Is Obama a Marxist? by Hero

... fully loaded, safety off...

Just trying to understand: what's wrong with "Socialism?" Why is that such a radioactive word? As if mentioning it is akin to Satanic worship? Don't we already have socialistic programs in place, (welfare, medicare)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Piz,

Are you joking?

Or are you really asking what is wrong with Socialism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:48 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I think he's asking if we don't already have some socialist programs in effect. National parks, Emminent Domain, police and fire departments, public education, state universities, hospitals, insurance, defense spending... All of these take from the many to give to the few, all in the name of the greater public good.

And spreading the wealth? So you're telling me that McCain opposes spreading wealth? He's ANTI-wealth for all? A chicken in no pot and a car in no garage? Is that honestly the plank you want to add to the GOP platform?

Or is it that you support McCain's "spreading the wealth" ONLY as long as it "spreads" upward to the already-rich?

Which is it?

So is McCain a Marxist? Or is that one of the questions that you're not allowed to ask, because he was a POW?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, what about the bailouts? Isn't THAT socialism? Isn't THAT a redistribution of wealth- to the rich? Didn't the biggest growth in government spending occur under George Bush?

Seems might one-sided of you, Hero, ignoring facts like that.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:49 AM

EVILDINOSAUR

I'm going to guess that no he is not joking, and repeat his question for him. He does make a good point that this country already has a fair amount of socialist tendencies.

So please, we're dumb, explain to us the badness.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:55 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, what about the bailouts? Isn't THAT socialism?

No. Just like Medicare is not socialism. But going from Medicare to socialized medicine, and going from occasional government assistance in order to avoid an economic collapse to redistribution of wealth is socialism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:13 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Why its wrong for a free people:

For a free person, the ownership of life, liberty and your pursuits is paramount.

You MUST, as a free-thinking, acting person, be allowed ownership of your legally gained wealth, land or ideas.

To wit, what you make, think of, earn, create, are YOURS TO DO WITH AS YOU PLEASE!

ANYTHING ELSE, is slavery to the state and promotes a shackling of self-determination to the lowest, weakest, and most failed of the society.

Think of Socialism (and Communism) as an anchor tied to your leg, while you swim in the open ocean. The sea is dangerous enough, without having to be dragged under by the weight of the ignorant masses.

This also goes both ways.

Nor should the less privaledged in society be forced to feed the wealthier. (As with the Bailout)

Another problem with Socialism, is its inherrant lack of faith in the people. In a free society, people have the choice to donate their time or money to a specific cause.

In a Socialist state, they do not.

Also, in a Socialist state, the government controls you. Period.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:32 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, what about the bailouts? Isn't THAT socialism? Isn't THAT a redistribution of wealth- to the rich? Didn't the biggest growth in government spending occur under George Bush?

Seems might one-sided of you, Hero, ignoring facts like that.

Who's ignoring those facts? Not me.

Did government grow too big under George Bush? Yes. In allowing it to grow he adopted a liberal-socialist approach to spending. That approach failed, particularly when combined with the liberal-socialist lending guidelines that have undermined the banking industry. We need a conservative approach, fiscal responsibility and allowing the market to sort itself out which in turn would grow the economy out of its present problems.

I continue to support many of the President's policies, especially on the war, but his spending is and has been out of control.

Socialism is wrong, no matter who is repsonsible. The answer to Bush's out of control spending is not to elect someone who wants more spending and lacks the management experiance to handle it properly.

Taxes are too high, Obama wants to raise them.
Spending is too high, Obama wants even more.

He wants to take money from me and give it to the folks who are not working. I don't take kindly to that. Reminds me of that episode of Ponderosa where the settlers wanted to steal the ranch. Lets face it, Obama would be all for taking the Ponderosa and giving it to the poor.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:44 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Think of Socialism (and Communism) as an anchor tied to your leg, while you swim in the open ocean. The sea is dangerous enough, without having to be dragged under by the weight of the ignorant masses.

Which ocean? Seriously, your examples are so extreme.

