• Incomes fall for all but wealthiest Americans
    194 replies, posted
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32915387]Are Americans like you allergic to Socialism or something? Guess what, now this may boggle your tiny mind, but your country has many socialistic programs and you guys are better off for having them.[/QUOTE] There is a difference between having "socialistic" programs and being "socialist".
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915410]There is a difference between having "socialistic" programs and being "socialist".[/QUOTE] And raising taxes =/= socialism.
[QUOTE=Van-man;32914151]Then they wouldn't mind giving some money so things can be set right for once. And also be a good example, thus putting the worse people and companies in a bad light.[/QUOTE] Lol, like putting the companies in a bad light would do a single damn thing. [editline]22nd October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32915453]And raising taxes =/= socialism.[/QUOTE] Saying that the rich need to help the poor by paying more taxes because they are capable of it is the BASIS of socialism.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915456]Saying that the rich need to help the poor by paying more taxes because they are capable of it is the BASIS of socialism.[/QUOTE] Fucking tax revenue goes to the government not directly to their pocket! And what the hell is wrong with helping the less fortunate? Guess I shouldn't have donated money to those less fortunate lest I be a dirty socialist!
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915456]Saying that the rich need to help the poor by paying more taxes because they are capable of it is the BASIS of socialism.[/QUOTE] No, the basis of Socialism is putting workers in control of their industries and proportioning the essentials for the citizenry based on their need. I get the feeling you either didn't read any Socialist texts or asked any Socialists yourself to determine your 'BASIS of socialism".
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32915521]Fucking tax revenue goes to the government not directly to their pocket! And what the hell is wrong with helping the less fortunate? Guess I shouldn't have donated money to those less fortunate lest I be a dirty socialist![/QUOTE] NONONONO stop RIGHT THERE. there is nothing wrong with VOLUNTARY DONATION. There IS something wrong with a man pointing a gun at someone and saying "give me your extra money! That man there is less fortunate and deserves it!" And of COURSE it doesn't go directly into their pockets, it has to go through government programs first. [editline]22nd October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32915562]No, the basis of Socialism is putting workers in control of their industries and [B]proportioning the essentials for the citizenry based on their need[/B]. I get the feeling you either didn't read any Socialist texts or asked any Socialists yourself to determine your 'BASIS of socialism".[/QUOTE] Right there. Those programs that fuel the "proportioning of essentials" are fueled by money. Where does it come from? Certainly not the people its designed to assist, no, it comes from those capable of paying the costs.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915570]Right there. Those programs that fuel the "proportioning of essentials" are fueled by money. Where does it come from? Certainly not the people its designed to assist, no, it comes from those capable of paying the costs.[/QUOTE] Eisenhower was not a Socialist because he used taxpayer dollars to build an interstate highway system. FDR was not a Socialist because he set up a social safety net for the old. A Socialist is someone like Eugene Debs or John Steinbeck. Raising taxes is not Socialism, because those taxes could go to anything and have absolutely nothing to do with the betterment of society as a whole. Raising the well-being of all and bringing them to reasonable standard through subsidized healthcare, education, food, and labour is Socialism. Allowing the workers to form councils that run the industries where they work, that is Socialism.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915570] Those programs that fuel the "proportioning of essentials" are fueled by money.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, this guy's a genius! GOP presidential candidate right here folks!
