# Socialism is GOOD for EVERYONE!



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

There's a rich a guy and a poor guy.

The government takes $1,000 from the rich guy and gives it to the poor guy. 

Then we ask the question: Does socialism work?

The rich guy says, &#8220;Hell no, I just lost a 1,000 bucks!&#8221;

The poor guy says, &#8220;Hell yeah, I just made a 1,000 bucks!&#8221;

A month later the government takes $1,200 from the rich guy and gives it to the poor guy. 

Then we ask the question: Does socialism work?

The rich guy says, &#8220;Hell no, I just lost 1200 bucks!&#8221;

The poor guy says, &#8220;Hell yeah, I just made 1200 bucks!&#8221;

Now the rich man, feeling gypped and sensing the obvious pattern, packs up his small technology firm and moves it to China. When he gets there, he realizes that he can save 70% off his labor costs, build a state of the art production studio and never pay property taxes (ever), get an instant business tax cut of 98%, and relish in the fact that Uncle Sam no longer has the legal authority to swipe benjamins from his checking account to give to the poor guy. 

Then we ask the question: Does socialism work?

The rich guy says, &#8220;Hell yeah, ever since the government pushed me out of the States, my profits have increased 10 fold in 2 months!&#8221;

The poor guy says, *

So it's clear that socialism does work for EVERYONE. We have the poor man on record attesting to the free money he made. And we have the rich man on record praising the government for helping him transform his small business into a global enterprise. And nobody disputes the record...it's a record of fact.

So I think that pretty much settles it. Socialism helps the poor. AND socialism helps the rich. So it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, socialism offers a little something to everyone. That's a win-win for everybody. Anyone who doesn't agree, clearly hasn't considered these facts.

So now we're seeing a rapid shift in American political thought. We're starting to see more and more politicians not only embracing this proven political theory of taking more from the rich and giving it to the poor, but even promising to codify it into federal law. Wow. I've never been more proud to be an American! It looks like America is finally moving in the right direction.

*note from the editor: for some reason the poor man was not available for comment regarding the last question. When we called his phone, it was disconnected, and when we drove by his house we found that it had already been foreclosed on. We checked the local park benches and liquor stores, but without any luck. Therefore, our editorial decision was to conclude our study based on the calculated average of his previously recorded comments.

===============

 
Because I know some of you are reading this for the first time, and I know you're not actually going to read all the replies before you post your opinion, I will quote myself here to save you the time.



alupka said:


> The original post was about redistributing wealth. Barack Obama's position on this is VERY clear. So there's no question what his position is (unless you think he's lying about it). The question is whether it will actually work. Concerning that, you can agree or disagree.





alupka said:


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





alupka said:


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





alupka said:


> 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.





alupka said:


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





alupka said:


> In 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 said:


> Interesting post but...there's nothing in any part of your post that explains how Obama's plan to redistribute wealth is going to benefit average Americans in the long-term.





alupka said:


> Rather than debating the nuances of political theories from a freshman poli-sci class, can anyone explain to me, specifically and in practical terms, how Obama's policy of income redistribution is actually going to help working class people in the long-run?
> 
> Despite what anyone believes, I'm actually an independent voter and I would love for someone to make a reasonable and rational defense for his economic policies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 2, 2008)

Since that piece of comedy has nothing to do with socialism it's safe to say any point trying to be made is irrelevant.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Since that piece of comedy has nothing to do with socialism it's safe to say any point trying to be made is irrelevant.



I thought about calling it "Economic Justice" but it just didn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Nov 2, 2008)

If you think Socialism works I suggest you look into the collapse of the Soviet Union.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> If you think Socialism works I suggest you look into the collapse of the Soviet Union.



That's right. Largely due to the fact that the Russian government was controlling and redistributing the wealth of individuals. 

Marcus Wolf, who spent his life defending socialism (and building the Russian intelligence infrastructure from the ground up) outlines this nicely in his auto-biography: Man Without a Face. In the end, you literally had to wait in line to get your share of toilet paper. But hey, that's just documented historical fact, so it's probably not very important to democrats.


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Since that piece of comedy has nothing to do with socialism it's safe to say any point trying to be made is irrelevant.



you noticed that too?


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> you noticed that too?



I see. Redistribution of wealth is one of the core tenets of socialism, and one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So a post about the redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with socialism.

Hmm...that's interesting logic.


----------



## editec (Nov 2, 2008)

Wealth is most assuredly being redistributed, no doubt about that.

It's being distributed from the American economy to the Chinese .

Want that to end tomorrow?

Protect our nation from importants with importation tariffs just as China ALREADY does.


----------



## mightypeon (Nov 2, 2008)

Interestingly, the Chinese are more pagmatic about Capitalism and Socialism then just about anybody else. They do exactly what seems usefull for them.

I think its the late joke of the 20th century, Chinese and Russian Pseudocommunists end up beeing better Capitalists than the Americans.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> I see. Redistribution of wealth is one of the core tenets of socialism, and one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> So a post about the redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with socialism.
> 
> Hmm...that's interesting logic.



The Soviet Union wasn't a socialist state. Hell, it wasn't even a communist state. It was a totalitarian regime. And if you think it did redistribute the wealth are you telling me that Stalin had a dacha on the Black Sea, then so did the dude who swept Red Square? Don't think so...


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> I see. Redistribution of wealth is one of the core tenets of socialism, and one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> So a post about the redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with socialism.
> 
> Hmm...that's interesting logic.



actually, our tax system has always taxed wealthy people at slightly higher rates than people who earn less. 

and i'd say you need to go a far way to pretend that a regressive tax system is somehow socialist.

that's pretend stuff...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> If you think Socialism works I suggest you look into the collapse of the Soviet Union.



I suggest you learn critical reading skills.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 2, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Since that piece of comedy has nothing to do with socialism it's safe to say any point trying to be made is irrelevant.



Of course it doesn't.  One thing about consistent about you socialist-types, when the ugly truth of socialism is put in front of you in stark reality, y'all go into denial mode so fast you make the Flash look like an arthritic old man.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 2, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> If you think Socialism works I suggest you look into the collapse of the Soviet Union.



Around about 1922 I think it was, when things went haywire in terms of socialism in the Soviet Union.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 2, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Of course it doesn't.  One thing about consistent about you socialist-types, when the ugly truth of socialism is put in front of you in stark reality, y'all go into denial mode so fast you make the Flash look like an arthritic old man.



