*Yes, Dick, Sen Byrd was indeed a member of the KKK.* On 10/12/10, dick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Which committee are these 4 members of and which part of Congress are they > members of. You are making even more of a fool of yourself than usual > today. Following your logic then the candidate for senate from Delaware can > be legitimately called a member of the Communist Party and Sen Byrd could, > if alive, be legitimately called a member of the KKK which was something you > went on and on about when it was brought up before. Are you now saying > that those who mentioned Byrd as a KKK member were right and you were lying > out of you a** then??? > > > On 10/12/2010 04:31 PM, Tommy News wrote: > > Republican Socialists of America <http://www.openleft.com/diary/9607/> by: > Paul Rosenberg <http://www.openleft.com/user/Paul%20Rosenberg> *Sun Nov > 02, 2008 at 19:30* > So, John McCain has taken to calling Barack Obama a "socialist". Why? > Because Obama wants to "redistribute" the wealth. Of course, *every*time > you tax someone, you redistribute wealth. And > *every* time that government spends some money that benefits someone, > that, too, redistributes wealth. By McCain's criteria, every government > that ever existed in human history was "socialist." You might think that's > sort of a whacked-out extremist position, somewhere two football fields to > the right of the John Birch Society. And you'd be right. Because by John > McCain's standards, I'd like to introduce you to four of the most prominent > members of the Republican Socialists of America: > > > > Join me on the flip, and I'll tell about them. > Paul > Rosenberg<http://www.openleft.com/userDiary.do;jsessionid=7A7EBCEC21784DF6661C7CD5B77BD12E?personId=470>:: > Republican > Socialists of > America<http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=7A7EBCEC21784DF6661C7CD5B77BD12E?diaryId=9607> > *Theodore Roosevelt* > > *"I count myself as a conservative Republican, yet I view it to a large > degree in the Theodore Roosevelt mold" > > --John McCain, NYT, July 13, > 2008<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1225511512-OiVikJLMOn41HcT5EeWIfg&pagewanted=all> > > * > > Where I come from, you'd never pass high school if you thought Teddy > Roosevelt was a conservative. Sure, he was an imperialist. And he liked to > conserve our wilderness areas. But he was in an almost constant state of > war with the conservative bosses of the Republican Party, and when he felt > that his protege, William Taft, had betrayed him by going over to their side > after he left office in 1908, he ran against Taft on the Bull Moose ticket, > and utterly *destroyed* the Republicans, reducing them to third party > status at the polls. > > So, Teddy Roosevelt, a conservative? Not so much. In fact, when it came > to socialism, *this is what Roosevelt > said*<http://www.fullbooks.com/Theodore-Roosevelt-An-Autobiography-by9.html>in > his autobiography: > > Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I > have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble > even to notice the epithet. I am not afraid of names, and I am not one of > those who fear to do what is right because some one else will confound me > with partisans with whose principles I am not in accord. Moreover, I know > that many American Socialists are high-minded and honorable citizens, who in > reality are merely radical social reformers. They are oppressed by the > brutalities and industrial injustices which we see everywhere about us. When > I recall how often I have seen Socialists and ardent non-Socialists working > side by side for some specific measure of social or industrial reform, and > how I have found opposed to them on the side of privilege many shrill > reactionaries who insist on calling all reformers Socialists, I refuse to be > panic-stricken by having this title mistakenly applied to me. > > So, it looks like Roosevelt would have voted for Obama, if he were still > around today. And it looks that way even moreso, if think about his tax > proposals. Although the income tax did not exist when he was President, > Roosevelt was a firm proponent of it--as well as the estate tax. Talk about > a tax-raiser, he was a tax-*creator*--or at least, he wanted to be. The > following passages are from his *1907 State of the > Union*<http://www.presidential-speeches.org/State-of-the-Union-1907-Theodore-Roosevelt.php>. > First, on the income tax: > > When our tax laws are revised the question of an income tax and an > inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of our legislators. In > my judgment both of these taxes should be part of our system of Federal > taxation. I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an > income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in > addition it is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and > great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the > very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it > would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all > taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the > dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would > be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one > may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional. > > Next, on the inheretance tax: > > The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of taxation, and > far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country > bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and > burden of taxation. The Government has the absolute right to decide as to > the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, > and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for > the imposition of a tax. Laws imposing