Socialism is GOOD for EVERYONE!

[jillian]

Why? Why do taxes have to be raised? Why do we need more government?

American business owners are already among the most heavily taxed in the world, and I can't even buy a cold beer on Sunday.

well, your boys grew the governnent at an absurd pace. so now, someone's got to pull the bus out of the ditch that you drove it into.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Depends on what you're defining as socialism, doesn't it?

Universal free education certains sounds like socialism to me.

You think that didn't help make American great?

How about a great road system? That was built by a socialist system

How about the transcontinental railroad. That was built with great help from the government. They gave private companies free land, and then they insured the bonds that those companies sold to finance building it, too.

How about having a military? Isn't that a form of socialism, too?

LOTS of things contibuted to this land becoming great and wealthy.

One of the primary things was our government imposing TARIFFS in manufactured goods coming into this nation, for example. That made it possible for Americ to industrialize.

We got rid of those protections from foreign made goods...how's the economy doing now?

You also need a history lesson. The Interstate Highway system was built for Military reasons. Eisenhower remembered his 40 day trip from east coast to west coast in a military convoy and realized we needed a better system to traverse the country.

In fact when originally built every x number of miles there had to be a 1 mile straight away on every interstate for emergency use as an airstrip in case of a war.

The railroads were built to improve the economy and to link the west coast with the east to avoid the long transit times also. Most heavy freight had to go round the horn which was a dangerous and long travel time.

The Military is SPECIFICALLY built INTO the Constitution and is the proper authority for ANY type of Government, that you liberal tards think it is socialism is hilarious if not sad.

As for Education that was and should remain a State power. The Federal Government has no authority to have any tax money spent on that at all.

 

[editec]

That's right, government certainly has a job to do. But there's no reason we can't collect taxes fairly to pay for them. What is wrong with a flat tax. Rich people will still pay the vast majority of taxes, because they make more money. But at least it will be fair.

You might reconsider your point on education though, considering our government has a monopoly on education and our schools have consistently failed for decades. The only two industrial nations that rank lower than the U.S. in basic skills assessment is Cypress and South Africa.

You're wrong about that, you know.

Our FEDERAL government does NOT have a monopoly on edcuation. We have at least 50 different governments controlling education in this nation, plus tens of thousands of school boards controlling school districts, PLUS we have private schools, too.

But I get your point. What are we calling socialism? Fine, call it whatever you want. Let's call it "economic justice." Does that change the outcome any?

You didn't answer the question, you merely replaced one undefined word for an undefined phrase.

What do we mean when we say "socialism"?

Are public roads socialism?

How about the military?





Until we can agree on what that word means, we are wasting our time discussing it.

 

[Chris]

You also need a history lesson. The Interstate Highway system was built for Military reasons. Eisenhower remembered his 40 day trip from east coast to west coast in a military convoy and realized we needed a better system to traverse the country.

In fact when originally built every x number of miles there had to be a 1 mile straight away on every interstate for emergency use as an airstrip in case of a war.

The railroads were built to improve the economy and to link the west coast with the east to avoid the long transit times also. Most heavy freight had to go round the horn which was a dangerous and long travel time.

The Military is SPECIFICALLY built INTO the Constitution and is the proper authority for ANY type of Government, that you liberal tards think it is socialism is hilarious if not sad.

As for Education that was and should remain a State power. The Federal Government has no authority to have any tax money spent on that at all.

Reagan and Bush's love of war has almost bankrupted America. Reagan borrowed billions to pay for an unneeded military buildup including obsolete weapons like battleships. Bush borrowed $700 billion from China to finance the invasion of a country that was no threat to us whatsoever. Hopefully, our next president will not send our troops in harm's way unless there is a COMPELLING NATIONAL INTEREST.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Reagan and Bush's love of war has almost bankrupted America. Reagan borrowed billions to pay for an unneeded military buildup including obsolete weapons like battleships. Bush borrowed $700 billion from China to finance the invasion of a country that was no threat to us whatsoever. Hopefully, our next president will not send our troops in harm's way unless there is a COMPELLING NATIONAL INTEREST.

Ya cause our death by terrorist is no threat at all? Fucking retard.

