• Obama is trying to make the US more socialist
    160 replies, posted
I wish.
[QUOTE=lifehole;34439127]We have to start realizing we aren't the only major country in the world and that we dont rule the world. But then again, AMURICAH![/QUOTE] America will keep trying to be the policemen of the world for a while. Nothing to do but wait it out until they stop. :v: [QUOTE=facepuke;34439414]What's wrong with socialism?[/QUOTE] While the idea of socialism is good, a country can't run on it with several other problems like Bill Gates stated that it doesn't inspire innovation.
As has been said, what's wrong with socialism? You need healthy productive bodies to bolster your economy and educated informed participants or the free market is a sham. That being said, medicaid and medicare in the US are an example of how a social/private hybrid (which is what socialism is like the west) can go terribly, terribly wrong. At least the insurance agencies and doctors are getting rich, I suppose :v:
I must be reading this wrong because it seems to imply that lowering taxes will increase tax revenue
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;34439896] While the idea of socialism is good, a country can't run on it with several other problems like Bill Gates stated that it doesn't inspire innovation.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? When people talk about socialism in practice, they're talking about social democracy, where some basic needs like primary and secondary and tertiary education are provided by the government, public pension plans, healthcare, that sort of thing. Things like water and electricity utilities are still provided by private firms. [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;34439924]I must be reading this wrong because it seems to imply that lowering taxes will increase tax revenue[/QUOTE] Welcome to the wonderful world of Reaganomics, where it's believed that lower taxes will increase revenue due to increased investment and private spending, broadly. [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34439262]I have to say, I'm getting really tired of seeing thread after thread of these anti-Conservative articles.[/QUOTE] Also you [I]are[/I] aware that this is actually a pro-conservative article, right? golly [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] who needs to read the article! [quote] To which we who come from the future can only shout, “No‑o-o, go back! Don’t come down this road!”[/quote] Sounds like a definite proponent of socialism!
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34439262]I have to say, I'm getting really tired of seeing thread after thread of these anti-Conservative articles.[/QUOTE] There is good reason for it since Fox pumps out mind dumbing conservative shit 24/7
When compared with the US, many European nations appear to be far more "socialist" than the United States. Even if Obama was trying to Socialize the country, he wouldn't be putting us behind Europe, rather on par with it. (Yes, I realize this article is talking about Britain and Britain =/= Europe)
Bill Mahar has a small joke that puts this entire thing into perspective that most 'Murcans can understand. Baseball is capitalism and is why the Yankees are always fucking winning, and Football is Socialist which is fair and gives everyone an equal chance Socialism isn't bad. There's just some parts that CAN be, the same as there are with capitalism. Ever try to join a game of monopoly 3/4 of the way of it being over with your only $500? You'll lose
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;34439924]I must be reading this wrong because it seems to imply that lowering taxes will increase tax revenue[/QUOTE] The theory is, less taxes will let businesses invest more. More investments mean more little taxes get bumped. It's like, you can either tax one man for $100, or lower taxes so that you tax five men for $30. Except instead of men, it's investments. There's a graph I saw in my economics textbook a couple years ago that explained it much better, but I can't seem to find the same graph online anywhere. EDIT: Found it [img]http://www.qando.net/blog/images/laffer.gif[/img] Basically, governments want to be in the center. Republicans feel we are at Point B, while Democrats believe we're at Point A. Except, there's not really any science to this to prove either right or wrong or what the center actually is. It's a subjective opinion.
That's on the assumption the wealth will not be hoarded, which is difficult to say
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;34440260]That's on the assumption the wealth will not be hoarded, which is difficult to say[/QUOTE] And judging by the increasing concentration of capital, it's a pretty flimsy assumption.
So you guys like socialism now? Put all the money into a big sack and then equally split it among everyone? Cool you don't even have to work anymore to get money. Except when everyone tries to do that. And nobody's gonna want to earn over the average, they will take their business somewhere else.
What Obama is doing/what this opinion piece is talking about isn't socialism, stop talking like it is
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34440625]So you guys like socialism now? Put all the money into a big sack and then equally split it among everyone?[/QUOTE] You're a fool if you believe this is what Socialism means.
There is socialism as a doctrine and there are things leaning towards socialism. Redistribution for instance. Doesn't matter you give it some other name. Same ideology.
[QUOTE]-"The US is already socialist -- that's why it doesn't work any more. It should go back to its very successful previous system -- capitalism."[/QUOTE] Oh wow.
[QUOTE=farmatyr;34441006]Oh wow.[/QUOTE] Truth be had, we're definitely not capitalist. We're more corporatist, which is pretty much all the bad aspects of capitalism and socialism rolled up into one big dysfunctional mess of a system.
"Yeah well...uhhh....you...you don't even know what socialism is! take that!" Anyone who says that can recite the definition on the spot or shut the fuck up.
[QUOTE=Judas;34439096][img]http://i.imgur.com/WkkEo.png[/img][/QUOTE] haha what a hilarious and original post congratulations!! have you guys not recognized how tired and worn the "nation says" shit is
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34440948]There is socialism as a doctrine and there are things leaning towards socialism. Redistribution for instance. Doesn't matter you give it some other name. Same ideology.[/QUOTE] Don't be silly, redistribution is part of every modern government. I can not think of a single example where this is not the case. Can you? I doubt you can, much like I doubt you really know what you're even talking about.
