
May 27th, 2008 by JohnFeroce
Fewer Democrats Want Hillary to Drop Out
Survey of 800 Likely Voters
May 21-22, 2008
|
“As Barack Obama inches closer to formally wrapping up the Democratic Presidential Nomination, the number of Democrats who want Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race has declined.” Should Hillary Clinton Drop Out of the Democratic Presidential Primary Race? |
|
|---|---|
| Yes | 33% |
| No | 53% |
| Not Sure | 14% |
| Should Barack Obama Drop Out of the Democratic Presidential Primary Race? | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 26% |
| No | 64% |
| Not Sure | 11% |
You know what this tells me? 26% of Democrats are voting for someone OTHER than Obama! He’s done. Don’t even bother to argue, this data has been consistent for 3 months.
Think about it – If you’re Obama, not only do fewer Democrats now want Hillary to drop out, but 48 delegates shy of the nomination and 26% of your own party thinks you should drop out. Say what? Amazing
John, no argument , just a question. Were these numbers before her remarks about Bobby Kennedy? If so they might not reflect whatever effect that would have on those who misunderstood that statement.
how come 25% of republican primary voters keep choosing someone other than mccain in primaries when HE IS THE NOMINEE!!!???
“Were these numbers before her remarks about Bobby Kennedy? ”
I believe the Bobby Kennedy remarks were made on the 23rd. So the answer is the poll was taken before.
With that said, it’s worth knowing that his numbers have NOT changed throughout the campaign, so I think they are pretty solid.
“how come 25% of republican primary voters keep choosing someone other than mccain in primaries when HE IS THE NOMINEE!!!???”
I truly believe this is more about “message” on our end. Conservatives are focused on making McCain stay true to conservative principles, so they are keeping him in “check” so to speak. If you think these folks are going to vote for the most liberal member in the United States Senate, well that’s just not realistic. I do however believe Bob Barr can hurt, but the more he speaks the lower his numbers will go, so the 6% he just polled should dwindle to the point he and Nadar offset each other’s impact on the general election.
However on the “D” side, they don’t like each other, no getting around that. The Clinton supporters feel Obama used the race card (especially on Bill) and they’re pissed.
In addition, Obama’s inexperience is obvious to most voters (Democrats, Republicans and Independents), and that will be apparent the night of Nov 4th, when McCain wins the election.
John Feroce pontificated again: “The Clinton supporters feel Obama used the race card (especially on Bill) and they’re pissed.”
Wrong again, John. What race card did Obama play and when? Bill Clinton played the race card when he made the Jesse Jackson comparison statement. Obama responded and rightly so.
Regarding experience, what experience did that famous Republican Lincoln have? Obama has continuously made the statement that judgment is what counts most. Hillary did not use good judgment in voting for the Iraq War, nor did McCain. It turns out that Obama made the correct judgment.
And speaking of the Iraq War, are you up to date on Scott McClellan’s (Bush’s former press spokesman) revelations about the deceptions and propaganda tactics used by Bush to sell his war? These are about as damning of the current GOP brand as one can get:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10649.html
You folks have to do better. Electing McCain is not doing better, rather it is mostly continuing the Bush agenda on the war and on the economy.
Thus, experience has actually appeared to be of no help in too many important decisions on the war and on the economy. I’ll choose Obama’s judgment any day, and you should too, John! Use your own good judgment, and be honest about your inner feelings!!
McCain has experience like an old sofa cushion has experience.
Obama’s inexperience is obvious and I think, refreshing. He clearly does not have experience making all the wrong decisions like McCain does.
Perry
That’s what the Clintons and their supporters feel, it’s not about what I feel. They’re the voters you need, my vote is already counted.
