The last 8 years have been socialism for the rich.
At least the stated intent of real socialism is to help everybody, not just the rich.

If the last 8 years have been socialism, let us know which of the policies was enacted with the explicit intent to help lower income people.

10/20/2008 1:13:14 PM

To TreeTwistah.

I'm not using the last eight years as an argument for socialism.

I'm using the last eight years, seven of which you strongly supported, 6 of those spent defending President G.W Bush, to thoroughly discredit you personally.

Its an offhand troll of any type of reasonable retort you could come up with, and intended to reduce you to nothing more then providing snide comments.

Who are 'big government republicans', those are the same people you lauded as being 'conservatives' when they swept into power in 2001, and then hailed again when they won re-election in 2004. Don't bother distancing yourself from them now by trying to label them as something different then what you are.

Remember your impassioned arguments for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the Patriot act that laid the foundation for HMS, and for the tax cuts? These are the policies that increased government, increased our debt, and reduced our freedom.

You supported them.

Don't try and act like you have any ground to argue successively against socialism now on the basis of the very policies your party, and you through your support, encouraged.

Q E D



[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM. Reason : Get ripped]

10/20/2008 1:16:16 PM

Quote :

"seven of which you strongly supported"

ok i just stopped taking your post seriously since you're completely full of shit, no point in going any further to disprove your post of lies and false assumptions

Quote :

"on the basis of the very policies your party, and you through your support, encouraged."

its frightening how completely wrong you are

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 1:29:50 PM

Quote :

"However any objective review of the last eight years will note that we've had: 1) Massive growth in government and governmental powers at the cost of personal liberty and privacy. 2) Massive deficits that have doubled the national debt to 10 trillion dollars. 3) None of the benefits of a 'socialist' system such as free healthcare. Quite the opposite, Healthcare costs are rising."

see theres your false delemma. That the form of socialism you want is better than the form of socialism we have now and that thats what we're arguing for.

I dont want Massive growth in government and governmental powers at the cost of personal liberty and privacy.
I dont want Massive deficits that have doubled the national debt to 10 trillion dollars.
I dont want any of the "benefits" of a socialist system such as free healthcare.

The system we have now involves a HUGE ammount of government involvement. Why would you want more? I would much rather have a small federal government and then let the states decide other issues. One common failed comparison is that of the US and European nations. Most of these nations are tiny compared to the US and their populations are far less diverse.

There are very few policies that can be applied to 300 million people fairly. It makes much more sense to apply general rules and then let the specifics be handled by local government. People get better control over their local government then they do over the fed and thus better representation. This was the original idea behind our federal government and I think it would better suit everyone's needs.

10/20/2008 1:29:56 PM

Read the secondary post before replying, think long and hard, then walk away from the post.

I'm not arguing for socialism. I'm pointing out the 5 trillion dollars we spent on essentially nothing except security (arguably).

I'll continue ad hominems further though, because I think given the massive failures piling up, I'm entitled to a good bit of finger pointing.

You should want free healthcare because your weight and physical disposition suggests that economically you would benefit the most from such a system. What happens when that heart disease and cancer associated with obesity sets in ? Is your salary and private healthcare so encompassing that it will cover you one hundred percent?

When your claim for that needed bypass is rejected on the grounds that its 'not necessary', are you going to say 'good thing this private healthcare knows whats best for me!'

I'm consistently amazed how middle class individuals think they are going to become wealthy enough that they would have the grounds to successfully argue against progressive social systems.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/20/2008 1:40:56 PM

Quote :

"Socialism is terrible. Because you know, it would be terrible to live in the EU and have: Free Healthcare Free Schooling A progressive social net Better then average Job Security Growing Economy Currency worth more then Canadian Dollars"

Hmm, this is America and we have free schooling, free healthcare (medicaid rules!), a progressive social net (free homeless shelters and 3 meals a day!) better than average job security (unemploying in most of Europe is almost twice America's) a growing economy (2.4% for 2008!) and a currency worth more than Canadian dollars (1USD = 1.1976CAD).

As such, I think we should avoid the policies of Europe which take these things away and instead adopt better policies, such as those of Canada which have earned them a higher economic freedom rating than even the failled united states.

Quote :

"What happens when that heart disease and cancer associated with obesity sets in ?"

Then he dies on a waiting list. Or, as in Britain, his condition is considered too costly to address by a government agency which then bars and doctor in Britain from curing his condition, forcing him to sell his house and seek treatment in either America or India.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/20/2008 1:44:17 PM

Your generalizing for my generalizing, so I'm really not going to pick apart that post.

