On The Road To Socialism? We've Arrived!

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: piasabird
The Rich can afford not to have Capital Gains; can you? Try cashing in your stock options now?

Uhm you do know what capital gains is based on right? actual gains.... I don't know too many people who have capital gains to report for 2008. If you do then you made some great plays and good job. I suppose if you are selling stock you bought a long time ago (i.e. when the dow was lower than it is now), then you would have to worry.

Many many smart investors Shorted the market. The money they made was really really good.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Someone should tell Pat that socialism is government ownership of the means of production, something that we are nowhere close to.

Money is power.

Who has all the money, after taxing, indebting, and printing it? That is ALL you need to own the means of production, once you start buying all those evil companies. In this case, we?ve begun with the financials.

All you really need for socialism, or communism for that matter, is an absolute view that government is the answer. After that it is only a matter of time before you enact your vision.

So true. But I think some of the money made in recent history should be taken away from those who screwed the system . Hanging would work.

 

[JACKDRUID]

whatever works...

if turning socialism can save people and economics, i don't see why not...

unlike many other countries, our biggest advantage is the ability to change and adopt.

we can always switch back to capitalism when time is right.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

All you really need for socialism, or communism for that matter, is an absolute view that government is the answer.

Communism has no government in theory, and Socialism is about worker owned means of production -not government, please, go read a book.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I'm not sure at what point full blown socialism is defined at, but certainly if Obama is increasing the government's percentage of the economy, we are seeing the US move to that point. If this administration doesn't tone it back immediately, the US will have seen itself closely bridge that gap it had with Europe. I don't want to live in a Europe at all. If I did, I'd be there, no thank you.

Stop it Skoorb. I have had to agree with every post you made in here.
I'm not used to that.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The Rich can afford not to have Capital Gains; can you? Try cashing in your stock options now?

i would have no capital gains atm, so it wouldn't do me any good.


I can do just fine with higher capital gains taxes, maybe if they had been higher we woudn't have had such an rediculus asset bubble.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: K3N
Socialism is the government ownership to the means of production, and guess what? Nearly all production has either ceased to exist or are outsourced to other countries.

the united states still manufactures more than the next two countries combined.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Pat claims:

Add that 28% of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12% spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40% of the economy in 2009.

40% of GDP is government? If not now, when are we socialist - when we hit 51%?


The example he gives about the California business owner is a fantastic example of "taxing the rich". As I posted in another thread...

Sounds like to me we're creating our own brand of socialism here in the US. The real "rich" are untouchable, while the upper-middle class (or lower-upper class for you two percent haters) are going to bear the brunt of this socialization.

The vast bulk of the upper-middle class are Democrats living in high cost-of-living areas like CA and NYC. Why should I give a fvck if they want to have Uncle Sam take more and more of their money away and vote accordingly? As far as I'm concerned, those places should tax more since they can evidently get away with it.

For the theoretical California businessman (let's say he lives in San Francisco), for the big 3 taxes he's paying 35-39% federal, plus nearly 10% income tax and 8.5% sales tax. If he's willing to live somewhere that taxes away up to almost 6/10ths of what you make, then I have no sympathy for him, he could move somewhere less tax happy but chooses not to do so.

 

[First]

Banks would be turned private again after nationalization, just like they have been in several successful economies all across the globe and just like we did with the railroad (to name one) in the early 20th century. Lots of successful data and evidence on it, if you're informed.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: piasabird
The Rich can afford not to have Capital Gains; can you? Try cashing in your stock options now?

Uhm you do know what capital gains is based on right? actual gains.... I don't know too many people who have capital gains to report for 2008. If you do then you made some great plays and good job. I suppose if you are selling stock you bought a long time ago (i.e. when the dow was lower than it is now), then you would have to worry.

Many many smart investors Shorted the market. The money they made was really really good.

Shorting and options aren't 'investing', they are trading, and conceptually there is a world of difference.

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: Evan
Banks would be turned private again after nationalization, just like they have been in several successful economies all across the globe and just like we did with the railroad (to name one) in the early 20th century. Lots of successful data and evidence on it, if you're informed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116...vers-Appear-Fluid.aspx

The real solution is just to say that the gov't is "taking over" the banks, not "nationalizing" them. Words such as "socialism", "communism", and "nationalization" eject rational thought from of the minds of a fair portion of the US public... though the amount of rational thought that was in there in the first place is debatable.