On thing consistent about you conservative types, you keep on getting your political terms mixed up and attribute words to an idealogy that don't match. Once again, the USSR wasn't a socialist state. Now Sweden. There's a socialist state. And France. Hell, even NZ to a degree...


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> On thing consistent about you conservative types, you keep on getting your political terms mixed up and attribute words to an idealogy that don't match. Once again, the USSR wasn't a socialist state. Now Sweden. There's a socialist state. And France. Hell, even NZ to a degree...



it's called fearmongering.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 2, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Of course it doesn't.  One thing about consistent about you socialist-types, when the ugly truth of socialism is put in front of you in stark reality, y'all go into denial mode so fast you make the Flash look like an arthritic old man.



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.


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

Behold the sad result of socialism and universal healthcare...


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Wealth is most assuredly being redistributed, no doubt about that.
> 
> It's being distributed from the American economy to the Chinese .
> 
> ...



You got my vote.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

mightypeon said:


> Interestingly, the Chinese are more pagmatic about Capitalism and Socialism then just about anybody else. They do exactly what seems usefull for them.
> 
> I think its the late joke of the 20th century, Chinese and Russian Pseudocommunists end up beeing better Capitalists than the Americans.



That's right. Excellent point. They have some socialist programs that are working ok. There's also a heck of a lot of free market stuff going on around here.

Advantages of a single party system I guess. They can just do anything they want, without having to try and defend their positions from political opposition.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> The Soviet Union wasn't a socialist state. Hell, it wasn't even a communist state. It was a totalitarian regime. And if you think it did redistribute the wealth are you telling me that Stalin had a dacha on the Black Sea, then so did the dude who swept Red Square? Don't think so...



No, I'm saying they convinced their people that they "would" redistribute the wealth. That's the whole point.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> actually, our tax system has always taxed wealthy people at slightly higher rates than people who earn less.
> 
> and i'd say you need to go a far way to pretend that a regressive tax system is somehow socialist.
> 
> that's pretend stuff...



Everything that Obama is talking about is "spreading the wealth" and "economic justice" and how he's going to radically change America. 

"Change We Need"

Are you saying that he's not being sincere? That he really wants to just keep doing everything the same as before?


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> 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.



Right...it was "socialism" that transformed America into an economic superpower.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> Behold the sad result of socialism and universal healthcare...



I could show similar pictures of the Chinese girls here. I guess that makes China a model country!


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> Right...it was "socialism" that transformed America into an economic superpower.



and how many years of trickle down, voodoo economics to destroy that economy and leave the chinese holding our debt?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> and how many years of trickle down, voodoo economics to destroy that economy and leave the chinese holding our debt?



Ya cause Frank, Dodd and the rest of the democrats had nothing to do with the collapse. Can we say Party Hack?


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya cause Frank, Dodd and the rest of the democrats had nothing to do with the collapse. Can we say Party Hack?



you sound ridiculous. dems haven't controlled the budget in 8 years. 

are you so vapid that you think that a one vote majority in the senate (with lieberman, who isn't a dem, being the vote) does anything?


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> I could show similar pictures of the Chinese girls here. I guess that makes China a model country!



China is not socialist, it is capitalist and communist.

Besides, Obama doesn't want to make America socialist. 

The only people who believe that are low information voters.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> you sound ridiculous. dems haven't controlled the budget in 8 years.
> 
> are you so vapid that you think that a one vote majority in the senate (with lieberman, who isn't a dem, being the vote) does anything?



Sure thing, once again ignore the facts, keep up the party lies. you do it so well, MAYBE you really are a scumbag lawyer after all?


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, once again ignore the facts, keep up the party lies. you do it so well, MAYBE you really are a scumbag lawyer after all?



Try making a single post without a personal insult.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> Try making a single post without a personal insult.



I try but you retards make it too easy. Ohh and I schooled DavidS on two points with nary an insult and the result? He attacked me and can not admit he is wrong. I think I will stick to calling liars liars and idiots idiots. But thanks for the advice Moron.


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I try but you retards make it too easy. Ohh and I schooled DavidS on two points with nary an insult and the result? He attacked me and can not admit he is wrong. I think I will stick to calling liars liars and idiots idiots. But thanks for the advice Moron.



Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> and how many years of trickle down, voodoo economics to destroy that economy and leave the chinese holding our debt?



I agree completely. That trickle down crap doesn't work. The corporate execs just take home more money.

I don't think we should be taking money from small business owners (250,000 is an extremely bar) and giving it to everyone. But I also don't think we should be collecting taxes from everyone and subsidizing big corporations.

I would be happy with something in the middle...I just want it to be fair. I don't think there is anything immoral about working hard to achieve great success and wealth, as long as it's done legally and ethically. But we seem to be moving away from that idea.


----------



## editec (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> Right...it was "socialism" that transformed America into an economic superpower.


 
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?


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> you sound ridiculous. dems haven't controlled the budget in 8 years.
> 
> are you so vapid that you think that a one vote majority in the senate (with lieberman, who isn't a dem, being the vote) does anything?



The dems in Congress were the ones who were directly responsible for overseeing this and the only ones who made it impossible to fix it.

How do you get around that?


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> I agree completely. That trickle down crap doesn't work. The corporate execs just take home more money.
> 
> I don't think we should be taking money from small business owners (250,000 is an extremely bar) and giving it to everyone. But I also don't think we should be collecting taxes from everyone and subsidizing big corporations.
> 
> I would be happy with something in the middle...I just want it to be fair. I don't think there is anything immoral about working hard to achieve great success and wealth, as long as it's done legally and ethically. But we seem to be moving away from that idea.



All Obama is suggesting is to raise the top level of taxes to where they were when Ronald Reagan was president.

Bush's borrow and spend policies left us with a $500 billion dollar deficit. 

Somebody's taxes are going to have to be raised.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> China is not socialist, it is capitalist and communist.


I agree.


Chris said:


> Besides, Obama doesn't want to make America socialist.


Obama disagrees.


Chris said:


> The only people who believe that are low information voters.


No, the people who believe that are the people who are listening to what Barack Obama is really talking about.

The original post was about redistributing wealth. Barack Obama's position on this is VERY clear. So there's no question what his position is (unless you think he's lying about it). The question is whether it will actually work. Concerning that, you can agree or disagree.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Depends on what you're defining as socialism, doesn't it?
> 
> Universal free education certains sounds like socialism to me.
> 
> ...



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.

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?


