Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by suspendedzen on Apr 12, 2009 15:40:05 GMT -5
You can't just dismiss Marx's definition because you'd rather agree with what television/radio celebrities tell you. It is a nuanced issue but the actual definition of actual socialism does NOT change. It has a set definition and you have to fit what you're talking about to that, not "whatever the federal government does that I dont approve of."
I don't like the Iraq War, but that doesnt make it socialist or any other word I dont happen to like.
It is funded collectively, and applies to all citizens regardless of race/class/location/etc.
The Iraq War was partially sold, as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it, by the threat of a mushroom cloud.
What are we going to do, let a nuclear bomb go off because it lands on a homeless shelter instead a neighborhood of taxpayers?
It is a shared threat against each and every citizen, from those in gated communities to those sleeping on sidewalks, and countering this threat is done on behalf of each and every citizen.
While the profits accrued by the military-industrial complex go to the private sector, the benefits from our military programs are equally distributed to each and every citizen.
The Constitution refers to it as government providing for "the common defense." I'd say the sound of that is pretty socialist to me.
schools should be federal i think. as of right now, the rich towns have all the new books and tools in the classroom while more urban areas have to spread funds thinner and end up with old books and equipment. there needs to be standard of schools uniform throughout the country. it sucks that certain kids have an advantage because they go to the school with brand new books and microscopes where some other kids have old books and not enough materials for everyone in the class.
This is an idea that I have toyed with. However here is the problem. You will not get all schools to be off the same high quality. Therefor you must lower the top in orrder to bring about equality instead of raising the bottom. This is exactly why communism and socialism have failed in places like the U.S.S.R. It is also why Obama's plan to tax the rich will not work. Bringing down the top does nothing to raise the bottom. It gives us less to strive for. Fact is that life is unfair and that will never change. We will never all be truly equal in terms of money, power and advantage.
There have been many truly great people who rose from the ashes of slums and disadvantage while many losers have fallen from affluent advantage and entitlement.
This is an idea that I have toyed with. However here is the problem. You will not get all schools to be off the same high quality. Therefor you must lower the top in orrder to bring about equality instead of raising the bottom. This is exactly why communism and socialism have failed in places like the U.S.S.R.
The issue here isn't that schools are being brought to the same quality of education. The issue that arose that richer districts receive more federal funds precisely because they can afford to put more in their district. It only widens the gap between the haves and have-nots in the education respect.
It is also why Obama's plan to tax the rich will not work. Bringing down the top does nothing to raise the bottom. It gives us less to strive for. Fact is that life is unfair and that will never change. We will never all be truly equal in terms of money, power and advantage.
Obama's tax structure is not new; it's more like he's proposing a return to something similar to what we had between FDR and Reagan. It seemed to work alright then.
Just because life is unfair doesn't mean we have to institutionalize it...
The issue here isn't that schools are being brought to the same quality of education. The issue that arose that richer districts receive more federal funds precisely because they can afford to put more in their district. It only widens the gap between the haves and have-nots in the education respect.
Richer districts receive better educations because they pay higher (local) school taxes. Property values are higher or lower largely because of the quality of the school district in which they are located. Federal funding has little to do with the reality of quality differentials.
Obama's tax structure is not new; it's more like he's proposing a return to something similar to what we had between FDR and Reagan. It seemed to work alright then.
Just because life is unfair doesn't mean we have to institutionalize it...
But it's ok to institutionalize unfair taxes as long as they are unfair tax inflicted on a group that doesn't include you right?
Raise the bottom. Don't lower the top.
Now is his tax structure similar or the same? Either way does it make it right?
It is funded collectively, and applies to all citizens regardless of race/class/location/etc.
National guards are run by the states. National defense is one of the things that feds are supposed to control in order to provide better for the people as a whole 9strength in numbers). The states are, by design supposed to be largely autonomous.
If you want to federalize everything then you are for big government. big government is bad for everyone. The bigger and more impersonal the machine, the harder it is to get appropriate results. It's like going to a mom and pop shop vs. Home Depot.
If you want to federalize everything then you are for big government. big government is bad for everyone. The bigger and more impersonal the machine, the harder it is to get appropriate results. It's like going to a mom and pop shop vs. Home Depot.
Exactly why some things are better left to city, county, or state govenrments. But not everything works that way. If it did, some states would still allow slavery. Big government isn't always bad for everyone.
