Socialism Song - Government
My Socialism project, enjoy! 🙂 When the corporations are running this nation the rich get richer and the poor get poor vote for me and I #39;ll give a demonstration none of this will exist anymore...
By: heylizzy19
Follow this link:
Socialism Song - Government - Video
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, right, listens while Republican Sen. Pat Roberts speaks during a campaign stop at a mall in Dodge City, Kan., Monday, Sept. 22, 2014. Three-term incumbent Roberts is facing a challenge from independent candidate Greg ... more >
Sen. Pat Robert took on a campaign buddy former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole at a recent Dodge City event to raise money to keep his Kansas seat, warning those in attendance that its not long before America turns the corner on the Constitution and takes on a more permanent socialistic feel.
Theres a palpable fear among Kansans all across the state that the America that we love and cherish will not be the same America for our kids and grandkids, and thats wrong, Mr. Roberts said in a video released on YouTube. One of the reasons that Im running is to change that. Theres an easy way to do it. Ill let you figure it out. But at any rate, we have to change course because our country is headed for national socialism. Thats not right. Its changing our culture. Its changing what were all about.
Mr. Roberts is fighting to overtake the favorable poll numbers of his independent candidate, Greg Orman, Politico reported.
PHOTOS: Are you ready for some football? These NFL WAGs sure are
Mr. Roberts appearance with Mr. Dole is believed to be his way of casting himself as a more moderate candidate to the younger voters. At the same time, using the s word socialism has been the rights common attack cause against President Obama and his Democratic base over the years, and thats likely to catch the ear of more conservative voters, political insiders suggest.
The rest is here:
Sen. Pat Roberts warns of 'national socialism' taking root
Campaigning with Kansas legend Bob Dole on Tuesday, Sen. Pat Roberts warned attendees at a Dodge City event that the United States was on the path to national socialism.
Theres a palpable fear among Kansans all across the state that the America that we love and cherish will not be the same America for our kids and grandkids, and thats wrong, Roberts said, according to a video of the event posted on the YouTube account of the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge.
One of the reasons that Im running is to change that. Theres an easy way to do it. Ill let you figure it out. But at any rate, we have to change course because our country is headed for national socialism. Thats not right. Its changing our culture. Its changing what were all about.
(POLITICO Magazine: Americas New War President)
The full name of Germanys Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Roberts comments came as polls show independent Greg Orman leading by double digits and as the incumbent casts himself as more of a moderate to appeal to voters who are tired of Washington gridlock.
On one hand, Roberts appearance with Dole who was known for his moderate voting record and bipartisan deal-making as the former Senate GOP leader could send a reassuring signal to those centrist voters. But invoking socialism, a common line of attack against President Barack Obama and Democrats in 2012, is more likely to appeal to the conservative base.
A Hungarian-born billionaire, Thomas Peterffy, spent at least $8 million on ads in 2012 telling voters to support Republicans to escape socialism.
See the original post here:
Roberts invokes 'national socialism'
Trevor Brookins
*Every so often I rerun this column as sort of a mission statement. It explains the name of my column and my general perspective.
Socialism (as an alternative to pure capitalism) is a much more sustainable (creates tax payers), morally progressive (less exploitative), and legally advantageous stance for any government entity to assume.
At its core socialism as an economic system implements a higher tax structure which generates revenue for the government. This revenue is generally used to implement social programs to benefit the public. So why is this superior to economic conservatism?
Firstly the higher tax rates under socialism allow for profits but not exorbitant profits, so there is less of a motive of companies to exploit their labor force because the extra profits will not stay in the pocket of the owner. In this way socialism is more progressive and better; it is an economic philosophy that does not incentivize dehumanizing the labor force.
Secondly socialism rejects the ideas of social Darwinism that economic conservatives normally embrace. Economic conservatives typically assume that those who succeed in business do so because of their innate ability. The converse is also true, that those who are destitute are in that condition because they have nothing to offer society and need to fend for themselves. The problem with this assumption is that left to fend for themselves many of the economically destitute will resort to crime.
