New Docs Surfaces, Showing Photos of Obama As New Party Candidate
New Zeal has the goods, which leave no doubt at all that Barack Obama was part of the New Party, a fusion party of radical leftists outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party, and generally comprised of and supported by socialists and various communists.
As New Zeal explains at the link, the New Party used unethical election tricks to get elected, and was later effectively destroyed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997.As Gateway Pundit notes, there is little surprise that a socialist like Obama would want to "spread the wealth around." My question to the American voter is simple: can you name one socialist-led country that has ever been nearly the success story the United States has been? And if you can't name a socialist country as successful as the United States, why would you consider electing a candidate that would make us less successful as a nation, and make you less successful as an individual?
The New Party exploited the concept of electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously. If a candidate ran as a Democrat and for the New Party, he or she would be on the ballot twice and could attract the votes of both centrist Democrats and leftist New Party supporters. Both votes would be totalled giving the candidate a much greater chance of winning the election. Using this tactic, the New Party succeeded in electing hundreds candidates to local office in several states. "Fusion" was rendered ineffective by a Supreme Court decision on 28 April 1997 written by Justice William H Rehnquist, leading to the collapse of the New Party and similar efforts nationwide.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:12 AM
Comments
1
A) EVERY tax plan redistributes Wealth
B) the rich have a LOWER tax rate
C) Obama plans to raise taxes on the RICH
D) That's the fat cats paying there FAIR SHARE not Socialmism
B) the rich have a LOWER tax rate
C) Obama plans to raise taxes on the RICH
D) That's the fat cats paying there FAIR SHARE not Socialmism
Posted by: Red Phantom at October 25, 2008 01:52 PM (m4Jni)
2
Fair share of what?
How do I get my fair share of unemployment benefits when I have a job?
How do I get my fair share of free health care, when I pay for my own insurance?
How do I get my fair share of free legal aid, when I hire my own lawyer?
So unless the "fat cats" are unemployed, uncovered, and unlawyered, they aren't paying "there (sic) FAIR SHARE", they are are paying for everyone else...
How do I get my fair share of unemployment benefits when I have a job?
How do I get my fair share of free health care, when I pay for my own insurance?
How do I get my fair share of free legal aid, when I hire my own lawyer?
So unless the "fat cats" are unemployed, uncovered, and unlawyered, they aren't paying "there (sic) FAIR SHARE", they are are paying for everyone else...
Posted by: Adriane at October 25, 2008 02:12 PM (wJlIy)
3
Adriane --
I wasn't talking about who gets the benefits! I'm talking about who PAYS for them! Why should I have to pay a HIGHER percent of my income than the fat cats? Most everyone is middle class. The higher class ought to pay the same rate or better.
I wasn't talking about who gets the benefits! I'm talking about who PAYS for them! Why should I have to pay a HIGHER percent of my income than the fat cats? Most everyone is middle class. The higher class ought to pay the same rate or better.
Posted by: Red Phantom at October 25, 2008 02:16 PM (m4Jni)
4
Next time, Red Phantom, you might read some of the older threads before posting. I'll repost a reply I posted in the "I'm Joe" thread which answers your charges.
In 2005 (the latest year I could find data on), the top 10% of earners already pay nearly 55% of the total tax revenues! And that number has been on an upward trend since 2002 when it was "only" a little over 49%. And that's total taxes, if we look only at individual taxes, it's even worse, in 2005 the top 10% paid nearly 73% of the individual tax revenues. And that number has been rising steadily at least since 1979 (the oldest year I can find data for). (Source)
Now, tell me again that "the rich" don't pay enough taxes, and I'll laugh in your face.
See, if you'd read back a ways, you'd have realized how much "The Rich" really pay.
Now go back to Kos, willya?
In 2005 (the latest year I could find data on), the top 10% of earners already pay nearly 55% of the total tax revenues! And that number has been on an upward trend since 2002 when it was "only" a little over 49%. And that's total taxes, if we look only at individual taxes, it's even worse, in 2005 the top 10% paid nearly 73% of the individual tax revenues. And that number has been rising steadily at least since 1979 (the oldest year I can find data for). (Source)
Now, tell me again that "the rich" don't pay enough taxes, and I'll laugh in your face.
See, if you'd read back a ways, you'd have realized how much "The Rich" really pay.
