Bob McCown said:Thanks for that, Bob. The "gentle social democracies" are across the Pacific, too.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg?Polarbearsrevenge
TonyWalsham said:
Bob, An interesting and timely article.I was especially taken by the bit at the end.
“One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.”
So it seems sharing the wealth is a good idea if you are a Republican doing it but not if you are a Democrat proposing it?
That is the Republican mantra, Tony.
The saying “he who lives in glass house shouldn’t throw stones” has been modified by the Republicans to “throw such a heavy barrage of stones that no one can stone our glass house”.
Ralph
TonyWalsham said:John Neal said:I do have sources. I was hoping you couldbe bothered finding them yourself. Apparently not, so here goes with three.TonyWalsham said:I thought you would have a source of information you are quoting as factual, evidently not. Good night.
John. If you cannot be bothered to do your own research why should I do it for you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
http://www.metafilter.com/35445/US-Army-to-Rebid-Halliburton-Contracts
http://halliburtonwatch.org/news/bid_rigging.html
Your turn??
Sorry it took so long to respond as I had to work preparing to spread the welth, then voting against it. Thanks for the links.
mike omalley said:
..................I like the comparison to “gentle social democracies across the Atlantic, where, in return for higher taxes and without any diminution of civil liberty, people buy themselves excellent public education, anxiety-free health care, and decent public transportation.”
We wouldn’t want that!
No Mike, you wouldn’t!
the first would make you think too much (very dangerous!),
the second would make you really feel better (that is ridiculous!) and
the third would give you enough range at a reasonable price to see what’s going on in other places ( oh man, that could lead to migrations!).
Absolutely crazy idea!
My pleasure.
I doubt there will be any more criticism of Socialism on these forums now. ;).
TonyWalsham said:Tony, Tony, :D
I doubt there will be any more criticism of Socialism on these forums now. ;).
Just wait until next week! :lol: :lol:
TonyWalsham said:That's like so yesterday!
I doubt there will be any more criticism of Socialism on these forums now. ;).
With the revelation that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite by on the one hand denigrating Socialism, and on the other hand actually practising Socialism in Alaska by “spreading the wealth”, I still don’t expect to see anyone arguing about the evils of Socialism on these forums anymore.
TonyWalsham said:Socialism is based on need as defined by the political powers-that-be. Those that have more are expected to give up some of their accumulated wealth to others who have less. This is not the situation in Alaska. Alaska is an "ownership state." That means we claim a substantial part of the natural resources for ourselves. Thus, 86 per cent of the State of Alaska budget comes from oil revenues from Alaska's 15 percent share of what goes through the Alyeska pipeline. Years ago we created an entity called the Permanent Fund which is set up to issue an annual dividend based on how well we do with our share of oil revenues that are invested in stocks and bonds. These are issued on an equal basis to all legal residents of the state and are not needs-based. The reference to the recent 1200 additional amount added to the dividend was in recognition of the fact that our own oil is a double-edged sword. Although we make a lot of money out of what was then the increasingly higher prices of a barrel of crude, it costs our residents far more in heating oil, gasoline and diesel. In early 2008 those prices were escalating to the point where many of our residents had to seriously `consider abandoning the state altogether. That 1200 dollar dividend not only went to each adult but also their children. This was particularly helpful for those living outside of Anchorage where heating oil costs were beginning to exceed $8.00 a gallon in some places. Thus, late in the summer, Sarah Palin made the proposal that soon became law for a one-time distribution of the additional $1200.00--just in time for many of us. She was already the most popular governor of all time with the possible exception of the late Jay Hammond BEFORE that measure was passed.
With the revelation that Sarah Palin is a hypocrite by on the one hand denigrating Socialism, and on the other hand actually practising Socialism in Alaska by "spreading the wealth", I still don't expect to see anyone arguing about the evils of Socialism on these forums anymore.
If you are calling that socialism, then YOU do not know what socialism is. To be true socialism, the money would have gone to those most needy and not been given to those who already were considered well-off. That is not how our ownership state works.
Ron in Copper Center, Alaska
The reference to socialism when it comes to Obama and his proposals is not over the proposed tax increases but because it appears he wants to pay money to those on the bottom of the income tax scale while taking more from those on the top. That falls along the classic lines of pure socialism: "from each according to his means “TO each according to his needs.” Of course, as the tax code becomes increasingly “progressive,” that is the rates increase for those near the top while decreasing at the lower end–or even going into a “negative tax” mode by paying those who fall in the lowest income tax brackets–it also becomes, by definition more in line with socialist principles. This IS the direction in which the Democrats have been going for years.