 

[Zebo]

I love Buchanan but he's using words he does not understand again. Like Red said in socialism workers own the means or production. Not a Boss, owner or state (like communism) socialism is a perfect democracy since workers vote on their supervisors as well as their politicians.

PS - only a god damn fool would pay 50% in taxes. You do know that 98% of the tax code is exclusions, deductions and exemptions right?

 

[DealMonkey]

LOLSOCIALISM!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
whatever works...

if turning socialism can save people and economics, i don't see why not...

unlike many other countries, our biggest advantage is the ability to change and adopt.

we can always switch back to capitalism when time is right.

NO NO NO . Once you give up self control . You have lost All. Better to be dead than a state slave.

Our system Is Hard . Its not perfect. But it works. The reason its failing is because the people in control . Abused control. The Economy right now as I see it was being setup to fail. The last 5 presidents give me a break . Sucked hugh. Today . Right now in the Governing body. Joe American isn't even a consideration . You might think otherwise. Fine think what ya will. But Socialism . Unless Jesus Christ himself Was the Judge and lawmaker. Can't work . Only SLAVERY. There is not a group of men on this planet . I trust with the task of doing whats right for humanity. If you do fine. nice tinfoil hat your wearing.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Someone should tell Pat that socialism is government ownership of the means of production, something that we are nowhere close to.

What difference does this make? We may not have government ownership of the means of production but we steadily see the government control of business and the economy grow... the hallmark of a Nazi/Fascist regime. What difference does it make if collective ownership is explicit (communism/socialism) or de facto implicit? The pretense of private ownership is meaningless... it's just a worthless deed if the state reserves they right to control the property's use indiscriminately.

The course America is moving towards is a fascist system with socialist slogans. Pat may be mixing his terms but his message has some validity.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Someone should tell Pat that socialism is government ownership of the means of production, something that we are nowhere close to.

What difference does this make? We may not have government ownership of the means of production but we steadily see the government control of business and the economy grow... the hallmark of a Nazi/Fascist regime. What difference does it make if collective ownership is explicit (communism/socialism) or de facto implicit? The pretense of private ownership is meaningless... it's just a worthless deed if the state reserves they right to control the property's use indiscriminately.

The course America is moving towards is a fascist system with socialist slogans. Pat may be mixing his terms but his message has some validity.

Welp, that wraps up this debate. Clearly, the Nazis have taken over!

 

[biostud]

cut down the military expenses to save government money

btw in democracy the government are the chosen represents of the people so if you don't like it: vote different or run for election yourself.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Someone should tell Pat that socialism is government ownership of the means of production, something that we are nowhere close to.

Working on it. Didn the govt just buy 34% of citigroup? And there is talk about nationalizing the auto industry.

Say the government nationalizes all the major banks and the auto industry. We're still nowhere close to socialist, as not only would the banks eventually be turned private again, but even if they weren't the vast vast majority of the means of production would remain private.

What "means of production"?

-Robert

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Someone should tell Pat that socialism is government ownership of the means of production, something that we are nowhere close to.

What difference does this make? We may not have government ownership of the means of production but we steadily see the government control of business and the economy grow... the hallmark of a Nazi/Fascist regime. What difference does it make if collective ownership is explicit (communism/socialism) or de facto implicit? The pretense of private ownership is meaningless... it's just a worthless deed if the state reserves they right to control the property's use indiscriminately.

The course America is moving towards is a fascist system with socialist slogans. Pat may be mixing his terms but his message has some validity.

Welp, that wraps up this debate. Clearly, the Nazis have taken over!

If you say so... :roll:

 

[daniel49]

socialism.

Well we are taken a few steps in that direction.
Here is one of the more publicizes stories about the home mortgage bailouts.
The schoolbus driver who is in danger of loosing her 800,000 Home.
Me thinks the last time I was out shopping for a house, I didn;t even look in the 800K range, because I knew I could not afford it.
So why should I finance her lack of common sence?
link to cnn video

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Someone should try explaining the concept of the mixed economy, and then watch peoples head explode like a watermelon full of C4. The Military is our biggest socialist project.

Please explain to us how the ~$800 billion we're going to spend on the stimulus is vast government interference in our hitherto virginal market, and the $600 billion we spend on "defense," every year, is not.

It is a mixed economy, just like all industrial economies, even the so-called Communist ones. Your pure Capitalist' Paradise has never existed, and never will, except as propaganda to cover massive corruption.