Now go back to Kos, willya?
Posted by: C-C-G at October 25, 2008 02:18 PM (sII0T)
5
C-C-G --
I'm not talking about HOW MUCH they pay! I'm talking about the RATE they pay! Sheesh. You're proving the fat cats have alot of income. I KNEW that!! Can't you understand the difference between income and tax rate.
I'm not talking about HOW MUCH they pay! I'm talking about the RATE they pay! Sheesh. You're proving the fat cats have alot of income. I KNEW that!! Can't you understand the difference between income and tax rate.
Posted by: Red Phantom at October 25, 2008 02:43 PM (m4Jni)
6
Red, you have just proven yourself an idiot. Congratulations.
Here is the data on the tax rates. And they completely debunk your wacko theory.
We'll take just single people for ease of comparison... here's the tax brackets for 2008:
$0-8,025 pays 10%
$8,025-32,550 pays 15%
$32,550-78,850 pays 25%
78,850-164,550 pays 28%
164,550-357,700 pays 33%
Over 357,700 pays 35%
In short, what you say you want is already happening! And although the dollar amounts and tax rates have changed over the years, the higher incomes have paid higher taxes at least since 1944 (the last year I could find data for).
Please go back to Kos now. You've made yourself look quite foolish enough here for one day.
Here is the data on the tax rates. And they completely debunk your wacko theory.
We'll take just single people for ease of comparison... here's the tax brackets for 2008:
$0-8,025 pays 10%
$8,025-32,550 pays 15%
$32,550-78,850 pays 25%
78,850-164,550 pays 28%
164,550-357,700 pays 33%
Over 357,700 pays 35%
In short, what you say you want is already happening! And although the dollar amounts and tax rates have changed over the years, the higher incomes have paid higher taxes at least since 1944 (the last year I could find data for).
Please go back to Kos now. You've made yourself look quite foolish enough here for one day.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 25, 2008 02:54 PM (sII0T)
7
Wealth is not something that falls from heaven and lays around on the ground, so that the only interesting question is who gets how much. Wealth is created and sustained through human labor, executive ability and entrepreneurial risk-taking, and by public confidence that those forces will be allowed free rein in the future. The most important attribute of a tax system is the incentive structure it provides for the operation of productive forces. A structure of high marginal rates diverts economic energy into tax shelter and avoidance, as in the 1970's and prior. It is not simply a matter of "wealth distribution."
Posted by: Mahon at October 25, 2008 02:56 PM (VBFow)
8
Minor clarification... I should have said that the higher incomes have paid higher tax rates since at least 1944.
That's what I get for typing too fast.
That's what I get for typing too fast.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 25, 2008 02:57 PM (sII0T)
9
C-C-G --
That's Income Tax! The rich don't earn their money with wages generally but with investments which get less tax. Fine show to call me names and be so ignorant yourself.
That's Income Tax! The rich don't earn their money with wages generally but with investments which get less tax. Fine show to call me names and be so ignorant yourself.
Posted by: Red Phantom at October 25, 2008 03:01 PM (m4Jni)
10
Fine, Red, here's the data on "effective" tax rates. They add federal and state income taxes as well as payroll taxes to come up with those figures.
Guess what... "The Rich" still pay higher effective tax rates.
Maybe it's time for you to do some research of your own so you quit looking so stupid. Unless you enjoy being proven wrong time after time after time.
Guess what... "The Rich" still pay higher effective tax rates.
Maybe it's time for you to do some research of your own so you quit looking so stupid. Unless you enjoy being proven wrong time after time after time.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 25, 2008 03:07 PM (sII0T)
11
What you want more of, tax lightly. What you want less of, tax heavily.
Company profits and capital gains in the US are already 2nd highest on the planet. I guess they need to be higher to reduce profit and investment. That'll work!
Company profits and capital gains in the US are already 2nd highest on the planet. I guess they need to be higher to reduce profit and investment. That'll work!
Posted by: Brian H at October 25, 2008 04:01 PM (eZsXx)
12
Tax the rich = Steal from the rich.
Anyone who wants more goodies from the government are thieves.
Anyone who wants more goodies from the government are thieves.
Posted by: Purple Raider at October 25, 2008 04:27 PM (GEy/X)
13
Very true, Purple Raider.
