Large Scale Central

Socialism?

General Discussion
#81
TonyWalsham said:
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.


IF you believe the STATE is to be the ultimate dispenser of ALL wealth (which can only be created by individuals and private entities), then SOCIALISM is for you. Of course, you do run the risk of killing the goose who lays the golden egg, but that is your choice, I guess.

If, on the other hand, you believe that creating and keeping one’s own wealth is YOUR inherent right and that you yourself are NOT the property of the state, you are a capitalist.

The difference has been blurred in recent years because of endless failed attempts to successfully mix the two. There are NO modern examples where a mixing of the two has worked out well or remained stable. Most all of the western nations have either already reverted to socialism or are rapidly heading in that direction. That is because once the principle is accepted that the government can interfere in any aspect of one’s life, the logical next step is that the government OWNS you. These days this is achieved by the people themselves–the voters-- who are led to believe that their best or only chance of getting what they want is through government action–at the expense of somebody else, of course.

Once THAT principle becomes established–the one which states that there is NOTHING in the way of wealth or earnings which cannot be voted away from someone else, the numbers ALWAYS favor those who want to take other peoples’ earnings and property. Then it is only a matter of time until socialism becomes reality. There is, of course, no exact point where one can say, “we have reached socialism.” From the true-believers point of view, that stage is not reached until EVERYONE except the political elite have been leveled and have become wholly dependent on the state. THEN we have truly reverted to the “good old days” of the “divine right of kings” where the state has once again become the final arbiter of all things and where in the process each of us has finally achieved equal serf status.

Of course, the assumption here is that the king will ALWAYS be a good king and seek only the best interests of his constituents. In this case, the “king” is an undefinable group of bureaucrats who have been given effectively UNLIMITED power by the people–the voters-- to oversee every detail of everyone’s existence. The very nature of human beings dictate that there is NEVER a “good” king or dictator (or, in this case, all-powerful state). Not for long.

So, of course, we disagree. We don’t disagree a little. We disagree completely. I am not one to compromise with socialism. It is wholly abhorrent to me as a traditional American who believes in REAL freedom–not the fake kind which consists of freedom FROM this or freedom from that. Life has no guarantees and I seek none. I only want freedom to do what I need to support myself and my family without answering to some anonymous so-called higher human-based power which thinks it knows better than I do how do spend my own resources.

#82

Mike,

Perhaps the biggest problem is: terminology. Often times it seems that the Wanky Right can’t, won’t or doesn’t understand the term “socialism” is distinct from the term “social democracy”. Root cause? Could it be a slight lack of learning, memory or a combination of the two? :wink: :slight_smile:
To revert to the general blanket of “It’s socialism!” is ohhhhhhhhhh so convenient!

#83
Ron Simpson said:
Life has no guarantees and I seek none. I only want freedom to do what I need to support myself and my family without answering to some anonymous so-called higher human-based power which thinks it knows better than I do how do spend my own resources.
So will you be giving back the $1.83 per dollar of federal taxes paid which Alaskans enjoyed in 2005? For every dollar in federal taxes Alaskans paid in 20o5, they got $1.83 back.

Check this out, for 2002

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/Publications/FedSpendSum.pdf

Here’s a quote, for the year 2002, when Alaska got 7.6 billion in federal tax money

“One in three jobs in Alaska—about 96,000—depend on current federal spending.
Federal spending in Alaska more than doubled in the past 20 years, even after we take out the effects of
inflation. Nationwide, real federal spending increased about 50 percent.
Grants grew the fastest, jumping from $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion just from 1996 to 2002. Grants now
just about equal federal spending for military and civilian operations combined”

So while you talk about your love of freedom, your state rests on a large cushion of federal tax dollars. Will you refuse to drive on those roads, or accept money from people who work for the federal government–a third of your customers?

#84
mike omalley said:
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.


Taxation per se is not the problem. Although the moment we accepted income tax as a legitimate form of taxation, we significantly moved in that direction. Even that is not so bad as long as it is applied equally. That is, a straight percentage taken from earnings. BUT instead we have “progressive” taxation that takes increasingly more from the higher earners–the same ones who provide the vast bulk of employment for most everyone else.