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> All Obama is suggesting is to raise the top level of taxes to where they were when Ronald Reagan was president.
> 
> Bush's borrow and spend policies left us with a $500 billion dollar deficit.
> 
> Somebody's taxes are going to have to be raised.



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.


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> 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.



Poor baby.

We need to pay off the enormous debt run up by the borrow and spend policies of Bush and Reagan. 

Bush and Reagan are responsible for 90% of the National Debt.

ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Depends on what you're defining as socialism, doesn't it?
> 
> Universal free education certains sounds like socialism to me.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Depends on what you're defining as socialism, doesn't it?
> 
> Universal free education certains sounds like socialism to me.
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

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

No one is recommending that.


----------



## Toro (Nov 2, 2008)

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 (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> ...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 (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Kathianne said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> 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??




editec said:


> You didn't answer the question, you merely replaced one undefined word for an undefined phrase.
> 
> What do we mean when we say "socialism"?
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

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.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Kathianne said:
> ...


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Kathianne said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 2, 2008)

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 (Nov 2, 2008)

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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Navy1960 said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

Gunny said:


> 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 (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> Kathianne said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> Kathianne said:
> 
> 
> > Not worked well in Europe?
> ...


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> Kathianne said:
> 
> 
> > Not worked well in Europe?
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> 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.


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get the idea that if something works for Europe that it will also work in America ?
> ...


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Where do you get the idea that if something works for Europe that it will also work in America ?
> ...


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and the pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!
> ...


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> you sound ridiculous. dems haven't controlled the budget in 8 years.
> 
> are you so vapid that you think that a one vote majority in the senate (with lieberman, who isn't a dem, being the vote) does anything?



and yet the republicans in the 107th Congress (50/50) 108th Congress (51/48/1) and the 109th Congress (55/45), where they never had enough votes to force cloture were able to ruin the economy all by themselves in just 6 years.

interesting......


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and the pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because they don't have to pay liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. There are inherent cost savings with a single payer system. The Germans have had one since 1886!
> 
> With a single payer system you would still pick your doctor, and your doctor would still own his practice. There would just be one insurance company, and that would be the government.



That's how it is here in China. Everyone can go to the doctor/hospital for nearly free. No scheduling appointments...nothing! Just go. Wait about 15 minutes for the doctor to finish with his current patient. And then show him the problem. If there are prescriptions you'll have to pay for them, but not much. The actual cost for service varies, but the average for my visits is around $10 U.S. And there are absolutely ZERO monthly premiums to pay.

There's not a poor farmer here who thinks it's difficult or expensive to get medical help when he needs it.

How is it possible? because the government completely eliminates the corrupt insurance industry altogether, who make billions off people's illnesses in the U.S.

Of course, none of the doctors here ever actually fixed any of my problems. The only one who accomplished anything was the Chinese dentist who broke my jaw bone with a hammer and chisel. This is not a joke. When I went to a different dentist, he told me we would have to break it again and reset it. I asked him how we were going to do that. With a hammer and chisel of course...is there any other way??

I actually had to fly back to America just to fix the problem. When I told my dentist about some of my experiences in China, he told me that American medical professionals haven't be using those techniques since the 1950s.

I don't know what you can conclude from it, but it's a real life example to consider.


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

Here's another real life example...

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 2, 2008)

It is completely inaccurate to compare the United States with either the Soviet Union or China. The history of these societies have nothing in common. It would be more accurate to compare socialist China or socialist Russia with the pre-socialist conditions of these countries. In both cases these societies progressed more in the 50 years of socialism than they did in the 5000 years pre-socialist.

Here in the U.S. we were blessed with a virgin continent. Our founding fathers were children of the enlightenment and the vast majority of the people came here to escape the repression of the socially and economically stagnant soceities of the 'Old World'. We were, for most of the first 200 years, the leaders of the world wide rebellion against the domination of the world by the socio-economic elite: Royalty.

Then after WWII, we no longer were the champions of equality and Democracy, but of capitalism and elitism.

It is the domination of a society by a tiny minority of socio-economic elite that causes societies to stagnate or even regress. Sometimes for thousands of years. Unfortunately, forming strongly hierarchial, elitist societies seem to be the instinctual tendancy of the human race. It has only been the past 200 years that the human race has started to evolve into societies based on equality, and there is a strong effort to reform this country into an elitist nation.

The Republicans have done everything they can to change the U.S. into an elitist society. They believe in a government for and by the wealthy, the common people be damned.

The Republicans have, in the desparation of this election, resorted to red-baiting. Trying to instill a false fear of democrats by calling them socialists and marxists. This could not be further from the truth. The Democrats believe in capitalism tempered by regulation and a tax code that helps keep this a dynamic society.

Just as unfortunately, the open-minded and acedemic tendancies of liberals have allowed us to be drawn into a discussion of socialism, making it appear that we support such. That is not true. Very few if any Democrats support socialism, except as a temporary measure to deal with national crisis. Once again Democrats overwhelmingly believe in tempered capitalism. WE are the 'Compassionate Conservatives' that President Bush spoke of.


----------



## dilloduck (Nov 2, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> It is completely inaccurate to compare the United States with either the Soviet Union or China. The history of these societies have nothing in common. It would be more accurate to compare socialist China or socialist Russia with the pre-socialist conditions of these countries. In both cases these societies progressed more in the 50 years of socialism than they did in the 5000 years pre-socialist.
> 
> Here in the U.S. we were blessed with a virgin continent. Our founding fathers were children of the enlightenment and the vast majority of the people came here to escape the repression of the socially and economically stagnant soceities of the 'Old World'. We were, for most of the first 200 years, the leaders of the world wide rebellion against the domination of the world by the socio-economic elite: Royalty.
> 
> ...



That might make sense if there weren't any rich democrats--but alas-.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> It is completely inaccurate to compare the United States with either the Soviet Union or China. The history of these societies have nothing in common. It would be more accurate to compare socialist China or socialist Russia with the pre-socialist conditions of these countries...



Interesting post but...



alupka said:


> 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.



And there's nothing in any part of your post that explains how Obama's plan to redistribute wealth is going to benefit average Americans in the long-term.


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

del said:


> and yet the republicans in the 107th Congress (50/50) 108th Congress (51/48/1) and the 109th Congress (55/45), where they never had enough votes to force cloture were able to ruin the economy all by themselves in just 6 years.
> 
> interesting......



you do know that during that six year period, not a single bill was put on the floor that needed a single democratic vote to pass, right?