Read it for yourself:
“Clinton said the allegation that he and Sen. Clinton played the race card was a “cold-blooded, calculated, manipulated, and a revolting strategy,” and that his only campaign season regret was speaking “late at night when I was tired, ‘cause if you are tired or angry, you shouldn’t be talking.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/21/bill-clinton-says-race-card-allegation-revolting-strategy/
John, what the Clintons and their supporters feel is not reality, but granted, it is their perception which cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it does sadden me as I observe their desperate words and actions.
I must point out to you that the poll results you quote are meaningless because they are taken before the Dems finally choose their candidate and attempt to heal the wounds of division. Let us patiently wait and see.
“Let us patiently wait and see.”
I am very patient…hopefully through to Denver
Let’s see, Obama believes there are 57 states, never knows the name of the town he is in, sees dead soldiers on Memorial day, and has an Uncle who evidently served in the Red Army????? That inexperience is refreshing??????? Haa
All those Obama-isms are funny because they are obviously superficial errors, unlike McCain’s deep conceptual cluelessness on core issues, like the 100-Year War and not knowing Sunni vs. Shiite.
“on making McCain stay true to conservative principles” John, there are no longer any conservative principles. They all got flushed by the Administration McCain wants to emulate. The McCain agenda is cut taxes, fight war, run up debt. The same old con game. You should say McCain will stay true to Bush principles, not conservative principles.
On fiscal matters Obama is the conservative, McCain is the snake oil salesman. Make the tax cuts permanent, keep unlimited spending in Iraq, run up $600 billion deficit and pay for it by cutting pork barrel spending. John, you have to be in some kind of a cult to believe that bullshit.
There comes a time when you have to decide which comes first. Your Party or your Country.
ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: Staunch Clinton campaign supporter Gov. Ed Rendell said Wednesday that his favored candidate is “very unlikely” to capture the Democratic nomination, and said that will mean the Democratic Party will nominate the weaker candidate for the fall campaign against Sen. John McCain.
Rendell, D-Pa., told Bloomberg Television that he believes polls that suggest that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a “far better candidate” than Sen. Barack Obama in swing states. But he added that he’s a “realist” who recognizes that superdelegates are likely to continue to flock to Obama until he clinches the nomination.
Obama is over his head. He’s already getting labeled a liberal by the neocons while proving how little he knows about foreign policy and history. He is an almost certain defeat for the dems in 08, no matter who he puts on his ticket.
Voters will identify with McCain, who will be the “safe” choice for many people unconvinced about Obama ability to lead this nation. He’s a risky pick and that is how he will be portrayed.
It will be a devastating defeat for the dems if he loses this election.
They should have played it safe. Clinton was a certain November winner. In every electoral college map, she beats McCain. In every electoral college map, McCain edges Obama. Talks the dems will all unite or that Hillary will bust her butt for the same people that villified her (the left) are hoping for the best. It’s unlikely to happen. Those same voters that identify with Hillary are more likely to identify with McCain rather than Obama.
I thought Hillary and Obama were both weaker than Edwards.
I got over it.
“It will be a devastating defeat for the dems if he loses this election”
anon, I have too disagree. Even if McCain wins he will be forced to go along with a democratic agenda. The chances of a veto-proof congress are very likely. I see McCain winning because of his opponent, or lack there of, but the democrats will pick up huge #’s in the house and senate. Many loyal Republicans will abandon GOP candidates because the Republican party abandoned true conservatism over the last 8 years. Democrats are smart and running conservative candidates in the south and cleaning the Republicans clock. This trend will continue until the leadership in the party changes.
If Obama’s inexperience is such a strong advantage, he will have to claim either complete ignorance or that he did not learn a single thing in 4 years if he ever wants to run again.
Since when did a lack of knowledge ever translate into a huge advantage in something as important as Leader of the Free World?
McCain’s experience is as a cog in the machine that mucked up our economy and our diplomacy. Why would you reward that?
First talk about lack of experience, now you switch to talking about lack of knowledge. I’ll put Obama’s knowledge up against McCain’s any day. But don’t take it from me – just wait for the debates.
“Regarding experience, what experience did that famous Republican Lincoln have?”
