Socialism is GOOD for EVERYONE!

[alupka]

We have a $500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

Somebody is going to have to pay more taxes.

Or SOMEBODY IN GOVERNMENT is going to have to spend less money!

 

[editec]

It's in the interest of local governments to have an educated citizen and workforce. The feds have NO PLACE in education, with the exception of Brown V Bd of Ed., etc. They should not mandate schools teach or not teach certain subjects. If a school crosses the local parameters, there is the court system, local first.

Fine. You believe that local government should control edcuation. But is THAT socialism?

I would say, 'more than annoying,' more like stealing.

The Feds give money collected from federal taxes on gas back to the states (revenue sharing it's called) to help the states maintain FEDERAL roads.

Sounds like some kind of sharing the wealth socialism to me.

As for road maintenance, the fed isn't doing so well or the states or someone. Pretty hard to lay the blame, since I know zero about road building.

Oh I agree. The roads are falling apart. Now since its the States who are tasked with deciding how that shared revenue is spent, who do we blame?

The local socialists or the Federal socialists?

That's part of the reason for not a pure democracy. I do know that the farm areas get a heck of a lot more road building money than the cities, which perchance contributed to the Minnesota bridge collapse? Not doing so hot on the infrastructure deal. On the other hand, the roads out in Western Illinois are terrific, certainly able to go 75-80 no problem, no pot holes. No lights either, which probably causes their number of fatalities, along with the speed.

Yes, rural areas contribute less and get more, no doubt about that. That's why blue states typically give more to the FEDs than they ever get back.

Sounds like socialism of one kind or the other to me. Should we change the sytem?

If so, how would YOUR system work?

Actually when one speaks of 'spreading the wealth', that is socialism.

You mean exactly like we do for the roads?

So is government interference in private business. IE. the banking bailout, that is looking to be spread around to auto industry, ethanol farmers, and God knows who else.

Yeah, sounds socialistic to me, too. no doubt about it.

Is regulation necessary? Of course, just have to look back at employer abuses and airlines not maintaining the planes.

Yup. When we had fewer regulations there were plenty of disasters coming from the private sectors. Imagine if there were NO regulations on any business.

Surely that wouldn't work, right? So isn't it always a question of having only enough regulations as we absolutely MUST have to prevent those disasters?

I think we both agree bad government is bad. But is ALL government bad?

The question is what regulations and what justifications? Seat belts? I'd say the manufactures had a vested interest in keeping their customers alive, at minimum would have offered as at cost option. Requiring people to wear? Nope, stupid cannot be legislated against.

I think we're on the same page. Good regulation makes everyone play by the same good rules. Bad regualtions are a pain in everyone's asses.

Since government produces nothing, whatever monies it allocates to whatever purposes must be raised as tax revenue. Government does have a purpose, I'd not deny that, without one there would be chaos on many levels.

Agreed. So it is never a question of whether or not to have regulations, it is always a question of: Do we NEED this regulation?

However, no matter the safeguards set up when making a government it seems the natural order of the beast is to grow and spread into areas it has no business being in. That is another reason for an aware and educated electorate, not sheep.

Totally right.

I supposed the act of raising revenues will always have some aspects of redistribution as there will always be more dollars raised in densely populated areas than in rural and in between. It should be more fair as a percentage of income, above a reasonable threshold.

EVERY TAX is wealth redistribution.

Doesn't matter if it fair, or right, doesn't matter if its falt or regressive, doesn't matter in what direction it heads, it is ALL wealth redistribution.

So the questions are always: what do we tax?; who do we tax?; and what do we spend the taxes on?

Unless you are a pure anarchist, you are to one degree or the other a supporter of socialistic government.

 

[alupka]

I would say, 'more than annoying,' more like stealing. As for road maintenance, the fed isn't doing so well or the states or someone. Pretty hard to lay the blame, since I know zero about road building. That's part of the reason for not a pure democracy. I do know that the farm areas get a heck of a lot more road building money than the cities, which perchance contributed to the Minnesota bridge collapse? Not doing so hot on the infrastructure deal. On the other hand, the roads out in Western Illinois are terrific, certainly able to go 75-80 no problem, no pot holes. No lights either, which probably causes their number of fatalities, along with the speed.

Actually when one speaks of 'spreading the wealth', that is socialism. So is government interference in private business. IE. the banking bailout, that is looking to be spread around to auto industry, ethanol farmers, and God knows who else. Is regulation necessary? Of course, just have to look back at employer abuses and airlines not maintaining the planes. The question is what regulations and what justifications? Seat belts? I'd say the manufactures had a vested interest in keeping their customers alive, at minimum would have offered as at cost option. Requiring people to wear? Nope, stupid cannot be legislated against.

