20 Years of Socialism
- Thread starter big_country90
- Start date
although you probably haven't a clue of what you're saying, yes, they have. they fall for every single poll that comes out, and have done so since prior to the 2016 election. i've told them why the polls are off, but they avoid those posts like the plague because they know it's true and don't want to see it.
on the flip side, at least they have those urban areas that are polled which yields the propaganda spoon fed to these asshats.
five more years . . . bookmark it.
Well, in typical Rifle fashion, he left out the key phrase in what transitions social programs to socialism, which kept my comments consistent, and then claimed I was inconsistent. Again, Socialism requires the collective/community/government to control the means of production. He conveniently left out my statement on the government seizing industry in order to make my post fit his narrative. It's a common gimmick of his.
Banker didn't need any help destroying his argument, but thanks for helping him do it.
Tell us more about the "more and more socialistic programs?" In order to have "more and more," there has to be some already. Can you tell us about the socialistic programs the U.S. currently has?
Still can't figure out that social and socialist aren't the same word and have different meanings?
again, argue semantics with yourself. hang your hat on "related to". you continue to avoid the point made earlier regarding more and more social programs, or socialistic programs since you seem to have a boner for that wording, lead to full socialism. your side can't get what they want so they eventually do what they've already proposed, stack the courts with justices. a socialist america is within grasp at that point.
seriously, why would you want to the government running more programs when it's proven itself time and again to be incredibly incompetent in running those it currently does? and, would you support these additional programs that you've mentioned if it was a guarantee that america became socialist america?
as always, feel free to write a diatribe of bullshit spinning in circles.
That's twice you have used the phrase "socialistic programs". I have never heard that term used in relation to social programs undertaken by the U.S. government. Did you just decide to make that up to further confuse the difference between social programs and socialism?
Social is from the Latin word for friend. Doing something for a friend is not the same as socialism. As a representative republic, we have elected officials that have put these programs in place generally because we are a caring society. If, in the opinion of the voters, those people are misusing our money we can vote them out of office and put in people who will kill those programs.
Again, just one more time for you, Socialism is based on key ingredients that include the control of the means of production, control of distribution, and no private property ownership. In Marxism it is viewed as the transitional phase between capitalism and communism.
This thread needs to go in the Pullman Hall of Fame.
fan, you’re the one who said “socialistic programs,” so how would I be the one with a hard-on for the phrase when you’re the one I’ve quoted? In fact, you claimed that America already has “socialistic programs.” And that’s exactly what I originally argued in this thread which your side disagreed with!
America already has “socialistic programs” as you stated it does. You’ve just agreed with my side and disagreed with Banker’s stance.
And then you have the gall to say that I’m the one using word play and semantics? Are you out of your fvcking mind? That’s exactly what Banker is doing. He is claiming that the programs you admit are “socialist programs” aren’t socialism because the government doesn’t control the means of production (which he’s wrong about when it comes to progressive taxation) - that’s him arguing semantics over what YOU stated were “socialistic programs.”
Can somebody bring Sisters into this thread so that he can dumb this down for Banker?
Go look at both times I used “socialistic programs” in this thread. What do you notice about each use? That’s right, they are both in quotations. Do you know what that means? It means I was quoting the words of somebody else. In this case, those words belonged to Fan. While trying to argue your side, he helped you completely destroy your argument by admitting that America already has “socialistic programs.” Those weren’t my words but fan’s.
My quote of his phrase was to show that he refuted your argument by admitting and using that phrase. So go ahead and ask him what you asked me, since he was the one who used the phrase and destroyed your argument while trying to defend it.
See how stupid you continue to look in this thread?
The only posts I'm reading in this thread are yours and my own, and what I'm reading still shows you are confused. Apparently, you don't understand what the phrase "means of production" means. I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with taxes, progressive or otherwise.
Here, I'll help -
How do you produce food? Your answer - with progressive taxes
How do you produce electricity? Your answer - through progressive taxation
See how that makes no sense? The only "control" taxation has on the means of production is by adding to its cost.
In socialism, the community (government) controls the resources, the manufacturing facilities, and the labor. All the money generated through production flows to the government who then distributes it. That's what control of the means of production and distribution means, and that has nothing to do with taxation or social programs.
