I make above the median income in my affluent suburb in my part of the country, have gold plated benefits that I don't pay much money for, am putting my wife through college, and do just fine as the sole provider of a family of 4. I could go on. Mindfucking, isn't it?
I make above the median income in my affluent suburb in my part of the country, have gold plated benefits that I don't pay much money for, am putting my wife through college, and do just fine as the sole provider of a family of 4. I could go on. Mindfucking, isn't it?
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 687
- 126
That I can agree on, but I am sure you would also agree with me that it is sad and spending cuts need to be made.
I could come up with quite a few spending cuts to be made, but I would just move the spending to social programs, R&D, infrastructure, etc.. This is the nature of people who believe that Government has a broad role to play in society. One of the largest differences between left and right is how we like to spend tax money. Its why I laugh when the right brings up socialism, because they like their socialism just fine when its stuff like the an excessively huge military, faith based initiatives, etc.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
How do you like being an example? 
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
What's really confusing is that you think you get government services for what you pay. As someone who is probably in a much higher bracket than you, I can safely say that I do not get my money's worth from the federal government. The state takes far less and I actually see far more of it put to use. The feds are a leech on this nation.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 687
- 126
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 687
- 126
And then you have me, who cringes at any excessive government spending and won't toe a party line with respect to it, regardless of whether it is a bloated defense budget or a bloated social program.
If you're playing the shell game with money, it isn't a true spending cut. Saying "I cut the defense budget by $1 million" and then turning around and increasing a social program's spending by $1 million is not a spending cut. You're still spending the $1 million, albeit in a different place. That is the problem with the Federal government today. They play all of these shell games and use smoke and mirrors to hide what is going on with the money.
I have an idea -- if you cut spending by $1 million, how about not increasing spending by $1 million elsewhere?
As an aside, I find it interesting (and a bit sad) when members of the left try to construe having a military as some veiled form of socialism, which ignores the fact that military appropriations are explicitly defined in the Constitution. Meaning, of course, that this power was explicitly granted to the Fed via the Constitution. Things such as welfare, health care, etc. are NOT defined there and were not traditionally provided by the federal government (until last century in the case of welfare). That is a HUGE difference. Even more comical is the stance of some of the liberals trying to point out "hypocrisy" by saying that members of the military are "sucking off the government teat" and trying to equate them with recipients of the benefits of social programs. Ignoring, of course, that members of the military are performing a job function for their pay, whereas welfare recipients, for example, are not. But I digress.
Just because something is in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't socialist/collectivist in nature. Socialism wasn't really defined until well after the Constitution was ratified.
The way I look at it is this: If the Republicans can twist an Iraq War invasion and a base in every country in the world out of "provide for the common defence", then the Democrats can get UHC out of "promote the general Welfare".
I don't believe that cutting spending for the sake of cutting spending is necessarily good. Neither is cutting taxes for the sake of cutting taxes. We need to make rational decisions based on what is better for all Americans and legislate in that fashion. In theory, that's the point of Democracy - people voting for the best interests of themselves and their countrymen.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 687
- 126
How is a military indicative of "socialism"?
You are preaching to the choir regarding the Iraq War, as it was a travesty. I don't believe two wrongs make a right though. Providing something to people is not "promoting their general welfare;" it is providing for their general welfare which is different. Regardless, we'll have to agree to disagree because I acknowledge (as I am sure you do) that it is open to some interpretation.
I agree with you here -- the spending cuts have to be the right thing to do.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
It's not an issue of left vs. right but an issue of everyone looking out for their own self interests.
How many public/free services can one get without paying fair market value, how can one avoid paying for services they don't consume.
Typically wealthy people don't consume traditional government services and will advocate reducing services and decreasing taxes. Poorer people tend to consume traditional government services and will advocate expansion of these free goods and with a lower income; taxation is not noticed or an issue. There's also other socio-economic groups like urban vs. rural where congested traffic, clean water, sewage systems and effective infrastructure is demanded and these people tend to look to government for these services. Rural types tend to consider themselves self sufficient, have lower cost of living and are less likely to feel as though they need government assistance. Even in the heartland of Red Republican states you will see urban areas 70%+ voting Democrat.
Unfortunately everyone's situation is completely unique and so long as people's personality and needs are different, I don't think you'll ever be able to always satisfy everybody. Politicians are political parties are in the business of trying to satisfy the needs or wants of the electorate. It just so happens they have chosen core issues to get their respective bases to the polls. Do those issues contrast without compromise? Yes; but it's all about motivating people and generating the most votes.