But I know you know there's a bit more depth then that.

xoxo

10/20/2008 1:46:59 PM

Your other post was arguing against the status quo, which I am also against. Im just not for more government as the solution.

And your example of my weight is great. If me being fat results in higher healthcare costs for me personally it creates much more insentive for me to change. If I know the fed will bail me out no matter what, then I'm not likely to worry about it now.

Obviously there are other reasons to change, but if the overall system rewards good behavior and punishes the bad its gonna be way better than treating all cases the same.

There are going to be special cases that will have to be handled differently, but the goal for the majority of the population should be prevention. And the only way you'll get people to pay attention is if you make them pay for it themselves.

10/20/2008 1:52:17 PM

Quote :

"I suppose you can claim you're all libertarians, but deregulated financial systems don't quite work out that well, now do they ?"

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the result of a "de-regulated" financial system? Mark-to-market? Sabarnes-Oxley? It's practically anarchy out there.

Meanwhile, it seems like most of the argument here is, "We've had socialism for the rich for 8 years, so why bother arguing against socialism for everybody else?" As if somehow, socialism for the rich hasn't been even more objectionable, and strongly objected to by many (although not all, in fairness) of the same people.

10/20/2008 1:55:21 PM

BACK IN THE USSA

10/20/2008 1:55:59 PM

That incentive apparently works great.

'Socialist' countries are nowhere near as overweight as americans. Oh wait.

In quotes because most industrial countries aren't entirely socialist either.

10/20/2008 1:56:14 PM

Quote :

"Absurd. If that were so then we are doomed to failure, as governments the world over have retreated from ownership of the means of production. Or is it your assertion that owning 3% of the productive capital in the economy is just enough communism but owning 0% would be too little and therefore disaster?"

less government ownership of production is better. be it Lockheed, Boeing, Aetna, Pfizer Haliburton, etc., even if government is commisioning the consumtion, production will continue to move towards private ownership. ...the current buying of banks shares by the government notwithstanding. government ownership puts too much in the hands of too few entities, and we don't get the market effect of price efficiency -- im against that.

its just a matter of directing what direction we take. do we need these subsidies that keep oil cheap and slow the innovation of alternative energies? oh we may not call them subsidies -- we call them "long term military presence in parts of the world where our 'interests' lie". or would we be better off eliminating those subsidies and investing in science at home?

there are intended and unintended consequences with any course of action, its just that some people want to keep things as they are, and some people want to move in a different direction. that is why we vote.

as for notions of "well run" dictatorships and monarchies, history has heuristically refuted all your arguments -- there's nothing more i can say about that.

10/20/2008 1:56:51 PM

There's a difference between suffocating regulation of the kind found in Western Germany and then government oversight for the sake of accountability as is the case with something like the FDIC.

10/20/2008 2:01:10 PM

Quote :

"I'm using the last eight years, seven of which you strongly supported, 6 of those spent defending President G.W Bush, to thoroughly discredit you personally. Its an offhand troll of any type of reasonable retort you could come up with, and intended to reduce you to nothing more then providing snide comments. "

I believe that's what is commonly refered to as the "ad hominem" fallacy.

Quote :

"the truth of the matter is that we are in a huge national debt and cutting programs and spending alone will not get us out of the hole. we NEED to raise taxes."

If Obama's purpose for raising taxes was to balance the budget, and it was done in conjunction with spending cuts, and levied across the board rather than by soaking the rich, I'd be right behind him. However, he is doing it for the purposes of redistrubution of wealth, and he's adding on more federal programs.

Quote :

"what Obama is purposing sic is that we tax the wealthy more then the poor. makes sense to me since the weathy are more able to afford higher taxes."

We already tax the rich inordinately.

Quote :

"now when I make over $250,000 per year I'll probably start voting Republican, but sense sic I don't I'm going for Obama. "

Dude, your income doesn't have any bearing on right and wrong. I would probably benefit slightly more from Obama than from McCain, but that's irrelevent.

Quote :

"Obama was endorsed by Warren Buffet. 'Nuff said. "

Warren Buffett, while a phenomenal investor, is a Democrat. This is not groundbreaking.

He does have a legitimate concern, though: since most of his income is in long term capital gains and dividends, he effectively pays a very, very low income tax rate. That's a product of our fucked up income tax system, though.

Quote :

"Because you know, it would be terrible to live in the EU and have: Free Healthcare Free Schooling A progressive social net "

Free, huh?