No, I wasn't joking, wasn't a political science major either - just want to understand why some people have put such heavy negative meaning to something that we in the US are already living with everyday. Specifically, Socialist programs and even Socialist ideals. And that they actually do positive things for us without taking away our most important freedoms. They aren't necessarily perfect (social security) but it's impossible to have perfection in a democracy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:47 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok Piz,

Riddle me this.

Why should I work so that I can have some/alot of my money taken, and then given, to someone who refuses to work (or is unable, or is to stupid)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:04 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok Piz,

Riddle me this.

Why should I work so that I can have some/alot of my money taken, and then given, to someone who refuses to work (or is unable, or is to stupid)?

Because, ironically, that is the price of Freedom. At least that is the price the USA charges for our kind of Freedom (FICA, Social Security).

I know firsthand the scenario you're talking about - I have no compassion for deadbeats or freeloaders. So, you work hard because even though it sucks big time you will in the end make more money for you and your family.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:09 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

It may be the price of living in the US, NOW..... but it doesn't HAVE TO BE.

This is NOT what the FF had in mind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This is NOT what the FF had in mind.

Are you sure? The Founding Fathers had many opinions about wealth. Some believed in slavery. Thomas Jefferson had this to say

Quote:
"We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich, and with the equal partition of intestate's estates, constitutes the best agrarian law.. Our revenues once liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., and the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spare a cent from his earnings."

Also

Quote:
"The property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."

The FF were not rugged individualistic frontiersmen, they were highly-educated and looked to the French Enlightenment for inspiration. That's why they wanted to "promote the general welfare". And that DIDN'T mean promote the welfare of corporations.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Just trying to understand: what's wrong with "Socialism?" Why is that such a radioactive word? As if mentioning it is akin to Satanic worship? Don't we already have socialistic programs in place, (welfare, medicare)?

Nothing. There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that the people of one's country have the basic necessities.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:28 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Nothing. There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that the people of one's country have the basic necessities."

By the worlds standards, even the very poor amoung us, have it pretty damn good.

But, if by "basic necessities", you mean 20' rims for your hummer, new Fubu gear, grillz, or other such nonsense...no. Not everyone has those.

Too bad, cus I like watching folks like that, driving cars like that, wearing clothes like that, with teeth like that. It reminds me of the circus.

Clowns always did make me laugh.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Nothing. There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that the people of one's country have the basic necessities."

By the worlds standards, even the very poor amoung us, have it pretty damn good.

But, if by "basic necessities", you mean 20' rims for your hummer, new Fubu gear, grillz, or other such nonsense...no. Not everyone has those.

Too bad, cus I like watching folks like that, driving cars like that, wearing clothes like that, with teeth like that. It reminds me of the circus.

Clowns always did make me laugh.

why to go with the racial stereotypes

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

How is it a racial stereotype?

A LOT of poor white kids have been taken in by that nonsense too....

Granted, they are the east/west coasts version of rednecks...but what the hell.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Wulf, have you read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about inequality of wealth?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yes.

But this doesnt mean that he (or they) wanted to go all Robin Hood.

Just that the playing field should be level so that you have the oppurtunity to pursue your "happiness".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Just that the playing field should be level so that you have the oppurtunity to pursue your "happiness".

And he wanted to use taxes and other laws to do it.

Quote:
Legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:55 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Yes.

But this doesnt mean that he (or they) wanted to go all Robin Hood.

Just that the playing field should be level so that you have the oppurtunity to pursue your "happiness".

And what precisely makes Obama a "robin hood" instead of a playing field leveler? He's gonna revert to Clinton era taxes--was Clinton a Marxist, too?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:00 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Main Entry: Marx·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈmärk-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1887
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx ; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.

Anti Obama folks please explain exactly how Obama's platform fits into any of these definitions without childish melodramatic stump speech dribble...and! how our own US Government's bailout doesn't...

I'll be amazed and thrilled to see how you can absolve "bailout Republicans and Democrats", while you still have idiotic Palinesque bimbo Conservative media twerps hurling turds at Biden like he's gonna crack and let loose the terrible Dr Evil secret that Obama will bring us Marxism.