such taxes have repeatedly been > placed upon the National statute books and as repeatedly declared > constitutional by the courts; and these laws contained the progressive > principle, that is, after a certain amount is reached the bequest or gift, > in life or > death, is increasingly burdened and the rate of taxation is increased in > proportion to the remoteness of blood of the man receiving the bequest. > These principles are recognized already in the leading civilized nations of > the world.... > > A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax > upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage > comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the > money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous > fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its > function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable > equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to > manhood. > > Roosevelt goes on to sharply distinguish this from socialist proposals ("In > your face, McCain!" as noted Roosevelt scholar Homer Simpson would say): > > We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would > try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, > thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private > property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon > which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would > mean the ruin of the entire country-a ruin which would bear heaviest upon > the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves. But proposals > for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this > class of socialistic theories. > > Of course, I'm not actually *aware* of any socialists of any real stature > who actual *made* any such arguments. But, Professor Simpson does get > easily enthused, and must be allowed to have his say from time to time. > > Back to Roosevelt: > > Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are > some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that > there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an > equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in > the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff > that is in him when compared to his fellows. > > So, Roosevelt quoting Lincoln to the everlasting humiliation of > McCain/Palin Republicanism. > > Sweet! > > ------------------------------ > > *Dwight D. Eisenhower* > > Eisenhower firmly rebuked the reactionary wing of the Republican Party. In > a 1954 letter to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, *he > wrote*<http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm>: > > > Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment > insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of > that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, > of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt > (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and > an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is > negligible and they are stupid. > > He did cut taxes, though. In 1953, when he took office, the top marginal > income tax rate was 92%. Ike thought this was outrageous. He cut the rate > to 91%. That's well more than *twice* the top rate that Obama proposes. > > ------------------------------ > > *Richard Nixon* > > Richard Nixon tried to implement *a form of negative income > tax*<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/37_nixon/nixon_domestic.html>as > a way of substituting direct cash payments for bureaucratic forms of > welfare assistance: > > Nixon had experienced the sting of poverty as a child, and he never forgot > it. But while he sympathized with the poor, he also shared many Americans' > conviction that the welfare system had grown into an inefficient bureaucracy > which fostered dependency and low self esteem among welfare recipients and > contributed to the breakdown of families by providing assistance only to > households which were not headed by a working male. > > With the assistance of Urban Affairs Council secretary Daniel Patrick > Moynihan, Nixon created the Family Assistance Plan. FAP called for the > replacement of bureaucratically administered programs such as Aid to > Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, with direct > cash payments to those in need. Not only single-parent families, but the > working poor would qualify for aid. All recipients, save the mothers of > preschool age children, would be required to work or take job training. > > Nixon revealed FAP in a nationwide address on August 8, 1969. Heavy > criticism followed. Welfare advocates declared the income level Nixon > proposed -- $1600 per year for a family of four -- insufficient. > Conservatives disliked the idea of a guaranteed annual income for people who > didn't work. Labor saw the proposal as a threat to the minimum wage. > Caseworkers opposed FAP fearing that many of their jobs would be eliminated. > And many Americans complained that the addition of the working poor would > expand welfare caseloads by millions. A disappointed Nixon pressed for the > bill's passage in various forms, until the election season of 1972. He knew > a bad campaign issue when he saw one, and he let FAP expire. > > What's more, as can be seen below, under Nixon, the tax rates--particularly > on high earners--were as high or higher as they were under Kennedy and > Johnson: > > > > ------------------------------ > > *Ronald Reagan* > > Even more than Teddy Roosevelt, McCain likes to associate himself with > Ronald Reagan. But though Reagan talked a good conservative game, when push > came to shove, he often switched directions. In fact, he not only rolled up > record deficits, he raised taxes, saved Social Security, and greatly > expanded the same type of negative income tax measures (refundable tax > credits) that McCain is railing at Obama for. > > In my earlier diary, *"John McCain Makes A Fool Of Himself, Again--Obama > the Socialist Edition"*<http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9627>, > I brought up the most successful form of negative income tax in US > history--the *Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or > EIC)*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit>. > It was introduced under Republican President Gerald Ford, and then expanded > under Ronald Reagan: > > Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax > legislation on a number of occasions, including the more widely-publicized > Reagan EIC expansion of 1986. The EIC was further expanded in 1990, 1993, > and 2001 regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), > lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986). > Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United > States (despite the fact that most income measures, including the poverty > rate, do not account for the credit), and enjoys broad bipartisan support. > > Reagan also helped save Social Security, in partnership with House Speaker > Tip O'Neill, as *Joshua Green > explained*<http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html>in > an article for > *Washington Monthly* in early 2003, "Reagan's Liberal Legacy": > > Reagan also vastly expanded one of the largest federal domestic programs, > Social Security. Before becoming president, he had often openly mused, much > to the alarm of his politically sensitive staff, about restructuring Social > Security to allow individuals to opt out of the system--an antecedent of > today's privatization plans. At the start of his administration, with Social > Security teetering on the brink of insolvency, Reagan attempted to push > through immediate draconian cuts to the program. But the Senate unanimously > rebuked his plan, and the GOP lost 26 House seats in the 1982 midterm > elections, largely as a result of this overreach. > > The following year, Reagan made one of the greatest ideological about-faces > in the history of the presidency, agreeing to a $165 billion bailout of > Social Security. In almost every way, the bailout flew in the face of > conservative ideology. It dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees > and employers, brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal > workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security > benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income > recipients. (As an added affront to conservatives, the tax wasn't indexed to > inflation, meaning that more and more people have gradually had to pay it > over time.) > > By expanding rather than scaling back entitlements, Reagan--and Newt > Gingrich after him--demonstrated that conservatives could not and would not > launch a frontal assault on Social Security, effectively conceding that > these cherished New Deal programs were central features of the American > polity. > > Ragan also raised taxes a lot more often and more freely than any > conservative would dare to admit. Here's just a snippet of what Green has > to say on that: > > The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side > goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive > reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an > act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two > years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate > income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and > closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same > period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard > deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an > income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at > the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast. > According to *Wall Street Journal* reporters Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan > Murray, whose book *Showdown at Gucci Gulch* chronicles the 1986 measure, > "the conservative president's support for an effort once considered the > bastion of liberals carried tremendous symbolic significance." When Reagan's > conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised > of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud." > > What's more, when he was governor of California, Reagan faced a budget > crunch, and responded by agreeing the the Democratically-controlled > legislature to respond with a balance of spending cuts and tax hikes raising > the highest tax bracket. That's a step that the so-called "moderate" > Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger has been either unwilling or unable to take. > > Ronald Reagan: Socialist! > > ------------------------------ > > Oh, and I *almost* forgot this one: > > *John McCain* > > Back in 2001, John McCain was one of just two Republican senators who > voted against Bush's tax cuts. As the *Washington Post* *recalled earlier > this > year*<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456.html>: > > > In 2001, just days before Bush's first tax cut passed, McCain lamented on > ABC's "This Week" that, "I'd like to see much more of this tax cut shared by > working Americans. . . . I think it still devotes too much of it to the > wealthiest Americans." > > *John McCain. > > Another Republican Socialist of America!* > > More: > http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9607 > -- > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. > Have a great day, > Tommy > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-- Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. Have a great day, Tommy -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