Now: how, then, do we properly mix this economy? Some may favor market solutions, some may favor government intervention, and that's fine. But let's not pretend the economy is something it's not. As far as most todays Republican's are concerned anything that benefit's the population of a country is socialism. They are only interested in the military industrial complex. Reagan wasted billions on his fanciful 'Star Wars' project that never worked and so did both Bush's. As far as they are concerned the government should never give back to the populace that has always paid it's taxes. 'Socialism' is their newest buzz word and you can bet they will drive it in the ground before it's over.

So, nationalize the banks and the next thing that happens is you're locked out of your church and you have to apply to the government for a license to have a kid, which they will deny you because you're a Christian. Increase unemployment benefits and you're tempting the crowds of drunks on the streets who refuse to work. Cover health care and no one will be God-fearing any more.

Socialism, as used by the right, is a sloppy mass of: Soviet Russia, where religion was outlawed; Soviet China, which hates babies; Soviet Cuba which stole private land and companies; and liberal Europe which has high taxes, is irreligious, and hates babies. This is vaguely defined by Francis Shaffer. It's worth noting that conflating "socialism" and "government spending" is intellectually bankrupt, but conflating "Social Democracy" and any of those is bizarre. I'm sure that the nations with Social Democrat parties would be amazed to find out that they're crypto-Communist.

If they can't smear you for being 'foreign' or 'gay' or 'atheist' or 'intellectual' or being on welfare or being in a union - there is always red-baiting. Welcome to America!

Red-baiting in the Republican Party, which shoveled Keynesian 'Kommie' Kash into military spending for years. Just don't call it that. Red-baiting (and anarchist-baiting) worked during the 8 hour day movement in the 1880s, worked strongly in the teens and the 20s during the Bolshevik revolution, a bit in the 30s, then roared back in the 50s due to revolution in China and events in Eastern Europe, still utilized in the 60s and early 70s, weakened a bit then, then became solid foreign policy under Reagan for many years. In other words, our experience with red-baiting is over a 130 years long. And yet, they still don't know what a 'red' is, nor do they care. Which is the point.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Someone should try explaining the concept of the mixed economy, and then watch peoples head explode like a watermelon full of C4. The Military is our biggest socialist project.

Please explain to us how the ~$800 billion we're going to spend on the stimulus is vast government interference in our hitherto virginal market, and the $600 billion we spend on "defense," every year, is not.

It is a mixed economy, just like all industrial economies, even the so-called Communist ones. Your pure Capitalist' Paradise has never existed, and never will, except as propaganda to cover massive corruption.

Now: how, then, do we properly mix this economy? Some may favor market solutions, some may favor government intervention, and that's fine. But let's not pretend the economy is something it's not. As far as most todays Republican's are concerned anything that benefit's the population of a country is socialism. They are only interested in the military industrial complex. Reagan wasted billions on his fanciful 'Star Wars' project that never worked and so did both Bush's. As far as they are concerned the government should never give back to the populace that has always paid it's taxes. 'Socialism' is their newest buzz word and you can bet they will drive it in the ground before it's over.

So, nationalize the banks and the next thing that happens is you're locked out of your church and you have to apply to the government for a license to have a kid, which they will deny you because you're a Christian. Increase unemployment benefits and you're tempting the crowds of drunks on the streets who refuse to work. Cover health care and no one will be God-fearing any more.

Socialism, as used by the right, is a sloppy mass of: Soviet Russia, where religion was outlawed; Soviet China, which hates babies; Soviet Cuba which stole private land and companies; and liberal Europe which has high taxes, is irreligious, and hates babies. This is vaguely defined by Francis Shaffer. It's worth noting that conflating "socialism" and "government spending" is intellectually bankrupt, but conflating "Social Democracy" and any of those is bizarre. I'm sure that the nations with Social Democrat parties would be amazed to find out that they're crypto-Communist.

If they can't smear you for being 'foreign' or 'gay' or 'atheist' or 'intellectual' or being on welfare or being in a union - there is always red-baiting. Welcome to America!

Red-baiting in the Republican Party, which shoveled Keynesian 'Kommie' Kash into military spending for years. Just don't call it that. Red-baiting (and anarchist-baiting) worked during the 8 hour day movement in the 1880s, worked strongly in the teens and the 20s during the Bolshevik revolution, a bit in the 30s, then roared back in the 50s due to revolution in China and events in Eastern Europe, still utilized in the 60s and early 70s, weakened a bit then, then became solid foreign policy under Reagan for many years. In other words, our experience with red-baiting is over a 130 years long. And yet, they still don't know what a 'red' is, nor do they care. Which is the point.

