american politics are a joke

[The Heart Collector]

How can anyone in their right mind call the Democratic Party the party of the left?

Barack Obama, the candidate of the left, says he's a "free market guy" and has a bunch of UChicago economists planning his policy. How in God's name is this even remotely leftist?

How the fuck can a Republican call Democrats "socialists" or "leftists" and keep a straight face?

America is a barren wasteland of ideals full of rabid pro-capitalist sadists.

[someguy]

Someone is pretty bored tonight.

[Scarfather]

No shit.

[Squid Vicious]

I do not disagree with one word of the original post.

[The Heart Collector]

The lagoons themselves are so viscous and venomous that if someone falls in it is foolish to try to save him. A few years ago, a truck driver in Oklahoma was transferring pig shit to a lagoon when he and his truck went over the side. It took almost three weeks to recover his body. In 1992, when a worker making repairs to a lagoon in Minnesota began to choke to death on the fumes, another worker dived in after him, and they died the same death. In another instance, a worker who was repairing a lagoon in Michigan was overcome by the fumes and fell in. His fifteen-year-old nephew dived in to save him but was overcome, the worker's cousin went in to save the teenager but was overcome, the worker's older brother dived in to save them but was overcome, and then the worker's father dived in. They all died in pig shit.

The chairman of Smithfield Foods, Joseph Luter III, is a funny, jowly, canny, barbarous guy who lives in a multimillion-dollar condo on Park Avenue in Manhattan and conveys himself about the planet in a corporate jet and a private yacht. At sixty-seven, he is unrepentant in the face of criticism. He describes himself as a "tough man in a tough business" and his factories as wholly legitimate products of the American free market.


THIS IS AMERICA.

[Vong]

With regards to the free-market comment in the OP, it would be hard to get ahead in politics if you were to promote or defend "fair trade" or something similar. Today's geopolitics revolves around lassiez faire and neo-liberalism. Most, if not all, "liberal" parties in the world promote it. Those on the left that do not are generally the social democratic parties or far-leftist.

[The Heart Collector]

neoliberalism is grotesque. the word itself is more vulgar than cunt.

[QUENTIN]

In other news, the sky is blue.

But yes, our super-capitalist neoliberal "free market" economy is basically the worst thing to happen to the world in the past 30 years. And Obama won't get my vote for his economic policy, among other reasons. And there is no popular liberal party in this country, because conservatives have succesfully turned it into a dirty word. We have cartoonishly evil and far right neo-conservatives, real conservatives, and centrists who play the left.

[Homyrrh]

Interesting point, THC, about the UC economists; after all, Chicago has, I believe, THE premier economics program in the world. Stephen Levitt's 'Freakonomics' was just a lite fare condensing of the program.

On another note, I don't quite understand this thread. By my understanding, the Republican Party is influenced by a general conservative ideology and the Democratic Party is generally influenced by a liberal--synonymous with leftist--platform.

I also apologize further, but I cannot comprehend the implications made in this thread thus far. I feel this is come condemnation of capitalism (?), but reserve any wods until someone further explains this to me.

[MadsenOMC]

Interesting point, THC, about the UC economists; after all, Chicago has, I believe, THE premier economics program in the world. Stephen Levitt's 'Freakonomics' was just a lite fare condensing of the program.

Speaking of UC economists, I am currently halfway through The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein. It's fascinating so far.

[Elgyn]

How the fuck can a Republican call Democrats "socialists" or "leftists" and keep a straight face?




Because implying a Democrat and/or Democratic ideals are "socialist" or "leftist" is a popular scare tactic the right has been using lately.
THE DEMOCRATS WILL TURN US INTO A COMMUNIST NATION!!!!!!!:eek::eek:
OBAMA WILL TAKE ALL YOUR MONEY AND GIVE IT TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!!!:eek::eek:
THE DEMOCRATS WILL BREAK DOWN YOUR FRONT DOOR, COME IN AND TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!!!!:eek::eek:

[Homyrrh]

Speaking of UC economists, I am currently halfway through The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein. It's fascinating so far.
You would say that...;)

[MadsenOMC]

You would say that...;)

Have you read it?

