Obama Wars
See other Obama Wars Articles
Title: 55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama?
Source:
NRO
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/campa ... socialist-accurate-label-obama
Published: Jul 9, 2010
Author: Jim Geraghty
Post Date: 2010-07-09 10:41:30 by Badeye
Keywords: None
Views: 59466
Comments: 80
55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama? July 09, 2010 9:13 AM By Jim Geraghty The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent. Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.” On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal. When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Obviously Carville and Greenberg, well know evil rightwing neocons, tampered with the polling results....(laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Since Republicans have been working overtime to pin the label on him, they should be pleased. Too bad they haven't done such a good job improving their own image.
Further results reveal that 80% of voters don't know what the term means...
Article is about Owe-bama, the poll is from well known Democrats.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
LOL! They KNOW its bad and that's good enough.
Funny how the Socialist Party doesn't even claim Obama is a socialist: And here's what the Socialist Party said in a press release on March 29th about Obamacare: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/03/tea-party-head-spinner-sociali.html
Yeah, so?
The accuracy of your tag line is affirmed daily.
Get a room! :-)
If I could, I would. The health care industry got the health care bill that it wanted.
Take it up with Carville and Greenberg, well known 'neo cons' (laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
So maybe you might address the topic, rather than try to obscure it with references to the minority party that didn't produce the poll.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
"Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality" "The accuracy of your tag line is affirmed daily." Even though I'm not a republican, I would still rather choose my own reality than have some commie pig choose it for me, that's what makes freedom and individualizm so great! jmo!
what's there to take up? They conducted a poll that shows that people are buying into Republican idiocy. Congrats.
Socialism has become a buzzword in politics lately, a word that has been thrown about by people whose political knowledge goes no further than reading Fox News headlines on their phones. Tea Partiers in particularly are especially guilty of dropping the ’s-bomb’, especially when used to describe Pres. Obama. Of course, socialists themselves beg to differ. In an interview, Frank Llewellyn, the director of the DSA, and Billy Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, both strongly refute the popular idea that Obama is a socialist. “We didn’t see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama,” Wharton says, ” and we certainly didn’t see our agenda move from the streets to the White House.” Llewellyn also claims that the socialist label definitely didn’t fit Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. “To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin.” When she was governor of Alaska, Palin was vocally proud of the fact that her state slapped a windfall profits tax on oil companies operating on Alaskan soil and distributed the revenue directly to Alaskans themselves. This, says Llewellyn, is a thoroughly-socialist act, because it uses redistributive actions to reduce inequality in society. Palin once attempted to defend her actions, stating that it was not socialism because the people of Alaska owned the resources that the oil companies were extracting. Of course, no one bothered to point out to Mrs. Palin that her defense constitutes a textbook argument for socialism. One of the tenets of Marxism is that natural resources belong to the people of the state not the state or a state created entity.
Maybe she should team up with Hugo Chavez for her 2012 run.
"The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Take it up with Carville and Greenberg, well known 'neo cons' (laughing) what's there to take up? They conducted a poll that shows that people are buying into Republican idiocy. Really? Can you provide something to support this claim?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Wow! Who knew that NEWSWEEK was a republican house organ? The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg
#2. To: Badeye (#0)
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama
#4. To: lucysmom (#2)
#5. To: war (#3)
Further results reveal that 80% of voters don't know what the term means...
#6. To: war, lucysmom, badeye (#3)
Further results reveal that 80% of voters don't know what the term means...
But Billy Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He’s seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn’t a socialist. He’s not even a liberal.
“We didn’t see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama,” Wharton says, ” and we certainly didn’t see our agenda move from the streets to the White House.”
"It is a corporate restructuring of the health insurance industry created to protect the profit margins of private insurance companies,”
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#7. To: Badeye (#4)
Article is about Owe-bama, the poll is from well known Democrats.
#8. To: go65 (#6)
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#9. To: lucysmom, go65 (#8)
But I can't, so I won't.
