Socialism works so well

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Your fear is driving you insane and your logic is way out in left field on this one.

Read the constitution sometime. You'd call those men driven insane by fear too?

I'd like to find a line mentioning the authority to redistribute wealth. You won't because that wasn?t popularized until Karl Marx wrote it down in the communist manifesto. Just because you favor such policy doesn?t mean you have to hide it behind a politically correct name. Call it what it is you coward.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government is forbidden to tax the rich more than the poor or working middle class?

The Constitution does not say many things that Congress currently does...hence the reason for the 27 amendments.

That is in a big way my point. Vic did a fantastic job explaining the details better than I can in his previous two posts here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sorry, "here" meant P&N. I can see now how some would think I meant this thread.

Even if "here" meant P&N, I have not seen any evidence of your claim. Please answer the original question. Who and how?

Steeplerot and Craig are the only Chavez apologists I'm aware of here, and rot (along with at least one of his alter egos, brokendolly) was permabanned a long time ago.

 

[heyheybooboo]

This whole 'socialism' label for a change in tax policy reminds me of the 'Islamofascist' label that sprung up a few years ago.

The label didn't make sense then - and the new label doesn't make sense now.

It's just the ol' Con trick of 'defining' your opponent.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Your fear is driving you insane and your logic is way out in left field on this one.

Read the constitution sometime. You'd call those men driven insane by fear too?

I'd like to find a line mentioning the authority to redistribute wealth. You won't because that wasn?t popularized until Karl Marx wrote it down in the communist manifesto. Just because you favor such policy doesn?t mean you have to hide it behind a politically correct name. Call it what it is you coward.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government is forbidden to tax the rich more than the poor or working middle class?

The Constitution does not say many things that Congress currently does...hence the reason for the 27 amendments.

And in this case, the 16th amendment, which expressly gives the federal govt this power.

Love it or hate it, the argument that it's not in the Constitution is false.

And for the millionth time, socialism is defined by public ownership, not any system of taxation.
Strictly speaking, there are no taxes in a purely socialist economy, because there is no private ownership to be taxed. Strictly speaking, mind you.

BTW, socialism fails for 2 reasons. First, because it naively assumes everyone wants such a system, when obviously we don't, and so it requires the use of excessive force to implement. That's how it fails as a social system. But really, it just fails as an economic system entirely due to the calculation problem. Without some kind of markets, it's impossible to know how much something is worth and what kind of demand there is for it. No incentive and inefficient. Just look to China's recent economic growth for proof of this. All they really did was add markets to their economy. Boom.

I read a long article a couple of years ago about the black markets in Poland and the eastern bloc propping up the communists longer than they should have. One of the things that was interesting was it dealt with the markets of socialist countries and how they determined the prices for many of their goods. They looked to the west and their free capitalist markets and tried to stay within a margin of error. Of course it ultimately failed due to not being able to calculate everything and being really slow as the committee's met on regularily timed schedules. But the article used an answer from a communist party official on how they are going to calculate goods should communism win. His response was "we will figure it out when we get there".

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
And in this case, the 16th amendment, which expressly gives the federal govt this power.

Love it or hate it, the argument that it's not in the Constitution is false.

And for the millionth time, socialism is defined by public ownership, not any system of taxation.
Strictly speaking, there are no taxes in a purely socialist economy, because there is no private ownership to be taxed. Strictly speaking, mind you.

BTW, socialism fails for 2 reasons. First, because it naively assumes everyone wants such a system, when obviously we don't, and so it requires the use of excessive force to implement. That's how it fails as a social system. But really, it just fails as an economic system entirely due to the calculation problem. Without some kind of markets, it's impossible to know how much something is worth and what kind of demand there is for it. No incentive and inefficient. Just look to China's recent economic growth for proof of this. All they really did was add markets to their economy. Boom.

I read a long article a couple of years ago about the black markets in Poland and the eastern bloc propping up the communists longer than they should have. One of the things that was interesting was it dealt with the markets of socialist countries and how they determined the prices for many of their goods. They looked to the west and their free capitalist markets and tried to stay within a margin of error. Of course it ultimately failed due to not being able to calculate everything and being really slow as the committee's met on regularily timed schedules. But the article used an answer from a communist party official on how they are going to calculate goods should communism win. His response was "we will figure it out when we get there".

I think we can all agree that any government practicing too much socialism for their country is a bad thing. Keep in mind that "too much" differs per country for many reasons. However, too much capitalism is just as dangerous. Just in a different way with different problems.