Of course, taxation is part of government. Who would argue that? You are deliberately confusing concepts.

Quote:
Why do yuo think the US became the world dominant power after WWII--Big government liberalism.
The US became the dominant power because it was by far the most capitalistic country and it had the resources to back that up. Our own capitalist system produced so much prosperity that we almost single-handedly pulled the rest of the world out of their economic funk brought on my years of devastation by war and the failed politics of dictatorships of various stripes--fascists, communists, and all the rest.
Quote:
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!


You really do despise those who oppose socialism, don’t you? My goodness, listen to YOUR whining !

#85

No, I don’t despise anyone. And I’m not the one whining about taxes

You are lecturing us in your love of freedom from taxation, and calling Obama a “Marxist” because he supports progressive taxation–like Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or Richard Nixon. But you live in a state which is consistently among the top three in federal tax dollars psent per capita. That seems somewhat…inconsistent…to me, since I’m subsidizing Alaska’s prosperity.

Now I live in a state, Virginia, which is also very high in tax money received, mostly defense related spending in Northern Virginia/the Pentagon and Norfolk. But I’m willing to pay taxes and indeed, to be taxed at a higher bracket now than i was ten years ago. That’s consistent.

#86

I offered to agree to disagree.
That has been refused and the attacks have continued.
Mr Simpson really has no idea.
Period.
Nothing like personally attacking those that have a different point of view to engender a generosity of spirit in Society.
The problem is, because of the total stuff up GWB has allowed to happen under his watch, personal attacks will no longer work against the thinkers amongst the American people nor those of the rest of the World.
Fortunately, on Tuesday the 4th of November the American People are going to reject the idea of rapant selfishness and elect someone who will offer a more balanced view on how life should be lived.
Democracy will work like it is supposed to and no amount of vitriol is going to alter the outcome.

Long live the USA.

#87
mike omalley said:
No, I don't despise anyone. And I'm not the one whining about taxes

You are lecturing us in your love of freedom from taxation, and calling Obama a “Marxist” because he supports progressive taxation–like Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or Richard Nixon. But you live in a state which is consistently among the top three in federal tax dollars psent per capita. That seems somewhat…inconsistent…to me, since I’m subsidizing Alaska’s prosperity.

Now I live in a state, Virginia, which is also very high in tax money received, mostly defense related spending in Northern Virginia/the Pentagon and Norfolk. But I’m willing to pay taxes and indeed, to be taxed at a higher bracket now than i was ten years ago. That’s consistent.


I would be quite pleased if you did NOT subsidize us at all. Although understand this: The reason we have such a large percentage of such funding is because Alaska came in late as a state (1959) and was lacking in infrastructure such as bridges and highways. We had a long way to go to catch up, especially considering that we have the lowest number of people per capita of any state.

On the other hand the original deal was that we would always be recognized as a resource state and that we would be granted enough control over our own resources, primarily mining, oil, timber and fish, to pay our own way to the same extent as any other state. Of course, that was the FIRST promise broken by the federal government.

Still, I would just as soon end all the pork-barrel politics and all highway funding at a minimum. At that point, especially assuming an Obama presidential victory and a corresponding complete take-over of Congress by the Dems to where all debate is essentially over, it is time for us here in Alaska to re-define our relationship with the federal government.

As to your references to those three Republican presidents, you are right. Their positions WERE inconsistent with what was supposed to be Republican principles. In fact, it was Presidential actions such as that by Nixon in particular which led to the statement by some on the right (and even the left) that there is not a dime’s-worth of difference between the two parties. To a certain extent, they had a point. That is because many if not most Republican politicians, but particularly the most recent ones have been glaringly inconsistent in their principles. Thus, you have a point. But the only point made is that we need to find a better way to select our leaders. The most recent Presidential candidate is a particularly good example of how we have failed.