#10. To: go65 (#6)
"It is a corporate restructuring of the health insurance industry created to protect the profit margins of private insurance companies,”
#11. To: go65 (#6)
#12. To: lucysmom (#7)
#13. To: lucysmom, go65 (#8)
#14. To: Badeye (#11)
Take it up with Carville and Greenberg, well known 'neo cons' (laughing)
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#15. To: lucysmom, war, murron, badeye, skip intro, ignore amos, fred mertz, brian s (#7)
In a statement that surprises absolutely no one who has any kind of grasp at all of what socialism actually means, the director of the Democratic Socialists of America stated that Obama, contrary to popular belief, is not a socialist – and that Sarah Palin is far more representative of his organization’s beliefs.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#16. To: go65 (#15)
... because the people of Alaska owned the resources that the oil companies were extracting.
#17. To: go65 (#15)
Palin once attempted to defend her actions, stating that it was not socialism because the people of Alaska owned the resources that the oil companies were extracting.
#18. To: go65 (#14)
#19. To: go65 (#14)
people are buying into Republican idiocy.
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#20. To: Ignore Amos (#19)
(laughing) He's flailing around a lot these days...kinda a mirror image of the Democratic Party, in a full scale panic.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#21. To: Badeye (#18)
The results of the poll you posted showed that respondents are buying the line of crap from the GOP that Obama is a socialist. Meanwhile, those who actually know what a socialist is, say he isn't and instead point to Palin as being one of them.
Can you provide something to support this claim?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#22. To: go65 (#21) (Edited)
Can you provide something to support this claim that Republicans are making this assertion in such an overwhelming array of interviews, columns, media ads? No, you can't. Owe-bama's being judged on his actions as POTUS. And the average American isn't just 'underwhelmed' they are frightened. And they know socialism when they see it. This isn't the GOP's doing. You can't support the statement. Its Owe-bama's.
The results of the poll you posted showed that respondents are buying the line of crap from the GOP that Obama is a socialist.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#23. To: Badeye, lucysmom, sneakypete, war, skip intro, fred mertz, brian s, (#22)
I think we've discovered Fred Flintstone folks. Nobody else can live under a rock that big.
Can you provide something to support this claim that Republicans are making this assertion in such an overwhelming array of interviews, columns, media ads?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#24. To: go65 (#23)
Back up your assertion, or shut up. Bluff called.
Can you provide something to support this claim that Republicans are making this assertion in such an overwhelming array of interviews, columns, media ads?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#25. To: go65 (#23)
Patrick, Sponge Bob's friend, lives under a rock.
#26. To: Badeye (#24)
I'll shut up, beats banging my head against a rock.
Back up your assertion, or shut up.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#27. To: war (#25)
Badeye is Patrick? That makes a lot of sense. Patrick, Sponge Bob's friend, lives under a rock.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#28. To: go65 (#23)
Can you provide something to support this claim that Republicans are making this assertion in such an overwhelming array of interviews, columns, media ads? What passes for Republicans today can NOT afford to start throwing the word "socialist" around because they know it would stick to them as well as the Dims. I think we've discovered Fred Flintstone folks. Nope. If you had you would be proclaiming him as a endangered minority,and creating special government programs to help him.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#29. To: sneakypete (#28)
Okay...that right there is funny...
Nope. If you had you would be proclaiming him as a endangered minority,and creating special government programs to help him.
#30. To: go65 (#26)
Appreciate the choice to shut up. thank you.
Back up your assertion, or shut up.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#31. To: sneakypete (#28)
Okay...that made me laugh.
Nope. If you had you would be proclaiming him as a endangered minority,and creating special government programs to help him.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#32. To: go65 (#27)
Back to personal attacks..and getting them from the now discredited dwarf? Damn shame. Telling..but still a damn shame.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#33. To: go65 (#21)
On the other hand, socialist (according to the GOP spin machine) California, the the third largest oil producing state, has no severance tax on oil and issues no wealth redistributing checks to its residents.
Meanwhile, those who actually know what a socialist is, say he isn't and instead point to Palin as being one of them.
#34. To: lucysmom (#33)
Yeah, its issuing IOU's instead....(laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#35. To: lucysmom (#33)
The people of Alaska get dividend checks from oil revenue because those resources are legally owned by the citizens of the State, not because of some socialist program.
has no severance tax on oil and issues no wealth redistributing checks to its residents.
#36. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
Yes, as has already been stated, that is precisely a Socialist position.
The people of Alaska get dividend checks from oil revenue because those resources are legally owned by the citizens of the State, not because of some socialist program.
