[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
35% is our highest bracket (for federal). [/quote]
That isn’t counting Social Security (12.4% on the first $106,800) and Medicare (2.9%, likewise).
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
hey asshole if socialism is so good, feel free to move to a socialist country. [/quote]
England is like .5 to .75 of the way there.[/quote]
When I think of a good time and a nice place to live, England does not come to mind.
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The poor unfortunate saps who live in a European social democracy cannot live the life style that most Americans live. When the governement confiscates most of your money for the good of the state, you won’t have much left. Enough for an apartment a compact car and a scooter maybe…That’s about it. And THAT can kiss my American ass.[/quote]
Yeah, I guess I do have a hard time with only $50000 a year. It will be better when I am done in school, that will put me at about $100000 after taxes. Hopefully enough for a rather fast scooter, and an apartment with built in toilet. Maybe I should move to USA, and live the American lifestyle.[/quote]
You are guaranteed $100000 American dollars net when you graduate? Fuck I’m moving to Norway.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Had Hamilton not pushed for the nationalization of the public debt this country would not exist as we know it today or as it did 15 years ago, for those who might make a joke out of that.
States go bankrupt. Fed bails them out. Banks (private sector) fail. Fed bails depositors and, as we now know, banks out.
First, OP makes a stupid point, whatever that point may be. That silliness notwithstanding, the federal government performs a lot of important functions WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS! If you can’t see this, idk…this is hopeless.
Oh, and to the enumerated powers point, not even Scalia/Thomas would agree with you. “This is a constitution we are expounding.” [/quote]
It does not stand to reason that because the governement performs some important duties with tax dollars, that it can and should there for perform all important duties.
People got to pull their own weight here.
“The governement that can provide you everything you want, can take everything you have.”
Apparently Howard Dean thinks socialism is just fine.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where in the constitution does it say Socialism is bad ? [/quote]
Why in the flying fuck after all the history that proves that not only is socialism a bad, dysfunctional, liberty trumping, and oppressive government model, but the only way to is enforce it is at the end of a gun.
If the failed governments and the death of 300 million people at the hand of socialists isn’t convincing that it’s a bad idea, I am not sure that reason, logic, or just mere facts are going to reach you.
There is NO FREEDOM in socialist governments, period. Socialism bring poverty and misery to the masses, it always had and always will, because it is inherently flawed.
[/quote]
Socialism is brought on by impatience for progress (which the only progress was when the principles of classical liberalism was followed).
Look at the Manufacturing industry right before the Civil War in the South. There are many cases in the South where farmers sued plants who were bellowing pollution out of smoke stacks and destroying farmers crops. And, instead of stopping these plant owners from being aggressors on someone’s private property they basically stated ‘progress for progress’s sake,’ which allowed the aggression on others private property to continue.
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where in the constitution does it say Socialism is bad ? [/quote]
Why in the flying fuck after all the history that proves that not only is socialism a bad, dysfunctional, liberty trumping, and oppressive government model, but the only way to is enforce it is at the end of a gun.
If the failed governments and the death of 300 million people at the hand of socialists isn’t convincing that it’s a bad idea, I am not sure that reason, logic, or just mere facts are going to reach you.
There is NO FREEDOM in socialist governments, period. Socialism bring poverty and misery to the masses, it always had and always will, because it is inherently flawed.
[/quote]
First, lets mark a difference between Communism and Social Democracy.
Communism suggests a command economy and all that entails.
Social Democracy suggests certain industries that the government has deemed to be positive rights- for example, education, healthcare, the press, the post- be nationalized. It’s admitted this will lead to reduced economic growth, but in the interest of acheiving equity, it’s deemed justifiable.
The former exhibits a surprisingly consistent record of suffering and failure, both in an overall economic sense and in the specific sense of acheiving it’s erstwhile goals. The latter, however, is far from universally castigated. Most countries in the OECD operate like this, and most of the people (that I’ve met, I’m not going to quote Rasmussen, but it was a universiality when I traveled abroad so I feel comfortable making this blanket statement) are satisfied with the way their governments are run (full disclosure- I have yet to meet any Greeks).
So when you say that socialism has been thoroughly debunked, you’re wrong. It just changed it’s scope to better fit reality.[/quote]
Communism and Social Democracy (which is just a lesser version of the former) are just steps away from each other. The latter usually turns into the former. There is no such thing as equality (especially in socialism), individuals have different abilities. In both governments, the government plans the economy. Simple fact.