[Homyrrh]

No, but I'm very familiar with its thesis and mission. I'd also recommned my aforementioned 'Freakonomics' as a slight more objective book of a different cover.

[MadsenOMC]

No, but I'm very familiar with its thesis and mission. I'd also recommned my aforementioned 'Freakonomics' as a slight more objective book of a different cover.

If you haven't read it, how do you know Freakonomics is more objective?

[Vong]

Speaking of UC economists, I am currently halfway through The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein. It's fascinating so far.

That's definately a book I'm looking forward to picking up.
I read No Logos back in first year poli sci and it was an amazing read.

[Homyrrh]

If you haven't read it, how do you know Freakonomics is more objective?
Not definitively, but 'Freakonomics' solely proves there is an application for economic theory in EVERYTHING (i.e.--the effect of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on the drastic crime rate fall in the early nineties...eat your heart out Giuliani).

[MadsenOMC]

That's definately a book I'm looking forward to picking up.
I read No Logos back in first year poli sci and it was an amazing read.

It is worth reading. Obviously some feel it is biased, but I don't see how someone who read it could say she doesn't make an extremely compelling case. She backs everything up with first-hand accounts, government documents, and statistics.

[Homyrrh]

It is worth reading. Obviously some feel it is biased, but I don't see how someone who read it could say she doesn't make an extremely compelling case. She backs everything up with first-hand accounts, government documents, and statistics.
I'd still read it, but one cannot say it isn't a biased work. All texts within that genre, are to some degree. Besides, the quest for knowledge and truth shall eternally trump one's agenda...to be poetic.

[The Heart Collector]

On another note, I don't quite understand this thread. By my understanding, the Republican Party is influenced by a general conservative ideology and the Democratic Party is generally influenced by a liberal--synonymous with leftist--platform.

The point of the thread is essentially that, based on my experience living in America and following politics here, the political and economic ideologies in America are so narrow it's cartoonish. A friend of mine from Sweden laughed because some notorious right-wing person in Sweden thinks Barack Obama is the best candidate and agrees with all his policies. "Leftist" in America means not privatizing the crap out of everything.

[The Heart Collector]

No, but I'm very familiar with its thesis and mission. I'd also recommned my aforementioned 'Freakonomics' as a slight more objective book of a different cover.

I don't think the books are very similar, to be honest. And Klein often overreaches, but some of her points are sobering, re Katrina / Iraq.

I mean really now. When Iraq's new policies post-invasion look like this:

* Order #39 allows for:
1. privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises;
2. allow up to 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses;
3. national treatment of foreign firms;
4. unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and
5. 40-year ownership licenses.

* Order #40 turns the banking sector from a state-run to a market-driven system overnight by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

* Order #49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat rate of 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

* Order #12 enacted on June 7, 2003 and renewed on February 24, 2004, suspended all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods.

* Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws.


Then you know there's a tremendous ideological problem with the U.S. government. That is nothing other than the utter rape and pillage of a country.

[Homyrrh]

But I can call the Democratic party the "party of the left", regardless of whether it's supposed to be.

[Vong]

The point of the thread is essentially that, based on my experience living in America and following politics here, the political and economic ideologies in America are so narrow it's cartoonish. A friend of mine from Sweden laughed because some notorious right-wing person in Sweden thinks Barack Obama is the best candidate and agrees with all his policies. "Leftist" in America means not privatizing the crap out of everything.

You could boil this all down to the lack of a multi-party system or the American public's lack of faith towards a third option.

American politics have evolved during the neo-liberal era under a two-party system. This doesn't give the political structure much fluxuation. On top of the fact that leftist ideals are looked down upon (a result of the Cold War) and anything socialist is condemned.