#37. To: no gnu taxes, badeye (#35)
Republicans in the state legislature have all signed a pledge, "no gnu taxes". It takes a 2/3 majority vote to pass a budget in California and that's why the budget is perpetually late, not balanced, and state workers are issued IOUs.
no gnu taxes
#38. To: lucysmom (#36)
No, the socialist position would be for the State to keep the money and set up government programs complete with all the accompanying bureacracy for the "good" of the people. Returning the dividends to the people for them to spend as they see fit is a quintessential anti-socialist course of action. It's the people's money.
#39. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
Section 8.11 - Mineral Rights. Discovery and appropriation shall be the basis for establishing a right in those minerals reserved to the State which, upon the date of ratification of this constitution by the people of Alaska, were subject to location under the federal mining laws. Prior discovery, location, and filing, as prescribed by law, shall establish a prior right to these minerals and also a prior right to permits, leases, and transferable licenses for their extraction. Continuation of these rights shall depend upon the performance of annual labor, or the payment of fees, rents, or royalties, or upon other requirements as may be prescribed by law. Surface uses of land by a mineral claimant shall be limited to those necessary for the extraction or basic processing of the mineral deposits, or for both. Discovery and appropriation shall initiate a right, subject to further requirements of law, to patent of mineral lands if authorized by the State and not prohibited by Congress. The provisions of this section shall apply to all other minerals reserved to the State which by law are declared subject to appropriation. Section 8.12 - Mineral Leases and Permits. The legislature shall provide for the issuance, types and terms of leases for coal, oil, gas, oil shale, sodium, phosphate, potash, sulfur, pumice, and other minerals as may be prescribed by law. Leases and permits giving the exclusive right of exploration for these minerals for specific periods and areas, subject to reasonable concurrent exploration as to different classes of minerals, may be authorized by law. Like leases and permits giving the exclusive right of prospecting by geophysical, geochemical, and similar methods for all minerals may also be authorized by law.
#40. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
Ypu are, my friend, a good Socialist!
Returning the dividends to the people for them to spend as they see fit is a quintessential anti-socialist course of action. It's the people's money.
#41. To: no gnu taxes (#38) (Edited)
Nope. The Socialist model is exactly this. The State would claim that the ownership of the resources is in the people and would determine what share of the profits gleaned from the development of those minerals the people would be entitlted to. The oil companies extract according to their abilities and the society benefits according to its needs. It does not get any more Marxist than that. Returning the dividends to the people for them to spend as they see fit...It's the people's money. WOW...what a GOOD little Marxist you are.
#42. To: lucysmom, no gnu taxes, badeye (#37)
Republicans in the state legislature have all signed a pledge, "no gnu taxes". It takes a 2/3 majority vote to pass a budget in California and that's why the budget is perpetually late, not balanced, and state workers are issued IOUs. State governments have basically three options - raise taxes, cut spending, or a combination of both. (In addition to these, the fedgov has four - the forth being to print money) Question: In your world, is cutting spending EVER justified? Or would you be in favor of just cutting out the middleman by having ALL wealth go to the state, and the state doling out a pittance to us?
no gnu taxes
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#43. To: Ignore Amos (#42)
Where would you cut spending? Or would you be in favor of just cutting out the middleman by having ALL wealth go to the state, and the state doling out a pittance to us? Check out what prop 13 did for commercial property taxes Goldberg calculates that Disneyland, which hasn't had a reportable change of ownership since, well, forever, is currently taxed at an average of about a nickel per square foot. For comparison, a median California home bought last year out of foreclosure, measuring 1,600 square feet and selling for about $330,000 (these are averages from the California Assn. of Realtors), would incur property tax of about $3,300 per year, or $2.06 per square foot. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/13/business/fi-hiltzik13
Question: In your world, is cutting spending EVER justified?
#44. To: war (#41)
There is no "need" qualification for the issuance of the dividends.
#45. To: no gnu taxes (#44)
The need to survive is predicated upon money.
There is no "need" qualification for the issuance of the dividends.
#46. To: war (#41)
And the money distributed to citizens of the State comes solely from the sale of the States natural resources, which the citizens own. It is nothing more than dividends on stock performance.
#47. To: no gnu taxes (#46)
Thanks, Karl, got it the first time.
And the money distributed to citizens of the State comes solely from the sale of the States natural resources, which the citizens own.