Once again, equating social programs to socialism is, frankly, retarded and shows a significant lack of knowledge as it relates to economics and forms of governance.
Here, I'll help -
How do you produce food? Your answer - with progressive taxes
How do you produce electricity? Your answer - through progressive taxation
See how that makes no sense? The only "control" taxation has on the means of production is by adding to its cost.
In socialism, the community (government) controls the resources, the manufacturing facilities, and the labor. All the money generated through production flows to the government who then distributes it. That's what control of the means of production and distribution means, and that has nothing to do with taxation or social programs.
Once again, equating social programs to socialism is, frankly, retarded and shows a significant lack of knowledge as it relates to economics and forms of governance.
Have you had a stroke or what, thought you were brighter than this. Here, let me dumb this down to your current kinder level:. I know I used the term first. I also know yore the one that continues to quote it over and over; thus, the hardon for it you appear to have.
I'll go ahead and mark you down as being in agreement with everything else I stated regarding more and more social programs leading to socialism, as you only address my use of the phrase socialistic programs and continue to avoid the rest.
"But, WV-FAN used the phrase 'socialistic programs', so that proves social programs is related to socialism."
We have a serious problem. The definition of what "Socialism" is not one. When CEO's are being paid between 2-8 million dollars a year and also receive huge buyouts when they leave a company, the working folks wonder what these leaders produced to be paid such exhorbitant salaries. Workers in the labor force is producing and getting paid much less. Then on top of that, the same top money "earners" (use this term lightly), find ways to shelter their income from taxation, investing in tax sheltered annuities, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc., that allows tremendous deductions. Corporations are doing the same. The super rich simply pass wealth to their children, and they, for the most part, did not produce anything to deserve it. They inherent the same tax breaks provided their rich parents. The gap between the rich and working class is growing significantly and it has a great deal to do with money controlling elections and legislation. Greed is our greatest enemy. History shows what happens to societies that allow such divides to occur and it is never pretty. We are certainly not there yet, but not changing our direction will create tensions. Our growth has been greatest when we have invested in people through job training, education and "legitimate" home loans. Unions have been weakened, working conditions, earnings and upward mobility is next to impossible to discuss in our current business climate. American Democracy is better than this. Encouraging all citizens to live up to their potential in terms of education, work and living conditions is something we all should be supporting and encouraging. Talking about who is stupid or not bright simply separates everyone, creates a communication chasm that prevents discussion of these serious matters. Our country was built and experienced it's greatest periods of growth because of compromise, not autocratic leadership. We are no where near a socialist country.
How does owning stocks, bonds, and real estate a "tax shelter".
What???
"Working conditions" in this country have never been better.
Unfortunately that's not what libs like you do. By suggesting only govt can insure this through (socialist based) policy, is exactly the opposite of what built this country.
I overlooked this line. Who is it exactly who labeled an entire group of people "deplorable"?
Behavior can be deplorable. People are not. Granted stocks are not really a tax break, but folks, with money to play with, certainly do invest in stocks for income growth. Poor folks do not have that luxury. Bonds most certainly can be a tax break for individuals and corporations. Real estate Income, especially rental property, does provide tax breaks In the form of depreciation allowances and capital gains tax rates when sold. You know there are tax loop holes that benefit folks with investment abilities. Not saying it is all bad, however, we can do better with the lower income folks that are struggling to find resources to support their families. We are a rich country and have always sought ways, through legislation, to improve the plight of all citizens. That was my understanding of our founding fathers including checks and balances in our government. Those checks and balances have skewed toward the wealthy and in many ways have been compromised by many in power. Never really thought of myself as a lib. My faith leads me to be concerned about the poor and working poor.
Your words are moronic. But you are not....
You're actually highlighting reasons why this country is the place many risk their lives in order to get here. OPPORTUNITIES.
