Barack Obama, our next President

[sickofit]

GhostofRaygun wrote:

<quoted text>Problem with Capitalism is it only works for about 250 years. At the end of it all you have is the Elites and the Peasants class.

So true..as long as the rich people pay good wages and fair share of taxes capitalism works great...But like now all we have is VULTURE capitalism and rich people off shoring money and jobs...Then capitalism falls apart.

[Death of Tenzing]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3 & and the Sherman Anti Trust Act are example of Socialism which is alive and well in the United States and is proof of that the US is Anti-Capitalism which Clause 3 of the US Constitution and the Sherman Anti Trust Act allow the Federal Government to get involved economically in the US economy and Monopolies are inherit to Capitalism.
Sherman Antitrust Act
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act, July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C.§§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute on competition law passed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities that reduce competition in the marketplace, and requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of being in violation. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by the United States federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrus...
Article 1, Section 8
Clause 3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Congress has the power to impose regulations on interstate and international business. This "interstate commerce clause" has been quite controversial in the history of constitutional law; for a long time, judges tended to read the clause narrowly, overturning federal laws they deemed focused mainly on regulating economic activity within states rather than between them. Since the 1930s, however, judges have tended to read the clause broadly, allowing the government to regulate all kinds of economic activity—by setting a national minimum wage, for example.
http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-...

Which is not in the Constitution, stay on point if you want any credibility.

[Death of Tenzing]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Right, Lincoln & the Republicans(Party of Lincoln) had no use for Capitalism.
An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln
by Robin Blackburn
The impact of the American Civil War on Karl Marx, and Karl Marx on America.
Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln exchanged letters at the end of the Civil War. Although they were divided by far more than the Atlantic Ocean, they agreed on the cause of “free labor” and the urgent need to end slavery. In his introduction, Robin Blackburn argues that Lincoln’s response signaled the importance of the German American community and the role of the international communists in opposing European recognition of the Confederacy.
The ideals of communism, voiced through the International Working Men’s Association, attracted many thousands of supporters throughout the US, and helped spread the demand for an eight-hour day. Blackburn shows how the IWA in America—born out of the Civil War—sought to radicalize Lincoln’s unfinished revolution and to advance the rights of labor, uniting black and white, men and women, native and foreign-born. The International contributed to a profound critique of the capitalist robber barons who enriched themselves during and after the war, and it inspired an extraordinary series of strikes and class struggles in the postwar decades.
In addition to a range of key texts and letters by both Lincoln and Marx, this book includes articles from the radical New York-based journal Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly, an extract from Thomas Fortune’s classic work on racism Black and White, Frederick Engels on the progress of US labor in the 1880s, and Lucy Parson’s speech at the founding of the Industrial Workers of the World.
http://www.versobooks.com/books/954-an-unfini...

You want to bring the Tyrant Lincoln into a discussion on the constitutionality of a thing?

[Anonymous of Indy]

Death of Tenzing wrote:

<quoted text>
Which is not in the Constitution, stay on point if you want any credibility.

Commerce Clause(Clause 3 of Article 1 Section 8) was the basis & justification for Sherman Anti Trust Act which goes against Capitalism just look at what the Federal Government did to John D Rockefeller Sr & Standard Oil).

[Death of Tenzing]

GhostofRaygun wrote:

<quoted text>Problem with Capitalism is it only works for about 250 years. At the end of it all you have is the Elites and the Peasants class.

That's a pretty out-dated notion that's never really happened.

[Anonymous of Indy]

Death of Tenzing wrote:

<quoted text>
You want to bring the Tyrant Lincoln into a discussion on the constitutionality of a thing?

I know it and the Republican Party is the Party of Lincoln.

[Death of Tenzing]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Commerce Clause(Clause 3 of Article 1 Section 8) was the basis & justification for Sherman Anti Trust Act which goes against Capitalism just look at what the Federal Government did to John D Rockefeller Sr & Standard Oil).

Interpretations are interpretations.

[Ironically]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>Commerce Clause(Clause 3 of Article 1 Section 8) was the basis & justification for Sherman Anti Trust Act which goes against Capitalism just look at what the Federal Government did to John D Rockefeller Sr & Standard Oil).

Ironically, roughly 100 years later America finds itself in basically the same mess it was in Rockefeller's time.

[Anonymous of Indy]

Ironically wrote:

<quoted text>
Ironically, roughly 100 years later America finds itself in basically the same mess it was in Rockefeller's time.

yeap and the Federal Government went after Bill Gates too over Microsoft because the Federal Government said that Bill Gates was operating like a capitalistic monoply.

[Anonymous of Indy]

Death of Tenzing wrote:

<quoted text>
Interpretations are interpretations.

here is another example of the interpretation & implementation of Socialism dealing with the Commerce Clause and and what the Democrats did in 1944 after the SCOTUS issued its ruling in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association since the Democrats didnt like the direction Socialism was taking after the SCOTUS ruled that the US Federal Government could regulate insurance companies(Including Health Insurance) under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. So the Democrats in Congress passed and FDR Signed into Law the McCarran–Ferguson Act which provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation. By contrast, most other federal laws will not apply to insurance whether the states regulate in that area or not.