It's not "fair" for one group to pay a higher rate than another group, regardless of how much the first group makes.
The fairest tax is the flat tax. I pay a given percentage (say 20% for the sake of the argument), you pay 20%, Bill Gates pays 20%. That's truly fair.
It's not "fair" for one group to pay a higher rate than another group, regardless of how much the first group makes.
The fairest tax is the flat tax. I pay a given percentage (say 20% for the sake of the argument), you pay 20%, Bill Gates pays 20%. That's truly fair.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 25, 2008 04:51 PM (sII0T)
Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 26, 2008 12:12 AM (M+Vfm)
15
I received am email titled "Good lesson on Obamanomics" which IMO, is a real world example - which could have more appropriately been titled "The Obama Redistribution of Wealth for Dummies":
Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in the area, who displayed a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."
Once inside the greasy spoon eatery my waiter wore an "Obama '08" tee shirt.
When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given appropriate service, that his tee shirt caused me to think he must believe in Senator Obama's socialistic plan to redistribute the wealth.
I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in abject,
stark, and degrading disbelief... and suddenly he furiously stormed away.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I figured he could use the money more. The homeless guy
looked at me in disbelief but he, the wretch and sore on humanity that he is, condescendingly acted gratefully.
As I got in my used, new to me, F150 King Ranch pick-up truck, I realized this atypical, hade-tree mechanic type expert experiment, was
under the circumstances an apropos unscientific redistribution experiment... it had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was furiously angry that I gave away the money he did earn.
Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on....mostly by those doing the work, eh?
Yesterday on my way to lunch, I passed one of the homeless guys in the area, who displayed a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money."
Once inside the greasy spoon eatery my waiter wore an "Obama '08" tee shirt.
When the bill came, I decided not to tip the waiter and explained to him while he had given appropriate service, that his tee shirt caused me to think he must believe in Senator Obama's socialistic plan to redistribute the wealth.
I told him I was going to redistribute his tip to someone that I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. He stood there in abject,
stark, and degrading disbelief... and suddenly he furiously stormed away.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $3 and told him to thank the waiter inside, as I figured he could use the money more. The homeless guy
looked at me in disbelief but he, the wretch and sore on humanity that he is, condescendingly acted gratefully.
As I got in my used, new to me, F150 King Ranch pick-up truck, I realized this atypical, hade-tree mechanic type expert experiment, was
under the circumstances an apropos unscientific redistribution experiment... it had left the homeless guy quite happy for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was furiously angry that I gave away the money he did earn.
Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on....mostly by those doing the work, eh?
Posted by: gamblin at October 26, 2008 10:47 AM (KK/Lm)
16
"Well, I guess this redistribution of wealth is going to take a while to catch on....mostly by those doing the work, eh?"
lol - the same story, with some small differences, appears here:
http://idiotsforobama.com/blog/2008/10/24/a-funny-example-of-wealth-redistribution-pay-attention-liberals-it-might-hurt/
lol - the same story, with some small differences, appears here:
http://idiotsforobama.com/blog/2008/10/24/a-funny-example-of-wealth-redistribution-pay-attention-liberals-it-might-hurt/
Posted by: tempus at October 26, 2008 11:08 AM (acDUM)
17
The rich don't earn their money with wages generally but with investments which get less tax.
If you bonk'em hard enough they'll move to muni bonds -- which are tax free, or move their money completely offshore like what happened when the Brit labor govt raided their tax rate to over 100% 25 or so years ago and all the rich rock stars fled to France.
The rich didn't get rich by being stupid.
If you bonk'em hard enough they'll move to muni bonds -- which are tax free, or move their money completely offshore like what happened when the Brit labor govt raided their tax rate to over 100% 25 or so years ago and all the rich rock stars fled to France.
The rich didn't get rich by being stupid.
Posted by: PA at October 26, 2008 03:15 PM (OqXyp)
18
"Now, tell me again that "the rich" don't pay enough taxes, and I'll laugh in your face"
"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
By the way, this rich man was complaining about NOT paying ENOUGH taxes and thought it was absolutely ludicrous that the top 1% got away with not paying a higher percentage.
"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
By the way, this rich man was complaining about NOT paying ENOUGH taxes and thought it was absolutely ludicrous that the top 1% got away with not paying a higher percentage.