Has been a long time since I have read his book. Pretty heady stuff as I recall

Heres an interesting quote from someone else that is prhaps thought provoking?

Can Democracy Last?

?A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.?

Alexander Tyler, Unknown

And a Shaffer quote for good measure

Absolutes

??Humanism has no final way of saying certain things are right and other things are wrong. For the humanist, the final thing which exists ? that is, the impersonal universe ? is neutral and silent about right and wrong, cruelty and non-cruelty. Humanism has no way to provide absolutes. Thus as a consistent result of humanism?s position, humanism in private morals and political life is left with that which is arbitrary.?

Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should we then Live?

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Someone should try explaining the concept of the mixed economy, and then watch peoples head explode like a watermelon full of C4. The Military is our biggest socialist project.

Please explain to us how the ~$800 billion we're going to spend on the stimulus is vast government interference in our hitherto virginal market, and the $600 billion we spend on "defense," every year, is not.

It is a mixed economy, just like all industrial economies, even the so-called Communist ones. Your pure Capitalist' Paradise has never existed, and never will, except as propaganda to cover massive corruption.

Now: how, then, do we properly mix this economy? Some may favor market solutions, some may favor government intervention, and that's fine. But let's not pretend the economy is something it's not. As far as most todays Republican's are concerned anything that benefit's the population of a country is socialism. They are only interested in the military industrial complex. Reagan wasted billions on his fanciful 'Star Wars' project that never worked and so did both Bush's. As far as they are concerned the government should never give back to the populace that has always paid it's taxes. 'Socialism' is their newest buzz word and you can bet they will drive it in the ground before it's over.

So, nationalize the banks and the next thing that happens is you're locked out of your church and you have to apply to the government for a license to have a kid, which they will deny you because you're a Christian. Increase unemployment benefits and you're tempting the crowds of drunks on the streets who refuse to work. Cover health care and no one will be God-fearing any more.

Socialism, as used by the right, is a sloppy mass of: Soviet Russia, where religion was outlawed; Soviet China, which hates babies; Soviet Cuba which stole private land and companies; and liberal Europe which has high taxes, is irreligious, and hates babies. This is vaguely defined by Francis Shaffer. It's worth noting that conflating "socialism" and "government spending" is intellectually bankrupt, but conflating "Social Democracy" and any of those is bizarre. I'm sure that the nations with Social Democrat parties would be amazed to find out that they're crypto-Communist.

If they can't smear you for being 'foreign' or 'gay' or 'atheist' or 'intellectual' or being on welfare or being in a union - there is always red-baiting. Welcome to America!

Red-baiting in the Republican Party, which shoveled Keynesian 'Kommie' Kash into military spending for years. Just don't call it that. Red-baiting (and anarchist-baiting) worked during the 8 hour day movement in the 1880s, worked strongly in the teens and the 20s during the Bolshevik revolution, a bit in the 30s, then roared back in the 50s due to revolution in China and events in Eastern Europe, still utilized in the 60s and early 70s, weakened a bit then, then became solid foreign policy under Reagan for many years. In other words, our experience with red-baiting is over a 130 years long. And yet, they still don't know what a 'red' is, nor do they care. Which is the point.

It's too bad that quality posts like this tend to end debates on here rather than further them... or maybe that's a good thing.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wouldnt say hardcore socialist but we are fast approaching European style socialism. We couldnt even make it into the EU if we applied with our appalling double digit deficit spending.

The sad part is that none of you seem to understand that the protectionism you're all advocating IS in fact socialism.

Socialism has to do with the governments influence on the free market and i doubt there is any nation in the EU that is as socialist as the US has become except maybe for France which is following your lead.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
In other words, our experience with red-baiting is over a 130 years long. And yet, they still don't know what a 'red' is, nor do they care. Which is the point.

It just goes to show how long this country has been corrupt enough to let big business dominate the debate.
And how much it scares the shit out of them to let the working man get a piece of the action for his labor. Everything from Anarchists and the 40 hour workweek. (Haymarket Martyrs 1880's) to the crap they are pulling by calling modern Democrats Socialists (LOL)

Democrats have NEVER been on the side of the far left, if anything more have been killed/jailed/oppressed by Democratic admins then Reps by far. (IWW for example)

The MCCarthy era was nothing compared to what the Dems pulled in the interwar years with the labor movement, it was a bloodbath for anyone remotely left of Democrats (who are pro-big business/war as much as the Reps in reality).

The closest thing we had to solidarity for a short time was FDR who let Emma Goldman visit the USA after being deported, and even that was mostly a farce.