At least Lincoln knew that Kentucky didn’t border Arkansas. Obama is a typical affirmative-action grad…..a glib huckster with an empty head.
“Rendell, D-Pa., told Bloomberg Television that he believes polls that suggest that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a “far better candidate” than Sen. Barack Obama in swing states.”
Funny thing here is how JF is making common cause with all the old Democratic Party bosses who helped HIllary to wins in all the Democrat-controlled states. Yes, she wins among Democrats — Obama owes his lead, and his nomination, to crossover voters and independents, exactly the people McCain owes his primary success to. You have to read exactly the right polls, and ignore exactly the right ones, to reach Rendell’s conclusion. With so many powerful Democrats invested so heavily in a Clinton presidency, loyal Republicans like JF should be dancing a jig at her loss.
Which is why the jig is up. You might be fooling the slack-jawed, John, but anybody with a functioning brain cell realizes your real aims.
All those Obama-isms are funny because they are obviously superficial errors, unlike McCain’s deep conceptual cluelessness on core issues, like the 100-Year War and not knowing Sunni vs. Shiite.
Oh, right. What “deep conceptual cluelessness” was there in his 100 years comment — aside from how the Obama camp took it wildly out of context? Secondly, the Sunni v. Shiite gaffe is no more egregious than not knowing the number of states in the Union, claiming 10,000 people were killed by storms in Kansas, or claiming that Bush’s policies are the reason Hugo Chavez managed to come to power.
Interesting, John, that Murdoch does not agree with either your polls or your assessment: “Rupert Murdoch Says Obama Will Win”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html
Your comment?
the Sunni v. Shiite gaffe is no more egregious than not knowing the number of states in the Union
Wrong. Obama clearly knows there are 50 states, and clearly mis-spoke when he said 57, and he only did it once. It’s the verbal equivalent of a typo.
But McCain made his mistake repeatedly because he didn’t know. Either that, or he was lying about AQ in Iran in order to play “politics of fear”, but more likely he was just clueless. He cannot play it off as slip – he has destroyed his claim to foreign policy expertise.
The picture of the aide whispering into his ear is priceless: youtube.com/watch?v=-cQdVGLr34M
youtube.com/watch?v=-cQdVGLr34M
Even granting that noman (which I’m not, and would hardly ever do with you), how is it that Obama doesn’t know these other matters, in particular that Chavez was elected — and REelected — when Bill Clinton was president? Is that a “typo?”
Don’t make me laugh.
how is it that Obama doesn’t know these other matters, in particular that Chavez was elected — and REelected — when Bill Clinton was president?
Link please.
With pleasure: Link.
And if the campaign “erases” it from the website, check here which also includes a vid.
My last comment is awaiting moderation due to the links, probably; here’s my Colossus post w/both links:
http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/265025.php
Is that all you got? Your link does not back up your claim.
Are you serious? Did you read the links?
Obama said this:
Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples’ lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region. No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.
Now, how did Chavez “step in” due this “negligence” when he first came to power in 1998? The answer is obvious to those who aren’t smitten by The Messiah: Obama made a huge blunder.
I can see how Dave, among others, got miffed at you, noman. Your “stupid/nyah-nyah” routine gets ridiculous.
Now, since you’re so demanding of proof, please provide for me examples of when McCain confused Sunni and Shiite more than twice, please.
Here ya go: youtube.com/watch?v=IdNKQ8XapIA
Watch McCain get it wrong and then quickly cover himself by saying “Shiites… Or Sunnis or anybody else…” But he still doesn’t know.
Note: “stepped into the vacuum” does not refer to Chavez’s election. Nowhere does Obama indicate that he believes Chavez became leader during the Bush administration. You cannot torture Obama’s words enough to get that meaning out of them, not even with bold text.
What he said – if you read the whole thing – is that Chavez was able to expand his influence due to the actions and inaction of the Bush adminstration.