My initial response is that the RNC and McCain campaign are shamefully desperate.

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:00 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You guys might think thats its ok to be forced to give up your money to support the woman with 5 children by 5 different fathers, but I do not.

Nor do I think my money should go to keep fools in their McMansions.

Or, to bailout the rich.

Also, I do not believe that throwing money at ANY social problem fixes it. Only the society itself can do that.

Sorry, but the government is stealing the money I EARN, to line the pockets of the undeserving.

I don't believe that the government has the right to take ANY of my money. Period.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You guys might think thats its ok to be forced to give up your money to support the woman with 5 children by 5 different fathers, but I do not.

Neither do I. But there's a "but..." to that.

Quote:
Nor do I think my money should go to keep fools in their McMansions.

Unless there was fraud involved in the loan, in which case, jail the perps.

Quote:
Or, to bailout the rich.

Okay.

Quote:
Also, I do not believe that throwing money at ANY social problem fixes it. Only the society itself can do that.

The government can be an extension of society, acting collectively. Maybe you just don't like collective action, and you feel that ANY collective action is "socialist".

Quote:
Sorry, but the government is stealing the money I EARN, to line the pockets of the undeserving.

Corporation are ALSO stealing the money that you EARN, to line the pockets of the undeserving.

Quote:
I don't believe that the government has the right to take ANY of my money. Period.

Well then, you and the FF disagree, so don't reference them on the topic again, OK?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:32 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Well then, you and the FF disagree, so don't reference them on the topic again, OK?"

I don't believe I and the FF disagree.

And I'll do what I damn well please.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok Piz,

Riddle me this.

Why should I work so that I can have some/alot of my money taken, and then given, to someone who refuses to work (or is unable, or is to stupid)?

When you say "too stupid", I take that to mean that you're a social Darwinist - you believe that "lesser" people among us should be wiped out so that we don't have to support them. People like, for instance, Sarah Palin's youngest child, who is going to need a LOT of special care and special consideration.

You're saying that those people who are "too stupid" to work should be killed, or at the very least allowed to slowly starve to death. Is that what you intended to say?

I'm just trying to clarify WHERE exactly you draw the line on when socialism is good and when it's bad. It seems that you draw the line just this side of wherever Barack Obama is standing...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:44 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

was Clinton a Marxist, too?

'course he was. remember that unsupervised trip to Russia while he was at Oxford? When he got recruited by the KGB over one weekend, and turned into the 30 year mole/sleeper agent?

That's why so many "real Americans" hate him, not because of his demon wife.

:<)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:50 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Kwicko....

*SIGH

No, I do NOT think that we should allow them to slowly starve to death...

However, that brings up a good point.

National SOCIALISTS (i.e. Nazis) got their start saying that they wanted to level the playing field. By taking from the rich Jews and giving back to the German people.

In any case. No, supporting Palins child is the job of its PARENTS. Not mine.

So sorry, but its not my RESPONSIBILITY (a word so often forgotten by Socialists) to take care of your stupid children, or you, or your aging granmammy.

Or to fix your cultures social ills, either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"Well then, you and the FF disagree, so don't reference them on the topic again, OK?-Signy

I don't believe I and the FF disagree.
And I'll do what I damn well please. -Wulf

Since I've previously quoted Ben Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on their view of taxes (PAY THEM) then I guess the only thing that you have left IS belief, 'cause the facts certainly aren't on your side. And of course you will continue to do whatever you damn well please, because it is in the nature of the true believer never to doubt their beliefs.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:00 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

National SOCIALISTS (i.e. Nazis) got their start saying that they wanted to level the playing field. By taking from the rich Jews and giving back to the German people.

Yeah, the nationalist part was a bit more important for them, though. Nice one, immediately going for the Nazi comparison. How about, say East Germany? A lot less genocide to muddy the moral waters.

Socialism is a lot more complex than taking from one group and giving to another. It's also about creating decent-paying jobs for everyone (a right to work and earn money, basically) so that everyone contributes. It's not about lazy people living off wellfare, not at all. There are a lot of perks to working in a society that actually caters to being able to work. Child care, family friendly hours, a job waiting when a woman comes back from maternity leave, etc.