If you want to federalize everything then you are for big government. big government is bad for everyone. The bigger and more impersonal the machine, the harder it is to get appropriate results. It's like going to a mom and pop shop vs. Home Depot.
The same could also be said on the other end for pure free market capitalism. Giant corporations running everything is about as effective as massive government running everything Only the basic function of big corporations are to make themselves money, whereas the government's basic purpose SHOULD be to serve the people. I guess it just depends on if you like to be told up front you're being screwed over, or be lied to and screwed over by corrupt politicians.
The issue here isn't that schools are being brought to the same quality of education. The issue that arose that richer districts receive more federal funds precisely because they can afford to put more in their district. It only widens the gap between the haves and have-nots in the education respect.
Richer districts receive better educations because they pay higher (local) school taxes. Property values are higher or lower largely because of the quality of the school district in which they are located. Federal funding has little to do with the reality of quality differentials.
Federal funding levels are based on the wealth a district already has. A richer district receives more federal money than a poor district... but aren't the poorer districts the ones that need more help to begin with? This formula needs to be changed. It should be based on what districts need, not based on what districts already have.
Obama's tax structure is not new; it's more like he's proposing a return to something similar to what we had between FDR and Reagan. It seemed to work alright then.
Just because life is unfair doesn't mean we have to institutionalize it...
But it's ok to institutionalize unfair taxes as long as they are unfair tax inflicted on a group that doesn't include you right?
Raise the bottom. Don't lower the top.
Now is his tax structure similar or the same? Either way does it make it right?
I don't think it's necessarily unfair to change the current tax code.
As an example, here's how the Bush tax cuts work in my native Wisconsin: 60.6% of the Bush cuts' dollar value goes to the top 1%. 5.6% of the Bush cuts' dollar value goes to the bottom 60%.
60% of those tax cuts go to the lone percentile at the top; 60% of the cuts go to 1% of the people. <6% of those tax cuts go to the bottom sixty percentiles; that works out to <.1% of the cuts for each of those bottom percentiles.
That leaves the other 39% getting 1/3 of the tax cuts; works out closer to 1% of the tax cuts for each percentile in that group.
And this is fair how? Pretty much ANY alteration from this is a step in a fairer direction.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for the millionaire who would only have to live on a mere hundreds of thousands a year due to a changed tax structure.
I think that at some point - which I admit, I don't have a precise definition for - excessive wealth is indicative of moral failure. I think that after you accumulate enough wealth, there's a point at which it is in no way possible that one got that wealthy by NOT screwing over other people.
I'm not saying that we need to totally and completely screw over the rich, just that they aren't currently paying their fair share and should do so in the future. I'm not after more unfairness, I'm after a more egalitarian tax structure.
So as far as Obama's tax plan, with cuts for the bottom 95%, is a step in that right direction. I think it was a good move to reduce payroll taxes. I think work is unfairly taxed in comparison to taxes placed on (or more accurately, not placed on) wealth.
Bush's tax plan was regressive; Obama's is progressive.
Give Joseph Q. Cristal III $1000 and he'll probably put it in his stock portfolio. Give Joe Six-Pack $1000, and he'll pay some bills/debts or perhaps replace an appliance that needs upgrading.
Our capitalist economy is based on consumerism. You know how we got a richer class to begin with? By the Henry Fords & Bill Gateses of this country making goods for consumers; when people bought their things, they made money doing so.
These days majority of our people can't afford to maintain their present rate of consumption. Putting money in their hands is how we're going to counteract the problem we have with decreased demand. Until demand goes up, our economy stays in the tank.
This is an idea that I have toyed with. However here is the problem. You will not get all schools to be off the same high quality. Therefor you must lower the top in orrder to bring about equality instead of raising the bottom. This is exactly why communism and socialism have failed in places like the U.S.S.R. It is also why Obama's plan to tax the rich will not work. Bringing down the top does nothing to raise the bottom. It gives us less to strive for. Fact is that life is unfair and that will never change. We will never all be truly equal in terms of money, power and advantage.
There have been many truly great people who rose from the ashes of slums and disadvantage while many losers have fallen from affluent advantage and entitlement.
Preach fishingmaniac. Thanks for writing all that, so i didnt have too.
Give Joseph Q. Cristal III $1000 and he'll probably put it in his stock portfolio. Give Joe Six-Pack $1000, and he'll pay some bills/debts or perhaps replace an appliance that needs upgrading.