[cuddleworthy]

How can anyone in their right mind call the Democratic Party the party of the left?

Barack Obama, the candidate of the left, says he's a "free market guy" and has a bunch of UChicago economists planning his policy. How in God's name is this even remotely leftist?

How the fuck can a Republican call Democrats "socialists" or "leftists" and keep a straight face?

America is a barren wasteland of ideals full of rabid pro-capitalist sadists.

Because Hillary and himself both mentioned "going after" credit card companies and regulating their interest rates. That alone is communism. Interest rates should be strictly left up to companies which issue them. That's capitalism. If someone is stupid enough to spend more on their credit card that what they have, good for them. If you don't like that company of their interest rates, switch to another. Different companies and competition = economic freedom and a better society as a whole.

[Squid Vicious]

Because Hillary and himself both mentioned "going after" credit card companies and regulating their interest rates. That alone is communism.

You know, I've read The Communist Manifesto, and nowhere in it do Marx and Engels talk about regulating businesses. Communists want to abolish private property, not regulate it. What you're describing is some mild form of Keynesianism or something...

[The Heart Collector]

Because Hillary and himself both mentioned "going after" credit card companies and regulating their interest rates. That alone is communism. Interest rates should be strictly left up to companies which issue them. That's capitalism. If someone is stupid enough to spend more on their credit card that what they have, good for them. If you don't like that company of their interest rates, switch to another. Different companies and competition = economic freedom and a better society as a whole.

This is what I'm talking about. All this stuff you posted is a load of american capitalist bullshit. It's a bunch of meaningless mantras. Regulating interest rates is not communism or socialism or marxism in any way, shape, or form. "Capitalism" isn't "Free Market Capitalism", the suggestion that regulation is "communist" is supremely idiotic and shows that you don't even know what communism is. The mantra that economic freedom means a better society is a bag of dog shit. It's fucking false in every way, shape or form. Go tell the Chileans circa late 70s that they were better as a whole because of neoliberalism. Income inequality has risen dramatically since this "economic freedom" bullshit took over in the 80s in America, and this mentality has slowly chipped away at the middle and lower classes. Maybe take your head out of Milton Friedman's ass and actually observe the real world for a change.

[Homyrrh]

This is what I'm talking about. All this stuff you posted is a load of american capitalist bullshit. It's a bunch of meaningless mantras. Regulating interest rates is not communism or socialism or marxism in any way, shape, or form. "Capitalism" isn't "Free Market Capitalism", the suggestion that regulation is "communist" is supremely idiotic and shows that you don't even know what communism is. The mantra that economic freedom means a better society is a bag of dog shit. It's fucking false in every way, shape or form. Go tell the Chileans circa late 70s that they were better as a whole because of neoliberalism. Income inequality has risen dramatically since this "economic freedom" bullshit took over in the 80s in America, and this mentality has slowly chipped away at the middle and lower classes. Maybe take your head out of Milton Friedman's ass and actually observe the real world for a change.
One of the gravest fundamental travesties of any lean, AT ALL, toward a socialist or communist state is that these economic platforms both promote mediocrity and nullify any gift or talent of one individual, intrinsic or otherwise, over that of another. In essence, why should (hypothetically) be regulated to identical financial oppurutunities as my neighbor if I not only am twice as intelligent, twice as educated, twice as dedicated, twice as motivated, twice as healthy (on my own accord, i.e.--smoking) and twice the achiever he is? I throw my million in, he throw's his hundred grand and we each get four hundred thousand after taxes?

Capitalism is the throne of performance, the champion of indifference, and the superior option to a communal economic platform. In conclusion, I must ask how the word "fair" is being defined.

