08 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieSo taxes that are levied against the "rich" should be considered socialist in nature, no? How then do you not see that leglislation that encourages this is not socialist, at least in spirit?
True. In short, socialism is about removing class differences so that no specific elite (rich or otherwise
privileged) can control the rest. It is therefore the exact opposite of what some people suggest, which
is why some posts in here are so laughable.
If you put a "socialist" in as President, could they only follow a pure socialist path in the strict sense of the definition? No, because they are not in a pure socialist system, however, they can promote socialist ideals such as the one I presented.
08 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf the socialist countries are so productive, why has the US led the Western World all this time economically? Granted, it is coming to an end very soon but it is no surprise as the US has slowly gravitated toward the socialist way of doing things.
The most socialist countries in the world (by a reasonable definition) are very productive. Just to give you one factor that contributes: socialism strives for equality of opportunity, so everyone can go to school. This increases the productivity of the labour force and allows greater specialization within the workforce.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyWell yes, it is one element. However, taxation in the US is much less progressive than in most other industrialized nations.
So taxes that are levied against the "rich" should be considered socialist in nature, no? How then do you not see that leglislation that encourages this is not socialist, at least in spirit?
If you put a "socialist" in as President, could they only follow a pure socialist path in the strict sense of the definition? No, because they are not in a pure socialist system, however, they can promote socialist ideals such as the one I presented.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyThe EU is bigger than the US in terms of GDP. In terms of GDP per capita, the Scandinavians beat the US by a large margin.
If the socialist countries are so productive, why has the US led the Western World all this time economically? Granted, it is coming to an end very soon but it is no surprise as the US has slowly gravitated toward the socialist way of doing things.
08 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySince the idea behind socialism is to provide equal opportunities for all people, taxes should be
So taxes that are levied against the "rich" should be considered socialist in nature, no? How then do you not see that leglislation that encourages this is not socialist, at least in spirit?
If you put a "socialist" in as President, could they only follow a pure socialist path in the strict sense of the definition? No, because they are not in a pure socialist system, however, they can promote socialist ideals such as the one I presented.
spread equally among all people. Rich people should pay an equal percentage of their income to
the poor, right? However, in a socialist society you shouldn't be born with certain societal
(dis)advantages because your family happens to be poor/rich, but have the exact same
opportunities as the rest. This in turn raises the question whether or not capital wealth should be
allowed to provide any political or other societal influence other than purely business related. That
could be an interesting debate, but the answer remains: No, Bush can't justifiably be labelled a
socialist simply for taxing the rich, any more than I can be labelled a capitalist even though I
support the individual right to own capital under given conditions. It's that "under given conditions"
part that prohibits me from being labelled a capitalist. Now, if Bush had put that money into giving
every single USA:an the exact same opportunities for education, work and social security (regardless
of origin, religion, capital wealth or any other social denominator), you might have been on to
something.
You see, those are the core aspects of socialism. Taxing is simply a means to that end. A means
used in many different political ideologies.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt depends on how you look at it I guess, but assuming that personal wealth in capital is possible in a
How is that an equal spread of taxes?
socialist society, you can't expect people with less income to pay the same sums as the wealthy, or the
taxes would have to be kept extremely low, which leaves the rich with a clear advantage in most
everything in life and directly counteracts the equality between groups of people that socialism is trying
to achieve.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieYes of course, that's why I don't think taxes should be "equally spread".
It depends on how you look at it I guess, but assuming that personal wealth in capital is possible in a
socialist society, you can't expect people with less income to pay the same sums as the wealthy, or the
taxes would have to be kept extremely low, which leaves the rich with a clear advantage in most
everything in life and directly counteracts the equality between groups of people that socialism is trying
to achieve.