#48. To: lucysmom (#43)
That would be a 'no' huh? (laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#49. To: lucysmom (#43) (Edited)
There are no easy answers, of course. I work for an organization (not a gov't entity) and, without getting too specific - it has been faced with some tough choices due to the crappy economy. We found out - just recently - that every staff employee will be getting between a 5 and 8 percent pay cut. Tough choices, indeed. But the way I look at it - it beats layoffs (which so far they have not had to do.) So - cutting personnel costs is always an option - albeit not an easy one. And aren't these people (legislators) elected to make tough choices. Can it not be fixed?
Where would you cut spending?
Check out what prop 13 did for commercial property taxes
Not being a Californian, I only have a vague idea of what Prop. 13 is/was. What you posted certainly points out a problem. No law is ever perfect, however. Unintended consequences always occur.
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#50. To: Badeye (#48)
I'm thinking the "no gnu tax" guys should take a pay cut.
That would be a 'no' huh? (laughing)
#51. To: lucysmom (#50)
What would expect to accomplish by taxing gnus? I'm thinking the "no gnu tax" guys should take a pay cut.
#52. To: Ignore Amos (#49)
Been there done that, the court gave it the thumbs up. Not being a Californian, I only have a vague idea of what Prop. 13 is/was. What you posted certainly points out a problem. No law is ever perfect, however. Unintended consequences always occur. Last year I paid less than $2,000 property taxes on what then had a market value of $2+ million. The unintended consequences of prop 13 are pretty significant and far reaching.
So - cutting personnel costs is always an option - albeit not an easy one.
#53. To: Ignore Amos (#49)
It has become the third rail in California politics. The low, low tax base can be passed from one generation to the next. Its one of those things that just about everyone recognizes needs to be changed but no one has the guts to try.
Can it not be fixed?
#54. To: lucysmom (#53)
Warren Buffet called for an increase in property taxes in CA. He said that the taxes that he paid on his multi-million dollar Malibu home were less than his not even $1MM home in NE.
#55. To: lucysmom (#53)
There are too many "third rails" - that is the problem. I suppose the only solution is default or bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the fedgov will probably end up bailing out the states - which will just shift (not solve) the problem. What do we do when the fedgov goes bankrupt?
It has become the third rail in California politics
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#56. To: war (#54)
I remember that. Arnold sentenced him to do push-ups and I don't think Arnold called on him again.
#57. To: Ignore Amos (#55)
Christie is disproving this notion in New Jersey.
It has become the third rail in California politics There are too many "third rails" - that is the problem.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#58. To: Badeye (#57)
True enough. Let's see if he prevails against the usual suspects - i.e. gov't employee unions, teachers, and various deadbeats - and doesn't get run out of town.
Christie is disproving this notion in New Jersey.
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#59. To: Ignore Amos (#58)
So far the voters seem to be backing him, last poll related to the teachers union showed they took a huge hit after taking Christie on. Personally, I think the guy is great. He's not going to be intimidated by these punks.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#60. To: Ignore Amos (#55)
This one is a Republican third rail Prior to 1978, local governments in California (as elsewhere in the nation) could set their own property tax rates and spend the money that they raised on local needs. But the Republicans did not trust local governments or local voters with the power to tax local property or to spend that revenue as they thought appropriate. ... Prop 13 took away the cities' power to set property tax rates or levy property taxes, and gave all such power to the state -- where it would be subject to Prop 13’s strict limits and the 2/3 rule – in other words, subject to the statewide anti-tax minority’s veto, regardless of the wishes or needs of local officials or voters. http://open.salon.com/blog/micha...ver_the_effect_of_prop_13
There are too many "third rails" - that is the problem.
#61. To: lucysmom (#60)
Why bring partisanship into it? Are you interested in solving problems, or just promoting a partisan agenda?
This one is a Republican third rail
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#62. To: Ignore Amos (#61)
Ya think? lmao Not to mention going back 32 years, into the previous century...
or just promoting a partisan agenda?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#63. To: Ignore Amos (#61)
Because this is an issue that has been driven by California Republicans specifically and Republicans in general. The California Republican party is not interested in solving the problem, they are looking for ideologically pure (according to the dictates of Grover Norquist) candidates, not problem solvers.
Why bring partisanship into it? Are you interested in solving problems, or just promoting a partisan agenda?
#64. To: Badeye (#62)
Again proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
Not to mention going back 32 years, into the previous century...