Name a Chavez-related event that conservatives dislike, and most of them took place during the Bush administration. That is when Chavez got his newly expanded influence due to the Bush/Cheney driven runup in oil prices and negligent US diplomacy.
nobrain: Baloney. Notice how quickly you moved from Obama’s obvious non-knowledge of history to how those nasty conservatives “caused” Chavez to “do” those nasty things. It’s gets tired, frankly. Obama blew it, like he “misremembered” about his uncle liberating Auschwitz, right? Maybe you ought to tell yourself and your context-obsessed allies about McCain’s REAL “100 years” remark, then, eh?
Face it — if McCain’s is a legitimate stumble, so is this (that link is “proof?” It’s hardly clear that he made a legit boneheaded error in that clip). Unless you’re blinded by Messiah-worship. Which you obviously are.
(Don’t worry — I’ve seen clips of McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite twice, but as I write, McCain’s excuse is that he’s old; what’s Obama’s?)
“If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” – Winston Churchill
I received a brain today. Forgive me for ignoring my post as I celebrate.
Cheers
What better atonement for the sins of slavery, what better salve for this soul of America, than that we should elect our first black president.
Senator Obama is of this great younger generation of Americans. Born after World War II, youthful witnesses to the triumph of democracy over totalitarianism, the tearing down of the Wall. Idealists untainted by Vietnam, assassination or by Watergate, more educated more informed than any new generation of Americans. This is a new American generation highly able to carry the vision our forebears forward in this complex global technological new century.
Obama is promising not just a return to pragmatic fiscal policy, an honorable disengagement from the occupation of Iraq, he is also talking the same things bloggers here yearn about. Things like transparency. Putting Federal Spending online.
A new young post Vietnam era President is just what the doctor ordered for America. It’s a shame Obama is not a Republican, maybe we could even get 40 year old John to consider the benefits a leader of his generation has to offer our troubled Nation.
noman-
Knowledge is gained from experience, either the experience of others or one’s own experience.
Perhaps you can debate the difference in the inteligence between the two, but that would require some type of testing.
As for rhetoric, there are very few who have said nothing better than Obama says nothing.
As for rhetoric, there are very few who have said nothing better than Obama says nothing.
Unlike McCain of course, who has come down firmly on both sides of every issue.
I don’t know that he’s come down firmly on both sides of every issue. I would say that he acts too much like a liberal for me. He was obviously not the guy I wanted, but I have no choice but to back him as the other choices at the moment are either pure socialism or border-line communism.
Since both philosophies have shown that they are doomed to failure, and that their Utopia is an unnatainable destination, I am opposed to either.
” as the other choices at the moment are either pure socialism or border-line communism” Say what!? What the heck Obama policies are you talking about?
Nothing America does will ever be socialist or communists. It will be Americanist. We have plenty of stuff right now that is doomed to failure. Don’t be so afraid of trying different things.
On another note, get ready for the swing state shennigans to get out the conservative vote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/30/national/main4137318.shtml
Oh no! How dare people vote on such things, anon! “Shenanigans” indeed!
What Obama policies are communist?
Here are the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto as written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles. You decide for yourself.
1. Abolition of property in land, and application of
all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy and progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and
rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state,
by means of a national bank.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and
transportation in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of
production owned by the state.
8. Equal liability of all to labor.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing
industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
We shouldn’t care about fundamental issues of humanity. The only thing that matters is money, Hube. That is what the material left wants us to believe.
Christian, WTF? I asked what Obama policies? That list you posted is psycho. Incidentally, Marx probably got the idea for free public education from us. Jefferson was a big believer in it. Americans kind of pioneered the concept of free compulsory public education. and we now boast a 98% literacy rate.
I think you see a black guy who is a democrat and bingo – you got yourself a commie? This is America. We don’t do communism. We do whatever works. If fuel goes to $15 a gallon we might have to ration or allocate an equal amount for people. It won’t be communism, it will be the American Way. Don’t be so scared. The United States is not going to be “taken over” by anything or anybody.