Mind, I am not in favor of socialism. While the idea of a society not based on greed and ambition is a nice one, it's also not really... viable. Flexibility is killed.

But it's not a wellfare holiday state. There is only so much you can take from the rich until it's all been spread around. Taking is not the point or end of it.

Edited for typo.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:04 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You guys might think thats its ok to be forced to give up your money to support the woman with 5 children by 5 different fathers, but I do not.

The only thing you're giving this woman dollar-wise amounts to a few whiskers from Lincoln's beard on one of the pennies you dropped last year. Let it go; besides, you have more important things to worry about, like...

Quote:
Also, I do not believe that throwing money at ANY social problem fixes it. Only the society itself can do that.

I think you're on to something. What's your idea?

Quote:
I don't believe that the government has the right to take ANY of my money. Period.

Important shit won't get done if they don't, stuff you need like roads and schools and national defense - what's your alternative?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Kwicko....

*SIGH

No, I do NOT think that we should allow them to slowly starve to death...

However, that brings up a good point.

National SOCIALISTS (i.e. Nazis) got their start saying that they wanted to level the playing field. By taking from the rich Jews and giving back to the German people.

In any case. No, supporting Palins child is the job of its PARENTS. Not mine.

So sorry, but its not my RESPONSIBILITY (a word so often forgotten by Socialists) to take care of your stupid children, or you, or your aging granmammy.

Or to fix your cultures social ills, either.

Wulf

I believe that you will find that the Nazi's were in fact Facists and NOT socialists.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:09 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Socialism is a lot more complex than taking from one group and giving to another. It's also about creating decent-paying jobs for everyone (a right to work and earn money, basically) so that everyone contributes. It's not about lazy people living off wellfare, not at all. There are a lot of perks to working in a society that actually caters to being able to work. Child care, family friendly hours, a job waiting when a woman comes back from maternity leave, etc."

You can do ALL of those things CULTURALLY.

You don't need to be FORCED and STOLEN from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Socialism is a lot more complex than taking from one group and giving to another. It's also about creating decent-paying jobs for everyone (a right to work and earn money, basically) so that everyone contributes. It's not about lazy people living off wellfare, not at all. There are a lot of perks to working in a society that actually caters to being able to work. Child care, family friendly hours, a job waiting when a woman comes back from maternity leave, etc."

You can do ALL of those things CULTURALLY.

You don't need to be FORCED and STOLEN from.

You could move.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:29 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So could you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:30 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

hmmm...

is Obama a Marxist.

Lets take the basic Tenet of marxism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

versus our supposed system of, 'to each according to his ability'

So, being that the middle class just aint fucking making it in this country, are we to assume then, since the current system is "fair" capitalism and not socialism by your standards,

that the bulk of the American people just aren't capable enough to support their own needs?

They are making what they should be, according to their ability? The majority of our population deserve no better than to have to pick up a second job, pick up and leave their home, and start renting again?

And are we also to assume that these motherfuckers running their companies and our economy into the ground are making money according to their ability? They are earning that money?

Obama isn't giving people who aren't working a tax cut, he's giving middle class and poor working families a tax cut...you have to be making money and putting it in to get some of it back...

...................................

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:32 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Socialism is a lot more complex than taking from one group and giving to another. It's also about creating decent-paying jobs for everyone (a right to work and earn money, basically) so that everyone contributes. It's not about lazy people living off wellfare, not at all. There are a lot of perks to working in a society that actually caters to being able to work. Child care, family friendly hours, a job waiting when a woman comes back from maternity leave, etc."

You can do ALL of those things CULTURALLY.

You don't need to be FORCED and STOLEN from.

You realize that people within a socialist society generally don't consider it as being stolen? It's really a big cultural difference. The state is seen as the tool that creates these cushy conditions, not a dictator. It's an efficient way to distribute wealth. Many people in socialist society find this to be just fine and dandy. Many people in ex-socialist societies miss this. Why the fuss of lots of private charities, why the fuss of lots of private child care facilities, and so on. Efficiency is the word.