Posted by: Wilson at October 26, 2008 03:37 PM (lDzHl)
19
By the way, to answer your question about which socialist country has been nearly the success of the United States would depend on what your definition of socialist is. Medicare, Medicade,Social Security, Welfare,SCHIP,Free School breakfast and lunches, not to mention the millions of people employed by the largest employer in the US- our lovely goverment who have goverment pensions, health insurance, child care, etc, etc......as compared to whom????
I will believe this nonsense about socialism when all the rightwing nutjobs start opting out of Medicare and Social Security, otherwise take your goverment handout and shut up.
I will believe this nonsense about socialism when all the rightwing nutjobs start opting out of Medicare and Social Security, otherwise take your goverment handout and shut up.
Posted by: Wilsonq at October 26, 2008 04:06 PM (lDzHl)
20
Wilson, it's not possible to opt out of Medicare and Social Security! Therefore, you say that you will believe what we say about socialism when we do the impossible... a perfect definition of a closed mind.
You've already outed yourself as a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and Obamabot, you may as well leave now.
You've already outed yourself as a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and Obamabot, you may as well leave now.
Posted by: C-C-G at October 26, 2008 04:22 PM (sII0T)
21
Just to help me answer the question, can you give me a list of socialist countries? So far I'm coming up with Cuba, North Korea, pre-war Iraq (kinda), China a couple of decades ago, and the USSR plus satellites. I'm sure there are others, but right now I'd happily concede that none of these countries have come close to the US's economic success.
Posted by: Paul at October 27, 2008 11:12 AM (TqjJ4)
22
And if you can't name a socialist country as successful as the United States, why would you consider electing a candidate that would make us less successful as a nation, and make you less successful as an individual?
The simple answer is that "success" is not success if it is uneven. For the radical egalitarians the bell curve is a yoke of oppression, so much so that an ACTUAL yoke of oppression seems preferable. We cannot all be equally rich though we can all get richer as the sweep of human history demonstrates. We can all however be made equally poor. That is Barack's aspiration though the poverty will not extend to his noble self or his cronies. At least not intentionally. With the markets pricing in the Barack Depression though it may incidentally pull in one or two senior Obots but not Ayers, whose wealth puts him in the stratosphere of such comparisons or Wright who has decamped, taking his compensation in real estate.
The simple answer is that "success" is not success if it is uneven. For the radical egalitarians the bell curve is a yoke of oppression, so much so that an ACTUAL yoke of oppression seems preferable. We cannot all be equally rich though we can all get richer as the sweep of human history demonstrates. We can all however be made equally poor. That is Barack's aspiration though the poverty will not extend to his noble self or his cronies. At least not intentionally. With the markets pricing in the Barack Depression though it may incidentally pull in one or two senior Obots but not Ayers, whose wealth puts him in the stratosphere of such comparisons or Wright who has decamped, taking his compensation in real estate.
Posted by: megapotamus at October 27, 2008 03:28 PM (LF+qW)
23
Why is it some folks have no problem attacking Obama without being able to articulate how a McCain Presidency would make their life better?
If folks really believe in the GOP less regulation/free market/ philosophy has worked for you and family and neighbors...then vote GOP.
But don't be shocked...or blame it on the media..
when the Bush/Cheney/Rove (Stevens) etc...way of doing business is repudiated next Tuesday.
If folks really believe in the GOP less regulation/free market/ philosophy has worked for you and family and neighbors...then vote GOP.
But don't be shocked...or blame it on the media..
when the Bush/Cheney/Rove (Stevens) etc...way of doing business is repudiated next Tuesday.
Posted by: nogopostal at October 27, 2008 04:53 PM (JL9w0)
24
"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year
Now tell me his W2 pay stub "salary". I bet its near zero. He took it all as capital gain. Anyone with a corporation who isn't a retard always works that angle.
Of course you can jack up the capital gain tax, then have all the retired people looking lynch you because their CD's and pension plans will get clobbered.
Now tell me his W2 pay stub "salary". I bet its near zero. He took it all as capital gain. Anyone with a corporation who isn't a retard always works that angle.
Of course you can jack up the capital gain tax, then have all the retired people looking lynch you because their CD's and pension plans will get clobbered.
Posted by: PA at October 27, 2008 08:57 PM (OqXyp)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0116 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0071 seconds, 32 records returned.
Page size 20 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.