OBAMA [B]IS[/B] [h2]SATAN![/h2]
[QUOTE=Contag;34441220]Don't be silly, redistribution is part of every modern government. I can not think of a single example where this is not the case.[/QUOTE] How does that contradict anything I've said? [QUOTE=Contag;34441220]Can you? I doubt you can, much like I doubt you really know what you're even talking about.[/QUOTE] Okay, since you sound like an expert on the subject, explain to us idiots what's socialism and what are the consequences for the people living in that system, instead of going "you don't know shit, I do, therefore I'm right".
[QUOTE=Contag;34439937]Also you [I]are[/I] aware that this is actually a pro-conservative article, right? golly [/QUOTE] Regardless, the OP clearly posted this article to garner a negative response towards conservatives.
Man, Obama is clearly a dirty Communist. I mean, any country is gives the Government more power is a filthy Comminst regime.
[QUOTE=Jim Harbaugh;34442052]I mean, any country is gives the Government more power is a filthy Comminst regime.[/QUOTE] The US gov't only does a few things efficiently. More gov't power has always been a bad idea historically.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;34441302]How does that contradict anything I've said? Okay, since you sound like an expert on the subject, explain to us idiots what's socialism and what are the consequences for the people living in that system, instead of going "you don't know shit, I do, therefore I'm right".[/QUOTE] Okay, so in practice, any kind of deviation from laissez-faire capitalism can be considered socialism. It's not you know, the 'socialism' put in place by the USSR, or the socialism promoted by marxist scholars. You can regard it as redistribution of wealth. However, there are [I]degrees[/I] of redistribution, ranging from virtually none, to the extreme situation that you presented, which will never occur in societies that currently exist. Some redistribution of wealth can be really good. For instance, the income taxes that pay for public primary schooling, or for everyone enjoying the same benefits under the same public police, even though taxes aren't applied to all equally. Also your extreme situation isn't too likely, namely because people [I]like[/I] having yachts and cars and the latest stuff. Simply having everyone's basic [I]needs[/I] met isn't going to cripple society.
[QUOTE=Melkor;34439816]Because people can't distinguish the difference between socialism and communism.[/QUOTE] And between communism and totalitarian rule.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;34442288]And between communism and totalitarian rule.[/QUOTE] I find it interesting how people conflate a stateless society (communism) with totalitarian rule. Good job Soviet Russia
[QUOTE=Contag;34442134]Okay, so in practice, any kind of deviation from laissez-faire capitalism can be considered socialism. [/QUOTE] Pretty much what people been doing in this thread and you guys responding "you don't know what's socialism". [QUOTE=Contag;34442134]It's not you know, the 'socialism' put in place by the USSR, or the socialism promoted by marxist scholars.[/QUOTE] I never said or implied that. You did. Or you thought that people were talking about it where they weren't. [QUOTE=Contag;34442134]You can regard it as redistribution of wealth. However, there are [I]degrees[/I] of redistribution, ranging from virtually none, to the extreme situation that you presented, which will never occur in societies that currently exist.[/QUOTE] Yes. And the more you take from everyone and redistribute it the more socialistic the country. [QUOTE=Contag;34442134]Some redistribution of wealth can be really good. For instance, the income taxes that pay for public primary schooling, or for everyone enjoying the same benefits under the same public police, even though taxes aren't applied to all equally.[/QUOTE] I never said everything that works for benefit of everyone for the money from everyone is bad. Public schools, libraries, healthcare, firemen, roads and police are great examples. But it shouldn't go much further than that. [QUOTE=Contag;34442134]Also your extreme situation isn't too likely, namely because people [I]like[/I] having yachts and cars and the latest stuff. [/QUOTE] Of course. It was the most extreme example I could think of. But if you redistribute for instance 33% of people's income, that's a lot. And if you take more from the rich and give it to the poor you penalize people for earning much and reward people for not working. And those who work harder and earn above the average won't want to finance those who don't work. They'll do everything to avoid that. Nothing good will come out of that. It all looks nice on paper and would work in a perfect world where everyone wants to contribute and nobody wants to get as much as they can while doing the least they can but it's simply not reality. If you have a society where everyone is rich or at least very well and the social norm is to contribute you can have a lot of redistribution and it's not going to do much harm. But if you don't have that, the lazy will try to live off welfare while the rich are trying to do everything in their power to avoid financing other people. [QUOTE=Contag;34442134]Simply having everyone's basic [I]needs[/I] met isn't going to cripple society.[/QUOTE] You seriously underestimate the number of people who would want to live just meeting their basic needs and doing nothing.
[QUOTE=Contag;34442305]I find it interesting how people conflate a stateless society (communism) with totalitarian rule. Good job Soviet Russia[/QUOTE] Best thing is that Soviet Russia never got that hot with actual communism either. I don't think it's really their fault, anyway. People are corrupt everywhere. Unless we make better people, we won't have better results.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.