Rep. Bachus: 17 House members are socialists

[peejay 327]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see that this guy accused these representatives of advocating Soviet communism, Stalinism, Leninism, or Maoism. Presumedly he accused them of advocating socialist policies. Like I said, accusing this guy of reverse McCarthyism is just as bad. What is wrong with getting anyone from any political persuasion to back up their accuasations? I just want to know what is going on in Congress. What is wrong with the facts and the truth of what our elected representatives of either party or political pursuation are up to? Transparency in government is good for the People. Let the People decide what is bullshit and what isn't.

The implication that he made was that socialist policies are not only wrong, but anti-American and anyone who aspires to them should be outed for treason. That's what the issue is here.

As for Bachus himself - he supported the financial bailout back when Bush was in office so if that is the criteria, he better out himself first and stand front of the line to the firing squad.

Whoa here padnah....where did this guy Bachus say these 17 are anti-American and guilty of treason? I ain't seeing it. Show me proof that he said they are anti-American and guilty of treason. Or is your vague statement that he made this implication (according to your interpretation) what you are basing this on?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see that this guy accused these representatives of advocating Soviet communism, Stalinism, Leninism, or Maoism. Presumedly he accused them of advocating socialist policies. Like I said, accusing this guy of reverse McCarthyism is just as bad. What is wrong with getting anyone from any political persuasion to back up their accuasations? I just want to know what is going on in Congress. What is wrong with the facts and the truth of what our elected representatives of either party or political pursuation are up to? Transparency in government is good for the People. Let the People decide what is bullshit and what isn't.

The implication that he made was that socialist policies are not only wrong, but anti-American and anyone who aspires to them should be outed for treason. That's what the issue is here.

As for Bachus himself - he supported the financial bailout back when Bush was in office so if that is the criteria, he better out himself first and stand front of the line to the firing squad.

Whoa here padnah....where did this guy Bachus say these 17 are anti-American and guilty of treason? I ain't seeing it. Show me proof that he said they are anti-American and guilty of treason. Or is your vague statement that he made this implication (according to your interpretation) what you are basing this on?

Implications are funny things. You can say a lot without spelling out every word. And given that his own record shows that by the most literal interpretation of what socialism is, this bafoon has classified himself in the process. What a maroon.

[peejay 327]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see that this guy accused these representatives of advocating Soviet communism, Stalinism, Leninism, or Maoism. Presumedly he accused them of advocating socialist policies. Like I said, accusing this guy of reverse McCarthyism is just as bad. What is wrong with getting anyone from any political persuasion to back up their accuasations? I just want to know what is going on in Congress. What is wrong with the facts and the truth of what our elected representatives of either party or political pursuation are up to? Transparency in government is good for the People. Let the People decide what is bullshit and what isn't.

The implication that he made was that socialist policies are not only wrong, but anti-American and anyone who aspires to them should be outed for treason. That's what the issue is here.

As for Bachus himself - he supported the financial bailout back when Bush was in office so if that is the criteria, he better out himself first and stand front of the line to the firing squad.

Whoa here padnah....where did this guy Bachus say these 17 are anti-American and guilty of treason? I ain't seeing it. Show me proof that he said they are anti-American and guilty of treason. Or is your vague statement that he made this implication (according to your interpretation) what you are basing this on?

Implications are funny things. You can say a lot without spelling out every word. And given that his own record shows that by the most literal interpretation of what socialism is, this bafoon has classified himself in the process. What a maroon.

So, you answered my question. You have implied that Bachus implied. Ok...I guess we can leave it at that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't see that this guy accused these representatives of advocating Soviet communism, Stalinism, Leninism, or Maoism. Presumedly he accused them of advocating socialist policies. Like I said, accusing this guy of reverse McCarthyism is just as bad. What is wrong with getting anyone from any political persuasion to back up their accuasations? I just want to know what is going on in Congress. What is wrong with the facts and the truth of what our elected representatives of either party or political pursuation are up to? Transparency in government is good for the People. Let the People decide what is bullshit and what isn't.