[QUOTE=Miskav;32910317][U]There is absolutely 0 chance of a Republican becoming president/Republican majority in congress/house next year[/U] if your country wants a chance at existing for another 4 years.[/QUOTE] You misunderestimate us.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32915668]Eisenhower is not a Socialist because he used taxpayer dollars to build an interstate highway system. FDR is not a Socialist because he set up a social safety net for the old. A Socialist is someone like Eugene Debs or John Steinbeck. Raising taxes is not Socialism, because those taxes could go to anything and have absolutely nothing to do with the betterment of society as a whole. [B]Raising the well-being of all and bringing them to reasonable standard through subsidized healthcare, education, food, and labour is Socialism.[/B] Allowing the workers to form councils that run the industries where they work, that is Socialism.[/QUOTE] America seems to be pushing for the first one, and we half have the second one. We still lack the last 2 though. So... we're almost... a quarter socialist. [editline]22nd October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;32915694]You misunderestimate us.[/QUOTE]You're kidding, right?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915570]NONONONO stop RIGHT THERE. there is nothing wrong with VOLUNTARY DONATION. There IS something wrong with a man pointing a gun at someone and saying "give me your extra money! That man there is less fortunate and deserves it!" And of COURSE it doesn't go directly into their pockets, it has to go through government programs first.[/QUOTE] Shit, I forgot to say that comparing paying taxes to someone holding you at gunpoint and demanding your money is so stupid that it makes me laugh out loud.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32915728]Shit, I forgot to say that comparing paying taxes to someone holding you at gunpoint and demanding your money is so stupid that it makes me laugh out loud.[/QUOTE] So... we don't have people with guns whose job it is to arrest people who break the law? Funny, I thought we had something like that.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915710]America seems to be pushing for the first one, and we half have the second one. We still lack the last 2 though. So... we're almost... a quarter socialist.[/QUOTE] It doesn't work like that. European countries are not "half socialist" if they have nationalized education and healthcare. Sweden for example, is not a Socialist country. They're a country with a mixed economy and extensive social services. Describing any nation similarly inclined with the terms "half Socialist" or "partially socialist" is disingenuous because it paints an image that doesn't accurately represent what that country's politics or economics are like.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915410]There is a difference between having "socialistic" programs and being "socialist".[/QUOTE] If that's the hand you're going to play then absolutely no western nation is socialist, they just have socialistic programs and you'd actually be correct in playing that hand, no western nation is actually socialist
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915710]America seems to be pushing for the first one, and we half have the second one. We still lack the last 2 though. So... we're almost... a quarter socialist.[/QUOTE] I fail to see the problem.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32915754]It doesn't work like that. European countries are not "half socialist" if they have nationalized education and healthcare. Sweden for example, is not a Socialist country. They're a country with a mixed economy and extensive social services. Describing any nation similarly inclined with the terms "half Socialist" or "partially socialist" is disingenuous because it paints an image that doesn't accurately represent what that country's politics or economics are like.[/QUOTE] he said the thing I said but with capitalization and punctuation and shit so listen to him
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32915754]It doesn't work like that. European countries are not "half socialist" if they have nationalized education and healthcare. Sweden for example, is not a Socialist country. They're a country with a mixed economy and extensive social services. Describing any nation similarly inclined with the terms "half Socialist" or "partially socialist" is disingenuous because it paints an image that doesn't accurately represent what that country's politics or economics are like.[/QUOTE] Then we can't paint ourselves at capitalists and socialist nations can simply adopt a single capitalist program of some sort and then say "we aren't socialist!"
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915710]So... we're almost... a quarter socialist. [/QUOTE] My socialometer is reading 24.891, SAVE ME RON PAUL
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32915771]he said the thing I said but with capitalization and punctuation and shit so listen to him[/QUOTE] We seem to have stumbled across the same point.
And in terms of 'what is socialism', the most basic definition is this: "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs." It involves nothing specific regarding taxes or even what specific social services are available, but simply that it needs to be a Democratic society based on the needs of the people and the labourers who work within that society.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32915785]My socialometer is reading 24.891, SAVE ME RON PAUL[/QUOTE] [url]http://xkcd.com/497/[/url] Sorry, first thing that hit my head.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915794]We seem to have stumbled across the same point.[/QUOTE] by "he" I meant megafan I wasn't talking about you I definitely don't agree with you
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915751]So... we don't have people with guns whose job it is to arrest people who break the law? Funny, I thought we had something like that.[/QUOTE] The only thing funny here is how dumb your replies are because that has no correlation at all with what I just said. How does paying taxes = holding at gunpoint and demanding your money equate to your response which I can only assume is talking about the police.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915812][url]http://xkcd.com/497/[/url] Sorry, first thing that hit my head.[/QUOTE] fun fact: the internet's support for ron paul started as a 4chan meme and somewhere along the line people simply forgot that they weren't serious