Our capitalist economy is based on consumerism. You know how we got a richer class to begin with? By the Henry Fords & Bill Gateses of this country making goods for consumers; when people bought their things, they made money doing so.
Give Joe Six pack 1000, he's probably (should be) catching up on credit card debt, bills, etc. But assuming he does spend that $1000 on consumer products, what does that do for us? It's a tiny blip on the screen. Give a tax break to small business owners, and they can employ, 2, 3,5, 10 more people a year each. Takes people off the unemployment line, and puts them in the workforce. Contributing to the tax pool, not taking from it. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, he can feed himself forever. Or something like that.
That being said, while economically I think relieving the tax burden of small business owners is the much wiser long term plan. I wouldn't argue with a $1000 dollar check either.
How are these small business going to expand, if there's no comparable increase in demand for their goods & services?
I never said small businesses shouldn't receive tax cuts, I was just talking personal income taxes. Don't go twisting my words to imply that I said I'm anti-small business when this clearly isn't the case.
For the record, I haven't worked anywhere that's had more than one location (aside from volunteering with a presidential campaign) in over a decade.
Give a tax break to small business owners, and they can employ, 2, 3,5, 10 more people a year each. Takes people off the unemployment line, and puts them in the workforce.
As someone who works in a small business (4 people) that sounds kind of fishy to me. We'd have to get some serious tax breaks for us to be able to afford even 1 other person. I mean, if we're going to pay that person $30,000/yr then we better be getting that much money in tax breaks for us to even consider it.
I'm with MrKC on this one. I work at a small business that employs three people in addition to the owners.
As it stands, two of us three employees aren't getting the hours we want as it is. My hours have been reduced this year, and things aren't getting any better on other fronts because of it.
If you gave me $1000 today, I'd have it spent tomorrow. Getting caught up on my bills would cost about $600 (increased heating bills + decreased hours/wages = a real pain in my ass) and I'd probably put another $200 of that towards the May 1st rent so I don't fall behind. That'd leave me with $200 to spend. Priority one there would be a new futon frame. Mine broke over a month ago and I just don't have the funds available to replace it; I'm getting sick of just a mattress on a floor. If I'm lucky enough to have money left over after all that, I'd treat my girlfriend to a nice dinner somewhere.
Kdogg, I applaud the way you would spend your $1000. Sadly, I do not believe the majority of people have their priorities straight. That is why businesses love tax season. Most people figure "free money, I'm gonna go get a new ...". So it helped that person purchase a new "fill in blank", it helped increase the business's profits, which is good. But at the end of the day, joe six-pack did nothing to help himself, except to purchase "fill in the blank". He will then continue wanting the rich to provide. I really do feel most would do this.
But in terms of stimulating the economy, isn't that what we want? Don't we want people to go out and consume?
I understand if someone was in debt for $10,000 and then went out and bought a motorcycle or something that would be stupid. But purchasing a new "FITB" is better for the economy than dumping it into your savings.
Sure it will stimulate the economy, which is great, but it will do nothing for joe six-packs current conditions. It will not make him and his family any less dependent on govt, thereby making any contribution towards helping the economy cancel out.
Things are going to get a whole bunch worse here in the next two years before they get better. Consumers (driver of the economy for the last 20 years) are changing behaviors in ways not seen ever (at least since they've been collecting this information). We WILL see another wave of business closures this summer/fall, and obama will have to decide if he wants to be Carter or Roosevelt.
edit: for the record FDR was not a Socialist, just recognized that he was leading a government "of the people, for the people." The first thing that needs to happen is the public financing of elections and elimination of lobbyists.
Kdogg, I applaud the way you would spend your $1000. Sadly, I do not believe the majority of people have their priorities straight. That is why businesses love tax season. Most people figure "free money, I'm gonna go get a new ...". So it helped that person purchase a new "fill in blank", it helped increase the business's profits, which is good. But at the end of the day, joe six-pack did nothing to help himself, except to purchase "fill in the blank". He will then continue wanting the rich to provide. I really do feel most would do this.
good lord jig - I actually agree with you here! Is the world ending?
This is one reason why I think reducing taxes so people can go out and, say, buy their own health insurance, is a bad thing. I see it in my coworkers and friends - they don't contribute to their 401k and/or don't have renter's insurance. It's not required and it's hard as heck to look that far down the road.
Federal funding levels are based on the wealth a district already has. A richer district receives more federal money than a poor district... but aren't the poorer districts the ones that need more help to begin with? This formula needs to be changed. It should be based on what districts need, not based on what districts already have.