This matter of bailing out certain large corporations does not fall under the definition of socialism. On the other hand it certainly is NOT capitalism, either. The argument, of course, is that this matter of helping a part of Wall Street with massive cash infusions is necessary to protect “Main Street.” Interesting argument. Unproven, probably won’t work and more in line with Keynesian economics, which is marginally socialist, than with capitalism. I would prefer to let those institutions sink or swim, as, I suspect, would most others. The problem is WHICH ones do “we” bail out? What if it is not enough cash? IS there enough cash? HOW do we recover our “investment,” especially without this turning out to be the biggest excuse for pork barrel spending of all time? For the Republicans, it was a lose-lose situation. They had to appear to do something since they are forever accused of not doing enough. I am mindful of the Clinton days when the Republicans refused to fund the government and parts of it shut down. Instead of helping the Republicans, which it should have, it cost them dearly. That is because the USA has become increasingly government-oriented. That is, everyone seems to have a hand in it somewhere and seeks to benefit from their share without regard to the cost to everyone else. Thus, it is difficult to be a Republican these days and stick to true Republican principles. It is far easier to go along with a “me too” message, except relatively less than the Democrats. Of course, faced with such a choice, it is inevitable that over time the Republicans will lose out to the Democrats who are more consistent about being all things to all people through the government hand-out.
Thus we have McCain, a true product of the modern Republican dilemma. In the end, even if he wins there is no way he can win.
Too bad. I am a confirmed capitalist from the beginning. I hate to see where we are going because in the end we WILL crash. Fortunately, it appears that it will be the most consistent ones–the Dems–who will make that happen. But don’t say it is not socialism. It most certainly is. THIS is what socialism is all about. It is not pure. NOTHING is pure when it comes to politics. Nothing is consistent. And in the end, nothing makes sense because this is not about principle, not even about ideology. It is about, “me at the expense of YOU.” THAT is socialism in its true essence.
“Arguing on a web board is like competing in Special Olympics…win or lose you’re still a retard”…
That said, Did Palin execute an order as governor seizing control? No. Did Palin sign something from the legislature seizing control? No. Did Palin advocate the state taking control? No. …Everything was already in place that way. So HOW is she a hypocrite? If she had sold state assets to the highest bidder you’d be roasting her for that, too.
Oh, she’s to BLAME for the price of oil going through the roof? Yeah sure. She’s to blame for looking after HER constituents? …Until she is VP, she is still only Governor of ALASKA, those are the people she has to answer to first.
Sounds more like you’re all upset that YOU didn’t get a check too.
Barack Obama has been accused by all the conservatives here of being a Socialist mostly because he “wants to spread the wealth around.”
If “spreading the wealth around” is such a heinous Socialist practice then Sarah Palin must be a Socialist because she is doing exactly that.
Let me see if I can explain.
After perusing and digesting the above comments I think the summation would be Sarah Palin is taking the money (in taxes) from the wealthy (the privately owned oil companies), and spreading it around amongst the population, most of whom would not be as wealthy as the owners of the oil companies.
Therefore, If she is “spreading the wealth (in the form of tax) around” the only sensible conclusion can be is, she must be a Socialist.
If the Oil Companies were State owned and the wealth was being “spread around”, that would also be Socialism.
I repeat my earlier question.
If it is OK for Sarah Palin to “spread the wealth around”, how come it would not be OK for Barack Obama to do it as well?
If it looks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck and waddles like a Duck, it is a Duck.
Most of the Western style Democracies practice some form of Socialism as do all the States of the union and the Union itself.
If you collect taxes and redistrubute them for the social good that is a form of Socialism.
If any of the States in the USA and the USA itself provides some degree of State funded Health care, is that not also a form of Socialism?
The problem as I see it for Conservatives is one of perception.
There are degrees of Socialism just as there are degrees of Conservatism.
I think what you are confusing is Communism and Socialism.
Just because I espouse Socialist values does not make me a Communist.
I do not advocate Sate ownership and control of everything. The trick is getting balance.
But, don’t tell me Sarah Palin does not practice some form of Socialism when she is redistributing “The Wealth”.
TonyWalsham said:
Barack Obama has been accused by all the conservatives here of being a Socialist mostly because he "wants to spread the wealth around."If “spreading the wealth around” is such a heinous Socialist practice then Sarah Palin must be a Socialist because she is doing exactly that.
Let me see if I can explain.
After perusing and digesting the above comments I think the summation would be Sarah Palin is taking the money (in taxes) from the wealthy (the privately owned oil companies), and spreading it around amongst the population, most of whom would not be as wealthy as the owners of the oil companies.
Therefore, If she is “spreading the wealth (in the form of tax) around” the only sensible conclusion can be is, she must be a Socialist.If the Oil Companies were State owned and the wealth was being “spread around”, that would also be Socialism.
I repeat my earlier question.
If it is OK for Sarah Palin to “spread the wealth around”, how come it would not be OK for Barack Obama to do it as well?
Talk about a complete obfuscation of the meaning of socialism, you sure found a way to do it. There is about as much resemblance of the Alaska PFD program to socialism as there is Austria to Australia. What Obama clearly intends to do is take from every productive taxpayer so he can transfer that wealth directly to those who do not pay taxes. THAT is about as socialistic as one can get.