If the ability of one citizen is greater than the other, example one is smarter, and they are both to be equal, the government must treat them differently in order to establish this equality. Let’s do some math, if one make 120,000 a year and the other can make 40,000 a year. In order for them to be ‘equal’ the government has to treat the smarter one in a negative manner, and the other one in a positive manner. Therefore, they are not treated equal, even if they look equal. I do not wish to be equal with my fellow man, however I wish to be treated as an equal. Rule of Law, learn about it.
[quote]whatever2k wrote:
“Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.”[/quote]
Define privilege, and next time give source.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where in the constitution does it say Socialism is bad ? [/quote]
Why in the flying fuck after all the history that proves that not only is socialism a bad, dysfunctional, liberty trumping, and oppressive government model, but the only way to is enforce it is at the end of a gun.
If the failed governments and the death of 300 million people at the hand of socialists isn’t convincing that it’s a bad idea, I am not sure that reason, logic, or just mere facts are going to reach you.
There is NO FREEDOM in socialist governments, period. Socialism bring poverty and misery to the masses, it always had and always will, because it is inherently flawed.
[/quote]
First, lets mark a difference between Communism and Social Democracy.
Communism suggests a command economy and all that entails.
Social Democracy suggests certain industries that the government has deemed to be positive rights- for example, education, healthcare, the press, the post- be nationalized. It’s admitted this will lead to reduced economic growth, but in the interest of acheiving equity, it’s deemed justifiable.
The former exhibits a surprisingly consistent record of suffering and failure, both in an overall economic sense and in the specific sense of acheiving it’s erstwhile goals. The latter, however, is far from universally castigated. Most countries in the OECD operate like this, and most of the people (that I’ve met, I’m not going to quote Rasmussen, but it was a universiality when I traveled abroad so I feel comfortable making this blanket statement) are satisfied with the way their governments are run (full disclosure- I have yet to meet any Greeks).
So when you say that socialism has been thoroughly debunked, you’re wrong. It just changed it’s scope to better fit reality.[/quote]
Social democracy is not socialism and what was called “communism” was actually socialism. Pure communism cannot exist, because there would be no ruling class.
Anybody ever notice that everything Karl Marx ever said was wrong? He may the biggest notable idiot in world history.
[/quote]
Except the Amish, they are pretty good at it, but they are the exception and in this instance the exception does not prove the rule.
[quote]SDKick wrote:
that isnt the fundamental premise of socialism, civil rights and helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another is nearer to it. not just looking out for yourself.
communism and collectivization are aspects but dead ones nowadays, socialism does not oppose private property.
it’s too easy to generalize. [/quote]
Socialism does oppose private property. You may be privileged in being given land if you are a nobility, however this does not mean the land is your private property.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where in the constitution does it say Socialism is bad ? [/quote]
You lack even a basic grasp of this nations constitution. Seriously, your post is a fail from the start.
Where in the constitution does it guarantee a secure retirement? Where in the constitution does it guarantee health care?
[/quote]
I would like to comment on this, insurance became a norm during WWII when wages were frozen. Businesses needed a way to pay their workers more without breaking the law. There you go, give them health insurance. Now everyone expects it.
[quote]SDKick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]SDKick wrote:
that isnt the fundamental premise of socialism, civil rights and helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another is nearer to it. not just looking out for yourself.
communism and collectivization are aspects but dead ones nowadays, socialism does not oppose private property.
it’s too easy to generalize. [/quote]
Well it’s clear you consider yourself a socialist…Civil rights is not a socialist tenet.
How is “helping out those who are a struggling for one reason or another” a job of the governement? You will not fix poverty with governement, it never has happened and never will. Socialism doesn’t elevate the poor, it degenerates everyone one else in to equal poverty. Having “just enough” isn’t enough.
The poor unfortunate saps who live in a European social democracy cannot live the life style that most Americans live. When the governement confiscates most of your money for the good of the state, you won’t have much left. Enough for an apartment a compact car and a scooter maybe…That’s about it. And THAT can kiss my American ass.[/quote]
I do curse the gods daily for my free health care and cars that have the ability to take a corner.[/quote]
I do curse the politicians who want to tell me which doctor to see and take my money.
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Social democracy is not socialism and what was called “communism” was actually socialism. Pure communism cannot exist, because there would be no ruling class.[/quote]
Huh? I agree with your conclusion, but disagree with every step of logic you have to get there. Communistic society’s have existed with stunning regularity, from small close-knit clans near humanity’s genesis to moderately sophisticated quaker communes in the American northeast. Living without a ruling class can be accomplished. As to what defines ‘socialism’… unless you’re quoting somebody, I have to assume that you’re making up definitions as you go along, because where I learned these concepts, ‘socialism’ meant 'socialism, and ‘communism’ likewise.