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915781]Then we can't paint ourselves at capitalists and socialist nations can simply adopt a single capitalist program of some sort and then say "we aren't socialist!"[/QUOTE] But that's just it. It's improper to look at single nations and go "this one's socialist!" and "this one's capitalist!" because there is such a thing in this world called nuance. Is Germany a monarchy because they were previously an empire but then adopted what you would consider Socialistic principles later on? Your way of thinking about this kind of issue lacks any sense of critical thinking or looking beyond the present time.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32915807]And in terms of 'what is socialism', the most basic definition is this: "Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs." It involves nothing specific regarding taxes or even what specific social services are available, but simply that it needs to be a Democratic society based on the needs of the people and the labourers who work within that society.[/QUOTE] Exactly, and when that democratic society has a small number of people that make more money, and a large number of people that say they need stuff, the small number of people loses out. But thats democracy, right? [editline]22nd October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32915825]The only thing funny here is how dumb your replies are because that has no correlation at all with what I just said. How does paying taxes = holding at gunpoint and demanding your money equate to your response which I can only assume is talking about the police.[/QUOTE] Not paying taxes outright is called tax evasion. These loopholes allow the less honest people in the country to evade it legally, and thats bullshit. Can we at least agree on that first? [editline]22nd October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32915848]But that's just it. It's improper to look at single nations and go "this one's socialist!" and "this one's capitalist!" because there is such a thing in this world called nuance. Is Germany a monarchy because they were previously an empire but then adopted what you would consider Socialistic principles later on? Your way of thinking about this kind of issue lacks any sense of critical thinking or looking beyond the present time.[/QUOTE] A good mix is what we should be going for. I think we need to fix our shit here and stop screwing up the balance of socialist to capitalist programs.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915896]Exactly, and when that democratic society has a small number of people that make more money, and a large number of people that say they need stuff, the small number of people loses out. But thats democracy, right?[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about some kind of tyranny by majority for the poor, but moreover an acceptance that all members of any free society need to contribute proportionally towards that society's well-being. This argument that "we're putting guns to the wealthy people's heads and stealing their money!!" completely misconstrues what that money is for, where it goes, and how it's acquired. And by the way, "loses out"? You can't honestly believe that someone who, even after taxes and paying his employees and buying food for his family has $400,000 left over (this is a real scenario), would be "losing out" by having only $350,000 or $300,000 left over at that same point in time.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915896] Not paying taxes outright is called tax evasion. These loopholes allow the less honest people in the country to evade it legally, and thats bullshit. Can we at least agree on that first?[/QUOTE] That is not what you said. You made a dumb comparison and basically said "Paying taxes is the same as having a guy hold you at gunpoint and demand your money" which is simply idiotic and I can't agree with anything you say because of it.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;32915896]A good mix is what we should be going for. I think we need to fix our shit here and stop screwing up the balance of socialist to capitalist programs.[/QUOTE] What's your idea of a good mix then? Because I can tell you right now we've been doing anything but introducing Socialistic systems. See: PATRIOT Act, Bush-Admin Tax Cuts, 'Citizens United' case, 'Right to Work' states, etc. [editline]22nd October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32916004]That is not what you said. You made a dumb comparison and basically said "Paying taxes is the same as having a guy hold you at gunpoint and demand your money" which is simply idiotic and I can't agree with anything you say because of it.[/QUOTE] He's trying to find common ground, at least throw him a bone on this one.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32915821]by "he" I meant megafan I wasn't talking about you I definitely don't agree with you[/QUOTE] Ouch, that hurt, Zeke, I thought we were friends. Anywho, I said it because we said essentially the same thing about no country being able to be called socialist. [editline]22nd October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32916004]That is not what you said. You made a dumb comparison and basically said "Paying taxes is the same as having a guy hold you at gunpoint and demand your money" which is simply idiotic and I can't agree with anything you say because of it.[/QUOTE] No, thats not what I said at all. I said making the rich pay increasing amounts of taxes so that those tax dollars fuel socialistic programs for the poor is like a guy holding them at gunpoint. [editline]22nd October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32915958]I'm not talking about some kind of tyranny by majority for the poor, but moreover an acceptance that all members of any free society need to contribute proportionally towards that society's well-being. This argument that "we're putting guns to the wealthy people's heads and stealing their money!!" completely misconstrues what that money is for, where it goes, and how it's acquired. And by the way, "loses out"? You can't honestly believe that someone who, even after taxes and paying his employees and buying food for his family has $400,000 left over (this is a real scenario), would be "losing out" by having only $350,000 or $300,000 left over at that same point in time.[/QUOTE] Let me be clear, I have no problem with paying taxes. My primary issue with todays tax code is the shit-ton of loopholes and deductibles and refunds and everything. We need to fix those FIRST and then we can worry about fixing the proportions. I'm not trying to say they are losing out economically, I'm trying to say that in a society where people can promise the majority free money from the minority, the minority will simply lose because they have not the numbers to push the vote in the other direction. If a family can't survive off of 300,000 dollars, then they need to sell their fucking yacht and trim off some spending. Jimmy doesn't need a porche for his first car and sally doesn't need a pet for her every whim.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.