McCarran–Ferguson Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....

[sonicfilter]

Book review: The Betrayal of the American Dream

"Because they conduct business around the world and move money in and out of tax havens and other countries to secure the lowest possible rate, many [U.S. multinational corporations] stash their cash offshore rather than bring it home, where they would be obliged to pay taxes on it.

They will bring it back only if Washington will agree to a tax holiday.[...] If you want to understand the differences between you and the ruling class, try that ploy with the IRS someday. Just tell them if they don't lower your tax rate you are going to move your money to another country."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/30/1174...

[sonicfilter]

Why the Economy Needs Tax Reform

The main problem is that the current tax code is incapable of raising the revenue needed to pay for the goods and services of government. Over the last four years, federal revenue as a share of the economy has fallen to its lowest level in nearly 60 years, a result of the recession, the weak recovery and a decade’s worth of serial tax cuts. Even with deep spending cuts, the chronic revenue shortfall is expected to continue, swelling the federal debt — unless taxes go up. To stabilize the debt over the next 10 years while financing more investment would require at least $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion in new revenue, above what could be raised by letting the top income tax rate revert to its pre-Bush-era level of 39.6 percent.

A logical way to help raise the additional needed revenue would be to tax capital gains at the same rates as ordinary income. Capital gains on assets held for more than a year before selling are taxed at about the lowest rate in the code, currently 15 percent and expected to rise to 20 percent in 2013. That is an indefensible giveaway to the richest Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/opinion/sun...

it's not a political question anymore. the Bush tax cuts did not produce as advertised.

2001 guess.....

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan

Significantly increase economic growth.

Create more job opportunities.

Substantially increase family income.

Effectively pay off the federal debt.

http://origin.heritage.org/research/reports/2...

fail.

[Yeah]

Death of Tenzing wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, so you can't.
Figures.
All mouth and no music.

lol! Why son? You can't prove you're right.

[Yeah]

Death of Tenzing wrote:

<quoted text>
Can't drive you but I didn't say capitalism grew out of the Constitution but that it was the only economic system I could think of that fit within the constraints of the Constitution and I invited anyone to prove me wrong.

Why?

[PDUPONT]

killtaker wrote:

<quoted text>
Stick this up your a$$ and smoke it...
“I believe in the Second Amendment. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away… But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one because it just ain’t true. It ain’t true.”
Barak Obama in 2008

And he didn't imbecile, so what's you're point?

[Death of Tenzing]

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>here is another example of the interpretation & implementation of Socialism dealing with the Commerce Clause and and what the Democrats did in 1944 after the SCOTUS issued its ruling in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association since the Democrats didnt like the direction Socialism was taking after the SCOTUS ruled that the US Federal Government could regulate insurance companies(Including Health Insurance) under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. So the Democrats in Congress passed and FDR Signed into Law the McCarran–Ferguson Act which provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation. By contrast, most other federal laws will not apply to insurance whether the states regulate in that area or not.
McCarran–Ferguson Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....

You're a nut, the question was how the Constitution precluded capitalism.

[DBWriter]

Lincoln wrote:

<quoted text>
taxes

Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

Taxes.

Who will pay these taxes?

If you taxed the top 10 percent at 100 percent and made them destitute, you still wouldn't have enough money to pay for Obama's government. So...

Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

So far, nobody in the world has been able to answer this question. Anybody here got an answer?

[carol]

Guess we'll know soon if the Senate Democrats and President Obama are willing to compromise to keep us all from paying more in taxes next year.

It was Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, after all, who said the Obama administration was prepared to dive off the fiscal cliff if Republicans don't agree to give them everything they want.

Is this the new and improved kind of leadership the majority wanted - castrating the military and creating another recession?

Somebody on the left help me out here.

[Yeah]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
In his question "Where are you going to get the money from to pay for Obama's government?", the emphasis is on "Obama's government".
We already know that government's rely on tax revenue to function but this government - the Boy Messiah government - has so far relied on deficit spending and Chinese Buying of our debt. That's not enough for him because he wants to keep on deficit-spending PLUS tax those Evil Wealthy for even more.
No one here has yet answered the question with anything more specific than your silly "From EVERYBODY.".
Maybe the Boy Messiah should borrow more Chinese money to purchase Lottery Tickets with. PowerBall anyone?

Actually son, the Chinese were buying out debt before Obama ever reached the WH.

I guess you're asking how we're going to pay for the inherited debt from bushie.

Well, we know bushie doesn't have to answer.

[PDUPONT]

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
In his question "Where are you going to get the money from to pay for Obama's government?", the emphasis is on "Obama's government".
We already know that government's rely on tax revenue to function but this government - the Boy Messiah government - has so far relied on deficit spending and Chinese Buying of our debt. That's not enough for him because he wants to keep on deficit-spending PLUS tax those Evil Wealthy for even more.
No one here has yet answered the question with anything more specific than your silly "From EVERYBODY.".
Maybe the Boy Messiah should borrow more Chinese money to purchase Lottery Tickets with. PowerBall anyone?

Hey Stupid! Where do you think that Bush got the money for his wars that we're still paying for?
You're an idiot!