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper


He's going to cut taxes for most, but overall increase taxes to raise revenue to pay off the loans that our country has.

He's not going to cut taxes for anyone. People need to get this through their head. Not a single President today is goign to cut any taxes. He may offer refunds or credits but you are not goign to get a Tax Cut. Not to mention Tax cuts just lead to higher national debt.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sorry, "here" meant P&N. I can see now how some would think I meant this thread.

Even if "here" meant P&N, I have not seen any evidence of your claim. Please answer the original question. Who and how?

Steeplerot and Craig are the only Chavez apologists I'm aware of here, and rot (along with at least one of his alter egos, brokendolly) was permabanned a long time ago.

marin, philipuso, and a couple others...

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sorry, "here" meant P&N. I can see now how some would think I meant this thread.

Even if "here" meant P&N, I have not seen any evidence of your claim. Please answer the original question. Who and how?

Steeplerot and Craig are the only Chavez apologists I'm aware of here, and rot (along with at least one of his alter egos, brokendolly) was permabanned a long time ago.

marin, philipuso, and a couple others...

These guys must have been before my time.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
And in this case, the 16th amendment, which expressly gives the federal govt this power.

Love it or hate it, the argument that it's not in the Constitution is false.

And for the millionth time, socialism is defined by public ownership, not any system of taxation.
Strictly speaking, there are no taxes in a purely socialist economy, because there is no private ownership to be taxed. Strictly speaking, mind you.

BTW, socialism fails for 2 reasons. First, because it naively assumes everyone wants such a system, when obviously we don't, and so it requires the use of excessive force to implement. That's how it fails as a social system. But really, it just fails as an economic system entirely due to the calculation problem. Without some kind of markets, it's impossible to know how much something is worth and what kind of demand there is for it. No incentive and inefficient. Just look to China's recent economic growth for proof of this. All they really did was add markets to their economy. Boom.

I read a long article a couple of years ago about the black markets in Poland and the eastern bloc propping up the communists longer than they should have. One of the things that was interesting was it dealt with the markets of socialist countries and how they determined the prices for many of their goods. They looked to the west and their free capitalist markets and tried to stay within a margin of error. Of course it ultimately failed due to not being able to calculate everything and being really slow as the committee's met on regularily timed schedules. But the article used an answer from a communist party official on how they are going to calculate goods should communism win. His response was "we will figure it out when we get there".

I think we can all agree that any government practicing too much socialism for their country is a bad thing. Keep in mind that "too much" differs per country for many reasons. However, too much capitalism is just as dangerous. Just in a different way with different problems.

Yup....Greenspan admitted today he put too much trust in the markets: NYTimes which is surprising that a politico admitted he was incorrect.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jawo

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Your fear is driving you insane and your logic is way out in left field on this one.

Read the constitution sometime. You'd call those men driven insane by fear too?

I'd like to find a line mentioning the authority to redistribute wealth. You won't because that wasn?t popularized until Karl Marx wrote it down in the communist manifesto. Just because you favor such policy doesn?t mean you have to hide it behind a politically correct name. Call it what it is you coward.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government is forbidden to tax the rich more than the poor or working middle class?

The Constitution does not say many things that Congress currently does...hence the reason for the 27 amendments.

And in this case, the 16th amendment, which expressly gives the federal govt this power.

Love it or hate it, the argument that it's not in the Constitution is false.

And for the millionth time, socialism is defined by public ownership, not any system of taxation.
Strictly speaking, there are no taxes in a purely socialist economy, because there is no private ownership to be taxed. Strictly speaking, mind you.

BTW, socialism fails for 2 reasons. First, because it naively assumes everyone wants such a system, when obviously we don't, and so it requires the use of excessive force to implement. That's how it fails as a social system. But really, it just fails as an economic system entirely due to the calculation problem. Without some kind of markets, it's impossible to know how much something is worth and what kind of demand there is for it. No incentive and inefficient. Just look to China's recent economic growth for proof of this. All they really did was add markets to their economy. Boom.

Yes, I was agreeing with you Vic....That's one reason why it will be hard for them to become a true world power. They are so dependent on manufacturing stuff for other countries that as soon as they lose the cost advantage, companies will move elsewhere (starting to happen). Not to mention the draconian policies such as single child, prevention of free speech, et al.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Jawo
I didn't say communist....I said socialist: An economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class.

Please look beyond South America...look at Europe....the EU was having economic struggles for the past 5 years....while the US was rapidly growing. each country can not control its fiscal policy anymore, so inflation is higher, and unemployment is higher. Please look at the riots outside of Paris a few years ago.