And if you take the national credit card and max it out so the debt can't be paid, while at the same time running a fake war of choice that cost 200 billion dollars, and cutting income (again, for the FIRST TIME IN HIStory).... it isn't all that difficult.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Chris said:


> Here's another real life example...
> 
> Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org



Great post.

Thanks for the article. Very informative. I wouldn't have a problem with a system like that.


----------



## editec (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> you do know that during that six year period, not a single bill was put on the floor that needed a single democratic vote to pass, right?
> 
> And if you take the national credit card and max it out so the debt can't be paid, while at the same time running a fake war of choice that cost 200 billion dollars, and cutting income (again, for the FIRST TIME IN HIStory).... it isn't all that difficult.


 
There you go again with your fact based retorts.

You're a_ Truth BULLY,_ Jillian.

You know that beating people with real facts isn't fair in this venue.

Save that truth-bully crap for the courts where things like facts actually matter.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

For the record, we've had some great Socialist mayors in history:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/63134-socialism-is-communism.html

There is a pattern when they enter office, they get rid of corruption.


----------



## Wade (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> For the record, we've had some great Socialist mayors in history:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/63134-socialism-is-communism.html
> 
> There is a pattern when they enter office, they get rid of corruption.



Oh my, you've never had to pay a bribe to get you "stamp" in a socialist country, have you.   Socialist countries are generally more corrupt, than less.  I think you confuse a honest person, with a dishonest person, rather than a socialist and a capitalist.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Wade said:


> Oh my, you've never had to pay a bribe to get you "stamp" in a socialist country, have you.   Socialist countries are generally more corrupt, than less.  I think you confuse a honest person, with a dishonest person, rather than a socialist and a capitalist.



Might want to read those links.

I'm no socialist but:

Capitalism: The system where the rich give the poor enough stuff so the poor doesn't uprise and take the rich people's stuff.


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Might want to read those links.
> 
> I'm no socialist but:
> 
> Capitalism: The system where the rich give the poor enough stuff so the poor doesn't uprise and take the rich people's stuff.



Well maybe after you've traveled a bit and met some of those lucky folks who've lived under draconian socialism you might see things a bit differently. 

The Europeans and even some Canadians are trying to reverse the clock, which is much more difficult than not going down that road in the first place.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Well maybe after you've traveled a bit and met some of those lucky folks who've lived under *draconian *socialism you might see things a bit differently.
> 
> The Europeans and even some Canadians are trying to reverse the clock, which is much more difficult than not going down that road in the first place.



Socialism is government take overs of land, businesses, property and BANKS. That bears repeating that last part; Socialism is the government take over of *Banks.*

So therefore, under the definition of Socialism; Comrade John McCain and Comrade George W Bush are now members!




Welcome Brothers!


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Like, Socialism: Comment: The New Yorker

You know who else was called a socialist by the way?

MLK JR and JFK are two great examples.

You know who else would of been called a Socialist?

That Community Organizer, wanting to turn the other cheek, raising taxes, favoring more government handouts for the poor, soft on crime and war on terror bastard otherwise known as..Jesus of Nazareth.


----------



## Wade (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Socialism is government take overs of land, businesses, property and BANKS. That bears repeating that last part; Socialism is the government take over of *Banks.*
> 
> So therefore, under the definition of Socialism; Comrade John McCain and Comrade George W Bush are now members!
> 
> ...



No comrade, the difference is those banks will (hopefully) be back private as soon as their worth something.  The US government has no business owning them.

Capitalism is where you have the opportunity to make anything out of your life that your willing to work for.  Even a welfare child in Hawaii can one day grow up to run for president of the US.  And, there will be a peaceful succession of power to someone in January.


----------



## Wade (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Like, Socialism: Comment: The New Yorker
> 
> You know who else was called a socialist by the way?
> 
> ...



I always thought of MLK as a hardcore socialist.  Don't know about JFK, he was too busy trying to get the world blown up.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Wade said:


> No comrade, the difference is those banks will (hopefully) be back private as soon as their worth something.  The US government has no business owning them.
> 
> Capitalism is where you have the opportunity to make anything out of your life that your willing to work for.  Even a welfare child in Hawaii can one day grow up to run for president of the US.  And, there will be a peaceful succession of power to someone in January.



Just the mere ownership of the banks under definition is socialism.

Spin it all you want that they may not own them in the future, in the PRESENT it is socialism.

And stop trying to spin the dead myth of the American Dream. You know why they call it The American Dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe it.

So Comrade, you might want to recheck the facts. So not EVERY child has the same opportunity to be successful. Barack Obama is one of those rare cases when such a child rose from nothing to get where he is today.

(Oh by the way, somehow he is the Elitist? )

And if the racists and or extreme Christian Right of this country have anything to say about it, there will be no "peaceful succession" of power come January.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Wade said:


> I always thought of MLK as a hardcore socialist.  Don't know about JFK, he was too busy trying to get the world blown up.



That evil MLK Jr. Such a evil wanting to take all your money socialist huh?



And nice try at a joke, but I'm pretty sure JFK got us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK can also be considered one of our greatest modern presidents if not of all time.

Though by what you said so far, it's not surprising that you seemingly have not opened a history book.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Wade said:


> Capitalism is where you have the opportunity to make anything out of your life that your willing to work for.  Even a welfare child in Hawaii can one day grow up to run for president of the US.



Exactly. Alexander Hamilton being an obvious example.


----------



## Wade (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Just the mere ownership of the banks under definition is socialism.
> 
> Spin it all you want that they may not own them in the future, in the PRESENT it is socialism.
> 
> ...



The American dream is that a welfare child can become an elitist, of course there are those that just become nice successful people also.  The American Dream is still alive.  But, there's a lot of haters out there trying to stamp it out one socialist decision at a time.  They didn't do anything when Clinton took office, they'll just wait for this to cause the pendulum to swing back. It always does.  Oh, and who's fear mongering?


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Rather than debating the nuances of political theories from a freshman poli-sci class, can *anyone* explain to me, specifically and in practical terms, how Obama's policy of income redistribution is actually going to help working class people in the long-run? 

Despite what anyone believes, I'm actually an independent voter and I would love for someone to make a reasonable and rational defense for his economic policies.

That was the reason I posted this in the first place.

Thank You.


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> That evil MLK Jr. Such a evil wanting to take all your money socialist huh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Neither MLK, nor JFK were 'socialists.' JFK however was far from being one of our greatest modern presidents.