[quote]Anybody ever notice that everything Karl Marx ever said was wrong? He may the biggest notable idiot in world history.
[/quote]
Again, disagree. I think he has great criticism, but inaccurate conclusions. He noticed the increasing mechanization of workers, which was indeed a problem, because without the need for skilled labor, it’s hard to seperate from the rest of the proles and enter the middle class. He noticed the great divide between the core and periphery nations, the former are capital-rich, the latter are labor-rich, and that the former are in somewhat of an advanteageous position, and typically exploit their powerful status. He noted that under laissez-faire economics, the rich benefit FAR greater than the poor. And he thought that these were somewhat inappropriate.
His conclusion, of course, was socialist revolution, which was perhaps a bit too much. All of these have found market solutions, from education to currency devaulation to unions.
But to say he was an idiot is to admit to having an eyes/ears/mouth-covered approach to the wealth of nations.[/quote]
About the communist societies, these were voluntary and the people could leave these. Same as the Amish. Funny thing about the Amish, they deny the power of government.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Otep wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Social democracy is not socialism and what was called “communism” was actually socialism. Pure communism cannot exist, because there would be no ruling class.[/quote]
Huh? I agree with your conclusion, but disagree with every step of logic you have to get there. Communistic society’s have existed with stunning regularity, from small close-knit clans near humanity’s genesis to moderately sophisticated quaker communes in the American northeast. Living without a ruling class can be accomplished. As to what defines ‘socialism’… unless you’re quoting somebody, I have to assume that you’re making up definitions as you go along, because where I learned these concepts, ‘socialism’ meant 'socialism, and ‘communism’ likewise.
[quote]Anybody ever notice that everything Karl Marx ever said was wrong? He may the biggest notable idiot in world history.
[/quote]
Again, disagree. I think he has great criticism, but inaccurate conclusions. He noticed the increasing mechanization of workers, which was indeed a problem, because without the need for skilled labor, it’s hard to seperate from the rest of the proles and enter the middle class. He noticed the great divide between the core and periphery nations, the former are capital-rich, the latter are labor-rich, and that the former are in somewhat of an advanteageous position, and typically exploit their powerful status. He noted that under laissez-faire economics, the rich benefit FAR greater than the poor. And he thought that these were somewhat inappropriate.
His conclusion, of course, was socialist revolution, which was perhaps a bit too much. All of these have found market solutions, from education to currency devaulation to foreign currency reserves.
But to say he was an idiot is to admit to having an eyes/ears/mouth-covered approach to the wealth of nations.[/quote]
If I take a math test, and all the numbers on the left side are correct, and all the numbers are the right side are wrong, I fail the math test. In the same way Karl Marx is an epic fail. He was wrong about everything…It doesn’t matter if his criticisms were right, his answers were wrong…All of them. He was wrong about everything. Usually when somebody is wrong about everything, they would hence be regarded an idiot.
Anybody can criticize.
You are right in that very small communities can and do have communal living. A family is a good example. I don’t make money for me, I make it for my family. It doesn’t and cannot work in large numbers and is certainly a failure as a centralized government. If you don’t know whose cutting into your pie, it’s not ok…
Communism / socialism trump the basic models for all human behavior. Opperant conditioning and classical conditioning are the two basic environmental models for human behavior. It is as hard wired in the human being as breathing. It is because of that, communism and socialism doesn’t work and will never work. In Freud speak, our ego sees it as detrimental to our survival as a species. We our survival mechanisms see ourselves first, family second, freinds and loved ones third, and acquaintances forth. Taking care of who knows who, doing who knows what, with who knows who, does not fit this model. Our natural instinct is to rebel. Because if you are taking shit from me that’s beneficial to me, my family, friends or acquaintances to throw in to a communal pool for just anyone, my natural instinct is to fight you for it.
You have to know everybody in the communal pool, if you don’t you cannot share your resources with them. You cannot know millions of people. I would say a really well organized community can tolerate no more than 60 -80. Any larger and factions grow with in the group. [/quote]
The funny thing about Karl’s critical points of Capitalism is that he was not even talking about capitalism, he was talking about a mix of fascism/monarchy where nobles and Lords ‘owned’ the land because a ruling class dictated it to them.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Something I see from many people here, is how government takes away choice, with so much government mandate. You are lose your voice as well. When you have such a large powerful government, your voice carries much less power, and the country is even more driven by union power and influence. If you think lobbying is bad here, it is MUCH worse in Socialist countries, there is more money to do more damage with.