Obama has said multiple times that he wants to redistribute wealth by making the rich pay higher taxes, and give the money to the poor. (Who won't pay taxes.....ie government hand outs). While I agree that everyone should be covered by health care, Obama's policies will force a "one size fits all" health care system on to everyone; which will not work. How are all his social programs going to work without massively raising taxes.

Obama has a few things going for him: He provides hope, he is a good orator, he's great at separating people from their money.

Before I share my thoughts... a question

Do you believe that increasing the tax bracket on the rich only (changing the 35% back to 39.6% bracket) and leaving everything else the same, is spreading the wealth?

About this 4.9 % increase for the top bracket. This little subtile thing of letting the tax rates for the top end immediately will allow the justification for the next hike on the top payers, on Jan.01 2011. How do you think that the rest of the taxpayers will respond on Jan. 01, 2011 when their rates go up and the top stays the same. AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.
When you increase taxes on any group and give it to other groups, you are in fact engaging in re-distribution of wealth. (ie. engaging in socialism). How can you call it anything else?

 

[heyheybooboo]

BARACK OBAMA?S COMPREHENSIVE TAX PLAN

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: Jawo
I didn't say communist....I said socialist: An economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class.

Please look beyond South America...look at Europe....the EU was having economic struggles for the past 5 years....while the US was rapidly growing. each country can not control its fiscal policy anymore, so inflation is higher, and unemployment is higher. Please look at the riots outside of Paris a few years ago.

Obama has said multiple times that he wants to redistribute wealth by making the rich pay higher taxes, and give the money to the poor. (Who won't pay taxes.....ie government hand outs). While I agree that everyone should be covered by health care, Obama's policies will force a "one size fits all" health care system on to everyone; which will not work. How are all his social programs going to work without massively raising taxes.

Obama has a few things going for him: He provides hope, he is a good orator, he's great at separating people from their money.

Before I share my thoughts... a question

Do you believe that increasing the tax bracket on the rich only (changing the 35% back to 39.6% bracket) and leaving everything else the same, is spreading the wealth?

About this 4.9 % increase for the top bracket. This little subtile thing of letting the tax rates for the top end immediately will allow the justification for the next hike on the top payers, on Jan.01 2011. How do you think that the rest of the taxpayers will respond on Jan. 01, 2011 when their rates go up and the top stays the same. AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.
When you increase taxes on any group and give it to other groups, you are in fact engaging in re-distribution of wealth. (ie. engaging in socialism). How can you call it anything else?

Redistribution of wealth is not socialism. You don't know from socialism. Just because it isn't pure capitalism doesn't mean it's socialism. Perhaps you should limit your comments to saying it's a bad practice to engage in a progressive tax system? Beyond that, it's apparent you are unschooled in economics.

-Robert

 

[Craig234]

Many 'third world' countries have histories where the people have been 'kept down'.

Whether it's a US-backed dictator, or a government under the thumb of the IMF (perhaps with corrupt borrowing that put the nation in big debt, a la 'Economic Hit Man' scenario), the policies have often left the citizens poor and without much education, or training for running things, dependent on foreign companies for things like running the energy system.

In one African nation, for example, the west forced Zambia to eliminate tariffs on food, resulting in western-produced food, which still had government subsidies, destroying the local food producers. The same with clothing; 140 clothing factories were reduced to 8 as foreign clothing flooded the market. All the while, the IMF forced drastic cuts in education spending.

Venezuela was backed by US-friendly dictators previously, and their energy infrastructure was run by US companies under arguably exploitive terms.

It makes sense for nations to want to kick out exploiters and run their own country, and it's expected they'll have a challenge while they get people trained and build the systems.

Having said all that - which I think explains many stories like the one in this thread - in this case, it looks to me like Chavez is probably screwing up, that there's some incompetence.

I'm not too familiar with the details to say a firm opinion, but that's my impression, on this issue. Too bad his opponents here are quite unlikely to concede any points on other areas.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sorry, "here" meant P&N. I can see now how some would think I meant this thread.

Even if "here" meant P&N, I have not seen any evidence of your claim. Please answer the original question. Who and how?

Steeplerot and Craig are the only Chavez apologists I'm aware of here, and rot (along with at least one of his alter egos, brokendolly) was permabanned a long time ago.

marin, philipuso, and a couple others...

i don't remember these guys.

 

[PELarson]

A couple of simple words.

Enron
California
Rolling blackouts
Capitalism


BESIDES OBAMA ISN'T A SOCIALIST!