----------



## Wade (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> That evil MLK Jr. Such a evil wanting to take all your money socialist huh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Any fool can gamble.  The other side blinked.  Not saying he didn't do the right thing, just his socialism was overshadowed.  I did notice he pulled our missiles off the USSR boarder right after that.  heh.


----------



## editec (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> Rather than debating the nuances of political theories from a freshman poli-sci class, can *anyone* explain to me, specifically and in practical terms, how Obama's policy of income redistribution is actually going to help working class people in the long-run?
> 
> Despite what anyone believes, I'm actually an independent voter and I would love for someone to make a reasonable and rational defense for his economic policies.
> 
> ...


 
His goal is to begin to balance the budget.

He believes that the very wealthy have enjoyed too many tax cuts and so, by increasing those taxes modestly, he hopes to solve that problem.

A balanced budget is in everyone's interests.

He's making vague noises like he's going to rethink our trade policies.

Now that really might help out this nation's working class, and by doing that, he will ALSO be doing much to help this nation balance its budget.

Once again, that balanced budget really will help out all Americans.

As to his tax cuts for the working class?

I can't believe he's going to pull that off, to be honest.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Wade said:


> The American dream is that a welfare child can become an elitist, of course there are those that just become nice successful people also.  The American Dream is still alive.  But, there's a lot of haters out there trying to stamp it out one socialist decision at a time.  They didn't do anything when Clinton took office, they'll just wait for this to cause the pendulum to swing back. It always does.  Oh, and who's fear mongering?



I am by far not fear mongering. It is public record that the most assassination attempts have occurred against Barack Obama.

Too many racists and extremists out there would rather die then see a Black man take office come January. So what's their solution?

Lone Wolf it. If you do not know what the term Lone wolf is, I suggest you look it up.

The American Dream died when Voodoo Economics (Trickle down otherwise known as Piss on Economics) were really put into effect by Reagan.

The average CEO makes 450 times more then the average American worker.

Foreclosures are occurring more and more.

The average american is not making enough to even off set the standard cost of living anymore.

Meanwhile, the Rich cry about having their tax rates raised at best 4%. Clinton did it, Bush 41 raised them 3% and guess what? Nobody died and the world did not come to a halting end.

Want to know something really interesting though to further my claim?

Top Marginal Tax Rate for Married couples has severely declined during the Reagan administration.

In 1981, in his first year it was 69.125%.

By 1982, it was 50%.

It stayed like this until 1987 where it was 38.5%

And in his final year of office in 1988, it was 28%.

A 41.125% decrease.

Bill Clinton raised it from 31% to 39.6% in 1993 which stayed constant until he left office. He was not called a socialist.

Dubya lowered it from 39.6 in 2001 to 35% in 2003.

So really, Obama is only proposing raising it back up to pre 2003 levels.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Neither MLK, nor JFK were 'socialists.' JFK however was far from being one of our greatest modern presidents.



Both were however called socialists.

As is Obama called a Socialist.

Again, you pay taxes? You are a socialist.

Unless you don't believe in taxes, then therefore don't pay them and go to jail.

What a great socialist society we live in huh?

Oh and those banks being owned by Gov't? Under definition, Socialism.


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Both were however called socialists.
> 
> As is Obama called a Socialist.
> 
> ...



Well good for you, you understand. Now, how about applicability? JFK was not for redistributing income, though towards the end there was a compassionate side show, via his brother you use as an avatar. Like King, he wanted minorities to have a fair shake, which didn't include things Johnson/Nixon later threw in. But enforcement of Brown, damned right.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Well good for you, you understand. Now, how about applicability? JFK was not for redistributing income, though towards the end there was a compassionate side show, via his brother you use as an avatar. Like King, he wanted minorities to have a fair shake, which didn't include things Johnson/Nixon later threw in. But enforcement of Brown, damned right.



So therefore by definition, our government and politicians are all socialist.

Except the ones who don't believe in taxes.

JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr wanted all minorities to have a fair shot like the white man did at the time.

However, the truth is that many people in their time called them socialists. They were later proven in history not to be. As will Barack Obama.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> His goal is to begin to balance the budget.
> 
> He believes that the very wealthy have enjoyed too many tax cuts and so, by increasing those taxes modestly, he hopes to solve that problem.
> 
> A balanced budget is in everyone's interests.



Thank you for the relevant reply. Now, how is Obama going to balance the budget by raising taxes, which will lead to more businesses going overseas, which will cause more working class people to lose their jobs, which means more people will pay less in taxes AND spend less money, thereby forcing other business to make additional cutbacks?

And even if that was possible, how does he pull it off at the same time he's increasing government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars? 

And his expansion of government is not an investment, it's a permanent added expense that will never go away until someone cuts the programs.

I know he said he would cut funding for some things and use that money to fund his new programs, but I looked into this thoroughly and it's simply not true. His new programs are going to cost considerably more than the programs he cuts. 

So how does he balance the budget when he's eliminating jobs and spending more money?

Or to put it in more practical terms: I want to balance my personal budget at home, so I'm going to quit my job, buy a bigger house, hire a gardener and a maid, and then go shopping.

Clearly that wouldn't work. So why would it work for Obama?

What do most Americans do to balance their budget? The just spend less money. Why can't the government do that? 

That's what McCain is proposing. To spend less money. To spend a LOT less money! 

So how is Obama's plan better than McCain's plan? And why does McCain's plan not work, when it works for millions of ordinary people across the country?

Knowing the answers to those questions would be very helpful to me in making my decision. Thank you.

EDIT: I'm specifically referring to McCain's idea of spending freeze across the board except for vital services. I'm aware of his other programs which would require funding.


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> So therefore by definition, our government and politicians are all socialist.
> 
> Except the ones who don't believe in taxes.
> 
> ...



Seriously, you don't have the nuances down, perhaps you don't want to?


----------



## Chris (Nov 2, 2008)

Obama is not a socialist.

This is a bogus charge dreamed up by a campaign that has nothing left but lies.


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> you do know that during that six year period, not a single bill was put on the floor that needed a single democratic vote to pass, right?



no, i didn't do you have a link for that, please?

so what did the dems do for 6 years?

i've always been against the war and excess govt spending, so i'd agree with you there.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Seriously, you don't have the nuances down, perhaps you don't want to?



Just curious, do you believe in sharing the wealth when development of resources occur?


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Just curious, do you believe in sharing the wealth when development of resources occur?