Since government produces nothing, whatever monies it allocates to whatever purposes must be raised as tax revenue. Government does have a purpose, I'd not deny that, without one there would be chaos on many levels.

However, no matter the safeguards set up when making a government it seems the natural order of the beast is to grow and spread into areas it has no business being in. That is another reason for an aware and educated electorate, not sheep.

I supposed the act of raising revenues will always have some aspects of redistribution as there will always be more dollars raised in densely populated areas than in rural and in between. It should be more fair as a percentage of income, above a reasonable threshold.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fine. You believe that local government should control edcuation. But is THAT socialism?





The Feds give money collected from federal taxes on gas back to the states (revenue sharing it's called) to help the states maintain FEDERAL roads.

Sounds like some kind of sharing the wealth socialism to me.




Oh I agree. The roads are falling apart. Now since its the States who are tasked with deciding how that shared revenue is spent, who do we blame?

The local socialists or the Federal socialists?




Yes, rural areas contribute less and get more, no doubt about that. That's why blue states typically give more to the FEDs than they ever get back.

Sounds like socialism of one kind or the other to me. Should we change the sytem?

If so, how would YOUR system work?



You mean exactly like we do for the roads?




Yeah, sounds socialistic to me, too. no doubt about it.



Yup. When we had fewer regulations there were plenty of disasters coming from the private sectors. Imagine if there were NO regulations on any business.

Surely that wouldn't work, right? So isn't it always a question of having only enough regulations as we absolutely MUST have to prevent those disasters?

I think we both agree bad government is bad. But is ALL government bad?



I think we're on the same page. Good regulation makes everyone play by the same good rules. Bad regualtions are a pain in everyone's asses.




Agreed. So it is never a question of whether or not to have regulations, it is always a question of: Do we NEED this regulation?



Totally right.



EVERY TAX is wealth redistribution.

Doesn't matter if it fair, or right, doesn't matter if its falt or regressive, doesn't matter in what direction it heads, it is ALL wealth redistribution.

So the question is always what do we tax, who do we tax, and what do we spend the taxes on.

Unless you are a pure anarchist, you are to one degree or the other a supporter of socialistic government.

You get dumber and dumber the closer we get to Tuesday.

 

[Gunny]

500,000 Americans died of cancer last year...that's a threat.

25,000 Americans were killed by guns last year...that's a threat.

China and Russia have thousands of nuclear missles....that's a threat.

50 guys in a cave in Pakistan with no army, no navy, and no air force are no real threat to a country of 300,000,000 people.

You are a PERFECT example of the aforementioned sheep. When you aren't spreading your broken record misinformation, you're fearmongering.

Grow some stones or go crawl in a hole and pull a rock on top of you. Maybe "they" can't get to you there.

 

[Gunny]

We have a $500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

Somebody is going to have to pay more taxes.

Bullshit. Cutting government and government spending would do more to pay down that deficit than increasing taxes.

 

[Gunny]

And the brain dead ones on your side have done the same with McCain.

What a bunch of horseshit.

We're retards, you're smart. Your current man in the office after 8 years left US in a pile of shit, and we're retards if we don't want his clone in office.

Good thing you weighed in with your intellectualism, logic and common sense. Don't know where the discussion would be without you.

 

[alupka]

And the brain dead ones on your side have done the same with McCain.

What a bunch of horseshit.

We're retards, you're smart. Your current man in the office after 8 years left US in a pile of shit, and we're retards if we don't want his clone in office.

Why do all the democrats keep saying McCain is a Bush clone? Simple, because Bush has a low approval rating so if you convince people that McCain is Bush you get more votes. Sounds like talking points to me.

...and an excuse to not talk about McCain's proposals.

 

[Gunny]

Why do all the democrats keep saying McCain is a Bush clone? Simple, because Bush has a low approval rating so if you convince people that McCain is Bush you get more votes. Sounds like talking points to me.

...and an excuse to not talk about McCain's proposals.

Because that's all this guy can say.

 

[Annie]

Why do all the democrats keep saying McCain is a Bush clone? Simple, because Bush has a low approval rating so if you convince people that McCain is Bush you get more votes. Sounds like talking points to me.

...and an excuse to not talk about McCain's proposals.

At no time did McCain follow party leadership 96% of the time. If anyone is a partisan sheep, it's Obama.

 

[alupka]

500,000 Americans died of cancer last year...that's a threat.

25,000 Americans were killed by guns last year...that's a threat.

China and Russia have thousands of nuclear missles....that's a threat.