[cuddleworthy]

This is what I'm talking about. All this stuff you posted is a load of american capitalist bullshit. It's a bunch of meaningless mantras. Regulating interest rates is not communism or socialism or marxism in any way, shape, or form. "Capitalism" isn't "Free Market Capitalism", the suggestion that regulation is "communist" is supremely idiotic and shows that you don't even know what communism is. The mantra that economic freedom means a better society is a bag of dog shit. It's fucking false in every way, shape or form. Go tell the Chileans circa late 70s that they were better as a whole because of neoliberalism. Income inequality has risen dramatically since this "economic freedom" bullshit took over in the 80s in America, and this mentality has slowly chipped away at the middle and lower classes. Maybe take your head out of Milton Friedman's ass and actually observe the real world for a change.

Both of my parents escaped Communist Czechoslovakia in 1968. Following a coup in 1948, the country became a Communist-ruled state. The country where Kafka, Freud, Schindler were born. The media was put under control. Political dissenters thrown in prison. Statues were put up. The Estates Theatre in Prague, which once premiered the Opera Don Giovanni by Mozart was closed. Those who protested were taken in middle of the night. Most of whom never returned. Students in classrooms had pictures of Stalin, Lenin and other communist leaders on the first pages of their textbooks. When one died, or was shot, they had to take scissors and cut out the one deceased. Czech citizens were made to attend Soviet parades. Listen to Soviet anthems and nothing else.

As a result of this rule for 48 years, the Czech people were alienated, the economy was sunk and the country was set back fifty years. Similar to Western Germany. It's great to talk about the glories of Communism in your own private home, using your own computer, in a country where you're free to express your feelings. The truth is, you have no idea. Just theories and stories from books. If you really wish though to open your eyes, talk to any Cuban refugee in Miami. Or simply look at the bodies or names of the people who fled from West Germany to the East for freedom and were gunned down.

This ain't a personal attack directed toward you, since you're entitled to your own opinion. However, I would prefer to be in a country where it's alright to have an opinion, even if it's unpopular, instead of it being instilled in me.

Cheers.

[Vong]

It's great to talk about the glories of Communism in your own private home, using your own computer, in a country where you're free to express your feelings. The truth is, you have no idea. Just theories and stories from books.

Soviet/Leninist communism is one thing, true Marxist communism is another. No country in the world has experienced true communism, just failed experiments.

[mel1ssa]

Soviet/Leninist communism is one thing, true Marxist communism is another. No country in the world has experienced true communism, just failed experiments.

if countries continue to fail, is 'true communism' obtainable?

[The Heart Collector]

Both of my parents escaped Communist Czechoslovakia in 1968. Following a coup in 1948, the country became a Communist-ruled state. The country where Kafka, Freud, Schindler were born. The media was put under control. Political dissenters thrown in prison. Statues were put up. The Estates Theatre in Prague, which once premiered the Opera Don Giovanni by Mozart was closed. Those who protested were taken in middle of the night. Most of whom never returned. Students in classrooms had pictures of Stalin, Lenin and other communist leaders on the first pages of their textbooks. When one died, or was shot, they had to take scissors and cut out the one deceased. Czech citizens were made to attend Soviet parades. Listen to Soviet anthems and nothing else.

As a result of this rule for 48 years, the Czech people were alienated, the economy was sunk and the country was set back fifty years. Similar to Western Germany. It's great to talk about the glories of Communism in your own private home, using your own computer, in a country where you're free to express your feelings. The truth is, you have no idea. Just theories and stories from books. If you really wish though to open your eyes, talk to any Cuban refugee in Miami. Or simply look at the bodies or names of the people who fled from West Germany to the East for freedom and were gunned down.

This ain't a personal attack directed toward you, since you're entitled to your own opinion. However, I would prefer to be in a country where it's alright to have an opinion, even if it's unpopular, instead of it being instilled in me.

Cheers.

Thanks for posting a story that has absolutely nothing to you with your painfully erroneus and dumb assertion that setting interest rates is a communist endeavor. What point did you just think you prove? What did that have to do with anything? I really want to know. I want you to explain to me what soviet parades have to do with your assertion that interest rate intervention from the government is communist.