Meaning? The government should confiscate the products of coal, oil, nuclear, electric companies? Is that what you mean?


----------



## del (Nov 2, 2008)

RModbert said:


> Just curious, do you believe in sharing the wealth when development of resources occur?



sure, if it's mandated by the state constitution as in Alaska for the permanent Fund since 1976.
why do you ask?


----------



## UShadItComing (Nov 2, 2008)

Socialism can't beat capitalism but it needs to be capitalism with a social responsibility. That is what the US system lacks and that is what too many Americans are still not coming to understand. 

It's going to take a lot longer to break through the programming which Americans have succumbed to and start to understand why the country is failing. 

The system and the country are failing the people.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Meaning? The government should confiscate the products of coal, oil, nuclear, electric companies? Is that what you mean?



What Del said below puts it nicely.


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

> Modbert;875085]What Del said below puts it nicely.



That I don't have a problem with. It's a regular conservative reaction. Lower taxes on the people. Not difficult. 

I don't know how familiar you are with Chicago, but I live close to a suburb with a huge shopping and commercial office district, Oak Brook Terrace. Everyone thinks 'Oak Brook' which is a very high income suburb, but the offices and shopping center are located in the 'terrace.' Highest per pupil expenditure. No taxes to the homeowner, which is cool, since most are working class and below. Best gifted and special ed around. It's not all about money, some is the parents and where they chose to buy.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

UShadItComing said:


> Socialism can't beat capitalism but it needs to be capitalism with a social responsibility. That is what the US system lacks and that is what too many Americans are still not coming to understand.
> 
> It's going to take a lot longer to break through the programming which Americans have succumbed to and start to understand why the country is failing.
> 
> The system and the country are failing the people.



 Excellent post.


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> ...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.



reading that, I think you don't know much about business at all and are parroting what the loonies told you. Given that I ran my own business for more than a decade and paid my share of taxes during that time, let me explain how things work. You run your business. The costs of running that business... rent, staff, health, operational expenses right down to the coffee in the kitchen of the office, all gets deducted. you pay yourself separately in taxable income. it is unlikely you would show "profit" of above $250,000, because one would take the excess and put it into more employees, more capital improvements, etc. And if you're taking out more than $250,000 a year in income after all expenses, then you need to be paying your taxes. 

As far as I can see the only non sequitur is you acting put upon as if it is you who is going to be paying the taxes. 

And if that were the barometer, why do you think it is that the red states take more from the government than they put in while blue states give more than they take?

Hmmmmmmmmm... could there be a correlation? or is it just you've been kool-aided into voting against your interests?

as for your specious comment that you're paying so people who don't pay taxes get money, you do realize that isn't what the problem is with our economy, right? there was a little thing called welfare reform a number of years back ... you know when bill clinton was president. of course, we can tell all those unwed moms in the red states to stop living off the dole.


----------



## NO!bama08 (Nov 2, 2008)

The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> reading that, I think you don't know much about business at all and are parroting what the loonies told you. Given that I ran my own business for more than a decade and paid my share of taxes during that time, let me explain how things work.



Actually I'm the managing partner of my firm who's directly responsible for transferring our assets and rebuilding the infrastructure of our company in China, which is where I currently reside...and the reason I'm here. So I actually do know a little about why American companies leave the U.S.

Admittedly, I'm not an accountant and rarely look beyond the summaries provided to me. But so far, those summaries have always been dead on accurate, so I don't really need to worry about the details.

As far as the 250,000 goes though, do you mean to say that you cannot own a company that profits more than $250,000 a year? When I say profit, I mean beyond all the expenses you listed. Because this is a pretty common scenario, and a fairly easy milestone to reach. Now who do you think has to pay the tax on that money? And how long do you think they're going to do it when there are significantly cheaper places to operate?

Look, I get where you're coming from, I just don't think it's enough to convince profitable companies to stay in the U.S.

And when they leave, you will have more Americans looking for jobs and less people actually paying taxes. That was the point of the original post.

I would be happy to fairly consider any opposing arguments though, if anyone disagrees with that assessment.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 2, 2008)

NO!bama08 said:


> The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?



The lower 40% have about 4% of the wealth.

The top 10% pay most of the taxes because they have the majority of the wealth.

Simple concept no?

Besides, the top Marginal Tax Rates for married couples currently is about 35%. Nowhere near 60% for one family.

The top 10% TOGETHER may pay 60% however.


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> Actually I'm the managing partner of my firm who's directly responsible for transferring our assets and rebuilding the infrastructure of our company in China, which is where I currently reside...and the reason I'm here. So I actually do know a little about why American companies leave the U.S.
> 
> Admittedly, I'm not an accountant and rarely look beyond the summaries provided to me. But so far, those summaries have always been dead on accurate, so I don't really need to worry about the details.
> 
> ...



a company that profits more than $250,000 isn't a "small business". Remember, we're talking "profit"... not salaries... not income... but PROFIT.

And, no offense, but companies removing jobs from our country and giving tax benefits for sending employment overseas are a huge part of the problem over the past eight years. I can't see democratic policies being worse in that regard than what we've had.

I do see why you'd be concerned, though, given your company's interests have anything in common with a small business owner in this country.

But I do understand people voting their self-interest. Most of the people I see doing the whine are barely middle class themselves.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

NO!bama08 said:


> The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?



*Exactly!* I would love to hear someone actually answer that question with a rational response!


----------



## editec (Nov 2, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *NO!bama08*
> 
> 
> _The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?_


 


alupka said:


> *Exactly!* I would love to hear someone actually answer that question with a rational response!


 
The top 10% already own 96% of everything.  

How much more do they need?


----------



## jillian (Nov 2, 2008)

NO!bama08 said:


> The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?



something proportionate with this (although this one's from 2004 and it's way worse now)



> The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s. On measures of income and wealth inequality, the U.S. tops the charts among the advanced industrial nations.



How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap

Somehow, I don't think you're in that top 1%.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> And, no offense, but companies removing jobs from our country and giving tax benefits for sending employment overseas are a huge part of the problem...



None taken. You're right. But we don't have a choice. I suppose we could choose to stay in America just to be compassionate or whatever, but then it would be impossible to compete with our competitors who didn't, and so eventually we wouldn't be hiring anyone...anywhere.