 

[Gunny]

Not at all. There are many better educated than me in the theory and history but the ugly truth is that the moment Lenin put party in the place of primacy whatever was happening in the Soviet Union wasn't socialism. Where it has been properly instituted and I have to say in a perhaps more diluted form than Marx and Engels envisaged, it has worked. Scandinavia for example. Britain after WWII with the Attlee government, for example.

The truth is that socialism will happen but it will be gradually, not through a series of acts of violence but gradually as capitalism begins to fail again but more importantly as humanity around the world realises that the environment can't sustain capitalism and that a less rapacious form of making life comfortable for humans and other animals is not only desirable but necessary.

Socialism only works on sheep. People who have no desire in life to do anything but exist without risking falling behind to get ahead. Human beings being what we are, you cannot and will not kill the desire in those that wish to excel to have more.

Nor will you ever be rid of the elite. There is no example of socialism you can cite where there is not the rulers and the ruled. That alone creates two distinctly separate classes.

So, if it is your goal to be a sheep and exist in mediocrity, then socialsm is the way to go.

It's pure bullshit though that anyone can try to justify taking from those who excel and just giving it to those who don't to prop the latter up while stifling the former. Where is the point to excelling? There isn't one.

What's the point to living if one merely exists to get up, eat his cookie cutter breakfast in his cookie cutter house, drive to his cookie cutter job in his cookie cutter car, go through the motions of doing something to accrue the appropriate amount of hours on the clock so he can return to his cookie cutter house and start all over again? That's not living. It's existing. When you take away man's will to live, he dies.

A truly socialist world that you think would save mankind would in fact be the end of mankind. When we forget how to struggle to survive, you might as well go ahead and dig that 6 foot hole in the back yard.

 

[Annie]

Depends on what you're defining as socialism, doesn't it?

Universal free education certains sounds like socialism to me.

You think that didn't help make American great?

How about a great road system? That was built by a socialist system

How about the transcontinental railroad. That was built with great help from the government. They gave private companies free land, and then they insured the bonds that those companies sold to finance building it, too.

How about having a military? Isn't that a form of socialism, too?

LOTS of things contibuted to this land becoming great and wealthy.

One of the primary things was our government imposing TARIFFS in manufactured goods coming into this nation, for example. That made it possible for Americ to industrialize.

We got rid of those protections from foreign made goods...how's the economy doing now?

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.

The Eisenhower Transportation System was set up for military/personal reasons. One could certainly argue the size alone made it a national concern. Who maintains? It's not the fed. Nope, control went back to the states. Yet, again it could be argued that indeed the national road/bridge system is too much for the states, with many not keeping up the repairs.

The military is a given at the federal level, as are any interstate travel/commerce related activities, that's just silly.

The transcontinental railroad was very controversial at the time, over a century and a half ago. I don't want the government bailing out airlines.

The federal government should do the things the people can't on their own. When help is needed, it should be as local as possible, along with who levies taxes. Every notice that the special assessments get paid for and finished? Never happens at the Federal or even state level.

 

[Chris]

Ya cause our death by terrorist is no threat at all? Fucking retard.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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 that is why retards like you will get us all killed or assimilated.

 

[Chris]

And that is why retards like you will get us all killed or assimilated.

Killed how?

By 19 guys with boxcutters?

Bin Laden said his goal was to bankrupt America. Bush's borrow and spend policies have helped Bin Laden accomplish his goal.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

 

[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.

So you're for state and local socialism but not Federalist socialism?

The Eisenhower Transportation System was set up for military/personal reasons. One could certainly argue the size alone made it a national concern. Who maintains? It's not the fed. Nope, control went back to the states. Yet, again it could be argued that indeed the national road/bridge system is too much for the states, with many not keeping up the repairs.

Who pays the lions share of keeping up those roads? The Feds do.

And you're still avoiding the issue. Even if the states paid all the bills for the roads, is that socialism?

The military is a given at the federal level, as are any interstate travel/commerce related activities, that's just silly.

Silly perhaps, but is it socialism?

The transcontinental railroad was very controversial at the time, over a century and a half ago. I don't want the government bailing out airlines.

True, but was it socialism?