So don't consider every socialist state as oppressive by definition just because you don't want to live in it.

(There often is oppression but that's due to reasons not inherent in the concept of socialism, but in the concept of people in power getting crazy-headed over it.)

Now, while I think that - if everyone starts out equally - these things can indeed develop culturally, this world is hardly equal and I do not think that you'd get them to easily develop in a full-fledged capitalist society that arose out of big wealth-discrepancies like almost everywhere in the world. Or it would have, already. Why do you think so many people started loving the idea of socialism to begin with?

Do you see a humane way of phasing from sate-run social progams into entirely private charity, efficient charity? Because I do not think that "5 kids from 5 different fathers" is indeed the typical example of a recipient of wellfare. And I cannot imagine that most people would be - like you - fine with seeing poor and helpless people suffer if private charity doesn't reach them, and then not wonder why the government isn't trying to intervene.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:36 AM

Quote:

But, if by "basic necessities", you mean 20' rims for your hummer, new Fubu gear, grillz, or other such nonsense...no. Not everyone has those.

Too bad, cus I like watching folks like that, driving cars like that, wearing clothes like that, with teeth like that. It reminds me of the circus.

You're right - not everyone has those. And I'd wager that you can't find me ONE "welfare king" who is living solely off welfare and food stamps who has all of those things, either. You have this idea that there are people out there breeding just to get those extra welfare dollars, and they're getting absolutely filthy rich off the system that way.

Frankly, I don't buy it. I think you're just dealing in stereotypes. I've seen you do it all too many times before, so you've got a track record of it.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:37 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked. WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE PEOPLES FREEDOM.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So could you.

I don't need to. I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:38 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Obama is a train wreck, just waiting to happen.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I don't need to. I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich."

Tell me, what is considered "rich" in this country? What is considered "Middle Class"?

If we ALL paid 1% of our income to the state, the rich would naturally pay MORE. The poor, LESS.

It would also be FAIR.

But I guess we just want ot punish those damn rich people. I mean, they can afford it, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:41 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich.

I find that to be morally wrong. Why should those who work harder and make more pay more of what they earn? If you make 2x's what I make, then your 20% will be higher than mine. THAT'S fair. We all should pay the same % , regardless of what we make. And those who don't make a minimum amount should not have to pay any income taxes.

THAT'S what is fair.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:42 AM

I haven't verified this yet, but Alex Bennett of talk radio just said that Dwight D. Eisenhower - that shining bastion of Socialism - STRONGLY supported the tax rate for those making over - in adjusted for 2008 dollars - $3.2 million per year should be NINETY-ONE PERCENT. JFK was a "hero" because he lowered that rate to a "mere" seventy-one percent.

I found it interesting, and I'll be looking to verify it.

Mike

What, no catchy sig-line?

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:43 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked. WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE PEOPLES FREEDOM.

You do realize that I said I am not in favor of socialism and that it doesn't work in its pure form, with an entirely state-run economy? The thing is, the freedom not to pay taxes is generally not the kind that people were unhappy about not having. The freedoms taken away against their will were very often related entirely to political oppression and personal liberty.

So, you can kindly reply to something else that I said.

Edited for phrasing mistakes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:45 AM

Quote:

Taxes are too high, Obama wants to raise them.

He does? Everything I've seen has said taxes will stay the same or go down for 95% of Americans. Several websites have run the numbers and verified those figures.

Remember, Hero: Saying it don't make it so.

Taxes are too high, McCain wants to raise them. He's going to raise your taxes if you make under five million dollars a year - which is his threshold for being "wealthy"!

He has to raise those taxes, because he needs the money to start his next little war.

There ya go - that's every bit as factual as your statements.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked. WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE PEOPLES FREEDOM.

State? Or Country?

How about Sweden?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich.

I find that to be morally wrong. Why should those who work harder and make more pay more ? We all should pay the same % , regardless of what we make. And those who don't make a minimum amount should not have to pay any income taxes.

THAT'S what is fair.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

What is wrong is that the rich pay little to no taxes at all.

how is that fair?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:52 AM