Hilarious!

Still don't get the "spreading the wealth" meme you have made your hood ornament though. Their tax plans really don't differ that much. But I suppose it allows you to hurl more names, so have at it!

LOL, I don't know which is funnier, the cartoon or the first comment.

LOL -- I go with the first comment, liberals always appear larger in the rear view mirror.

Socialism doesn't fail, it just runs out of other people's money to give away. Why work when the pies are free.

lets call obama a socialist because in extremely rare cases a low income worker might get tax credits amounting to more than they owe

and by all means lets not call palin a socialist even though she takes money from corporations and redistributes it to people who didnt work for it

lets also not call mccain a socialist even though he too offers refundable tax credits in his plan

=]

*obama in a landslide*

Taxes on good and services is to pay for government spending on constitutional items. Military, Roads etc etc.

Spreading the wealth implies that you are going to take money from one group and give it to the other. That not the stated purpose of taxes. Income redistribution does not work in the long run because over time people will not put effort get things if they are given to them. It creates a permeant underclass dependent on others. It did not work in Jamestown it did not work Plimoth Rock.
It did not work with welfare as we started to have generational welfare.

Obama tax plans has a number of credits However if zero tax liability and I give you 1000 then it is welfare.

Obama plan also allows the Bush tax cut to expire which would raise the tax on though make 43K from 15% to 28% which is a large hike.
Those in the current 10% will now pay 15%

Yes before you ask I do not agree with welfare, farm subsidies, the Bailout package. Also the more programs that are created the larger the government grows the more money it consumes the more power it gains the less liberty people have.

im not in favor of the size of many of our social programs, but taken as a whole, i firmly believe they make our country stronger, which is really their basic purpose. if a mother loses her job in the same month as her car breaks down or her kid has an expensive accident, then we are all served by not having her and her kid bottom out when they lose everything. a lot of people make minimum wage, which affords them absolutely no wiggle room in their budgets

but im also in favor of publicly funded development programs that give people a leg up instead of a handout. for example the small business administration. in the past ive profited greatly from them and the country is better off for all those cases like me. those are wise investments for the country to make. there are many other such examples

the magazine the economist has now endorsed obama. maybe his plan isnt the socialist doom its been made out to be in some circles

ehh... Obama is a socialist plain and simple. If you don't like it, go take it up with him, or vote McCain. I would highly suggest against taking it up with Obama though. You've seen what happens to plumbers who as tough questions. Pretty soon all of your private information will be distributed by Obama's fascist goons.

Libs have been calling bush a fascist for 8 years now, and look who is actually the real socialist and facist. The guy isn't even elected and he's already trying to destroy provate citizens. This man is dangerous and we shouldn't let anyone this Authoritarian anywhere near the White House.

President Obama, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION at it best.

pea3000 - "and by all means lets not call palin a socialist even though she takes money from corporations and redistributes it to people who didnt work for it"

Right on time with that obama-surrogate malarkey aren't you? It's been spread far and wide by every surrogate since "spread the wealth" first hit the airwaves.

The fact you're using it means one of two things.

1. You're a mindless obama-tron or, 2. a disingenuous buffoon that would never admit the vast difference between obama spreading tax money around and Palins using the state revenue from private corporations oil exploration to reward the citizens.

Nice job Marc. Not a single homosexual slur in your comment.

Anybody care to tell me what the top marginal tax rate was under the socialist Presidents Clinton, Nixon, or Eisenhower? Or how Senator McCain felt in 2000 about the cut from 39 to 35 percent?

Anybody?

Correction - how Sen. McCain felt in 2001. Oy. If yer gonna troll, proofread first. :)

marc: obama doesnt have any socialist policies in his platform. support for conventional social programs are in there of course, but nothing socialist. its no small wonder that warren buffett and the economist magazine support obama... or are they all commies?? =]

palin actually practices the closest thing to socialism going on in this country. your #2 point is scraping at scraps in trying to draw a distinction due to taxes being involved. taxes have an inherently social aspect in the first place. corporate earnings dont. duh...

Peabody3000 - are you one of the many Obama Campaign morons paid to cause trouble on the conservative blogs, or are you just a moron? Just wondering if you'd still be around next Wednesday when the paychecks stop.

candy - its odd how neocons label anyone who raises counterpoints as a troll

very odd indeeeeeed

=]

what, you think you wont ever have to back up your insane GOP talking points?

pea3000 - "palin actually practices the closest thing to socialism going on in this country. your #2 point is scraping at scraps in trying to draw a distinction due to taxes being involved."