The federal government should do the things the people can't on their own.

Okay, is that socialism?

When help is needed, it should be as local as possible, along with who levies taxes.

Okay, how is that different than socialism?

Every notice that the special assessments get paid for and finished? Never happens at the Federal or even state level.

Yeah, very annoying, I agree.

Now is that socialism?

 

[Chris]

Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the government.

No one is recommending that.

 

[Toro]

Every developed economy in the world is a mixed economy between free enterprise and government intervention. The United States is no different.

In fact, government spending in the US accounts for 38% of GDP, slightly below the OECD average of 41%, and is higher than Australia, Japan and Switzerland. It is about equal to Canada, Ireland and Norway.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/51/2483816.xls

 

[alupka]

well, your boys grew the governnent at an absurd pace. so now, someone's got to pull the bus out of the ditch that you drove it into.

...and taking money from small business owners and giving it to people who don't pay taxes is going to do that??

...and raising taxes on businesses so they move overseas and take all of their jobs and profits with them is going to do that??

Your point is a complete non sequitur.

 

[Chris]

...and taking money from small business owners and giving it to people who don't pay taxes is going to do that??

...and raising taxes on businesses so they move overseas and take all of their jobs and profits with them is going to do that??

Your point is a complete non sequitur.

We have a $500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

Somebody is going to have to pay more taxes.

 

[Annie]

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.

So you're for state and local socialism but not Federalist socialism?



Who pays the lions share of keeping up those roads? The Feds do.

And you're still avoiding the issue. Even if the states paid all the bills for the roads, is that socialism?



Silly perhaps, but is it socialism?



True, but was it socialism?



Okay, is that socialism?




Okay, how is that different than socialism?




Yeah, very annoying, I agree.

Now is that socialism?

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.

 

[alupka]

You're wrong about that, you know.

Our FEDERAL government does NOT have a monopoly on edcuation. We have at least 50 different governments controlling education in this nation, plus tens of thousands of school boards controlling school districts, PLUS we have private schools, too.

Who said FEDERAL government schools? And are you arguing the public education system in America is privately owned and operated??

You didn't answer the question, you merely replaced one undefined word for an undefined phrase.

What do we mean when we say "socialism"?

Are public roads socialism?

How about the military?

Until we can agree on what that word means, we are wasting our time discussing it.

Your missing the point.

Are roads and military socialism? No, they're essential government services that should be funded by a fair tax revenue system.

And we DON'T need to agree on what the word socialism means. It means a million things to a million different people. We only need to agree or disagree if Obama's plan to redistribute the wealth of individuals who earned it is going to be good or bad for the country. If you don't like the word socialism, then fine, choose another word. I don't really care what you call Obama's plan. It's not going to change the fact that it's not going to work.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have a $500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.

Somebody is going to have to pay more taxes.

How about instead we just cut Government spending? Get RID of all the illegal cabinent positions and Government agencies? How about rather than planning on adding trillions in more Government spending Obama get serious? You want more taxes? Intice Business in don't drive it out with onerous new taxes. A Junior High student can understand that concept.

Lets try a little HISTORICAL FACTS. Raising taxes on business has NEVER brought in more money, it dries up business and depresses tax revenues. Lowering taxes on business has in fact seen increases in tax revenue because MORE business occurs and more business is conducted. Jobs stop moving overseas and Companies stop fleeing the 2nd highest tax rate in the World. Lower taxes and Business start moving in, creating jobs and tax revenue. THAT is historical fact.

Guess what happens in a recession when you raise taxes? You drive the economy into a full blown DEPRESSION. But then facts and reality don't seem to be your strong suit, do they?

What scares me is the smart ones amongst you are buying this retarded crap as well. Like you all had frontal lobotomies or something?

 

[alupka]

Socialism is ownership of the means of production by the government.

No one is recommending that.

Yes, that's another core concept of socialism. And a good point.

But still doesn't invalidate the original premise of the post, which is...Obama's economic plan is silly. Again, if you don't want to refer to his plan to redistribute the wealth, and build national health care, day care, etc. as socialism then call it whatever you want. I really don't care what you call it.

 

[rayboyusmc]

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.