myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Socialism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3036

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In capitalism the deal is between two people the payer and payee. If your check is paid by me then I have to approve it otherwise they are taking my money because I have means and giving to someone else after they stop working. This an example of
"Taxes are Marxist wealth redistribution taxes by definition if they take money or property from some people according to their means and give cash or goods or services to others according their “needs”..."
They have a reason but unless me the payee agrees with that reason they are taking my money and giving it to someone who once had a job.
I own a small business and don't believe in this type of welfare ever since I was a Neo
I pay guys who work and make no deals with MY money to pay them after they stop. I do help out folks but no one takes from me in taxes and hands it out, like vet benefits. This isn't a debate about who deserves socialist benefits, just about who is getting them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13317

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
In capitalism the deal is between two people the payer and payee.


Not "people" ... parties. In the case of the military, the parties are the government and the individual soldiers. The government, in accordance with the constitution, has a pot of tax money and benefits to defend the nation. The potential recruit has a warm body. They reach a mutually acceptable deal and swap spit, or one rejects the other's best offer and they walk away. That's capitalism. I'm guessing you're the only one here who can't see that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1849

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isobars said

Quote:
And in what moonbat dictionary is a pension one buys with cash or services "socialism"?


Check a few posts back - you said Social Security was. My wife and I pay about $30K per year for that pension! It is poorly managed, but is supposed to be self-funding.

Self employment benefits? Pay premiums on that too. Medicare premiums - yep. Workers Comp. Insurance - ditto.

Maybe we should go strictly capitalist on the curve. No taxes.
Toll roads, private schools, private water supplies, gold coins, military paid for by the wealthy to protect themselves and their interests. Do away with ALL pensions. Sounds great (sarcasm)!

Does our government over-reach into business and personal lives. I think they do. But; to be honest, I trust the government as much as I trust the big money corporate folks out there. I read "The Naked Capitalist" at an impressionable age.

I think, without a strong central government, anarchy is a real possibility!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4686

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is sometimes difficult to believe that Iso is as stupid as he writes. In his definitions above he conflated political systems and economic systems, or beliefs, if you will. He in particular aligned capitalism, an economic system with advantages and disadvantages, with freedom. Hmm--I wonder if the Chinese think that their state capitalism is synonomous with freedom? Rhetorical question. He attributes political systems of totalitarianism to socialism and communism. Of course, it one actually reads something besides right wing internet sites, totalitarian systems have existed under many different economic systems. Perhaps he might be interested in South America. I understand they were very conservative and kept black people in their place.

Iso is also quite fond of going on and on about how much of the taxes the well off pay. It's because they hvae most of the money. The top 1% of Americans receives nearly 25% of the income and acounts for nearly 40% of wealth. Does equity suggest they should then pay more in taxes to support the political system that supports their economic system?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 3635

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You socialists are so disrespectful of the military veterans and small business people who make America work!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1387

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tramontana00 wrote:
feuser wrote:
When did social programs become socialist programs?

There's a bit of disinformation going on here - the attempt at an explanation of socialism earlier in the thread is an example that.


Read before you write:
http://www.reference.com/browse/socialism


I just tried to explain definition of socialism and where it leads to answer the question coboardhead asked. I did not say anywhere that social programs necesserily lead to socialism. In fact I do agree that social programs when well executed can be good thing. Just don't go to far as people get dumb when given everything for free and don't have to use their brains any more.
I don't really need to read any of those definitions. Born and raised in Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, I had to attend mandatory classes for "Theory and Practice of Self Governing Socialism" 3-4 hours every week in elementary, middle and high school. And than I had to live in that system to reinforce what I learned. I can tell you for sure it doesn't work.



Hey Tramontana

Those definitions are not for you - they're for those who have never travelled outside their personal bubble and have been confronted with other realities.

I grew up in Germany - half of which was socialist/stalinist the other half a western free-market system with extensive social programs. (Most of it in terms public services, much less, actually, in terms of welfare. Interesting how the public spending up front seems to pay off). I travelled to the socialist GDR a few times and I can tell you the difference in between how these societies developed was astonishing.

This division was a cruel experiment, and I have zero sympathy for the perpetrators of the crimes that were committed against the human spirit in the name of the state. I highly recommend the movie "lives of others". It's so realistic that it's hard to watch.

My point is that the absolute ignorance with which the terms Socialist and Marxist are being used by one side of the political spectrum is alarming, as is the political impact of this ignorance.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1849

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac said

Quote:
Iso is also quite fond of going on and on about how much of the taxes the well off pay. It's because they hvae most of the money. The top 1% of Americans receives nearly 25% of the income and acounts for nearly 40% of wealth. Does equity suggest they should then pay more in taxes to support the political system that supports their economic system?


I believe it does. I have been in this high income group (before semiretirement). Taxpayer supported public schools educated me. Government insured student loans got me through college and grad school. Highway projects provided me income.

Even at our higher tax rates, paying the taxes was relatively easy. Not the struggle it is for the folks at the lower end of the middle class. The costs of housing, energy, transportation, education, food etc. are not that different between the classes.

That said, I WANT MY MONEY'S WORTH in government spending. Cutting my taxes (ala GW Bush) and running up deficits that I have to pay back later, with interest, is BS! State legislatures making deals with state employees and then not funding pension plans is BS! Starting a $?? trillion dollar double war with no funding is BS!


Last edited by coboardhead on Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1849

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Tramontana:

I was being a bit sarcastic with my first post. Really, I was trying to illustrate how socialism gets defined for the benefit (I hate to use that word) of the listener or reader, by the speaker or author, and can be just about anything.

Sorry, I did not mean to bait.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13317

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
Isobars said

Quote:
And in what moonbat dictionary is a pension one buys with cash or services "socialism"?


Check a few posts back - you said Social Security was.


SS is not optional, thus not capitalism, but even though . Clearly I was in error in not making that distinction in my quote above, which refers to the veterans' pensions KC and others keep whining about. I should have said "in what moonbat dictionary is a pension one chooses to buy with cash or services "socialism"?

However, your legitimate question does start blurring the issues, which include labels, purpose, constitutionality, etc. Labels aside, my issues and criteria for any program depend at least on its intent, its impact on our freedom, its impact on individual and national well-being, and many more such factors. By any label any person wants to hang on it, military forces are required, beneficial and constitutional; much or most of the far left's agenda are none of those.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3036

PostPosted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iso is debating whether the military deserves to get socialist benefits- which they do.
My point is any time you take money from me in taxes and put it in a pot to give other people who need or want it -that fits isos defintion of socialism or Marxism.
It doesn't matter if the pot is to pay desk jockeys or unwed mothers. It was taken from me by the gov. and given to others, exactly iso definition.
No one is showing disrespect to small businesses like mine or the military. We are speaking of the real meaning of socialism, not the twisted insults now in the media and here on this board.
Like that remark about whining?
Iso is defending his socialist check. The rest of us are keeping it above that. The reason the vet thing was discussed was because iso asked us to do so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 3 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group