#65. To: lucysmom (#63) (Edited)
If we're ever going to solve any problems, we're going to have to get past the republicans/bad - democrats/good BS. Just sayin' Besides, I can tell you that republicans aren't the problem. Here in New York, we've run all the republicans out. And we're in just as deep sh*t as California.
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#66. To: Ignore Amos (#65)
As one who has been here 25 years, they did a good job of eating themselves.
Here in New York, we've run all the republicans out.
#67. To: Ignore Amos (#65)
The funny thing is, Patterson has long been proposing the same draconian measures that Christie ran on in NJ. And while Christie is going to out on his ass in 3 years, Patterson will be out in a few months.
And we're in just as deep sh*t as California.
#68. To: lucysmom (#64)
I did the math, perhaps you can't? Sheesh. You cited something from 32 years ago. Reread your own post, use a calculator.
Not to mention going back 32 years, into the previous century... Again proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#69. To: Ignore Amos (#65)
Besides, I can tell you that republicans aren't the problem. Here in New York, we've run all the republicans out. And we're in just as deep sh*t as California. ding! ding! Ding! We have a winner!
If we're ever going to solve any problems, we're going to have to get past the republicans/bad - democrats/good BS. Just sayin'
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#70. To: war (#67)
You're making my case which is this: elections aren't going to cure what ails us. Who's going to ride in on a white horse and "fix" New York? Cuomo? LMAO
The funny thing is, Patterson has long been proposing the same draconian measures that Christie ran on in NJ. And while Christie is going to out on his ass in 3 years, Patterson will be out in a few months.
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#71. To: Ignore Amos (#70)
He said the same thing about Bush in 04.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#72. To: Ignore Amos (#70)
I'll do what I always do...vote Libertarian or Marijuana Reform, if they run a candidate.
#73. To: Badeye (#68)
Yes, and its been down hill since then.
Sheesh. You cited something from 32 years ago.
#74. To: lucysmom (#73)
Dumbass.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#75. To: Badeye (#74)
Really? Think about it. Prop13 took local control of schools and property tax rates and gave it to the state. Removing schools from local control has given more power to the dreaded teacher's union. The budget is always late getting passed due to the super majority requirement. (Politicians get to collect extra money from the state taxpayers while they hang around not passing a budget) Small contractors have gone belly up, or have had to get loans (pay interest), or both waiting for a budget to pass so they can get paid for work/services already provided. Prop13 has shifted the bulk of the property tax burden away from commercial property and those who have held onto their property either by occupying it themselves or passing on their property and tax base to their heirs, to first time buyers who pay through the nose. Affordable housing close to work is nonexistent, which means people have absurdly long commutes which means higher fuel consumption, more air pollution, more roads to build and maintain, and less time for family.
Dumbass.
#76. To: lucysmom (#75) (Edited)
At the time there seemed no simple solution as property taxes were doubling or even tripling about every two years due to skyrocketing property values mostly due to Japanese foreign investors (at least in my area). County assessors were literally running amok in their ability to rake in the dough so to speak and none of the counties seemed intersted in changing their assessment rates or methods without a court fight. And they were making examples of owners unable to pay the taxes by seizing thousands of properties for tax liens. I know when my mother went to the county to complain about their doubled property tax then the assessor literally said she could sell it and he knew of plenty of buyers that would buy it. Three teams of Japanese investors came by within days to inquire. Everyone in my family would have eventually lost their properties under the old tax methods, as wages and prices weren't keeping up with the exploding property values. That would have definitely led to either most of the state being owned by foreign investors with most of the natives either renting or otherwise being displaced.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
#77. To: war (#72)
"Liberatian"?? But you defend 0bama and his Marxist, fascist, un-constitutional policies at every turn in the meantime. Kinda of hypocritical, but I guess you're just being true to your self.
I'll do what I always do...vote Libertarian or Marijuana Reform, if they run a candidate.
#78. To: Badeye (#74)
LOL....
Dumbass.
#79. To: mininggold (#76)
I remember the arguments well, and the Japanese investors (one bought my grandfather's house). We also had Chinese investors anticipating the end of the British lease on Hong Kong. Sometimes the solution to one problem creates more problems, now it looks like the state's circling the drain.
At the time there seemed no simple solution...
#80. To: lucysmom (#75)
Dumbass. Really? Think about it. Reread what you said about my noting you were citing something from 32 years ago.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]