Quote :

"However any objective review of the last eight years will note that we've had: "

...and how many people in this thread are defending the last 8 years?

Quote :

"deregulated financial systems don't quite work out that well, now do they ? "

Umm, they're pretty fantastic, actually.

Quote :

"So you're using the last 8 years as an argument for socialism? The last 8 years were run by big government republicans. If anything the last 8 years and government expansion and spending should make people even more wary of socialism and even greater debt and government. We don't need to change from the policies of the last 8 years by expanding government even more, I don't know how you could imply we should with a straight face "

exactly.

Quote :

"Who are 'big government republicans', those are the same people you lauded as being 'conservatives' when they swept into power in 2001"

I think anyone who hasn't been in a coma for the last 8 years would agree that the current administration has not been as advertised (at least not what was advertised in 2000).

Quote :

"I'm entitled to a good bit of finger pointing. "

Absolutely. but at who? Nobody in this thread.

Quote :

"I'm consistently amazed how middle class individuals think they are going to become wealthy enough that they would have the grounds to successfully argue against progressive social systems"

I'm consistently amazed at how few middle class individuals realize that they do, in fact, have the means to become very wealthy.

Quote :

"'Socialist' countries are nowhere near as overweight as americans. "

...and here we have the correlation/causality logical fallacy.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

10/20/2008 2:16:23 PM

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."

and yes, I suppose many American's are indeed socialists because they don't earn $texas so if someone is going to hand out $$, they're gonna take it.

This country is a CAPITALIST country and thank the lord because chances are good that we wouldn't be typing here on this message board otherwise.

Spreading the wealth is a SOCIALIST ideal. Arguing otherwise is proof that you don't understand what it is.

10/20/2008 4:13:46 PM

We lie somewhere on the spectrum between capitalist and socialist.

We've had socialist policies for more than 100 years now. Socialism isn't a negative concept that should be scorned like ^ and others are doing, any more than capitalist is.

Socialism is not really about "spreading the wealth" explicitly, it's more about encouraging the wealth to spread itself.

10/20/2008 4:20:28 PM

Redistribution is one socialist tenet, but saying that someone is a member of group X for sharing one belief with that group is like calling a Christian a Muslim because "The belief in one god is an Islamic tenet."

Can you all REALLY not see that our government is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism? It has been for at least all of the 20th century, if not always. That's also true for every other modern country. I'd like to see you run a country with absolutely no redistribution.

The reason for this, of course, hinges on the fact that money is made up out of nothing already and only exists because of faith in the government that backs it, so money itself is socialist, if you want to look at things the way you are currently.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Quote :

"Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy."

So, what kind of socialist is Obama, geniuses?

Obama is NOT a socialist. He agrees more with socialists on some economic issues and more with conservatives on others. McCain also believes in "spreading the wealth around" to some degree, as does the majority of the country (and the world). McCain believes in social security, welfare, poverty assistance, medicare and medicaid, and economic stimulus checks (even to those who don't pay taxes, I'd bet, in some cases). I haven't heard him make a single comment about taxes being a bad thing, about helping people pay for food or shelter or medicine if they can't afford it, or about dismantling any government-run economic programs.

If anything, the most you can say is that McCain is LESS socialist than Obama. The only ignorant people in this debate are those who don't see that or refuse to admit it.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 4:22:09 PM

But it's SOOOOO much easier to lump everything into black or white and ignore everything in the middle that points out flaws in my own argument...

10/20/2008 4:42:56 PM

Yes Duke, the financial system is working marvelously. You're right. Of course, you can't back that up with any shred of evidence, and had global governments actually not stepped in then there really wouldn't be a financial market to speak of, but no go right on ahead pulling assertions out of nowhere.

Lets pretend the last month didn't happen.

And lets pretend that you weren't included in the Bush camp for quite some time, albeit, not as long as TreeTwista.

10/20/2008 4:45:53 PM

Quote :

"We already tax the rich inordinately."

10/20/2008 4:50:07 PM

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 4:50 PM. Reason : didnt mean to double post]

10/20/2008 4:50:07 PM

Inordinately compared to what?

Wealthy individuals pay a far less percentage of their overall net income to tax then you do.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ..]

10/20/2008 4:52:39 PM

yet thousands / millions more than me

10/20/2008 4:53:52 PM

oh ok, so lets just not tax rich people then, leave all the burden on us

that makes sense

10/20/2008 4:55:26 PM

Quote :

"yet thousands / millions more than me"

Still waiting for you to make a point.