No one is talking about the glories of communism in this thread. Your idea that any critic of free market capitalism and narrow-minded American brouhaha is some "communist" that wants to make you go on "parades" is just... There are no words for this shit. Stalin isn't going to come from the grave and take your children because of Keynesian intervention.

By the way, last time I checked, the Socialist government of Zapatero legalized gay marriage. When is the free, capitalist America going to give that to the gays?

[Vong]

if countries continue to fail, is 'true communism' obtainable?

True communism only happens at the highest state of capitalist development, when the workers realize their class is strong and their lives could be so much different. Marx did not envision communism occuring any other way.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

No comparison can be made to U.S. regulations and the completely centralized Soviet Union. It is such an asinine connection. Take private property for example. In the Soviet Union, there was no such thing. People gave what they had to the government and it barely worked for the short amount of time it did. In the U.S., we have regulations in case some eccentric oddball wants to cut down a bunch of trees to build a magic baseball field because he heard a voice. No connection can be made. The fact that said weirdo is allowed to own land makes it completely different from the Soviet Union.

Plus, anyone who can look at the mortgage crisis and fail to see the enormous shortcomings of complete deregulation does not think like a rational human being.

[Homyrrh]

Anyone read my last post? No?

So, THC, how would you propose the US system of governance and economy be maintained? I'm not so clear on what you're suggesting or why, as you've only seemed to have tried to disprove one while omitting any effort to advocate for another.

Otherwise, I cannot accept the validity of a thread that is carelessly titled with such a blatantly incorrect subject-verb agreement.

[Elgyn]

I`m no political analyist or anything, but basically I look at it this way: the republican/conservative/GOP/"big business" powers-that-be have had their chance with this country.
They fucked up.
It`s obviously time to go in a different direction, and that 'different direction' is NOT John fucking McCain, I`ll just leave that at that.

The right lambasts Obama for constantly talking about "change".....but you know why all the "change" talk resonates with people so well? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING FED UP! There is practically no 'middle class' anymore. Either you`re:
A.) Wealthy and comfortable
or
B.) Working two jobs and barely paying your bills.

There needs to be some MAJOR overhauls in this country, so for God`s sake, bring on the 'change'!!! If we need to go in a different direction that looks scary to some people because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say it`s "socialist" or "leftist", then so be it. Fuck, I can`t imagine things could get much worse than they are now.

[SpoonMan999]

I`m no political analyist or anything, but basically I look at it this way: the republican/conservative/GOP/"big business" powers-that-be have had their chance with this country.
They fucked up.
It`s obviously time to go in a different direction, and that 'different direction' is NOT John fucking McCain, I`ll just leave that at that.

The right lambasts Obama for constantly talking about "change".....but you know why all the "change" talk resonates with people so well? BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FUCKING FED UP! There is practically no 'middle class' anymore. Either you`re:
A.) Wealthy and comfortable
or
B.) Working two jobs and barely paying your bills.

There needs to be some MAJOR overhauls in this country, so for God`s sake, bring on the 'change'!!! If we need to go in a different direction that looks scary to some people because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say it`s "socialist" or "leftist", then so be it. Fuck, I can`t imagine things could get much worse than they are now.

A little off topic there...For the record not all change is good.

[Elgyn]

A little off topic there...For the record not all change is good.


It`s on-topic in the sense that it involves the scare tactics of calling Democratic (Obama`s) policies "socialist" or "leftist" (per the OP).

Of course not all change is good.......so what`s your suggestion? Keep going the way we are now?:confused:
If we don`t TRY to do things differently, we`ll never know if 'change' will be good or bad.

[Homyrrh]

It`s on-topic in the sense that it involves the scare tactics of calling Democratic (Obama`s) policies "socialist" or "leftist" (per the OP).