Still not sure you completely understand why bond investing is important to the overall success at helping the hapless, helpless (your insinuation with your reply) "lower income" class (Hint....Reason #1: it funds your precious govt and it's countless programs). And yes...most bond revenue to investors is taxable income and not a "tax break".. (unless your buying very specific govt bonds (investing) to fund govt programs and projects you demand be funded)
Love the "tax loop hole" line. More jealousy and envy speak from someone who didn't want to risk their money in that type of investment. Lets just agree you're choosing to ignore what separated this country from most, and help advance it's prominence in the world....property ownership rights and the ability to buy, own, and sell that property.
Liarherdfan is going to get really mad if you continue to approach his territory. You're telling me that you're only reading my posts in this thread, which makes no sense on its own. Then, add to it that you've actually responded to posts from other people in this thread, and it shows that you're a fvcking liar.
Now, go back and read fan's posts again ("again," since we now know you are lying about reading nobody else's posts but mine in this thread). As you can see, he was the one who used "socialistic programs." He's the one who inferred that the U.S. currently has "socialistic programs" in place. Are you going to tell him that he is utterly destroying your argument with his posts or should I continue to mock him for it?
Oh, stop. Regardless of what you will openly admit on here, you know that I am far brighter than you. The fact that you are a poor reader doesn't reflect my knowledge on a topic. "Means of production" is a very simple concept, as is socialism. I was a political science major - as shitty of a school Marshall is, I wouldn't have been able to pass numerous courses without a thorough understanding of socialism.
You simply fail to acknowledge a few major things:
1) Socialism has many forms and aspects. Norway and Canada are both referred to as "socialist countries," but it doesn't mean their entire economy is based on socialism. It means a program or aspect of what they have is socialist in theory, just like programs the U.S. has are socialist in theory.
2) Socialist programs are not the same thing as a socialist economy. Look at social security programs - the government runs the system. It controls the means of production for it (the taxing of paychecks), how much is produced, who produces it, and when they produce it. It decides when it can be used, how it is used (invested), and just about everything else. It is a collective system completely controlled by the government and is used to provide for the needy from those who pay more than they get out of it. It is a socialist program. That doesn't mean the U.S. is a socialist country or has a socialist economy. It is simply another example of the U.S. having a socialist program.
3) You continue to hide from this:
You said:
- progressive taxation is not related to socialism
- how the tax dollars from progressive taxation is used has nothing to do with socialism
Then, you said:
- social programs funded by progressive tax based systems, which are then expanded, turn into socialism
Your last statement alone shows that tax dollars from a progressive tax system is directly a part of socialism. It contradicts your earlier claim that progressive taxation is not related to socialism and has nothing to do with it.
You totally ignore my concern. What would you or could you do to assist families that cannot afford healthcare, food or shelter for their families. Do you know or are you aware of such families in your community? I accept your greater knowledge of the financial world (to an extent). Not sure about your understanding of the difficulties a large segment of our society endures. The only way the poor will not be classified "Hapless" or "Helpless", in your image of America, is someone that has served in the military. If your last statement is accurate, then we should do all in our power to insure that every American is able to own, buy and sell property, pay taxes, and obtain an education. Would that not make us a better/stronger America?
[
do you really mean what more could be done? the poor already receives tax credits for health insurance, so it's basically free for them. they already receive earned income credit, so their income is already supplemented by the government. there's already programs in place that provide them free food and shelter. so, are you really saying what more could be done, or is it really not about them and all? i'll tell you what it it's about for people like you: it's all about your jealousy of those who have done well for themselves and your desire to take what they've earned away from them and its redistribution. that's what this is truly all about: jealousy of the doer's by the lazies and can't doers.
Norway and Canada are referred to as socialist countries only by those who wish to bring socialism to the United States and want to make it seem accepted and wonderful.
Norway is a capitalist market economy where growth generally comes from private property rights and private companies. It is a democratic constitutional monarchy where Executive power is exercised by the Council of State, the cabinet and a Prime minister.
Canada is also a democratic constitutional monarchy, very similar to Norway. It also has private property rights and private industry.
Again, your inability to distinguish between social programs and socialism is astounding, but helps me understand the lunacy of the left.
Again, you also still don't understand "means of production". Taxes are not the "production" that funds social security. Taxes are a byproduct of production, taken from the earnings of production. They are not production. it's strange that, since you are so smart, you can't grasp this simple concept.
