Palin: Obama's Tax Plans Could Mean Nightmare Communist State

Sarah Palin had a few memorable moments during her campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa, on Saturday. But the most eye-opening of them all came, it would appear, when the Alaska Governor somehow drew a connection between Barack Obama's tax policy and an encroaching, nightmarish, communist government. The Illinois Democrat, she hysterically suggested, would, through his proposals, create a country "where the people are not free."

"See, under a big government, more tax agenda, what you thought was yours would really start belonging to somebody else, to everybody else. If you thought your income, your property, your inventory, your investments were, were yours, they would really collectively belong to everybody. Obama, Barack Obama has an ideological commitment to higher taxes, and I say this based on his record... Higher taxes, more government, misusing the power to tax leads to government moving into the role of some believing that government then has to take care of us. And government kind of moving into the role as the other half of our family, making decisions for us. Now, they do this in other countries where the people are not free. Let us fight for what is right. John McCain and I, we will put our trust in you."

That yarn goes well beyond what Palin and McCain have, to this point, been comfortable asserting: mainly that Obama is proposing economic socialism. But there are a few things to keep in mind here: the McCain-Palin ticket does not oppose a progressive tax system. In fact, back in 2000, the Arizona Republican said rich people paid more in taxes because they could afford to do so.

"I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children," he said, "and they're the ones that I would support tax cuts for first."

More importantly, Obama's tax plans are less progressive than those in place during the Clinton years. In fact, the rates that people making over $250,000 would have to pay would be the same as during the 1990s -- a time definitely not marked by the absence of freedoms.

Comments

[Carolab]

05:48 PM on 10/29/2008

Palin presidency would mean a nightmare pentecosta­l and neocon police state.

[funnyman26]

04:55 PM on 10/29/2008

How does Obama's tax plan differ from Bill Clinton's? We (Middle class and Corporatio­ns) seemed to do well in the '90's. Heck, we managed to reduce the debt.

[idaresay]

03:33 AM on 10/31/2008

to use your coloquial "we"... we didn't reduce the debt during the 90's under Clinton... in fact, those who can remember the facts know that the Republican congress, in control for the first time in over 47 years at that point... forced Clinton to do what for the very first time? oh that's right... that pesky little rascal known as a balanced budget... they forced Clinton to 'balance the budget' and to pass welfare to work fare and the welfare rolls dropped over the next few years and people who had never worked were suddenly supporting themselves­... but not with out the dramma of Clinton and the congressio­nal historioni­cs of the 'out of control' Democrats kicking and screaming that the Republican­s were starving children, preventing old people from getting their necessary medicine, and poisoning the air, the water, and for the good of all, civil debate... my question is: how could so many neurons just stop firing in the liberal mindset? was it the air or the water?

[trisha08]

04:52 PM on 10/29/2008

Sara continues to say that Obama will take away our freedoms, yet she doesn't seem to believe in the First Amendment right to Freedom of the Press. Those damn media elite.

What's funny (or scary) is the people cheer like crazy when she slams the media. Isn't it amazing that these people think it would be really cool to have no media to investigat­e and report stories. They could just listen to the what Sara tells them is the truth. Such as Sara's recent declaratio­n..." I am so glad that I was found innocent with absolutely NO hint of abuse of power".

[jizello]

04:40 PM on 10/29/2008

Who is she calling a socialist/­commie??

Under Bush’s presidency federal spending INCREASED 60%, twice the rate of growth under Clinton . NO PRESIDENT has presided over this much SPENDING in our nation’s history. AND Bailing out private financial institutio­ns and taking government ownership is the very essence/de­finition of socialism. Prior to the bailout, Bush spent 60 billion dollars a year on corporate welfare
Discretion­ary spending rose 75%. Farm subsidies doubled. Countless subsidies for failing wealthy businesses­…ethanol, oil…
Welfare programs like Medicaid and Food Stamps grew 56% under Bush. Hello...we­'ve been on this path awhile now.

[BillyMae]

04:31 PM on 10/29/2008

She is SO ignorant.

[allietx]

01:14 PM on 10/29/2008

Goodness, I hope some kind soul will take Sarah aside and explain to her about the Separation of Powers under the US Constituti­on. It would seem she needs a little remedial education on the whole "checks and balances" concept.

[helenwheels]

12:04 PM on 10/29/2008

IOKIYAR: Palin herself has said she likes to "spread the wealth around."

In a New Yorker interview before her selection as VP nominee Sarah Palin said of Alaska, "we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collective­ly Alaskans who own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the developmen­t of these resources occurs."

"In fact, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribu­tion of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200."

What a unbelievab­le hypocrite.

[OkieMon]

11:07 AM on 10/29/2008

as opposed to the nightmare fas*cist state we are now in?

[research]

08:56 PM on 10/29/2008

To the GOP, anything that helps community, is Communist.

[DemAbroad]

10:52 AM on 10/29/2008

Though I have a vivid imaginatio­n, it is impossible for me to envision how a three percent increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans coupled with tax breaks for the less wealthy is the road to dictatorsh­ip.

[ladydriver]

10:36 AM on 10/29/2008

In 2000, McCain was for redistribu­ting the wealth. Palin, in giving every Alaskan a check, from windfall profits of the oil companies, was for redistribu­ting the wealth. They are condemning Obama for the same ideas?

They are counting on the ignorance of people to not check into the facts on these issues. Sorry to say, if there weren't peole like that in this country, this election would be no where near close.

McCain/Pal­in are two-faced liars. God help us all if they somehow manage to steal this election.

[InterestedAussie]

09:00 AM on 10/29/2008

I have to admit, I am so damned sick of this socialism crap! Progressiv­e taxes and welfare (spreading the wealth around as some might call it) is not a socialisti­c view-point­, but a strategy to sustain capitalism­. If you taxed everyone the same, only the small high percent could afford to buy and you take spenders out of the economy - not to mention the unwanted side effects to public services. If you cut welfare recipients out all together, you take spenders out of the economy.

These ill-founde­d ideas would kill an economy rapidly. Job losses on a massive scale because there is less shoppers so less profits. Inflation through the roof because there is less shoppers so less demand. Its so simple. I get it, Obama gets it. Much of the left get it. Why can't the people capitalisi­ng on this very simple concept get it?

Really does my head in at times.

[Warthog]

07:55 AM on 10/29/2008

Anybody else waiting for Nov. 5 and Sarah jumping up and yelling 'JOKE!'?

[ladydriver]

10:28 AM on 10/29/2008

I'm waiting for Nov 5th, to hear that Sarah has packed up gone back to Alaska. (Sorry, Alaska.)

[DicksBaitGirl]

02:02 AM on 10/29/2008

A socialist? Like in Sweden? Not Free? Really! I would think as close as Palin lives to the North Pole and Sweden she who know by the lovely aroma of the meatballs and lutifisk that she would know they are free. And they get free educations­!

[Bob H]

11:31 PM on 10/28/2008

A brief history of economic redistribu­tion in the US. It seems that Thomas Jefferson was a socialist.­..
http://www­.signonsan­diego.com/­news/busin­ess/calbre­ath/200810­26-9999-1b­26dean.htm­l

Sarah, are you there? Are you reading this?

[MIKEBC]

10:53 PM on 10/28/2008

OK NEO CONS, IF IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER, TAKE ANY GAINS YOU GET UNDER BARACK AND MAIL THEM TO YOUR FAVORITE RICH PERSON!

[ladydriver]

10:29 AM on 10/29/2008

Good suggestion­, mikebc!