Of course not all change is good.......so what`s your suggestion? Keep going the way we are now?:confused:
If we don`t TRY to do things differently, we`ll never know if 'change' will be good or bad.
But socialism, of which Obama whispers his innuendos, is a far cry from whatever travesty you believe may be your financial situation now.

[Elgyn]

But socialism, of which Obama whispers his innuendos, is a far cry from whatever travesty you believe may be your financial situation now.


Uhhh....I don`t mean to be combative or anything, but right there in your post you just basically said Obama`s a socialist!
WATCH OUT EVERYBODY! OBAMA`S A COMMIE BASTARD!!! HE`S GONNA TAKE ALL YOUR MONEY!! SOCIALISM NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!


See it`s just scare tactics.
That`s what I was trying to say, which apparently was deemed 'off-topic' by spoonman even though the OP was asking how anyone can call Obama "leftist" or "socialist".

[Homyrrh]

Uhhh....I don`t mean to be combative or anything, but right there in your post you just basically said Obama`s a socialist!
WATCH OUT EVERYBODY! OBAMA`S A COMMIE BASTARD!!! HE`S GONNA TAKE ALL YOUR MONEY!! SOCIALISM NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!


See it`s just scare tactics.
That`s what I was trying to say, which apparently was deemed 'off-topic' by spoonman even though the OP was asking how anyone can call Obama "leftist" or "socialist".
Aside from being thick and rather childish, your post is void of any objective logic and is instead rife with sensationalism.

My 'whispers' comment, fearmongering and intimidating as even that very word is(...), was an implication that, fundamentally, the plan is ultimately Robin Hood-esque, that the government will take from the rich and give to the poor. Communism is a primitive concept that has presented itself in no palce in Obama's policies. However, it is inarguable that the plan will, to some degree, regulate wealth.

To say this statement is a "scare tactic" is to shrug the issue and ignore the refutation.

[Elgyn]

Aside from being thick and rather childish, your post is void of any objective logic and is instead rife with sensationalism.

Well 'thick' and 'childish' are my middle names!;)
Yes I have two middle names.

My 'whispers' comment, fearmongering and intimidating as even that very word is(...),


Oh I wasn`t trying to imply that *you* personally were saying all the stuff I wrote on all caps. Sorry if it looked like that. That`s just my exagerated version of all the "socialists are coming" scare tactics you hear on conservative talk radio etc.

To say this statement is a "scare tactic" is to shrug the issue and ignore the refutation.

But it *is* a scare tactic.
The implication (again, not from you personally) is "THE SCARY LEFTIST COMMIES ARE COMING!! HIDE YOUR MONEY!!".
I suppose whether or not you see it as a scare tactic depends on which side of the fence you`re on.

[Homyrrh]

Well, alright. You have my condolences regarding the childhood you must have had.

Otherwise, it's still dramatization and sensationalism. Like you understand, I don't feel Obama is a red bastard (rather, a blue one :D ). Could it be considered a "scare tactic"? Yeah, possibly, but it's as if it's being mentioned solely to discredit the claim.

As a hyperbolic example:

"Give me my lunch money or I'll break your nose."
"You're just utilizing fearmongering scare tactics, Joey."
"No I'm not, I'm actually going to break your nose."

[MadsenOMC]

Explaining Baracknophobia:

http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/06/17/the-daily-show-baracknophobia-the-irrational-fear-of-hope-is-spreading/

[Homyrrh]

Damn, at work.

[Elgyn]

Well, alright. You have my condolences regarding the childhood you must have had.

Otherwise, it's still dramatization and sensationalism. Like you understand, I don't feel Obama is a red bastard (rather, a blue one :D ). Could it be considered a "scare tactic"? Yeah, possibly, but it's as if it's being mentioned solely to discredit the claim.

As a hyperbolic example:

"Give me my lunch money or I'll break your nose."
"You're just utilizing fearmongering scare tactics, Joey."
"No I'm not, I'm actually going to break your nose."

