Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Because raising some taxes on the wealthy, is maybe going to give us another 10 days or so of spending at our current rate. It will NOT let us keep spending like we are now, throughout the year - no way.

No one expects rolling back the gifts Bush gave the big earners... make that big income receivers, earn is subjective... will make everything nice nice. It's to give the rest of us the confidence the government will make sure everyone pays their fair share, everyone shares the pain.

[Adak]

The "gifts Bush gave the big earners", are the same gifts he gave to every working man and woman in the country.

The entire problem is that these fiscal cliff negotiations completely ignore or at least are ineffective at dealing with the BIG FAT ELEPHANT problem, right in our living room!

We are spending WAY to much, particularly at the Federal level. You can take all the rich people and confiscate everything they have - it still won't keep our spending under control, and balance our budget.

Well, you'll see. Because we are running out of money, and no amount of "fairness" or other hot air logic, is going to change that.

Socialism only works until the money runs out. Ours has just about run out.

[Adak]

< Happy New Year! >

Too bad we're saddled with a socialist in the White House, but maybe we'll finally learn from his next term in office.

Socialism is fine if:

* you want to live simply

* you highly value a more equal society, and are willing to sacrifice to have it.

Because it's worked very well for the Amish and other groups that have used it. You don't have to be religious to make it work - but you DO have to be willing to make big sacrifices in your lifestyle.

Ask somebody today if they'd be willing to give up their iPhone for the sake of a "fairer" society, and see how far you get.

When you see the sacrifices necessary for a socialist society, you'll quickly decide to run - not walk - back to a capitalist system.

Well, looks like we've avoided - or will avoid - the fiscal cliff. That's a poison that the politicians all wanted to avoid, regardless of their party.

Unfortunately, we'll see that with Obama pushing for the socialist ideals of "fairness", our cuts in spending will be zero.

Oh, there will be cuts in FUTURE spending projections, but not cuts in ACTUAL dollars, TODAY.

Which is just political - speak for no spending cuts, just a slower slide into insolvency.

But we will learn from this, just like other generations have learned when they tried it.

Might as well enjoy the ride - bumpy though it will be.

I note today in the news, that India has started paying out money to their poor. They must want more poor people, just don't have enough, and are willing to pay to get some.

[DanaC]

*shakes head*

Obama a socialist. Just redefine the whole language whilst you're about it eh?

[asidebet]

Originally Posted by Adak

< Happy New Year! >

Too bad we're saddled with a socialist in the White House, but maybe we'll finally learn from his next term in office.

Socialism is fine if:

* you want to live simply

* you highly value a more equal society, and are willing to sacrifice to have it.

Because it's worked very well for the Amish and other groups that have used it. You don't have to be religious to make it work - but you DO have to be willing to make big sacrifices in your lifestyle.

Ask somebody today if they'd be willing to give up their iPhone for the sake of a "fairer" society, and see how far you get.

When you see the sacrifices necessary for a socialist society, you'll quickly decide to run - not walk - back to a capitalist system.

You're such a card, Adak! Ooooh, everyone's gonna have to give up their toys in order to turn the entire country into some perverse Animal Farm a la George Orwell. You actually think that's what this is all about? Never mind, don't answer that one. It must be hard enough maintaining the delusion that life is just one long Ayn Rand novel, never mind having to field comments from smart ass literary critics.

I actually find your post refreshingly honest. At least you're not spouting that crap about "job creators" and "small business." You're scairt Obama and all those other illegal immigrants and everyone else living in the ghetto are going to be out there sunning themselves on your lawn and swimming in your private back yard pool if people making $250,000 plus have to pay the same amount in taxes as they did 20 years ago.

After all, what American will ever forget what life was like during the communist reign of Bill Clinton? Not me. I was making a good living selling electronics items for Sears on 100% commision. It was hell not being able to sell i-pads since they still hadn't been invented, but I made up for it by selling computers and stereo systems and big screen TV's to people who actually had jobs. I even sold stuff to black people and Mexicans, greedy little capitalist that I was.

Yeah, I can see why you're so worried.








sent by hallucination

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Adak

< Happy New Year! >

Too bad we're saddled with a socialist in the White House, but maybe we'll finally learn from his next term in office.

Socialism is fine if:

* you want to live simply

* you highly value a more equal society, and are willing to sacrifice to have it.

Because it's worked very well for the Amish and other groups that have used it. You don't have to be religious to make it work - but you DO have to be willing to make big sacrifices in your lifestyle.

Please define socialism. I need to make sure that we are talking about the same thing to continue this thread. Please cite your reference or references for the meaning of the word socialism.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

*shakes head*

Obama a socialist. Just redefine the whole language whilst you're about it eh?

When the politician wants to take away your livelihood, to give it to those who did not earn it, to be "fair" - he's moved from capitalism to socialism.

A hand up is one thing. A broad based hand out to millions who can manage just fine without it, is quite another.

Now give me $100 dollars. I didn't earn it, but I want it, and it would be ever so "fair".

[infinite monkey]

..

[Adak]

What is the attempted massacre that you won't hear hardly anything about in the news?

Gunman was unhappy with his girlfriend, so he followed her, when she went downtown, and shot her.

Then, not satisfied, he went into the movie complex, with the intention of shooting a bunch of people, and began firing.

Then something amazing happened. The VERY reason people like guns was realized.

An armed security guard (off duty cop), heard the shots, and came on the run. When the gunman kept waving around his gun (he got off a number of rounds, but only wounded a couple people).

SHE (a latina), shot him 4 times. He lived. (Can't have everything I guess).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...th-one-bullet/

You put a gun in the hands of a good person, who knows how to use it, and RIGHT THERE, you have the best thing to stop a nut who wants to kill everyone in sight.

But that doesn't fit the anti-gun agenda of the liberals. They much prefer us to be sheeple, not people, who know and have the tools, to stand up and defend ourselves.

In Texas, they gave the shooter a heroes medal.

In California, she'd probably be arrested and tried for a handful of felonies.

Perfect message, Infinite Monkey. Monkeys love to throw their shit around, and lordy how they stink! Even experienced game hunters retch at the smell.

[glatt]

Your gunman was a law abiding citizen up until the moment he wasn't. If he didn't have access to that gun, this wouldn't have happened. If you put even more guns into even more hands, then this sort of thing is going to happen even more often. You have good in you. You also have evil in you. Sometimes you give in to the evil. If you happen to have a gun when you give in to the evil, then the damage is worse. If your gun is a semi automatic that holds 30 rounds, then the damage is much worse.

You have to draw the line somewhere. The line is currently drawn in the wrong place. It needs to move in the direction of fewer rounds, and a slower firing rate.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by Adak

When the politician wants to take away your livelihood, to give it to those who did not earn it, to be "fair" - he's moved from capitalism to socialism.

You're talking about the republican party, right? I'd have to agree with you.

They're the ones who are happy taxing Warren Buffet's secretary ( who types and files and, you know, works for a living) at a higher rate than Warren himself. Taking away her livelihood so that Buffet can have an easy go *does* sound like socialism.

[IamSam]

I think liberals should all be issued assault weapons so they can hunt down members of the tea party.

[regular.joe]

You still have not define socialism. While you are free to do so, giving your opinion is not a definition. So I ask you to please define the word socialism.

Sent from an undisclosed location.

[ZenGum]

Here's a go at defining socialism. It's presented as a spectrum of increasing government responsibility.

Anarchy: no shared government or rules, everyone seeks their own advantage and guards against the depredations of others. Private ownership exists so far as people can keep control of things. Tribal coalitions usually form. Human potential is not developed.

Libertarian Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production, government involvement limited to defense of the nation, and prevention of crimes against person and property. This may include regulations preventing eg very unsafe work practices, dumping toxic waste, etc. It may include critical infrastructure. Specifically, the welfare of individual people in terms of housing, education and health care are not the responsibility of the government.

Socialism: private ownership of the means of production, government involvement includes defense, prevention of crimes against person or property and also includes provision for "the public good", which may include, depending on the strength of the socialism:
(a) infrastructure like roads, sewerage, water, storm drainage etc;
(b) human services like universal education, universal health care, unemployment/poverty relief
(c) economic management such as Keynesian interventions and bailouts
(d) government ownership of utilities like rail, power, etc
(e) etc etc...

Communism: Government control of the means of production and government responsibility for almost all aspects of people's welfare.


Which things are/should be government responsibilities is the core of the debate.
It is often argued that the social provisions that benefit the poor directly (especially education) indirectly benefit the wealthy (eg by creating a well-prepared workforce, thus enabling the economic activity that the wealthy get wealthy from). Likewise, were it not for social security, huge numbers of people would be so desperately poor as to constitute a dangerous menace to the advanced society we have. These are just examples.
Where the line should be drawn is a matter of ongoing debate.

The philosopher John Rawls offers the following general answer. What is "fair" is what rational beings would agree to from the "original position" which is behind the "veil of ignorance". To be in the original position, imagine that you know all the significant facts about your society (say, 1% wealthy plutocrats, 20% upper middle class, 40% working middle class, 20% working poor, 19% very poor) but that you do not know which group you are in. Since you don't know which group you're in, it would be irrational to agree to a law that grossly favors one group over the other.

It is often argued that it is rational to "hedge your bets" in favour of more socialism rather than less. Firstly, you're very unlikely to be one of the very rich, and secondly even if you are very rich, and are paying heavy taxes to support your fellow citizens' health and education, well shucks, you're still very rich. And what well educated employees you can get!

The counter argument is that over burdening the rich will reduce economic growth, cost jobs, cut wages and thus harm the welfare of the working and middle classes. So it is rational to allow wealthy individuals and businesses more freedom to do business, because in the long run the increasing prosperity will benefit everyone more than immediate social support.

Which of these arguments is correct is left as an exercise for the class.

[IamSam]

Nice, Zen. Thanks!