#88
TonyWalsham said:
I offered to agree to disagree. That has been refused and the attacks have continued. Mr Simpson really has no idea. Period. Nothing like personally attacking those that have a different point of view to engender a generosity of spirit in Society. The problem is, because of the total stuff up GWB has allowed to happen under his watch, personal attacks will no longer work against the thinkers amongst the American people nor those of the rest of the World. Fortunately, on Tuesday the 4th of November the American People are going to reject the idea of rapant selfishness and elect someone who will offer a more balanced view on how life should be lived. Democracy will work like it is supposed to and no amount of vitriol is going to alter the outcome.

Long live the USA.


Yes. I understand the principle. If all else fails, move to shut off all debate, especially by innuendo and otherwise smearing the opposition. Got it.

#89
TonyWalsham said:
I offered to agree to disagree. That has been refused and the attacks have continued. Mr Simpson really has no idea. Period. Nothing like personally attacking those that have a different point of view to engender a generosity of spirit in Society. The problem is, because of the total stuff up GWB has allowed to happen under his watch, personal attacks will no longer work against the thinkers amongst the American people nor those of the rest of the World. Fortunately, on Tuesday the 4th of November the American People are going to reject the idea of rapant selfishness and elect someone who will offer a more balanced view on how life should be lived. Democracy will work like it is supposed to and no amount of vitriol is going to alter the outcome.

Long live the USA.


Attacks??? What the hell are you talking about Tony??

#90
Ron Simpson said:
Although understand this: The reason we have such a large percentage of such funding is because Alaska came in late as a state (1959) and was lacking in infrastructure such as bridges and highways. We had a long way to go to catch up, especially considering that we have the lowest number of people per capita of any state.
Earlier you criticized the idea of a "living wage," suggesting that it was impossible to determine such a thing. But here you seem to be saying there is a base level of infrastructure to which Alaska is entitled. How do we determine the the "proper" level--the "living" infrastructure level? And how do we establish it? You are defending tax spending on Alaska's infrastructure, which seems to amount to socialism as you define it, in the sense that my tax dollars are buying you a road and almost a "bridge to nowhere."

You suggested that Alaska needed to “catch up” in terms of infrastructure. Well, the idea of the “living wage” is that the poorest people need to “catch up” to everyone else, just as, if I understand you right, Alaska needed to catch up in infrastructure and had to charge me to make it happen. Why is one ok, and not the other?

#91
mike omalley said:
................

You suggested that Alaska needed to “catch up” in terms of infrastructure. Well, the idea of the “living wage” is that the poorest people need to “catch up” to everyone else, just as, if I understand you right, Alaska needed to catch up in infrastructure and had to charge me to make it happen. Why is one ok, and not the other?


Mike,

It’s called the “give and take” principle, the problem is some people have you gladly give while they just as gladly keep on taking. :wink: :slight_smile:

#92
mike omalley said:
Ron Simpson said:
Although understand this: The reason we have such a large percentage of such funding is because Alaska came in late as a state (1959) and was lacking in infrastructure such as bridges and highways. We had a long way to go to catch up, especially considering that we have the lowest number of people per capita of any state.
Earlier you criticized the idea of a "living wage," suggesting that it was impossible to determine such a thing. But here you seem to be saying there is a base level of infrastructure to which Alaska is entitled. How do we determine the the "proper" level--the "living" infrastructure level? And how do we establish it? You are defending tax spending on Alaska's infrastructure, which seems to amount to socialism as you define it, in the sense that my tax dollars are buying you a road and almost a "bridge to nowhere."

You suggested that Alaska needed to “catch up” in terms of infrastructure. Well, the idea of the “living wage” is that the poorest people need to “catch up” to everyone else, just as, if I understand you right, Alaska needed to catch up in infrastructure and had to charge me to make it happen. Why is one ok, and not the other?


When Alaska became a state, almost all the roads were substandard by federal standards. Probably ALL of them were. Also, the single largest user of the roads at that time was the U.S. military. Massive upgrading was necessary. No monies had been spent in Alaska except for the absolute minimal amount needed to keep many of them from washing away. Sometimes they did anyway. I agree that there was no way to establish a standard for Alaskan infrastructure when it comes to federal funding. However this is mainly because the Alaskan situation due to its relative remoteness and size are difficult to compare to other states. Nevertheless, it appears that the relatively high spending per capita in Alaska had a lot to do with BOTH situations. It is only to be expected that the amount spent in Alaska would be relatively high. It is a VERY expensive place to build ANYTHING.