How many public/free services can one get without paying fair market value, how can one avoid paying for services they don't consume.
Typically wealthy people don't consume traditional government services and will advocate reducing services and decreasing taxes. Poorer people tend to consume traditional government services and will advocate expansion of these free goods and with a lower income; taxation is not noticed or an issue. There's also other socio-economic groups like urban vs. rural where congested traffic, clean water, sewage systems and effective infrastructure is demanded and these people tend to look to government for these services. Rural types tend to consider themselves self sufficient, have lower cost of living and are less likely to feel as though they need government assistance. Even in the heartland of Red Republican states you will see urban areas 70%+ voting Democrat.
Unfortunately everyone's situation is completely unique and so long as people's personality and needs are different, I don't think you'll ever be able to always satisfy everybody. Politicians are political parties are in the business of trying to satisfy the needs or wants of the electorate. It just so happens they have chosen core issues to get their respective bases to the polls. Do those issues contrast without compromise? Yes; but it's all about motivating people and generating the most votes.
The military is every bit as much 'socialism' as health care reform is 'socialism'. Both are horrific butchering of the term, but unfortunately in America 'socialism' long ago came to mean 'government spending I don't like'. I mean any time the people band together for a common purpose that doesn't have usage based fees I feel like we can call it 'socialism' by our new and retarded definition. The military defends the poor who pay no taxes every bit as much as the rich, our roads work every bit as well for you no matter if you paid a dime into them, it's all socialism.
Of course in many cases socialism is awesome, and that's why we do it. A socialized military makes sense, socialized roads make sense. The only reason you're objecting to it being called 'socialism' is because of a concerted effort by the right in America to demonize the term over the last half century or so. Socialism isn't simply good or bad, it depends on how it's being used. Oh, and if a power was mentioned in the Constitution or not doesn't really mean anything as to whether or not it's socialism.
Of course the real definition is 'government ownership of the means of production', but if we only used it for that we would have to find a lot of new words to scaremonger about.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 687
- 126
I think it is a weak argument to call the military "socialism" and I suspect from your post above you probably agree. You could extend the same argument to the court system with your logic, but it would be just as wrong. And I will flip the argument on you -- you claim the right is offended by the use of the term in conjunction with the military because it is something they support and they have worked so long to demonize the term; however, the left is now only applying it to the military because they want to try to persuade people that it is no different than having a government-controlled health system, for example. There are HUGE differences between those two viewpoints. Regardless, I am not against government-controlled health care because I think it is "socialism"; I am against it for the variety of reasons I have outlined in many other posts in these forums.
You have to draw the line somewhere and you guys aren't doing that. You think to yourselves "Hey, I can twist the evil word of the day, socialism, to cover the military and therefore, I should be able to use the same logic to get all my pet social programs through." Uh, NO. My point about the Constitution is that it outlined the basic principles of the nation and in theory at least, division of power. In order to have a federal government, it does have to have some powers believe it or not. Military and law enforcement are perhaps the most logical powers to grant to a federal government, along with regulation of interstate commerce, roads (both federal and local governments, etc). I think we agree on those points.
Correct -- that is the proper use. Socialism is an economic construct, not a political system in and of itself.
"Can't we all just get along?"
NO, we can't.
I have little tolerance for Right Wingnuts. I've got nothing to discuss with them. That's why you don't see much of me here anymore. Irreconcilable differences, indeed. I'm existentially opposed to much of what they stand for. Discussing it just brings out my ugly side, and makes me feel that way.
You Lost; Get Over It. Sound familiar? The only difference is, The Right seems to feel free to hint at political violence as a viable alternative. Democracy be Damned.
Oh, I forgot, this is a Meta thread. I'll get back into Meta Mode now. :meta;
Bottom line, it's not in Anand's interest for us to all get along. Conflict generates traffic. Traffic = ad revenue. It really doesn't matter whether you're mostly busy gouging each other's eyes out with your ideological fucksticks, or just here to piss in each others' cornflakes.
The more you come here to flame and whore, the more Mr. Lal Shimpi cashes in.
In the end, this place would not be what it is if it weren't profitable for it to be so.
Yet another reason for me to stay away. I'm nobody's fool, nobody's tool. I'm pretty much done with coming here and making myself miserable for Anand's bottom line.
This is still a pretty good place to come to for tech advice, but I'm all done with the Drama For Profit aspect of this board.
"Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?"
No, most citizens can work with each other.
I think the bigger problem is we continue to elect leaders who do have irreconcilable differences.
No, most citizens can work with each other.
I think the bigger problem is we continue to elect leaders who do have irreconcilable differences.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter