Dinosaur Topics: Socialism and Communism

[The 12th Commandment]

Gasoline and Oil are commodities as well so why blame Bush for the rise in those prices?

Whaaaat??? You were telling me that the price of corn is set by the government and hasn't changed since the 50's. I come back showing that to be wrong, and you tell me I am blaming bush for the price going up??? I have no freakin idea where you are coming from. I never once mentioned Bush or prices going up, with the exception of the price of beef going up which I said I supported.

[Predicto]

You may hate Rush Limbaugh but he proves my point here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html

here is another:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/662424/posts

and another:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121811,00.html

These things don't "prove" anything, unless we accept your definition of what the question is.

Tell me this: who benefits from having a Securities and Exchange Commission - those with stock portfolios or those with nothing? Who benefits from having a large standing army and well trained police force - those with a lot of possessions to protect or those with nothing? Who benefits from an interstate highway system - those with automobiles or those without automobiles? Who benefits from farm subsidies - agribusiness and their stockholders, or poor people who have to pay more for their groceries? Who benefits from the FAA and increased airport security - those who fly on business and take vacations, or those who can't afford to go anywhere? I could go on and on.

It's just not as simple as saying: "The top couple of percent pay as much in taxes as the bottom fifty percent" as though that answers everything and is somehow unfair. The top pay more in taxes because they get huge direct benefits from our government, and because they have infinitely more wealth to protect from a collapse of the system.

By any reasonable standard, I am rich. I am in the top five percent in both income and assets of people in this country. Only by shamelessly lying to myself could I possibly believe that I am overburdened with taxes, so much that I needed the recent Bush tax cut that is exploding our deficit. I am not a fan of huge confiscatory taxes as in some European nations, but we are nowhere near that in this country.

[The 12th Commandment]

These things don't "prove" anything, unless we accept your definition of what the question is.

Tell me this: who benefits from having a Securities and Exchange Commission - those with stock portfolios or those with nothing? Who benefits from having a large standing army and well trained police force - those with a lot of possessions to protect or those with nothing? Who benefits from an interstate highway system - those with automobiles or those without automobiles? Who benefits from farm subsidies - agribusiness and their stockholders, or poor people who have to pay more for their groceries? Who benefits from the FAA and increased airport security - those who fly on business and take vacations, or those who can't afford to go anywhere? I could go on and on.

It's just not as simple as saying: "The top couple of percent pay as much in taxes as the bottom fifty percent" as though that answers everything and is somehow unfair. The top pay more in taxes because they get huge direct benefits from our government, and because they have infinitely more wealth to protect from a collapse of the system.

By any reasonable standard, I am rich. I am in the top five percent in both income and assets of people in this country. Only by shamelessly lying to myself could I possibly believe that I am overburdened with taxes, so much that I needed the recent Bush tax cut that is exploding our deficit. I am not a fan of huge confiscatory taxes as in some European nations, but we are nowhere near that in this country.

Sorry to be picky as I agree with your points here. Ag subsidies do benefit the consumer if you consider that they lower the cost of production for the farmer. They way I look at them is the govt. being a nuisance middle man. If subsidies are cut the price of the commodity goes up and taxes go down.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I appreciate the clarity and logic of your response.

No problem. In spite of what it may look like at times, there are actually solid reasons and beliefs behind what I say. I know they may appear "out there" at times, but I generally have a reason for believing as I do. I also don't see name-calling or hurling insults as a useful method of getting one's point across.

Answer this, if it interests you: Why would you tend to be harder on those who might commonly be thought of as losers in our social system than you are on those who might be said to be winners in our social system.

I can see why this concept might appear somewhat illogical to many people...

To truly understand where I'm coming from you have to understand a little about me and where I come from. I was born with a major, obvious birth defect. A large birthmark that covers pretty much the entire front hemisphere of my skull, especially my face. As a result of the underlying issues related to this birth defect I had a seizure at age 4 that left my left side paralyzed for 28 hours and I ended up spending 11 years taking a medication that stunted my physical development. Which meant that by the time I was 12 my 2 younger brothers (and pretty much everyone my age, male and female) were bigger, stronger, faster and more phyiscally gifted than I was. My response to this was to find the gifts that I did have and work to make the absolute most of them. I learned some very difficult life lessons very early in life. Including the lesson that tells us we have to make the most out of what we have and not just sit around and complain about what we don't have.

Now that the stupid, sappy story is out of the way....

I truly feel that many of the "poor" people in this country are there and stay there because they don't WANT to better themselves. This may be due to whatever circumstances put them there in the first place, sheer laziness, or any of a dozen other reasons. Many of these people are bright, intelligent people who, if they put their mind to it could dramatically better their situations with minimal assistance from their family, friends and the community. Instead, a large number of them choose to take the easy route and give up on life. It's that "giving up" that draws my ire most readily and harshly.

In contrast to that are the "rich" people of the country. Most of whom have worked their butts off for years to get to where they are today. I will agree that not all of them have. Some have inherited or been handed their riches, I will admit, but they are not the vast majority of the "rich" in this country. These are largely people who have put their blood, sweat, tears, time and energy into their lives. Many of whom have failed multiple times and still gotten back up and tried again. Why would I be upset with them? They're getting the just reward for their efforts and investments.

[Predicto]

Sorry to be picky as I agree with your points here. Ag subsidies do benefit the consumer if you consider that they lower the cost of production for the farmer. They way I look at them is the govt. being a nuisance middle man. If subsidies are cut the price of the commodity goes up and taxes go down.

You are right. I meant Ag price controls.

[Predicto]

I truly feel that many of the "poor" people in this country are there and stay there because they don't WANT to better themselves. This may be due to whatever circumstances put them there in the first place, sheer laziness, or any of a dozen other reasons. Many of these people are bright, intelligent people who, if they put their mind to it could dramatically better their situations with minimal assistance from their family, friends and the community. Instead, a large number of them choose to take the easy route and give up on life. It's that "giving up" that draws my ire most readily and harshly.

In contrast to that are the "rich" people of the country. Most of whom have worked their butts off for years to get to where they are today. I will agree that not all of them have. Some have inherited or been handed their riches, I will admit, but they are not the vast majority of the "rich" in this country. These are largely people who have put their blood, sweat, tears, time and energy into their lives. Many of whom have failed multiple times and still gotten back up and tried again. Why would I be upset with them? They're getting the just reward for their efforts and investments.

There is a kernel of truth to this, but also a heaping helping of myth.

[luckydevil]

Just to add, I don't hate the poor or the weak. I strongly disagree with Mass SkinsFan last post, for the most part anyway. A lot of poverty in this country is government created. My oppostion to the welfare state comes from a different angle than Mass SkinsFan.

[skinfan133]

As a matter of fact, we associate Republicans and the right with repressive, totalitarian states and want the Republican right out of power precisely because it is looting the public treasury for the benefit of a parasitic class: the rich.

thats not true conservatism in practice, im an old style conservative, lover of smaller government and tax cuts FOR ALL, civil liberties protected. the current form of the right wing in power is each day straying further from my values and the values of conservatism, bush lost my support about a year ago. please do nut lump us good conservatives with the growing bad ones, it offends me and other true conservatives. i also hold views of the democratic party as well, i belive in education as a top priority, and i belive in preserving the environment.

[The 12th Commandment]

I truly feel that many of the "poor" people in this country are there and stay there because they don't WANT to better themselves. This may be due to whatever circumstances put them there in the first place, sheer laziness, or any of a dozen other reasons. Many of these people are bright, intelligent people who, if they put their mind to it could dramatically better their situations with minimal assistance from their family, friends and the community. Instead, a large number of them choose to take the easy route and give up on life. It's that "giving up" that draws my ire most readily and harshly.

In contrast to that are the "rich" people of the country. Most of whom have worked their butts off for years to get to where they are today. I will agree that not all of them have. Some have inherited or been handed their riches, I will admit, but they are not the vast majority of the "rich" in this country. These are largely people who have put their blood, sweat, tears, time and energy into their lives. Many of whom have failed multiple times and still gotten back up and tried again. Why would I be upset with them? They're getting the just reward for their efforts and investments.

The only problem I would find with that way of "judging" is it makes an awful lot of assumptions. When there is a doubt to benefit, you give the benefit to the rich but not to the poor. Fair enough, I would choose to do the other.:2cents:

[Baculus]

I will add this: Wealth denotes power, and the wealthy hold sway over the power and direction of not only this nation, but all over the globe. The Elite Wealthy of the world do, in fact, control this planet.

Wealth has had a sway over citizenry for years, decades...and millenia. And it has been the habit, and the practice, of the wealthy to abuse and take advantage of their position for their benefit. Thus, in some ways, I can understand socialism and the desire to share the resources for all to live a good life as a reaction to the hoarding of resources and wealth that we often see. I just don't often agree with a socialists answer for issues.

But, in some countries and time periods, socialists were some of the most progressive organizations or individuals, whether it is racial justice, class rights, or the desire for higher aspirations. I think the socialists that helped fight against fascists forces during the 30's is a perfect example of such idealism.

We see wealth and resource hoarding every day, and at the same token, we see such misery and dispair. I think it takes a hard human not to ponder at times, "How can the world be a better place? How can man allow his brother and sister to suffer so?" But, sometimes these questions are easier asked then moved to action to help. Wealth does not equate to evil, most certainly. But I think some individual and corporate wealth has been used for less-then-noble purposes, and that includes trying to create an iron-fisted dictatorship to help them continue living the good life.

[The 12th Commandment]

I will add this: Wealth denotes power, and the wealthy hold sway over the power and direction of not only this nation, but all over the globe. The Elite Wealthy of the world do, in fact, control this planet.

Wealth has had a sway over citizenry for years, decades...and millenia. And it has been the habit, and the practice, of the wealthy to abuse and take advantage of their position for their benefit. Thus, in some ways, I can understand socialism and the desire to share the resources for all to live a good life as a reaction to the hoarding of resources and wealth that we often see. QUOTE]

Beware the Illuminati!

[Baculus]

Global Elite, Illuminati...same thing.

It isn't the poor that runs the planet - that's for sure!

[The 12th Commandment]

Global Elite, Illuminati...same thing.

It isn't the poor that runs the planet - that's for sure!

Just funnin! Have a happy St. Paddy's Everyone!

[Baculus]

I truly feel that many of the "poor" people in this country are there and stay there because they don't WANT to better themselves. This may be due to whatever circumstances put them there in the first place, sheer laziness, or any of a dozen other reasons. Many of these people are bright, intelligent people who, if they put their mind to it could dramatically better their situations with minimal assistance from their family, friends and the community. Instead, a large number of them choose to take the easy route and give up on life. It's that "giving up" that draws my ire most readily and harshly.

I am sure that applies to some, though some folks just are at the wrong place at the wrong time, such as living in a region with few job opportunities. But, by and large, I think you're correct that many poor aren't going to raise themselves past an income bracket level.

And this may be true for the middle class as well. In fact, many kids who come from middle-class backgrounds probably won't even raise themselves to the income levels of their parents. I think in some regions you will see a further drop in middle-class incomes as their children come to age with fewer chances to earn better, more real wages.

Keep in mind, too, that today's cost of living doesn't exactly help the situation. It is difficult to raise yourself to a much higher income bracket if you spend a large part of your income on merely living expenses, with little chance to improve your actual income. And while your income stays static, your cost of living increases.

In contrast to that are the "rich" people of the country. Most of whom have worked their butts off for years to get to where they are today. I will agree that not all of them have. Some have inherited or been handed their riches, I will admit, but they are not the vast majority of the "rich" in this country. These are largely people who have put their blood, sweat, tears, time and energy into their lives. Many of whom have failed multiple times and still gotten back up and tried again. Why would I be upset with them? They're getting the just reward for their efforts and investments.

I think, often, when we think of the "wealthy" or the "elite," we think of the Super Wealthy. There are many, many millionaires that don't have a huge amount of money and merely saved their way into being a millionaire. That's respectable.

It is just my opnion that emphasis is placed on the wealthy as being the end all as a human being, while the poor is seen as a lower being of some sort. I just don't think folks like Elitism, and this is the impression that they receive from...well, the Wealthy Elite!

