I have a legitimate question for all the liberals...

you folks....are paying 3 billion dollars.... interest a day... on the US government debt...

 

Well put. Both sides are very slanted. I get tired of the constant smear campaign.... almost to the sense where I want to vote against the right.

Oddson, if you were serious about your question, you could have presented it in a much better way.

Very few people support socialism in an open manner. While I disagree the liberals are intentionally trying to bring in socialism, I will agree they choose to ignore the dangers of bringing our country closer to socialism. This is not entirely a liberal issue as the patriot act is in the same boat.

How do we balance out the power? Clearly our country was founded on ideas completely the opposite of socialism in any form, but you simply can not let the wealthy dictate the power through capitalism. Trickle-down theory does not work. You simply can not trust corporate america. You can not trust people in the government to do whats right.

Obama does scare me because he refuses to acknowledge the definition of socialism. It doesn't matter which way you slice it, the government taking money from a private party and GIVING it to another party is wrong.

Personally, I believe enabling people is the true way to solve our problems. You can not make a lazy man work.

 

We are already taking money from a private party and giving to another. Its just a matter of how much more Obama will take.

Since Obama has always done what's good for his political career, maybe there is hope he won't be too extreme when he becomes president. At least the first 4 years.

 

I agree
Alot of the so call - mistakes - are pure greed and in alot of cases PURE FRAUD / Embezzlement

This Bailout is rewarding FAILURE
People bankrupt a bank yet still leave with multimillion dollar parachutes

Rocket River

 

I also admire your willingness to see the faults in both parties and would encourage you to post more often, as there is a dearth of thoughtful conservatives here. However, I disagree with your tax analysis, which ultimately is the root of this nonsensical "socialism" debate.

Time: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues

Time then goes on to interview Laffer (of "Curve" fame), who largely agrees.

[Nobel economics laureate] Krugman: Taxes and revenues — another history lesson

 

so explain this bailout . . .is it not taking money from the poor folx
and giving it to the rich? This has been happening for some time

we borrow from social security . .then complain it is not solvent
If government HAD NOT borrowed so deeply from it . .it would be ok!!

You cannot make a Greedy person JUST.

people seem to think that taking money from HARDWORKING for to LAZY folx
is bad
but
Taking money from JUST FOLX to give to GREEDY folx is quite ok


Rocket River

 

AMEN BROTHER!

Get rid of the IRS and go to a straight consumption tax.

Of course it will never happen because it does not benefit the upper 5% that can hide such a large amount of their money in tax shelters.

Everyone pays the same tax for a stick of gum or a new house. No one escapes the taxes and all this debate on who gets taxed the most goes away.

 

The bail out is not about "taking money from the poor folx and giving it to the rich", you outta figure that part out by now from the 50 different bail out threads.

 

I gave you a rather thorough response to your question in way of pointing out that no candidate in this election is advocating programs that indicate socialism in any manner. I also made an effort to point out that, if you believe this, then it is likely you don't understand what socialism is and how socialism operates.

I suppose you were looking for a simple 'yes' or 'no' - and that may be the problem with your reasoning (if it can be called such) - actual practice is far more ambiguous and indeterminate than bumper stickers and slogans.

I'd also like to point out that, if you knew my positions (and I spelled one of them out), then I wouldn't qualify as either a liberal or a conservative on most issues in regards to economic policy. But, if you're still operating in the simplistic either/or manner, I'd guess that my refusal to agree with the Republican party line is enough to convince you that I am a liberal.

So, you did not intend your 'socialism' talking point to be applied to Barack Obama? Or to self-identified liberals? The question you asked is along the lines (for many readers) of "When was the last time you liberals beat your wives?"

You're incorrect. But, I've spent enough time responding to you with rational and thought-out replies.

I made the mistake of taking you seriously - but considering you have not responded to any of my points, I'm guessing this is simple "My side's right ... your side's wrong" rhetoric, and doesn't qualify at all as a question, much less as a legitimate one.

And by the way - you only chose the third definition for Socialism from dictionary.com.

It should be noted that the "characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles" actually means that socialism is imperfect, through Marx's theory, in the respect that it is not yet communism.

 

Biggest fallacies in this thread: Poor = Lazy, Wealthy = Hard-working

Surrender said it best:

 

At least professorJay gets it.

 

Oddson -- you're going to have to let us know what you mean by forced communism and socialism if you want to be taken seriously. I'm guessing you weren't meaning to get into an academic debate about definitions. So is it the healthcare that scares you? BO's Taxation (how is it different then pre-Bush's temporary reductions?), big rallies and fancy slogans. Or just the socialist hordes in general?

All told -- I think you got more reasoned responses then your original post warranted.

 

Actually, this is why I don't post more. I don't mean this to be disrepectful, but you obviously care more about winning this arguement than I do. I don't get my philosophy from being well-read, as you obviously are. I don't do research like yours to forward my arguement. This probably dooms me to losing every argument on this site. I congratulate the strength of your points. I still have to disagree.

When I started in my current industry, it was my goal to start my own company. I recently have been tasked with starting a new branch in the DFW area. This experience has proven to strengthen my belief that the goverment's role in my day to day operations is far too large. Needless to say, my goal of starting my own company has devolved to a gratefulness that someone is willing to pay me to do my current job. I believe most small business owners and managers would agree that the more involved the government is in business, the less business gets done.

I feel the same is true with taxes. Our currency level is regulated to insure its value (at least, it's supposed to be). If government has possesion of more of the available money, I believe it stifles the currency turn-over neccessary to produce economic growth.

I'm sure Mr. Noble himself would disagree, but my beliefs come from a small amount of reading and alot of living.

 

A consumption tax is a terrible idea. It's a regressive tax and would hurt the poor the most. Poor people are already hurting and sales taxes are the worst. Sales tax eat up a greater percentage of poor people's income than rich people. The poor shouldn't pay any sales taxe at all. They barely have enough to feed themselves. Basically hand to mouth for most of them.

The rich have all the money and power. They should share a much greater burden in supporting this country since the military is protecting their assests. Obama is right. Tax them like crazy. Pay up.

 

Although you are absolutely correct in everything youi just wrote, in keeping with the spirit of the current campaign, I must however decry you:

 

I don't know who's right or wrong on this issue. But I don't think you should be dismissive of research that examines the big picture of the economy, just because it may not coincide with your personal experience. Do you think there's something factually incorrect or misleading about it?

 

EXACTLY!!

When people have this kind of WARPED mentality
You cannot work with them

Rocket River

 

I couldn't disagree more.

By doing away with the IRS and using a consumption tax we would increas our tax base by a lot.

- All the illegals that don't pay tax would have to pay tax.
- All of the vacationers that visit this country would become tax payers.
- Every 5 year old that buys a stick of gum, every tax evader, tax cheater or who ever else you can think of becomes a tax payer.
- All of those nice little tax shelters that the upper 5% hide their taxable income in become non-existant.

I am not rich...not be a long shot and yes...I would love a national sales tax.

 

I do like socialism, but I hate the idea of forced communism or anything that is undemocratic.

It is important though, that you understand Obama's health care is not socialized medicine where the govt. provides all the health care.

I've been the benefactor of socialized medicine in New Zealand before, when I was a youngster in the 80's. It was great then. It worked perfectly well, and not only was I treated, my great uncle was also. We had been in an accident while on vacation there. He had to stay in the hospital for 3 weeks and have all this spinal work done. After all of my care, his care, and the 3 week hospital stay we paid a total of about $12. It was amazing.