50 guys in a cave in Pakistan with no army, no navy, and no air force are no real threat to a country of 300,000,000 people.

And I'm sure you blame George Bush for saying the same thing in 2001!

 

[Navy1960]

While policies from FDR to those proposed by Barack Obama can be labeled Socialistic, even George W. Bush can attain the same label with the recent "bailout" of Wall Street with it's investment in banking. So while these policies are socialistic,

so·cial·is·tic (ssh-lstk)
adj.
Of, advocating, or tending toward socialism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

social·isti·cal·ly adv.

This is hardly a new concept for our government, however, the concept of redistribution of wealth whereby one bracket of tax payers rates rise, and that rise funds the tax cuts of another tax bracket i.e. Middle Classs and working poor, itself is hardly new as well, it has been tried as well, by Herbert Hoover and as many I am sure will try to deflect as they usually do, but we all know the end result of the Hoover Administration and that was the Great Depression. Now is this tax policy socialism ? IMHO no, while I don't believe it is socialism by itself it is obviously socialistic in that it is tending towards socialism. If however, you take the true definition of socialism and apply that to the whole of Barack Obama's proposals then respectfully it can be argued that yes his policies are very socialistic. Take for example his Universal Health Care plan and it's built in provisions for mandated healthcare , and is in part proposed to be funded by one sector of tax payers and corporate tax payers. Thats is redistrubiting wealth for the greater good according to the Barack Obama principle of social engineering. In the end, to argue about socialism though is a non starter because you need only look around you at the many many government programs to see examples of socialistic programs within the Federal Government.

IMO this all boils down to a difference between those that see the Federal Government as a source for their needs in life and those that see the Federal Govt. as an entity that exists to regulate and defend and thats it. IMHO many people have forgotten what it means to be self reliant, and have lost the ideals of personal responsibility and look to a Central Govt. to act as a surrogate rather than take it upon themselves to make a life for themselves. Respectfully, if your unemployed and there are little opportunites where you are, then it is up to you to do something about it. Educated yourself, work two or three jobs if you have too, relocate, do whatever it takes to attain the goals in life you seek and don't envy your neighbors or look to a government to be there to support all your failures. In the end you will learn from those failures, they make you stronger, those are called life lessons, further your self respect is what you earn when you learn to be responsible for yourself. The best thing though is when people begin to take it upon themselves to take responsibility for themselves and become self reliant, we all win!!

 

[alupka]

I case some of you didn't get it when you read the original post, I wasn't talking about political theories any more than I was really agreeing that income redistribution works!

It's called satire.

So for those of you who don't get it, I was simply and specifically making the point that Obama's economic plan is stupid. That's the issue here.

 

[alupka]

social·isti·cal·ly adv.

This is hardly a new concept for our government, however, the concept of redistribution of wealth whereby one bracket of tax payers rates rise, and that rise funds the tax cuts of another tax bracket i.e. Middle Classs and working poor, itself is hardly new as well, it has been tried as well, by Herbert Hoover and as many I am sure will try to deflect as they usually do, but we all know the end result of the Hoover Administration and that was the Great Depression. Now is this tax policy socialism ? IMHO no, while I don't believe it is socialism by itself it is obviously socialistic in that it is tending towards socialism. If however, you take the true definition of socialism and apply that to the whole of Barack Obama's proposals then respectfully it can be argued that yes his policies are very socialistic. Take for example his Universal Health Care plan and it's built in provisions for mandated healthcare , and is in part proposed to be funded by one sector of tax payers and corporate tax payers. Thats is redistrubiting wealth for the greater good according to the Barack Obama principle of social engineering. In the end, to argue about socialism though is a non starter because you need only look around you at the many many government programs to see examples of socialistic programs within the Federal Government.

IMO this all boils down to a difference between those that see the Federal Government as a source for their needs in life and those that see the Federal Govt. as an entity that exists to regulate and defend and that's it. IMHO many people have forgotten what it means to be self reliant, and have lost the ideals of personal responsibility and look to a Central Govt. to act as a surrogate rather than take it upon themselves to make a life for themselves. Respectfully, if your unemployed and there are little opportunities where you are, then it is up to you to do something about it. Educated yourself, work two or three jobs if you have too, relocate, do whatever it takes to attain the goals in life you seek and don't envy your neighbors or look to a government to be there to support all your failures. In the end you will learn from those failures, they make you stronger, those are called life lessons, further your self respect is what you earn when you learn to be responsible for yourself. The best thing though is when people begin to take it upon themselves to take responsibility for themselves and become self reliant, we all win!!

Outstanding! This is one of the best posts I've seen here.