I agree that federal funding should be based on need. However this will never offset the ability of affluent school districts to provide more in the way of local taxes. Nicer (more affluent neighborhoods) also pay higher property taxes. Perhaps these taxes should be so offset to the extent that middle and lower class houses can be built up to point of excess luxury? More likely that the rich neighborhoods should be so excessively taxed that their homes fall into slum like disrepair....
I don't think it's necessarily unfair to change the current tax code.
As an example, here's how the Bush tax cuts work in my native Wisconsin... ...And this is fair how?
When, prey tell, did I ever utter a single syllable in support of G.W. Bush and his policies. IT POSITIVELY SICKENS ME (!!!) that when someone, not even criticizes, but merely questions Obama's policies (as I did) hyper-liberals will invariably respondwith an immediate comparison to Bush. Questioning or criticizing Obama is not supporting Bush. I see this daily on this site. It is an intellectually bankrupt course of action. It is virtually identical to the senseless defense of Bush's policies that we saw from right wing ultra-conservatives over the last eight years. Don't become what you hate.
Most unethical is that in doing this you are attempting to change the subject and put the other person, unfairly, on the defensive - to trick them. You are destroying any possibility of a productive discussion. It is, in short, a cop out for not having a response of substance. It is also argumentative by design. It is designed to derail the conversation and bait the other person into defending Bush because that would be a lost cost before it was begun. The problem is that the person, like myself, may have no defense for bush. Disagreement with Bush and disagreement with Obama are not mutually exclusive.
I do not wish to argue with any of you, only to share thought. This knee jerk Bush comparison is completely lacking in thought. It is by it's very nature destructive to intelligent political discourse. We are not discussing the past. We are discussing the future and to some extent the present.
I beg you inforoosters, have some sense of pragmatism about this. Please.
Pretty much ANY alteration from this is a step in a fairer direction.
If you are standing on a plank over shark infested waters and a step to the left is certain death, then a step to the right is also. The exact opposite is not necessarily right. There can be more than one wrong direction and a step in a different wrong direction is still a step in the wrong direction wrong direction.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for the millionaire who would only have to live on a mere hundreds of thousands a year due to a changed tax structure.
I don't feel sorry for them, but if I'm ever one of them I'm damn well gonna want to keep my money. Forgive me if I'm wrong kdogg, but didn't you just graduate? You haven't even had a bout of non-student rate taxes yet. Believe me, when you have to earn it (no matter how rich you are, you probably had to work to get there) you're going to want to keep it. Steeling from the rich does not make steeling OK. And for the record I'm broke.
I think that at some point - which I admit, I don't have a precise definition for - excessive wealth is indicative of moral failure. I think that after you accumulate enough wealth, there's a point at which it is in no way possible that one got that wealthy by NOT screwing over other people.
Funny considering that you support with your money, dealers of recreational pharmaceuticals. Somewhere along the line you are putting money into the pockets of some of the most dishonest "businesspeople" there are. Think it through my friend. The truth is in the details - not in the text books.
I'm not saying that we need to totally and completely screw over the rich, just that they aren't currently paying their fair share and should do so in the future. I'm not after more unfairness, I'm after a more egalitarian tax structure.
I agree with this, but you have failed to articulate this in an effective manner.
So as far as Obama's tax plan, with cuts for the bottom 95%, is a step in that right direction. I think it was a good move to reduce payroll taxes. I think work is unfairly taxed in comparison to taxes placed on (or more accurately, not placed on) wealth.
Give Joseph Q. Cristal III $1000 and he'll probably put it in his stock portfolio. Give Joe Six-Pack $1000, and he'll pay some bills/debts or perhaps replace an appliance that needs upgrading.
Or buy corn and meth. I bought an ipod and a fishing rod.
Nicer (more affluent neighborhoods) also pay higher property taxes. Perhaps these taxes should be so offset to the extent that middle and lower class houses can be built up to point of excess luxury? More likely that the rich neighborhoods should be so excessively taxed that their homes fall into slum like disrepair....
Whatever it takes to make us all equal right?
This is a straw man argument. Nobody here except you has said anything remotely like this.