And, once again, you and others choose to define socialism in terms that do not apply. In fact the definition is a little too nebulous and sloppy to be useful. Socialism is a political mechanism for creating economic equality among the citizens of a country with the overriding assumption that the state ultimately owns or has the final say in controlling all means of production. As a corollary, all the citizens owe their economic existence and well-being, such as it is, to the state. To the extent that private property exists, it is only subject to seizure at any time by the state, usually by means of overly-burdensome taxation. Also, typically the main means of taxation is a progressive income tax that punishes the productive and rewards the UNproductive (the main source of political support in that kind of political system are those who believe they cannot make it without the state to protect them from others who might be TOO competitive, among other things). Thus in pure socialism the state is the source of all economic security, which means in the end that NOBODY is secure. THAT is socialism.

Socialism does not apply in the relationship of federal government to the 50 states. That is a government-to-government relationship. However, if one chooses to redefine words such as socialism, one can confuse matters so much that the average person can easily believe that somehow socialism is something which can only exist on some distant continent. I realize this is deliberately done because socialism is a scary buzz-word to many–as it SHOULD be. Nevertheless, let’s be honest about that use of that word, shall we?

#93
Ron Simpson said:
Socialism is a political mechanism for creating economic equality among the citizens of a country with the overriding assumption that the state ultimately owns or has the final say in controlling all means of production. As a corollary, all the citizens owe their economic existence and well-being, such as it is, to the state. To the extent that private property exists, it is only subject to seizure at any time by the state, usually by means of overly-burdensome taxation. Also, typically the main means of taxation is a progressive income tax that punishes the productive and rewards the UNproductive (the main source of political support in that kind of political system are those who believe they cannot make it without the state to protect them from others who might be TOO competitive, among other things). Thus in pure socialism the state is the source of all economic security, which means in the end that NOBODY is secure. THAT is socialism.
That's a reasonable definition. Unfortunately, the word "socialism" tends to be used as a label to describe any government intervention that the person using the label doesn't agree with.

Western Australia, like Alaska, is huge (way bigger than the US east of the Mississippi) with a tiny population (fewer people than Brooklyn), a wealth of natural resources and a secessionist movement unsupported by the vast majority of the population.

You have hit the nail on the head in this section of your post, which I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing:

“There was no way to establish a standard for Western Australian infrastructure when it comes to federal funding. However, this is mainly because the Western Australian situation, due to its relative remoteness and size, is difficult to compare to other states…It is only to be expected that the amount spent in Western Australia would be relatively high. It is a VERY expensive place to build ANYTHING.”

The intervention of American and Australian Federal governments in the remote, highly productive areas of their respective countries isn’t socialism. It’s justice.

#94

You are the one who called Obama a socialist, not me. Here are your quotes–now maybe you can demonstrate where Obama has shown himself to be a socialist by your definition.

  1. does Obama believe that “the state ultimately owns or has the final say in controlling all means of production?” Show me where. Seriously–show me where he argues that. I’ll wait.

  2. Does he believe that “As a corollary, all the citizens owe their economic existence and well-being, such as it is, to the state.” Let’s see where he has demonstrated this. You’re going to call the guy a “socialist,” you should at least be able to prove it. I’ll wait

  3. Does he believe that “To the extent that private property exists, it is only subject to seizure at any time by the state, usually by means of overly-burdensome taxation.” OK, well we already have eminent domain under capitalism, but put that aside, Obama wants to CUT taxes for 95% of the population. That’s his stated plan. And he wants to return the top tax bracket to where it was in 1998. Was it “overly burdensome” in 1998? The economy was doing well, and we had a surplus. Where’s the overl burdensome part?

  4. “Also, typically the main means of taxation is a progressive income tax that punishes the productive and rewards the UNproductive” Once again, show me where in Obma’s proposals he is doing this?