I don't know a single business owner here who *wants* to be here. I love America, and I want to help America, and I personally haven't found anyone in the world that can compete with the American workers. But we just simply can't afford to stay in business doing that when the American government is looking to us to pay for all their silly programs. American labor alone is too expensive. But I would be willing to deal with that if it was the only added expense. But paying for socialist policies on top of it just isn't an option.

And lastly, there are many small businesses that make 300,000-500,000 a year. I know sole proprietors that set a goal of making a million a year, and are working to try and achieve that. Good for them. That's what America should be about. But that's not even close to being a multi-billion dollar corporation! But now, under Obama's plan, they're suddenly considered the wealthy elite! And are going to be taxed accordingly. I just don't get it.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> a company that profits more than $250,000 isn't a "small business". Remember, we're talking "profit"... not salaries... not income... but PROFIT.
> 
> And, no offense, but companies removing jobs from our country and giving tax benefits for sending employment overseas are a huge part of the problem over the past eight years. I can't see democratic policies being worse in that regard than what we've had.
> 
> ...




http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf 


All those industries that are classified as small business....you really don't have a clue on what is classified as a small business.

It is defined onw hat industry and then it is measured on receipts or employees

Some small examples

In the Construction industry Small business if defined as 33 million a year or less.  

For the Electronic and applicance stores is has to be 9 million....


Just 2 examples please look at the list and look at all the industries and how much money or employees they need to be considered a small business.


Just because a place makes a lot of money doesnt mean its not a small busienss


----------



## Annie (Nov 2, 2008)

alupka said:


> None taken. You're right. But we don't have a choice. I suppose we could choose to stay in America just to be compassionate or whatever, but then it would be impossible to compete with our competitors who didn't, and so eventually we wouldn't be hiring anyone...anywhere.
> 
> I don't know a single business owner here who *wants* to be here. I love America, and I want to help America, and I personally haven't found anyone in the world that can compete with the American workers. But we just simply can't afford to stay in business doing that when the American government is looking to us to pay for all their silly programs. American labor alone is too expensive. But I would be willing to deal with that if it was the only added expense. But paying for socialist policies on top of it just isn't an option.
> 
> And lastly, there are many small businesses that make 300,000-500,000 a year. I know sole proprietors that set a goal of making a million a year, and are working to try and achieve that. Good for them. That's what America should be about. But that's not even close to being a multi-billion dollar corporation! But now, under Obama's plan, they're suddenly considered the wealthy elite! And are going to be taxed accordingly. I just don't get it.



I hear you. I empathize. Truth is, the American worker needs to recognize that the employer needs to make a sustainable profit. There are different ways to get there, needs to be filled, but it does need to be a partnership.


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

editec said:


> The top 10% already own 96% of everything.
> 
> How much more do they need?


 Touché


----------



## alupka (Nov 2, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I hear you. I empathize. Truth is, the American worker needs to recognize that the employer needs to make a sustainable profit. There are different ways to get there, needs to be filled, but it does need to be a partnership.



I agree with you completely. I personally have no tolerance for corporate corruption or disrespecting the people who got you where you are.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 15, 2009)

In any thread regarding socialism, one critical element must be noted. Capitalism is plagued by imperfect contracting, primarily that of the nature caused by information asymmetries, which have the inevitable tendency to cause adverse selection and moral hazard problems. 

However, the same is not true for socialism inasmuch as an integral component of socialism is autogestion. (Workers' self-management.) This autogestion has the tendency of minimizing principal-agent problems. For instance, if we were to consider the available data on worker-owned enterprises, we might look to the work of researchers Logue and Yates in _Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization_



> A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.



Hence, we see that capitalism has the tendency to create inefficiencies because of its information asymmetries and more general principal-agent problems. Socialism has the benefit of correcting those issues, and thereby generating efficiency gains.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 15, 2009)

alupka said:


> Now the rich man, feeling gypped



You can't let off more than a couple of sentences without spouting off racial epithets can you?




> and sensing the obvious pattern, packs up his small technology firm and moves it to China. When he gets there, he realizes that he can save 70% off his labor costs, build a state of the art production studio and never pay property taxes (ever), get an instant business tax cut of 98%, and relish in the fact that Uncle Sam no longer has the legal authority to swipe benjamins from his checking account to give to the poor guy.



And he'd be living in a country where there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to assemble, no protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and no freedom of religion, and relish in the fact that the Communist government he lives under might just decide to come and take all his property one day. 

 If such a man is willing to give up all those freedoms to save a little money on his taxes - THEN FUCK THAT PIECE OF SHIT BECAUSE AMERICA DOESN'T NEED PEOPLE LIKE HIM


The End.


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 15, 2009)

China really isn't "communist" in any sense of the word, and haven't been fully economically state capitalist in nature since the reign of Deng Xiaopang.


----------



## editec (Feb 15, 2009)

NO!bama08 said:


> The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?


 
They also own the vast majority of assets so _maybe._


----------



## editec (Feb 15, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> In any thread regarding socialism, one critical element must be noted. Capitalism is plagued by imperfect contracting, primarily that of the nature caused by information asymmetries, which have the inevitable tendency to cause adverse selection and moral hazard problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 15, 2009)

alupka said:


> Diuretic said:
> 
> 
> > Since that piece of comedy has nothing to do with socialism it's safe to say any point trying to be made is irrelevant.
> ...



Beyond interesting, it's ironic that the NEOCOMS, libs, love to coo about giving to the underprivileged, poor or whatever term makes them feel superior, it has been well documented that conservatives give more in VOLUNTARY charity than they do!

Yet they continue to champion "redistribution of wealth."


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 15, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> alupka said:
> 
> 
> > Diuretic said:
> ...



Could it be that they are greedy bastards ?


----------



## Annie (Feb 15, 2009)

Faster, Please! » We&#8217;re All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny



> Were All Fascists Now II: American Tyranny
> Posted By Michael Ledeen On February 14, 2009 @ 12:21 pm In Uncategorized | 20 Comments
> 
> Most Americans no longer read Alexis de Tocquevilles masterpiece, _Democracy in America_, about which I wrote a book (_Tocqueville on American Character_; from which most of the following is taken) a few years ago.  What a pity!  No one understood us so well, no one described our current crisis with such brutal accuracy, as Tocqueville.
> ...


----------



## Agnapostate (Feb 15, 2009)

editec said:


> Here we go..in a few rare cases for period lasting what?  months?  That might have existed.
> 
> But anywhere you see socialism lasting for any period of time, what you see is that the working class is exploited WORSE than in most modern capitalist mixed economies.
> 
> Surely you cannot deny that is true, Agna.