When, prey tell, did I ever utter a single syllable in support of G.W. Bush and his policies. IT POSITIVELY SICKENS ME (!!!) that when some one not even criticizes, but merely questions Obama's policies (as I did) hyper-liberals will invariably respondwith an immediate comparison to Bush. Questioning or criticizing Obama is not supporting Bush. I see this daily on this site. It is an intellectually bankrupt course of action. It is virtualy identical to the senseless defense of Bush's policies that we saw from right wing ultra-conservatives over the last eight years. Don't become what you hate.
Obama's plan to raise taxes on the richest 1% is undoing exactly what Bush did (lower taxes on the richest 1%). He wants to take these tax rates back to pre-Bush levels. If you support keeping these tax breaks in place, tax breaks enacted by Bush, you are in fact supporting Bush's policy. Obama isn't doing anything new here; he's undoing what Bush did. The comparison is not only valid, but it's also the most accurate way to describe this part of Obama's plan.
Steeling from the rich does not make steeling OK. And for the record I'm broke.
Collecting taxes is in no way comparable to stealing.
Subjective not factual including the 95% remark.
The 95% figure kdogg cites is a fact. It's pretty easy to look that one up.
^^^i would like to know where you got the fact that 95% of Americans pay taxes. im not talking about goods, services, etc. we all get taxed on those. if you can find me proof that 95% of Americans pay income taxes, then i will forever be changed.
dcbee, i am baffled that i actually said something that you agree with (not in a bad way, but a good way).
fishingmaniac, you hit it right on with that little rant you went on
Obama's plan to raise taxes on the richest 1% is undoing exactly what Bush did (lower taxes on the richest 1%). He wants to take these tax rates back to pre-Bush levels. If you support keeping these tax breaks in place, tax breaks enacted by Bush, you are in fact supporting Bush's policy. Obama isn't doing anything new here; he's undoing what Bush did. The comparison is not only valid, but it's also the most accurate way to describe this part of Obama's plan.
I never said that I supported the current tax situation. Don't put words in my mouth. Nothing you say can make me a Bush supporter.
The 95% figure kdogg cites is a fact. It's pretty easy to look that one up.
You are correct.
I should have clarified better. I was rushing to catch a plane (that I'm currently sitting on and going nowhere. )
Kdogg's statements about the right direction were subjective on his part. The definition of "working families", "95%" and "tax cut" are conveniently subjective for Obama.
^^^i would like to know where you got the fact that 95% of Americans pay taxes. im not talking about goods, services, etc. we all get taxed on those. if you can find me proof that 95% of Americans pay income taxes, then i will forever be changed.
You're clever. I wasn't going to go there, but....
According to the Wall Street Journal more than one third of all Americans already pay no income tax. This also points how the rest of his "tax cuts" are mere rhetoric. Just like every politician before him.
It's not an analogous camparison. It's a straw man, since nobody is saying that. If you think you've made an analogy, then please make the analogy clear for the rest of us.
I never said that I supported the current tax situation. Don't put words in my mouth. Nothing you say can make me a Bush supporter.
If you don't want the tax cuts to remain in place, then you don't support Bush's policy. Fair enough. You will see by looking at my post that I never put words in your mouth or accused you of anything at all. Before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you should be sure you have accurately read and understood what I have said. In any case, my point wasn't that you support Bush (which I never said). It was that you were wrong to say that kdogg shouldn't bring up Bush's tax cuts.
Kdogg's statements about the right direction were subjective on his part. The definition of "working families", "95%" and "tax cut" are conveniently subjective for Obama.
Ok. That's debatable, but I'll let kdogg respond to this one.
^^^i would like to know where you got the fact that 95% of Americans pay taxes. im not talking about goods, services, etc. we all get taxed on those. if you can find me proof that 95% of Americans pay income taxes, then i will forever be changed.
You're clever. I wasn't going to go there, but....
No, it's not really clever. Jigawig's statement is yet another straw man. Kdogg didn't say that, I didn't say that, and Obama has said that his plan is to cut taxes for 95% of workers. It's written that way on his website, too.
Fish, that post is too messy to requote. But let me address a couple of points.
First, re: Bush tax cuts. I'm sorry, but you were sticking up for the status quo. At least, in the absence of providing a third way you appeared to be. Why would you criticize a move away from that otherwise?
As far as what you said about street pharmacologists committing evil, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said it better than I can: your average corn user is no more a criminal than a speakeasy patron in the Prohibition era.
And finally, I did file my first round of post-graduation taxes not too long ago, and got slightly bigger refunds than I have in previous years. After three years straight, the state of Wisconsin is giving me money instead of the other way around.