And I'm not ignoring anything I have said. It simply gets to the issue that you can't distinguish between social programs, which we have, and socialism. You can have social programs without any socialism because socialism is not a program, it is a form of governance and economic system. Not everything one person does for another is socialism at its core. Specifically, there is nothing socialistic about social security. It's a supplemental retirement system that workers and their employers pay in to in exchange for a future benefit. It you don't pay in, you don't get paid out. Yes, the umbrella of SS has been expanded to cover other situations, but that is small percentage of expenditures. Same with Medicare/caid, you pay in now, get benefits later.
My point again, social programs are fine within limits. Well meaning social programs can, and eventually will, lead to socialism when the costs of social programs demanded by the populace exceed the ability of a reasonable tax structure to cover the costs. That's when government has to seize private property to generate the revenue (through control of production) to afford the social programs.
I doubt you get it this time either...check that, I know you won't acknowledge that you understand it, so this is my last post in this thread.
Only if they can charge a toll.
And that's a scam: we tax the rich less, so states have to sell bonds to build roads vs using the taxes that could have been levied, the rich then buy the bonds and make double the money: tax cuts AND bond revenues. Yay!
Neither do you people that claim social programs (taxes paying for schools, roads, and even *gasp* health care) are the same as community ownership of the means of production....but go on, please....
And yet you sorta just proclaimed Canada and Norway, which it seems to me is what is really that kind of stuff that is wanted, is cool. Fvck, I don't even know what to say....I was better off out of town and in the woods.
You and Raleigh are delusional if you believe that the poor in this country are receiving adequate health care! Hospitals and clinics, in areas where the poor live, have decreased significantly. Being poor, transportation is not easily available to get to facilities. Hospitals have reduced the % devoted to charity care. The poor do not have the resources to navigate an extremely complicated insurance/medical care system. More physicians are not accepting patience with public health care
Insurance. You both need to expand your social network to a few poor folks to have any understanding of the issues. Religious organizations cannot fill the gap alone.
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: 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
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: 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
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Your self righteous attitude suggesting that only you "know" the challenges of being poor, combined with your admitted ignorance of financial world makes it challenging to have a conversation with you.
What allows you to assume that I came from wealth and didn't start from very average means? What allows you to assume that I don't currently donate $$ and/or volunteer for charitable organizations and serve on boards which assist underprivileged?
What should be done to assist families??? You mean by individual hospitals that provide $$millions in charitable care annually? Docs that provide pro bono care for countless patients? Drug/Device companies that provide $$ millions of free or reduced cost healthcare products annually? You mean the $$billions in rent and food subsidies already provided by the govt? You mean countless businesses that look to hire underprivileged people and develop their skills for a better future? You mean the countless charities in every community that provide additional $$$ benefits on top of the ones I just listed?
Do you seriously want to talk about "empowering every American to own/buy real estate"??? Yes, this was already done beginning in the late 90's. Of course that ended up creating the mortgage bubble that busted the economy in 2008. (More financial discussion for another thread)
Frankly, I don't think people like you really want people to succeed or achieve the highest levels of their potential unless you can determine how they do it. You celebrate your ability to "care" more than someone else. The assumptions you've made throughout this thread alone underscores your prejudice against anyone of success and completely ignores the fact that many of those with the success you judge, came from very humble beginnings by inheriting nothing.
Your open skepticism towards the activities and processes that lead to someone being motivated enough to leave the impoverished/needy ranks, is most likely enough to produce doubts in the minds of the people you claim you're trying to "help". Why should someone try to achieve financial success or dynamic careers, if people like you blindly trash other accomplished people that should be emulated?
Like I said above....your self righteous, arrogant comments demonstrate how much you really don't know.
The $trillions in pension funds aren't all bought by the "rich", but you keep going with that line of thinking.....
Most of us are from WV and this guy thinks we have never been around poor people?
That's ten percent of the bond market, and no one is getting rich off of their pensions...but hey, nice to see you support the idea of pensions!
I’m all for pensions as long as they aren’t public pensions. My company offers one as a benefit and I stand to make out pretty darn well when I retire thanks to that and several other perks.