10/20/2008 4:56:41 PM

tax equally across the board, and cut worthless over spending

10/20/2008 4:57:09 PM

Quote :

"tax equally across the board"

in that case, the rich will STILL be taxed "inordinately" according to your stardards

10/20/2008 4:58:23 PM

Look dude

I don't take you for someone with any measure of reasoning skills

But you really don't make that much money and you clearly don't understand the amount of wealth we're talking about.

Let me try and explain

There are people that spend the yearly aggregate income of your entire family in under an hour without reducing their net worth by .0001%.

Now this here's a lot of numbers I've thrown at you, and I apologize, so let me put it laymen terms:

You aint shit.

10/20/2008 4:58:30 PM

Quote :

"tax equally across the board, and cut worthless over spending "

seconded. Although I think neither candidate is a cure.

10/20/2008 4:58:57 PM

Equality is not equal percentages of total earnings, unless you have a knockdown argument as to why.

10/20/2008 5:00:17 PM

^^A flat tax across the board means you pay far more tax then a wealthier individual, and the lower class of this country pays the most tax (with relation to income).

Its regressive and stupid.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:01 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/20/2008 5:01:18 PM

im sorry, move to russia if you dont like our democratic system


or dubai

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 5:03:06 PM

Yes see thats you running out of factual responses and resorting to pretty mundane insults.

At least call me a poopoo head, that might have been funny.

PS- Dubai owns more of this country then you do. Sorry.


[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM. Reason : >.<]

10/20/2008 5:04:08 PM

10/20/2008 5:05:26 PM

Quote :

"im sorry, move to russia if you dont like our democratic system or dubai"

What does this even mean? The results of our democratic system with relation to tax policy reflect SandSanta's and my views much more than yours.

Maybe you're the one that should move, under your own criterion.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 5:11:08 PM

Quote :

"and the lower class of this country pays the most tax (with relation to income). "

Are you dumb. Did you really just say that with a flat tax a poor person pays the most tax??

lol

Maybe I am not a PHd in tax economics but I am fairly confident taht a flat tax means everyone pays a certain proportion of their income in taxes regardless of what they make. Hell I'd even still throw in a "Exemption" amount to 'assist' those bottom dwellers who cry about having to spend a greater proportion of money on *gasp* food, health insurance, and gas (instead of booze, chrome rims, and tims). As long as this exemption goes across the board.

A Flat tax DOES NOT equal a Regressive tax. The rich/wealthy/and upper middle classes will still end up paying the most in taxes. The only difference is not being straddled by the laws of diminishing returns which the current system does towards increased productivity.

On the other hand Capital Gains taxes should be more progressive.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM. Reason : a]

10/20/2008 5:11:17 PM

Quote :

"Are you dumb. Did you really just say that with a flat tax a poor person pays the most tax??"

No, he didn't, and if you had read/understood what he said you'd know that.

10/20/2008 5:12:05 PM

Thats because like a typical individual with little understanding of finances, you're calculating 17% of gross income and thinking "WHY SEVENTEEN PERCENT IS SEVENTEEN PERCENT U TURD LOL."

Except, 17% is far more significant when you factor in living expenses and compare gross take home pay between the bottom 25% income in the country and the top 25% income in the country.

I'm going to give you a chance to gracefully back away from this before I go and find the Government panel report that outlines, exactly, the true cost of a flat tax across the board and how it differs amongst the different earning classes.

10/20/2008 5:15:30 PM

Quote :

"A flat tax across the board means you pay far more tax then a wealthier individual, and the lower class of this country pays the most tax (with relation to income). Its regressive and stupid. "

Actually I think I read it perfectly.

So are you saying I would pay proportionatly more tax on a Ford Focus than I would on a BMW 7-series?? After all sales taxes are flat....

A flat tax means everyone pays the same in relation to income.

10/20/2008 5:16:56 PM

Quote :

"Actually I think I read it perfectly."

Actually you didn't. Try again buck-o.

Taking bets on what try you'll successfully read and understand what he said.

10/20/2008 5:19:00 PM

Quote :

"Except, 17% is far more significant when you factor in living expenses and compare gross take home pay between the bottom 25% income in the country and the top 25% income in the country. "

Well that is something completely different. Hence why i said i'd support the "exempt income" for all tax payers to pay for necessities. If you decide to drop out of high school and work in the textile plant for the rest of yoru life, after ensuring you have adequate accessibility to healthcare food and shelter; why is it my problem if you don't have more discretionary spending.