Socialists recognize the truth that those who are not assisted in pursuing success will become blight on society. Ergo, in creating social and economic programs, socialism is attempting to minimize future crime and by extension attempting to minimize the future legal costs of the government in costs for law enforcement and criminal prosecution. Those same programs not only attempt to prevent future crime but also create future productive members of society future taxpayers in society.
Of course there is a limit to the amount of taxes that a government should implement. But such an acknowledgement is far from an anti-socialist sentiment. It is instead an admission that there are degrees to which socialist policies can and should be implemented. Of course certain infrastructural services should be performed by the state (fire departments for instance). But some non-essential programs can and should be funded by the state as well (sex education and family planning).
Essentially it is the difference between a society devoting revenue to protecting the haves from the have nots or devoting revenue to helping the have nots to become haves.
Trevor Brookins is a free lance writer in Rockland County, New York. He is currently working on a book about American culture during the Cold War. His writing has appeared in The Journal News. You can reach him at [emailprotected] or follow him on Twitter @historictrev.
The rest is here:
The Socialists Journal: Why Socialism
Something that many people do not understand is that filing a joint income tax return with your spouse is an election. You dont have to do it. Of course, probably more often than not, it will cost a couple to file separately, although if they could claim to be single they might come out ahead. Youre not supposed to do that if you are actually married though. The main reason that you might choose to not file a joint return is to avoid joint and several liability. Ive written about that a lot.
There is another wrinkle to joint filing being an election. Some elections have to be made with a timely filed return. You snooze, you lose. Thats not the case with joint returns. You can even amend to a joint return, from separate returns, although you cant go the other way. There is still a requirement, though. In order to file jointly, you have to, well, file. If the IRS files for you, which is what happens to procrastinators and certain stubborn people, you lose the ability to file jointly. That is what Donald Salzer heard about from the Tax Court last week.
Mr. Salzer, whom the Tax Court characterizes as a substantial wage earner, did not file a return in 2010, because he disagreed with government policies. I have to have some admiration, perhaps grudging, for that, since that type of thing is what got Henry David Thoreau the night in jail that resulted in his writing about civil disobedience.
Thoreau was protesting the Mexican War, but Mr. Salzer had quite a few things troubling him about the way the country has been going.
We are citizens of the United States of America. We have paid taxes to what we thought was the United States of America. Apparently through the years, socialism has taken control of this country without us being aware of it. and Barak [sic] Obama has plowed straight ahead with tons more. We resoundingly reject it which is shown in our not having submitted a tax form for 2008 or 2009 and will not be doing so for 2010. We support the United States of America, the republic, the Christian nation; we do not support this socialist government that has hijackedWashingtonDC. God has said Blessed is that country whose God is the Lord. (Psalm 33:12) This government has shown nothing but malice toward the American people, has attacked our soldiers and veterans in various ways, has attacked our children at the public schools by trying to push wrong beliefscontrary to the Bible to them, has sexually assaulted our people at the airports in the name of security, is killing the unborn, has taken over car companies, have taken control of the banks, taking over our health care and sold us to China. We know what socialism is. Socialism is not just another economic theory. There is no good kind of socialism. It is an anti-Christian, anti-American and against the U.S. Constitution. It is about trying to control people and deprive them of what they need. Because of it, millions of people have died. We reject this whole heartedly. We do not want this happening to the people of this country or anywhere. This needs to stop now.
It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasnt under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks.
At any rate the protest did not get Mr. Salzer so much as a few minutes in jail, much less a whole night. It got him free tax preparation from the IRS. As he discovered though, Theyll just look at the gross income. No personal exemptions other than yourself, deductions etc.
Some of that got adjusted, but one thing that was not adjusted was filing status.
Petitioner contends that he could have filed a joint return for 2010 but chose not to because of his disagreement with Government policies. However, as the U.S. Supreme Court instructs, we give effect to what actually happened and not what might have happened.
Petitioner addresses the additions to tax only inferentially by alleging that he would be due a refund if joint filing status were now allowed. Perhaps this allegation is true, but it is irrelevant because it invites us to enter the speculative might have/could have realm, which, as previously stated, we may not.
See the rest here:
For Joint Filing Status You Have To File