You obviously have a problem with Sarah, probably because she represents a political threat to the left in THIS country. However, the Alaskan system you are discussing was already in place when she became governor. Recipients of the PFD receive EQUAL shares no matter what their economic status or “need.” That is NOT socialism. In fact even the wealthy oil executives who live in this state receive THEIRS just the same as those residents here who live well below the poverty level. That is because the PFD is not intended to spread the wealth or to equalize anything. The PFD program is a recognition that the people OWN their own government and that not all the revenues the government receives should be spent exclusively by bureaucrats.
You are not the first person of leftist persuasion to attempt to make such an argument, but it holds no water. Socialism has a far more specific meaning. Obama DOES represent modern American socialism, which is exactly where we are heading. Sarah Palin does not.
I think the Conservative views expressed here are wrong as do the Conservatives here, think my Socialist views are wrong.
One of the advantages of living in Democracies is we can agree to disagree.
I think we should agree to disagree.
Thank you Ron. Your explanation and reasoning is very concise and correct to this American. I find it is hard to argue against. There has been lots of talk about the early voting having a major impact on this election. In Illinois it is predicted 700,000 will vote early. That’s nothing, we will see what happens, Tuesday.
Ron Simpson said:What we have done is take money from the average American taxpayer and we are bailing out the gambling losses of the rich. I guess taking from the least affluent and giving to the most affluent is not some type of perversion of Socialism?
Whats. Obama clearly intends to do is take from every productive taxpayer so he can transfer that wealth directly to those who do not pay taxes. THAT is about as socialistic as one can get. You are not the first person of leftist persuasion to attempt to make such an argument, but it holds no water. Socialism has a far more specific meaning. Obama DOES represent modern American socialism, which is exactly where we are heading. Sarah Palin does not.
And the assumption that “spread the wealth around” means a Robin Hood type action of taking from the rich to give to the poor is just that, an assumption.
What he is talking about is making sure that people are able to EARN a living working. That people are paid a “LIVING WAGE”. That people are able to AFFORD medical care.
I would like to see the Obama quote that implies " Obama clearly intends to do is take from every productive taxpayer so he can transfer that wealth directly to those who do not pay taxes. ". It does not exist. He NEVER said anything remotely similar to this. Show me the evidence, or retract your false statement.
We have the largest percentage of billionaires in history. At the same time we have the largest percentage of poor. We have the largest imbalance in the distribution of wealth ever.
If the belief that a working person should be able to earn enough money to live is Socialism, than I guess I must be a friggin Socialist. The alternative is to be a greedy, heartless, selfish bastard.
Ralph
Ralph Berg said:No. That is EXACTLY what it means. We can safely take him at his word. Obama is no "moderate," whatever that means anymore. But he sure has a reassuring message, doesn't he? You want to be saved by the government? Has that EVER really worked before? Not even FDR's famous (socialist) New Deal did the job. Only WWII brought America back from the brink. [br]
the assumption that "spread the wealth around" means a Robin Hood type action of taking from the rich to give to the poor is just that, an assumption . . .
Quote:[br]
What he is talking about is making sure that people are able to EARN a living working. That people are paid a "LIVING WAGE". . . .If the belief that a working person should be able to earn enough money to live is Socialism, than I guess I must be a friggin Socialist. The alternative is to be a greedy, heartless, selfish bastard. Ralph
How does one define a “living wage?” Now THERE’S a truly nebulous term for you–and deliberately so, as is typical of the left, whether it is the old left or the new left. You want to keep raising the minimum wage until there are virtually no small businesses? At what point do you think government should NOT interfere with small business, much less the larger ones? When you start getting into that territory, you are in fact moving into socialism. This alternative is to be greedy business just does not cut it. If you want to share your resources with those less fortunate than yourself, please feel free, but please don’t impose your views on others. Since when do you have a right to determine what others should do with THEIR earnings and their property and capital? THAT is socialism. And, yes, Barrack Obama IS a socialist in the finest tradition of Marxism but using updated, far less objectionable terms to mask the true intent–terms such as “spreading the wealth.”
This is just absurd. By this definition, ALL taxation is socialism–taxation for roads, or the military, or public infrastructure. You are arguing that any instance of one person’s money being “taken” and used towards some project for the public good is socialism. The military–a massive example of socialism, by your definition. or is it only “socialism” if it pays for things you don’t like?
In a democratic society, an elected government has every right to tax people. Your response is to vote them out if you don’t like it. But taxation is absolutely legitimate.
And the idea that taxation and government spending never works is equally ridiculous, The FDIC, for example–it ended the bank panics that were killing people’s saving in 1932 and it provided a foundation for a stable, reliable banking system until the republicans starting deregulating under Reagan. How about the GI Bill? How about the federal Highway system? How about the internet–entirely a product of govt. spending.
Why do yuo think the US became the world dominant power after WWII–Big government liberalism.
Conservatives are such crybabys! Wahh, I have to pay taxes!! it’s socialism!
No, it’s not. Teddy Roosevelt favored progressive taxation–was he a socialist? Dwight Eisenhower? Richard Nixon?
Republicans constantly whining about having to pay taxes, like it’s some kind of monstrous injustice. Meanwhile, Alaska consistently gets almost twice as much as it pays out. And then Alaskans have the brass to whine about their horrible tax burden!