David, stop with the left-right junk thought. Most of this country is religious spiritual. Religious belief is highest among those serving time in American prisons with atheism at less than 1% among inmates. If you want to surround yourself with true believers, looks like church or prison is you best bet. Most of this country is materialist, not just the “left” whoever that is. As a matter of fact, your GOP rightfully wears the title Party of Big Business. A place where all things good for America begin with corporate profits. It is quite a stretch for someone like you to use materialism to put down your political opposition. Now if you mean those political people who keep insisting we all pay into the pot and share more and care for the poor and elderly, they sound more like followers of Jesus than materialists. You are caught in an intellectual time warp with stale old issues. Get with the program.
material left????????????????????????????????????????????????
Are you for real??????????????????????????????????????
LOL.
The Party of Big Business and Capitalism and Corporate Welfare now wants to pin materialism on the left. LOL. Man, you people are DESPERATE to place blame on anyone and anything but yourselves and your miserable, failed policies. Like lots of republicans, you’ve been suckered into believing the Party that cares more about corporate profits than it citizens (kind of like Jesus did, especially when it comes to the poor, the young and the elderly) and conceals it with religious bigotry as it salvation for its crimes and indescretions, that somehow pretending republican policy is Christian is better than the reality. And I wonder, really I do, how Jesus will judge those who have entered into war that was not one of LAST resort, how he will judge those who failed to take care of its less fortunate, it’s sick and its elderly, who use religion and his name to pursue political ambition. After all, my guess is Jesus ain’t no republican. I think he’d be disgusted.
Don,
That post was indeed psycho, it is the “top ten wish list” if you will for communism. As for Obama’s policies, I guess I have to explain them to you.
A heavy and progressive Income Tax, ie the more you make the more you pay… Number 2 on the communist wish list.
Abolition of inherittance… around 50% of your inheritance gets taken via the Federal Government… Number 3 on the list
You get the idea.
Uh . . .where do you suggest we get the money for the war and stuff?
Christian, let’s get one thing straight: Because a policy is on somebody’s wish list does not in itself make such a policy unable to make improvements.
Let me hear from you: What is it about the progressive income tax that you don’t like?
On your statement on the inheritance tax, you are factually incorrect. The rate does not reach 50% until amounts over $3 million are reached. Check it out for yourself: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005949.html
I thought Conservatives believe that hard/smart work should be rewarded. Moreover, what ever happened to the Republican idea that all men are created with an equal opportunity to succeed. Are these “Communist” ideas? I don’t think so!
Don,
Right now the defense spending is roughly 22% of the federal budget. Hardly out of line considering that the primary role of any government is to protect its borders domestically and its interest abroad. I would suggest to you that the rest of our budget needs to be slashed. To quote R.R. “The problem is not that the people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”
Perry,
a) That is only if the person dies in 2009, it is 2 million currently
b) That is their “gross estate value” which includes the value of their house, family farm, pensions, retirement accounts, vehicles, etc which is not a stretch to accumulate over 75+ years of the average American life
c) That is a 50% tax on money that has already seen a 30% income tax. Basically if you make $1, $0.30 gets taken away in income taxes, and then you’re left with $0.70. Then you die and the government takes away $0.35 out of the $0.70 and you’re left with $0.35 of the original $1 that you made.
I fail to see how your quote:”I thought Conservatives believe that hard/smart work should be rewarded.” helps your argument. This is the very thing that punishes hard work.
Your quote: “What ever happened to the Republican idea that all men are created with an equal opportunity to succeed.” is indeed correct, we all are given the opportunity to succeed.
We are not guarenteed the opportunity to succeed. We are not guarenteed that the government will step in and bail us out if we fail.
Right now the defense spending is roughly 22% of the federal budget. Hardly out of line considering that the primary role of any government is to protect its borders domestically and its interest abroad. I would suggest to you that the rest of our budget needs to be slashed.