The implication that he made was that socialist policies are not only wrong, but anti-American and anyone who aspires to them should be outed for treason. That's what the issue is here.

As for Bachus himself - he supported the financial bailout back when Bush was in office so if that is the criteria, he better out himself first and stand front of the line to the firing squad.

Whoa here padnah....where did this guy Bachus say these 17 are anti-American and guilty of treason? I ain't seeing it. Show me proof that he said they are anti-American and guilty of treason. Or is your vague statement that he made this implication (according to your interpretation) what you are basing this on?

Implications are funny things. You can say a lot without spelling out every word. And given that his own record shows that by the most literal interpretation of what socialism is, this bafoon has classified himself in the process. What a maroon.

So, you answered my question. You have implied that Bachus implied. Ok...I guess we can leave it at that.

It's a two-way street. Speculation begets speculation. You should know that.

[dalegg 143]

Personally I think in order for the Country to run the way Democrats want it to run, it will just end up socialist, even though we won't actually use the word. I don't mean to say we will ever be Cuba or North Korea socialist, we'll just have a system where people are heavily reliant on the Government.

An efficient country is a country that runs better while spending less, right? And what happens when we are spending less?- we pay less taxes. However, as we can see in California, Government requires a certain amount of Revenue to exist, and if they aren't getting that dollar amount in the form of many small transactions, they will just get it in less transactions by raising the amount of tax the existing tax payers are paying. But in the end, they will end up with the same amount of revenue. As we become more and more efficient the government will have to raise taxes more and more to keep that revenue level at least to where it is. And as the prospective worker pool grows more and more, the average income of the American worker will get smaller and smaller once again lowering the revenue received by income taxes , while the social service requirements such as medicine and education grow higher and higher until the government is forced to raise the tax rate on that existing salary pool to a point where half of everyone's income is going to be sent away in taxes to sustain the system.

And if by some horrific disaster the top CEOs decide to give up their high paying salaries and spread the wealth more evenly throughout the workforce to make up for the lower available income it will get even worse, because instead of taxing the millions of dollars these relatively few people have at the existing 36%, which is more likely to be something like 60% later, they would only be able to tax it at the rate of the lower paid employees which will presumadly still be lower. This decrease in revenue will result in- a higher tax rate for all. (By the way, if those Bail-out bank CEOs really wanted to screw the government, this is what they would do. Instead of keeping a 5 million dollar bonus and letting it be taxed at 36% or 95% or whatever, they would spread it amongst their thousand employees giving them a $5000 bonus each that would only be taxed at 15 to 20% and reducing the total taxes received by the treasury by at least half. Fortunately for the government, they are still greedy)

At this point, we have so much less of our own dispensible income that we are completely reliant on the Government- but, the good news is that energy costs are low, and healthcare costs are low, and housing is perhaps fixed low, so we don't need money so much and we can live the life that is predicted in Star Trek.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Fortunately for the government, they are still greedy

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I was in the Army. I don't mind socialism. It ain't so bad when the taxpayer owns everything you use, feeds you, tucks you into bed at night, tells you where to go, and when. Plus, they give you money as well. Why do hippies hate the military so much? Must be all that PT.

[Ban Hammer 14,571]

I was in the Army. I don't mind socialism. It ain't so bad when the taxpayer owns everything you use, feeds you, tucks you into bed at night, tells you where to go, and when. Plus, they give you money as well. Why do hippies hate the military so much? Must be all that PT.

i would guess it's the getting up at o'dark early.....

[Peikko 1,575]

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh come on, peejay - do you really believe there are members of Congress who are bonifide Socialists? I'm mean really...this is retarded.

Of course. Bernie Sanders is one Senator who openly admits to being a socialist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Whenever "Socialism" is trotted out in American politics, its rarely done so in a way that suggests its distinct from communism.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have be labelled as "socialist", which is frankly ridiculous IMO.