 

[Chris]

You are a PERFECT example of the aforementioned sheep. When you aren't spreading your broken record misinformation, you're fearmongering.

Grow some stones or go crawl in a hole and pull a rock on top of you. Maybe "they" can't get to you there.

No facts, just insults.

Bush fell into Bin Laden's trap.

Meanwhile Bin Laden is sipping tea in Pakistan.

 

[Annie]

Fine. You believe that local government should control edcuation. But is THAT socialism?

This isn't a discussion, it's more like Horse. I've been quite clear on what I think the government should and shouldn't be charged with and at which levels of our federated system.

[quote-ed]

The Feds give money collected from federal taxes on gas back to the states (revenue sharing it's called) to help the states maintain FEDERAL roads.

Sounds like some kind of sharing the wealth socialism to me.




Oh I agree. The roads are falling apart. Now since its the States who are tasked with deciding how that shared revenue is spent, who do we blame?

The local socialists or the Federal socialists?

How about let the people just pay the taxes needed to the state or local government responsible? Every time $$$ pass through one level to another, many get 'lost.' If you like 'revenue sharing' you should consider having your employer just mail your check to the Fed and let them choose how to disperse it.

Yes, rural areas contribute less and get more, no doubt about that. That's why blue states typically give more to the FEDs than they ever get back.

Sounds like socialism of one kind or the other to me. Should we change the sytem?

If so, how would YOUR system work?

I think one would have to look at the percentage of income paid by the population of each. We need farmers, we need cities.

You mean exactly like we do for the roads?




Yeah, sounds socialistic to me, too. no doubt about it.

Nope, not at all like the roads. Redistribute means take from one, give to another who pays none. That's NOT the same. If we are going to be making welfare payments, aid to those unable to take care of themselves through illness, the elderly, it should be at the local level and when qualified SSI/Medicare. Medicaid should not be federal.

Yup. When we had fewer regulations there were plenty of disasters coming from the private sectors. Imagine if there were NO regulations on any business.

Surely that wouldn't work, right? So isn't it always a question of having only enough regulations as we absolutely MUST have to prevent those disasters?

I think we both agree bad government is bad. But is ALL government bad?



I think we're on the same page. Good regulation makes everyone play by the same good rules. Bad regualtions are a pain in everyone's asses.




Agreed. So it is never a question of whether or not to have regulations, it is always a question of: Do we NEED this regulation?



Totally right.



EVERY TAX is wealth redistribution.

Doesn't matter if it fair, or right, doesn't matter if its falt or regressive, doesn't matter in what direction it heads, it is ALL wealth redistribution.

So the questions are always: what do we tax?; who do we tax?; and what do we spend the taxes on?

Unless you are a pure anarchist, you are to one degree or the other a supporter of socialistic government.

Again, I've made my position quite clear, that it doesn't go along with all you'd like, nothing will probably change that. The system has not worked well in Europe, it won't work here. And every tax is not a redistribution, some are communal projects, such as infrastructure, military, border control, interstate commerce, and NECESSARY regulations, that for the common good.

 

[Chris]

How about let the people just pay the taxes needed to the state or local government responsible? Every time $$$ pass through one level to another, many get 'lost.' If you like 'revenue sharing' you should consider having your employer just mail your check to the Fed and let them choose how to disperse it. I think one would have to look at the percentage of income paid by the population of each. We need farmers, we need cities.


Nope, not at all like the roads. Redistribute means take from one, give to another who pays none. That's NOT the same. If we are going to be making welfare payments, aid to those unable to take care of themselves through illness, the elderly, it should be at the local level and when qualified SSI/Medicare. Medicaid should not be federal.

Again, I've made my position quite clear, that it doesn't go along with all you'd like, nothing will probably change that. The system has not worked well in Europe, it won't work here. And every tax is not a redistribution, some are communal projects, such as infrastructure, military, border control, interstate commerce, and NECESSARY regulations, that for the common good.

Not worked well in Europe?

The Europeans pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare, and they cover everyone.

 

[Annie]

Not worked well in Europe?

The Europeans pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare, and they cover everyone.

Not well. Sweden? Better, but what is their population? Never mind, if that's what we'll do, it's what we'll do. I hope not, but the die will be cast in 2 days.

 

[dilloduck]

Not worked well in Europe?

The Europeans pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare, and they cover everyone.

Where do you get the idea that if something works for Europe that it will also work in America ?

 

[Gunny]

No facts, just insults.

Bush fell into Bin Laden's trap.

Meanwhile Bin Laden is sipping tea in Pakistan.

Your projecting and facts are mutually exclusive topics.