I agree. Let’s start by slashing the funding for occupying Iraq, which is not included in that 22% number and does not contribute to defense.
And while we are at it let’s be honest about the costs of war, considering we will be caring for tens of thousands of physically and psychologically damaged soldiers for the rest of their lives, and will bear the social costs of their family members who are not able to escape emotional damage. And the economic damage caused by servicing the war debt.
Heck, we just paid out $7 million or so to clean up live munitions from World War ONE on NJ beaches. I bet that didn’t get added to the WWI budget either.
c) That is a 50% tax on money that has already seen a 30% income tax.
– If you are paying 30% tax on your retirement accounts – fire your accountant.
- If you have a $2 mil retirement account – do some estate planning so you don’t have to pay the estate tax. Or call your legislator to get the limit bumped up to $3 million.
With only $2-3 million, you aren’t the real target of the estate tax. The justification for the estate tax is political, not economic. It exists to prevent the formation of an American aristocracy.
noman/Ulyssies/Odyssieus,
You’re obviously upset about Iraq, but lets stick to facts. That 22% is “military and defense spending” and yes that does cover Iraq. $623 Billion to be exact, out of a total US Budget of $2.8 Trillion.
Sure we can throw out there that we may or may not at some point in the future possibly spend (insert arbitrary or imagined amount here) on cleanup efforts for (insert future military action or theatre) and include that in the budget.
If we go down that route as you suggest we not only are forced to look at all costs resulting from military actions, but indeed all actions (military, regulatory, legislative, etc) taken by the government to determine the net economic effect of all of those actions.
You will find that the net effect of the socialist programs that have been enacted including the “New Deal” have had much more of a detrimental effect on our economy than all of the combined military actions of our government.
“- If you are paying 30% tax on your retirement accounts – fire your accountant.
” If you have a $2 mil retirement account – do some estate planning so you don’t have to pay the estate tax. Or call your legislator to get the limit bumped up to $3 million. ”
Your entire argument relies on the premise that the majority of people’s estates are in retirement accounts.
The single largest investment most Americans make is to buy their house. The house and land is what makes up the “lion’s share” of the value on most estates and that was purchased with money that was taxed at 30%. When they die, the government decides to tax the remaining money an additional 50%.
“The justification for the estate tax is political, not economic.”
The justification is indeed political. It is quite simply a Wealth Redistribution Plan by another name. If you work hard and are successful in life, the government does not feel you are capable or responsible enough to decide who to give your heard earned money to. They have already decided for you who should get the money.
If you work hard and are successful in life, the government does not feel you are capable or responsible enough to decide who to give your heard earned money to.
If you believe that, you deserve to be ruled by kings.
noman,
That “appreciation” you’re talking about came as a result of an initial purchase, and 30 years worth of payments on the debt. All of that was taxed at 30%. The appreciation does in fact get taxed at 50% via the inherritance tax. If you sold before death the appreciation and value would then get taxed at either long-term cap gains or ordinary income. Whatever was left after those taxes would then get taxed at 50% via inherritance tax.
“If you work hard and are successful in life, the government does not feel you are capable or responsible enough to decide who to give your heard earned money to.
If you believe that, you deserve to be ruled by kings.”
How is that even up for dispute when they clearly take away up to 65% (30% ordinary income and then 50% death tax) of your income when you die? Its pretty obvious they’re not letting you do whatever you want with your estate, and instead are taking your money and redistributing it the way they see fit. Please enlighten me as to how that’s an inaccurate statement.
I love all these “slash spending” comments. Lots of words no specifics. Whatta ya want to cut? Highways, cancer research, vet benefits, FBI?
We have a country of 300 million people. We need a government able to do what it has to do. It takes more than anti-government rhetoric and old Ronald Reagan quotes to make the world work. How about cutting the $400 billion dollar interest payment on the Republican debt? Or does debt and interest not count as government spending with you anti-government types?