 
Months? This is a microeconomic analysis regarding the efficiency of worker-owned enterprises; I did not even comment on full-fledged socialism. Regardless, I'm not sure what justifies the latter comment about socialism; I certainly can't say that there was widespread exploitation of workers in Aragon and Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution, for instance. I hope this isn't another inappropriate reference to the Soviet Union.



editec said:


> My wife actually works for a flat managment cooperative.  There are no leaders, there are merely associates who take on responsibility for this task or that department.
> 
> They spend an AWFUL lot of time in meetings where issues get hashed out, assignments made and so foth.



That doesn't surprise me. There's no one-size-fits-all model for a functioning enterprise...except for the fact that there's no one-size-fits-all model for a functioning enterprise, which might be called a model itself. That being said, effective utilization of democratic management techniques will generally yield efficiency gains...and I'm skeptical as to what anecdotal evidence can say to general policy issues.



editec said:


> So what I am telling you with the benefit of knowing somebody who actually walks the walk that I suspect to you is entirely theoretical talk, is this...



It isn't. I've traveled through the Basque region, which is the home of the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, the largest corporation in the Basque region and the seventh larges in Spain. The MCC, of course, has existed for more than twenty years, and the worker-owned enterprises which preceded its formation as a corporation have existed for more than fifty.



editec said:


> *There's many a slip twix cup and workers' paradise's lip, amigo.*



Speaking of a "workers' paradise" seems to border on utopianism. Since free market capitalism primarily suffers from utopianism in its advocates' disregard of principal-agent problems and asymmetric information, I wouldn't be especially inclined to embrace a utopian ideal myself. Hence, noting obvious problems with worker-owned enterprises is to commit the perfectionist fallacy if your purpose is to completely discredit them.



editec said:


> I know you believe that to be absolutely true, but I think it is probably wildly overstated.



It's not overstated. As I've mentioned previously, principal-agent problems cannot be minimized in a hierarchical firm with conflicting interests amongst workers, managers, owners, and investors. Capitalists are aware of the resulting difficulties that may occur as a result of this (i.e. shirking), which is why efficiency wages remain one of the most prevalent compensatory mechanisms utilized in the capitalist firm.



editec said:


> My admiteed limited but *Actual experience* suggests to me that socialized worker dominated businesses are not very efficient, either.


 
Yes, but your limited experience may be related to an anomaly and cannot effectively analyze the efficiency of worker-owned enterprises in the same manner that Logue and Yates's analysis of ESOP's and parastatals can. 



editec said:


> FWIW, efficiency isn't ALWAYS a good marker of good business, anyway.
> 
> Sometimes inefficiencies are just the cost of working in a fair employment situtation.



Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I wouldn't have specified efficiency gains as beneficial if they had the deleterious effect of imposing negative social opportunity costs on a disenfranchised population or citizenry. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Consider the abstract again:



> A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. *In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital*.



Hence, workers' self-management is regarded as not only having the effect of equaling or exceeding the productivity of conventional enterprises, they also bring considerable social benefits to the table, placing their value above that of traditional capitalism in that regard.


----------



## WhiteLion (Aug 14, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it doesn't.  One thing about consistent about you socialist-types, when the ugly truth of socialism is put in front of you in stark reality, y'all go into denial mode so fast you make the Flash look like an arthritic old man.
> ...


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 14, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> alupka said:
> 
> 
> > I see. Redistribution of wealth is one of the core tenets of socialism, and one of the primary reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> ...



There you go again revising history. They most definitely were a communist state, and the Totalitarianism you speak of is and will always be the result of such socialist states. In order to enforce the draconian Taxes and redistribution, the Government enevitably needs TOTAL POWER, and no opposition.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 15, 2010)

alupka said:


> There's a rich a guy and a poor guy.
> 
> The government takes $1,000 from the rich guy and gives it to the poor guy.
> 
> ...



This thread was started in 2008? does anyone see the truth that was stated by the OP?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Aug 15, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > alupka said:
> ...





> The Soviet Union wasn't a socialist state. Hell, it wasn't even a communist state.


Damn Dr. Grump said that? holy shit! what a moron.


----------



## Chris (Aug 17, 2010)

Gaze on the horrible result of socialism...


----------



## Flagwavrusa (Aug 18, 2010)

Not if the welfare guy moves to China.


----------



## Twofox (Aug 19, 2010)

Yea, let's push both right and leftist radical agendas.  The U.S. gov't was setup with LIMITED gov't in mind.  Some things it is supposed to do by design.  It's worked for 200 years.  But wait, no democracy has ever lasted over 200 years, so ours must be due to crumble!  First we're a republic, and second, making something fail, then pointing to how it really didn't work is complete BS.

2 other points.  Congress has been in Dem control for the last 6 years.  Also, Obama added enormously to the deficits Bush created.  Blaming bush for what Obama did is a cop out.  BOTH PARTIES are equally guilty.  Why?  Because they are both filled with progressives.

Progressive is a great sounding term, "We're all about progress".  But it's just a way to market totalitarianism or something close to it.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 19, 2010)

Diuretic said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it doesn't.  One thing about consistent about you socialist-types, when the ugly truth of socialism is put in front of you in stark reality, y'all go into denial mode so fast you make the Flash look like an arthritic old man.
> ...



Something that needs to be defined (other than the term socialism itself) to have a reaonable debate woud be what does it mean to say 'socialism works'. What is 'successfull' socialism? Part of the problem I think is that some seem to think the goal of socialism and the goal of capitilism are the same and so a debate ensues about which system can do it better. They two are not meant to have the same outcome. Socialism is meant to to ensure the security of an economic system and by extension the members in that system. Capitalism is meant to provide unlimited OPPORTUNITY for prosperity. It doesn't gaurantee prosperity. Capitalism requires more effort and accountability on the part of the the individual the, socialsim less so. In simplistic terms it's a debate between security and freedom. Only one of those systems allows both.

You mention socialism happens gradually. Maybe you shoud ask WHY it happens and then explain why it's such a great idea. Also your implied notion that capitlism is about ever increasing expansion is off base too. that is not a requirement for sustained capitalism, nor is it even likely. Greater consumption comes from greater numbers of people and as a people are numbers keep getting bigger. You mention making life comfortable for people. Well that is all socialism can do. Comfortable will have to be determined by some arbitrary arbiter and to put a limit on what people can achieve for themselves is to enslave them


----------