10/20/2008 5:20:23 PM

Quote :

"Equality is not equal percentages of total earnings, unless you have a knockdown argument as to why"

Actually it is, unless you have a knockdown argument as to why not...

10/20/2008 5:21:03 PM

Quote :

"A flat tax across the board means you pay far more tax then a wealthier individual"

Does not compute

Quote :

"A flat tax across the board means you pay far more tax then a wealthier individual"

Does not compute

Quote :

"A flat tax across the board means you pay far more tax then a wealthier individual"

Does not compute

Quote :

"A flat tax across the board means you pay far more tax then a wealthier individual"

Does not compute

Next you are going to tell me 1+1=3

Idiot liberals like this dude is what allows idiot right-wing moonbats to draw so much energy repelling this stupid rhetoric.

Even Joe 6-pack understands you work hard to get your own shit

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:24 PM. Reason : a]

10/20/2008 5:22:08 PM

Quote :

"Well that is something completely different. Hence why i said i'd support the "exempt income" for all tax payers to pay for necessities. If you decide to drop out of high school and work in the textile plant for the rest of yoru life, after ensuring you have adequate accessibility to healthcare food and shelter; why is it my problem if you don't have more discretionary spending."

Three tries ain't bad.

Edit: Nevermind seems like you still fail at understanding given your post above. Go back, try again. Apply yourself and report your findings.

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:22 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2008 5:22:09 PM

No thats not something completely different because I explicitly said 'with relation to income'.

If you're happy surviving on 100$ a week thats one thing, but there's not a libertarian idealogue amongst you that would be happy with that judging by the comments you guys post.

10/20/2008 5:22:39 PM

Quote :

"Actually it is, unless you have a knockdown argument as to why not..."

For precisely the reasons stated by me on this board n-times and SandSanta in this thread.

Equal percentage of total income is not a plausible view of "equality" because if you tax somebody who spends 100% of their monthly income on essentials (food, shelter) 20% it's not "equal" to taxing somebody who spends .01% of their monthly income on essentials.

Is that explicit enough or do you need me to break it down further?

10/20/2008 5:24:10 PM

Right before I start posting tax research papers, I want to once again confirm that you're denying that a flat tax moves the tax burden overwhelmingly to the lower income brackets.

10/20/2008 5:24:37 PM

Quote :

"No, he didn't, and if you had read/understood what he said you'd know that."

He's talking about effective tax rates, and he's wrong. The poor pay approximately jack shit, as the bottom third of filers have zero income tax liability. And the ones with children get most of their payroll taxes refunded through credits. If he's basing his argument on sales taxes, that doesn't hold water. The upper class are paying a 35% rate on most income, and the highest marginal rate at the state level.

10/20/2008 5:26:38 PM

^^^people who spend 100% of their money on food and shelter don't make enough money to pay income taxes in the first place, so i don't see how thats a fair comparison...i'd imagine anyone who spends 100% of their income on food and shelter is one of the 40% of americans who already don't pay income taxes

equality is people being treated equally...I would say a (hypothetical) 15% flat tax rate across the board would be more equal than Joe Plumber paying $10,000 of his $30,000 salary while Joe Millionaire pays $10,000 in taxes of his $1,500,000 salary

btw speaking of socialism, how is obama going to give a tax break to 95% of people when 40% of the country already doesnt pay income taxes?

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:30 PM. Reason : math doesn't work out]

10/20/2008 5:27:40 PM

^^^^^^^ except sales of BMw 7 series (or luxury cars in general) scale logarithmically with income, not linearly, so it still works out the poor have a disproportionate burden.

We can't have a truly fair tax without using a continuous function to determine taxation, that must change yearly. Or as LoneSnark has suggested before, a less progressive tax, but an expanded EITC. In any case, a flat tax with prebate could work, depending on how the prebate is doled out, and what the flat tax is set it.

sorry for the largeness of this graph...


But what are you going to set the flat tax rate at? Notice this graph is divided into quintiles of tax payers. The income gap has already accelerated under Bush's less progressive tax policy, and if you set a flat tax higher than 6%, and have a national sales tax on top of that, even with a prebate, the poor (and by poor, I mean 80% of the US) is going to be struggling. Not only would they be paying more income taxes, but they'd also be paying more sales tax. And I highly doubt a 6% tax rate+ national sales tax+prebate would generate enough income to run our gov, even with significant cuts, but i haven't seen any numbers on this.

So what would be a good flat tax rate?

[Edited on October 20, 2008 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2008 5:30:49 PM