Its pretty obvious they’re not letting you do whatever you want with your estate, and instead are taking your money and redistributing it the way they see fit. Please enlighten me as to how that’s an inaccurate statement.
It is a completely accurate statement – for certain values of “you.” It certainly does not apply to most people.
Yes, it is political redistribution of accumulated wealth. We do this for the good of society. It is a good thing. Deal with it.
If you think about it, the estate tax is really much more civilized than rising up and cutting off the aristocrats’ heads every few generations.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have a patriotic take on the estate tax. They agree that it is the infrastructure of America – highways and bridges, The FCC, FAA, The Commerce Department, public education, security – without this taxpayer funded infrastructure they could not have accumulated their wealth. They have a much more enlightened view than those who think their great fortunes are entirely their own doing and the government that provides all the services for them is “taking” their money. Gates and many other super rich see the inheritance tax as a fair return that goes back into the pot. From a policy standpoint, yes, it is based on the entirely American concept that wealth should be distributed, redistributed, and distributed again and again.
That’s the reason Republican Roosevelt broke up the trusts. That is why our income tax is progressive. That is why we tax large estates. Without managed redistribution of wealth, Capitalism would fail due to lack of popular support. If you let nature take it’s course ten guys would end up owning everything. That’s not American. That’s 15th century Europe.
Gentlemen, I see this has boiled down to a matter of dispute on a single question. That question is: “is it ok for the government to redistribute your money upon your death?”
I humbly submit that it is not ok, not in our society’s best interest, not in our best interest as a nation, and certainly not in our best interest as individuals.
Considering that we all agree that the federal government is horribly wasteful, will spend any money as soon (and in some cases even sooner) as they receive it, it is with deep heart-felt conviction that I feel it is NOT ok for the government to redistribute your money upon your death.
Christian, look at it this way; The United States Of America has been redistributing our money for several centuries now, and as far as I can tell, everybody in America keeps saying we are the greatest nation on earth. The most free the most prosperous. You are proposing we radically change things, create a totally new kind of set up? We have a great government. If you don’t like our Government don’t use any of the services. Tell your family elders to get off social security and medicare, build your own highways. You are advocating the exact opposite of E pluribus unun. Your philosophy is older than capitalism or communism. Greed and selfishness have been with us from the beginning.
“You will find that the net effect of the socialist programs that have been enacted including the “New Deal” have had much more of a detrimental effect on our economy than all of the combined military actions of our government.”
I would guess that is the opinion of a young person who has not yet come to grips with the realities of life.
That even the most basic necessities of life, like water and air, must be managed and controlled by a strong activist Government. This may sound shocking but it is reality. Imagine where we would be without the maze of local state regional national rules and regs governing the price, quality, and availability of something as basic as water?
The anti-government anti-tax voices have the same kind of Utopian dreams as the old Marxists. They wish for things that can never be. For the Marxists it’s a world where everybody is economically equal and none are exploited. For the American Anti-Governmentists it is a world where Individuals are so noble there is no need for Government to enforce social and economic justice. In between these two pipe dream extremes, Marxism and Antigovernmentism, lies the the vast body of American political thought which simply and vaguely says: Promote the general welfare. E pluribus unim. Pursue happiness.
The New Deal programs like Social Security benefits for widows, orphans, elderly, as well as minimum wage and all the rest are not “socialist programs”, they are common sense American programs put in place by a common sense American government voted to power by the common sense American people. These programs ushered in the age of middle class prosperity for this great Nation.
For Christian and others who wax patriotically but who do not like the American Government, I ask, what is it that you like about America? If you don’t like the Government, if you detest the politics of half of your fellow citizens, if you resent paying taxes, if you don’t like Social Security and Medicare, what exactly is it you that love about America? Just the colors red white and blue on your lapel pin? I am so tired of this hate the American government but love the flag mentality.
Find another major country on earth that is more democratic than America. If you don’t like our Government what government do you like?