Just a quick note, during the recess, Obama chose a radical VERY pro-union guy to be the head of the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker. Coincidence? You still think this was accidental?
And a personal story. During my trip back home to visit family, I received 3 camera tickets while driving through Tuscany. I received them in the mail 15 months after they happened. When I called, I asked to see the actual pictures, which I was denied. So, it became a matter of "bec [/quote]
were your tickets in AZ and did you pay them?
I can not understand how a union could have any conflict with the constitution ? [/quote]
There are three acts, and for some reason they are not coming off the top of my head. However the Federal gov’t has allowed Unions to have an edge over private citizens in order to coerce businesses into dealing with them.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
hey asshole if socialism is so good, feel free to move to a socialist country. [/quote]
England is like .5 to .75 of the way there.[/quote]
Well with my tax bracket and if I spend all my money I am calculating in paying (myself individually) 43% in taxes. Not close to Germany with 53% at Hitlers peak, but getting there at least we are not like FDR had it at 63% of income taxes!
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Had Hamilton not pushed for the nationalization of the public debt this country would not exist as we know it today or as it did 15 years ago, for those who might make a joke out of that.
States go bankrupt. Fed bails them out. Banks (private sector) fail. Fed bails depositors and, as we now know, banks out.
First, OP makes a stupid point, whatever that point may be. That silliness notwithstanding, the federal government performs a lot of important functions WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS! If you can’t see this, idk…this is hopeless.
Oh, and to the enumerated powers point, not even Scalia/Thomas would agree with you. “This is a constitution we are expounding.” [/quote]
A government should not go ‘bankrupt.’ Second, if someone makes the choice to give their money to a bank he should not be bailed out by anyone beside that bank, neither should the bank be bailed out, that is why 100 percent reserves should be the only way a bank should function. Bailing an inefficient bank out is ridiculous, that is like someone loaning a business loan to someone that is running their business into the ground. Not smart, and the fact that taxes are not voluntary is another story.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]StevenF wrote:
hey asshole if socialism is so good, feel free to move to a socialist country. [/quote]
England is like .5 to .75 of the way there.[/quote]
Well with my tax bracket and if I spend all my money I am calculating in paying (myself individually) 43% in taxes. Not close to Germany with 53% at Hitlers peak, but getting there at least we are not like FDR had it at 63% of income taxes![/quote]
It is highre in Germany because social security is noit counted as a tax, there is a 20% VAT and the taxes on gas make one liter cost 1,4 EUR.
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Had Hamilton not pushed for the nationalization of the public debt this country would not exist as we know it today or as it did 15 years ago, for those who might make a joke out of that.
States go bankrupt. Fed bails them out. Banks (private sector) fail. Fed bails depositors and, as we now know, banks out.
First, OP makes a stupid point, whatever that point may be. That silliness notwithstanding, the federal government performs a lot of important functions WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS! If you can’t see this, idk…this is hopeless.
Oh, and to the enumerated powers point, not even Scalia/Thomas would agree with you. “This is a constitution we are expounding.” [/quote]
If slavery had never existed, this country would not exist as we know it today or as it did 15 years ago, for those who might make a joke out of that. Doesn’t make it a good thing. Hamilton screwed a lot of people when he pulled it off too.[/quote]
So you’re comparing saving the states to one of the greatest violations of god’s law ever perpetrated on Earth? Bad argument.
[/quote]
Haha, stealing someone’s property is in the Ten Commandments, I am sure that is also one of the greatest violations of God’s Laws as well.
[quote]espenl wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The poor unfortunate saps who live in a European social democracy cannot live the life style that most Americans live. When the governement confiscates most of your money for the good of the state, you won’t have much left. Enough for an apartment a compact car and a scooter maybe…That’s about it. And THAT can kiss my American ass.[/quote]
Yeah, I guess I do have a hard time with only $50000 a year. It will be better when I am done in school, that will put me at about $100000 after taxes. Hopefully enough for a rather fast scooter, and an apartment with built in toilet. Maybe I should move to USA, and live the American lifestyle.[/quote]
Yes, you individually may be better off, however the whole is not better off. They are not treated equally, you are privileged because the state allows you to be privileged.