08 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieI am not totaly against socialistic aspects of society. In this country a whole bunch of people would live off of welfare if given the chance. Families stuck together about 3 generations ago for survival. Now it seems families fall apart because there is an easy out for them. A woman can get all sorts of goodies from the government on top of childsupport from the dad. This causes people to think and ponder about divorce that wouldn't have otherwise. In cases of abuse and other serious problems some have, divorce is proper. Now days people don't even try to get along and have the survival aspect removed by government. As this country has gotten more and more socialistic, the divorce rate has gone up. I like the idea of shorter work weeks, I agree that it can have a productive effect. Not everyone is like that though. Some people love overtime. A lot of companies encourage a little overtime to meet schedule needs as hireing someone else jacks the tax burden up on them big time. Unemployment insurance..... etc.Those willing to work the overtime get compensated more than those who don't , but they deserve it, dont they?
The work is divided among more people (less work hours per person, more efficient work hours per
person), you work in the knowledge that the taxes you pay will serve you and the people you leave
behind in the end (a great incentive to do your very best) and you work in collective cooperation (which
is really the best kind of work - the kind you want to ...[text shortened]... ng for). If those things doesn't
promote productivity in the worker, I don't know what does.
09 Jul 09
1 edit
Neither Bush nor Obama are Socialists. That's a buzz word created by the right.
However; any and everything used to justify Obama as a Socialist can also be said about Bush, and every other Republican administration.
"Raising taxes on the Rich!"
Name ONE Republican president who pushed for a flat tax.
"Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is Socialism!"
Look up the Child Tax Credit under Bush, which is a refundable tax credit that actually creates (negative) tax liability in some cases. And what about Palin increasing Alaska's "Socialist" program of taxing oil companies to write checks to Alaskan residents who didn't earn it.
Shall I go on?
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieThere are other aspect of his socialist tendencies. For example, Bush began entitlements that surpassed those of LBJ.
You see, those are the core aspects of socialism. Taxing is simply a means to that end. A means
used in many different political ideologies.[/b]
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI prefer the word "statist" over "socialist". A statist seeks to empower the government to improve perceived injustices within a given society. Since there are an abundant and never ending injustices within any given society, statists are never satiated as government becomes bigger and bigger and bigger.....
Neither Bush nor Obama are Socialists. That's a buzz word created by the right.
However; any and everything used to justify Obama as a Socialist can also be said about Bush, and every other Republican administration.
"Raising taxes on the Rich!"
Name ONE Republican president who pushed for a flat tax.
"Taxing the rich and giving it ...[text shortened]... l companies to write checks to Alaskan residents who didn't earn it.
Shall I go on?
09 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserFor everything there is give and take. For example, before large governments began becoming Big Brother and began "taking care of people", the family unit was much stronger than it is today. Simply put, your survival used to depend on the strenght of your family unit or tribe. So people are "freer" to live their own lives independent of the family unit in a socielist society today, however, what has become of the familty unit? Your point about the divorce rate is one indication but it goes much further than that. Society is largely much more fragmented with many more disinfranchised elements of society than I think there used to be. I think what we are witnessing with socialism is a new phenomenon in human history and as such we are treading on uncharted territory so I guess all we can do is study where it is taking us and try to decide if it is indeed progress. I thihk most have sold into the idea that it is progress. Afer all, it is a new way of doing things so it must be progress, no? LOL.
I am not totaly against socialistic aspects of society. In this country a whole bunch of people would live off of welfare if given the chance. Families stuck together about 3 generations ago for survival. Now it seems families fall apart because there is an easy out for them. A woman can get all sorts of goodies from the government on top of childsupport work the overtime get compensated more than those who don't , but they deserve it, dont they?
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyGood point there. The statist believes Govenment is the way, the truth, and the light. Our lives revolve around Government. Why don't more folks see that Government is a tool. It has limited uses, and it of itself is nothing without the people. Obama wants mandatory national service for crying out loud! I served my country in the military, but I sure don't think any less of those that haven't. If you are a productive citezen, they are taking more than their fair share of taxes.
I prefer the word "statist" over "socialist". A statist seeks to empower the government to improve perceived injustices within a given society. Since there are an abundant and never ending injustices within any given society, statists are never satiated as government becomes bigger and bigger and bigger.....