  5. “Thus in pure socialism the state is the source of all economic security, which means in the end that NOBODY is secure.” Where’s the evidence Obama believes this? Seriously, I’m from the school that says if yu are going to make charges, you need to provide evidence

Meanwhile back to Alaska. So now having spent billions of dollars to secure Alaska’s economic prosperity, we are suppose to remove government, so Alaska’s economic security can be maintained? Nice! But other people who live at an economic level “below standard” in other places are on their own, because helping them “threatens our security?” I bet it does. It might mean less federal pork going to Alaska, that rugged bastion of manly independence where 1 in 3 jobs is taxpayer funded

You just don’t like Obama, so you’re tossing the label “socialist” out without a shred of real evidence. It’s a case of “I don’t like Obama, I don’t like socialism, therefore Obama is a socialist.” Meanwhile your governor has been swilling at the Federal trough and boasting about it while calling Obama a socialist! Nice!

All my lifetime (I was born in 1959) we have been building up Alaska, only to be told that having spent our money to help Alaska “reach the federal standard” we are now suppose to take our dirty socialist government and shove it. There’s a bunch of words for that.

So now having called Obama a socialist and a Marxist, it’s up to you to demonstrate how this is true, and not mud-slinging

#95

Mike:

Advocating redistribution of the wealth and using so-called progressive tax laws to accomplish that is one of the basic principles of socialism. That ‘take from those who can pay and give to those who can’t pay’ plan is one of the only solid proposals of the “change” that The One has detailed. I have no idea about most of Obama’s other political ideas, as he just wraps them in the ‘gotta change’ sales package, but his wealth redistribution plan, like most liberal take from those who make more than I do and give it to me, is pure socialism in all its glory.

I personally have always believed that the reason taxes were based on a percentage of the item being taxed was to provide a ‘fair’ tax structure. As an example, if the income tax rate is 10%, you make a dollar and pay 10¢; Make $100, pay $10; Make $1,000,000, pay $100,000. That (non-existent) tax system takes uniformly from all who earn money.

I was recently remembering a long-ago (perhaps 1960) college debate on so-called progressive tax plans. The debate centered on whether wealthy people (the actual term that was used) should be taxed at a higher rate. One of the economic professors stated that people making over a million dollars / year didn’t need all that money and should be taxed at a higher rate. That again is one of the basics of socialism. The only difference is that Obama’s plan lowers the “. . . they’re wealthy and don’t need all that money” threshold to $250,000. Or in one recent quote, $200,000.

I seriously doubt it will take another 50 years to get the threshold for being considered wealthy down to $65,000.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

#96
mike omalley said:
So now having spent billions of dollars to secure Alaska's economic prosperity, we are suppose to remove government, so Alaska's economic security can be maintained? Nice! But other people who live at an economic level "below standard" in other places are on their own, because helping them "threatens our security?" I bet it does. It might mean less federal pork going to Alaska, that rugged bastion of manly independence where 1 in 3 jobs is taxpayer funded

All my lifetime (I was born in 1959) we have been building up Alaska, only to be told that having spent our money to help Alaska “reach the federal standard” we are now suppose to take our dirty socialist government and shove it.


I did not say that. Quote me where I said that. You INFERRED that but I did not say that.

You cannot say that the United States has not benefited from all the money it poured into this territory and then state since 1942. We have been a major line of defense actually since 1867, but most especially since the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Most of the money placed into infrastructure since those days was needed to support a large military presence required to ward of Japanese aggression and later because we were in the forefront during the Cold War. The USA achieved what it set out to do. YOUR money was well spent.

#97

Ron Simpson said:
I did not say that. Quote me where I said that. You INFERRED that but I did not say that.

Ok Yesterday

Ron Simpson said:
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.”

(http://www.lscdata.com/users/lownote/_forumfiles/marxism.jpg)

It was the way you capitalized the “is” that allowed me to infer it

#98

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The Internet strikes again!

#99

Nope. I was referring to THIS: So now having spent billions of dollars to secure Alaska’s economic prosperity, we are suppose to remove government, so Alaska’s economic security can be maintained?

Where did I say anything about removing the federal government ?

#100

Of course, Obama IS a socialist. I STATED that clearly and without reservation. I DID say that. I DO mean it. I do NOT take that back.