It is classism when it comes down to it, and a class struggle. I am sounding like a real revolutionary now, eh? :-)

[Baculus]

Happy St. Patrick's day, KAOSkins!

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The only problem I would find with that way of "judging" is it makes an awful lot of assumptions. When there is a doubt to benefit, you give the benefit to the rich but not to the poor. Fair enough, I would choose to do the other.:2cents:

That's fine. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the "wealthy" because in my personal experience, they're the ones who are more likely to be willing to put the time and energy in to do it for themselves. I've come across too many of the "poor" whose interest in doing anything for themselves the moment they found out the Government would do it for them or pay them not to do it

[visionary]

You sound like a marxist. Are you?

Apparently, he's a rich and famous Marxist... :laugh:

[Joe Sick]

The desire to distribute reources at the point of a gun is at the heart of leftism. This is also the central position of socialists.

And at the same time, they advocate gun control!

Not sure I'm following you. If you don't pay your taxes, you get killed?

Seems like conservatives would especially happen to pay more taxes now, since they are the only ones that "support" the military, right?

[Crazyhorse1]

If I capitalize a business and assume all the financial risk, then hire someone to work for me, you're saying that I'm not entitled to the profit? How are people supposed to get jobs if no one hires them?

If the workers demand more and more money, their product will no longer be competitive and the business will go bankrupt. CEO pay is determined by boards of directors elected by the stockholders -- and anyone can buy stock on a very open, transparent, free market. The CEO's pay and benefits have to be disclosed to the SEC!

There's just so much here, I don't even know where to start. Crazyhorse, you say that "communist" is a dinosaur term, and then you recycle this tired, worn-out, thorougly discredited Bolshevism. If the shoe fits...

Have you understood the difference between communism and a free market protected from cronyism and corruption by regulation; if not, you probably don't understand how a free market needs anti-trust, minimum wage, inspection, and many other laws to remain free. I'm sorry if these things are counter-intuitive to you, but still insist you should know enough about communism to know that communism involves the ownership of state resources by the masses, not just a rule- making capacity of a free market, republican government.

[brewdogmike]

Have you understood the difference between communism and a free market protected from cronyism and corruption by regulation; if not, you probably don't understand how a free market needs anti-trust, minimum wage, inspection, and many other laws to remain free. I'm sorry if these things are counter-intuitive to you, but still insist you should know enough about communism to know that communism involves the ownership of state resources by the masses, not just a rule- making capacity of a free market, republican government.

I deny that a free market "needs" antitrust, minimum wage, inspection and many other laws to "remain free." These things might be politically popular, but they are not necessary to establish and maintain a free market.

There's no need to apologize. I know Marxist class-warfare rhetoric when I see it.

[Crazyhorse1]

You sound like a marxist. Are you?

Marx is one of the economic philosophers who have had an impact on economic thinking in the United States, as have a number of others. I have a better liking for Veblen and a much greater admiration for Keynes. I'm more fiscally conservative than most liberals and much more so than Bush Republicans and/or Neocons. I support a high degree of accountability in regard to business and consumer law and white collar crime; and believe that our government is unduly influenced by money and corporate interests.

I think that a truly free market is an honest market. That's my twist on the matter. I don't think Marx said anything like that. Maybe he did. I don't know.

I visited Russia in 1993 as a lecturer. I hated the place, inspite of myself. I'm an anti-communist and even the remnants gave me the creeps.

[Crazyhorse1]

I deny that a free market "needs" antitrust, minimum wage, inspection and many other laws to "remain free." These things might be politically popular, but they are not necessary to establish and maintain a free market.

There's no need to apologize. I know Marxist class-warfare rhetoric when I see it.

You've failed to distinguish a statement of self-evident economic fact from Marxist rhetoric, which you imply by the use of the word "rhetoric" to be empty propaganda. You've apparently even failed to note the 19th century in America when the free market of your fancy resulted in a life expectancy of 29 years for the populace and death carts prowling the streets each morning to pick up the dead.

Both liberals and conservatives, over the years, have created for our country these rules of the marketplace you wish to junk. They have been found to be necessary. Not even Bush tries to repeal them. He simply allows his friends to break them.