And I have little doubt if you were an Alaskan resident you would gladly take those "scrapes" and wouldn't think twice about socialist tendencies at all.

It's only in this context you attempt to compare taxes and private corporation cash given the the state for land use.

parthenon - "Nice job Marc. Not a single homosexual slur in your comment."

Gimme a minute, I'll gin one up for you.

marc: whether or not you or i would take a free state-sanctioned handout wouldnt change the fact its socialism

its taking the "excess" wealth of the corporate sector, and spreading it amongst those who did nothing to earn it

in other words: socialism

pea3000 - "the magazine the economist has now endorsed obama. maybe his plan isnt the socialist doom its been made out to be in some circles"

That's debatable, as others with economic credentials have endorsed McCain.

That said here's a question for you:

Assuming obama gets his wish with a government run health industry that will include the "47" million not covered by health insurance, where will he get the cash to dramatically increase the number of doctors and nurse to handle the flood of new "customers?

(Note: under the current standard thousands of Filipino nurses are recruited to fill the gap of a shortfall in qualed American nurses, the same can be said of doctors)

But the real hidden truth in the cartoon lies between panels two and three...

Notice L'il O takes fives bills from the wallet, but only redistributes one to the homeless guy.

I wonder what happened to the other four?

Nah... I really don't.

Anybody?

I'll take that question Parthenon ....90%.

What's your point?

interesting question marc... but i dispute that the health industry would be "govt run" if coverage is widely mandated, just as i wouldnt consider the car liability insurance industry to be "govt run"

i also think demands upon the health care industry would balance out since preventative care would supplant very expensive emergency and critical care that hospitals wind up taking on for uncovered individuals who cant get treatment when it would really help

logging off for awhile - peeeez out to my neocon and lib brothas!!

=]

pea3000 - "but i dispute that the health industry would be "govt run" if coverage is widely mandated

You can dispute all you care to, but if you think the dems in the House and Senate, and obama BTW, have any other goal your nuts. They all claimed SCHIP was the greatest thing since sliced bread, 'til it was shown the dems attempted to raise the age of a "child" to 21. (or was it 23?)

"i also think demands upon the health care industry would balance out since preventative care would supplant very expensive emergency and critical care that hospitals wind up taking on for uncovered individuals who cant get treatment when it would really help"

Nice avoidance of the premise, just where will all the extra caregivers come from that will be required to handle preventative care?

And BTW that 47 million is vaporware, that number includes many in an age bracket that choose not to be covered, those that are only temporarily without coverage and... illegal aliens. The last real number I've seen is about 25 million.

The Alaska thing is a dodge. First of all, the companies getting charged don't have to participate. Second, it's not a general tax, it's what the state is charging for the exploitation of the state's resources. In essence, the state is selling off its own property. Third, since it's state property being sold, the citizens own a portion of it. So it's only appropriate that they get a cut of the proceeds.

Next stupid argument?

J.

"Next stupid argument?"

Just follow that idiot troofer peabody3000 around. He'll really keep you busy with those.

Onion headline from 1993:

Uneducated Forklift Driver to Address Nation on Rush Limbaugh Radio Show

Nation Eagerly Awaits Ohio Man's Profound Insight Into Current Events

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48941

*obama in a landslide*

4. Posted by peabody3000

If you're talkin' literally, I'll send a St.Bernard to try and find him... but no promises.

Hey Peabody, see how well and healthy all the Cubans, Canucks and Brits are?

Preventive Care -while most of the major strides in longevity and population health have been made by preventive measures, they are ones like safe water and food. Vaccinations are about the only mass medical effort that have a large and cost-effective impact. However, checking cholesterols, BP and weight on folks who don't or won't change their diet and lifestyle (the major portion of those who have bad results on these screens), and cancer screening other than PAP smears (which may become unnecessary in the future if vaccination for HPV becomes cheaper and widespread) have shown little effect on population morality compared to a major effect on increasing health care costs. Even mammography screening has minimal effects when applied to all women over the age of 45 (it becomes more effective, though minimally, when applied to sub-populations).

Preventive Health is nice, but I'd rather be able to get my broken bones, accident injuries, and cataracts fixed in a timely and efficient manner. After I take my pokes for flu and tetanus.

LOL Population morality, well, that's another topic entirely. So much for typing in the dark...