:DAh, but the difference is, Joey KNOWS that the bully will break his nose.
But do we know for certain what Obama would do if in office?

As for my comments bieng sensationalism.......yes, they are exagerrated and cartoonish, BUT you need to understand I`m merely mocking the comments I hear right-wing pundits make about Obama.
At my job I have to listen to conservative talk radio all day long (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck) and trust me, they DO flat-out call him a socialist - no implication about it.
They are literally trying to scare people into thinking Obama will turn America into a socialist nation. And I honestly don`t believe that`s true.

[MadsenOMC]

If Obama is a socialist determined to turn America into a socialist nation, then McCain is a warmonger determined to get America into WWIII and destroy the rest of the world.

[Homyrrh]

If Obama is a socialist determined to turn America into a socialist nation, then McCain is a warmonger determined to get America into WWIII and destroy the rest of the world.
:confused:

Is this that polar? You've introduced the entire "My Daddy" argument.

[MadsenOMC]

I was pointing out the sheer simplicity and inaccuracy in making statements of that nature.

[Homyrrh]

I was pointing out the sheer simplicity and inaccuracy in making statements of that nature.
Simplicty, yes, but not necessarily innaccuarcy. I don't feel Obama's election would necessarily affect me because of my particualr situation, but it is ignorant to not even notice that Obama's policies imply a shift further from capitalism.

Besides, when do words warrant action?

[MadsenOMC]

Simplicty, yes, but not necessarily innaccuarcy. I don't feel Obama's election would necessarily affect me because of my particualr situation, but it is ignorant to not even notice that Obama's policies imply a shift further from capitalism.

Besides, when do words warrant action?

Then it is no less true that McCain will bring us closer to World War III. It is ignorant to not even notice that his policies imply a shift closer to another war.

[Homyrrh]

Then it is no less true that McCain will bring us closer to World War III. It is ignorant to not even notice that his policies imply a shift closer to another war.
I'm being...mocked. Hm.

WWIII will most unlikely be fought as a stuggle of capitalism v. socialism. Please explain the relevance.

[MadsenOMC]

I'm being...mocked. Hm.

WWIII will most unlikely be fought as a stuggle of capitalism v. socialism. Please explain the relevance.

I wasn't mocking you. You believe Obama would bring us closer to socialism. I believe McCain would bring us closer to another war.

[Homyrrh]

It is ignorant to not even notice that his policies imply a shift closer to another war.
it is ignorant to not even notice that Obama's policies imply a shift further from capitalism.
If not mockery, whatever. Just be wary.

[MadsenOMC]

If not mockery, whatever. Just be wary.

Be wary? Or what, you'll beat me up?

[Homyrrh]

Be wary? Or what, you'll beat me up?
Be wary = Be aware = be aware of yourself.

[QUENTIN]

But socialism, of which Obama whispers his innuendos, is a far cry from whatever travesty you believe may be your financial situation now.

He's right man. Under socialism, instead of having to dig and pave the road between your house and your work, the government would take your tax money and do it for you and then all your neighbors could use the road too. Even worse, instead of having to hand deliver all your bills to creditors and letters to friends, the government would take some of your money and create a system of delivering all your mail to the intended addressee AND they'd bring all the mail sent to you directly to your house. Not only that, but you know how right now you keep an arsenal in your house to prevent all the anarchist looters we have from taking your stuff? Well a socialist government would want to take some of your hard-earned money and use it to fund this kind of paramilitary force that would have guns of their own and enforce a whole bunch of laws to keep you safe, they'd go around "policing" your whole town in fact. The government would even use some of your money to pay and train teams of people to fight fires. That's right, FIGHT fires. We need fire! Humanity has thrived on it. I haven't even gotten to the worst part yet, so I hope you're sitting down. You know how now under our capitalist system if you want to learn anything you have to seek an elder and prove yourself worthy so that he will pass on his great knowledge via oral tradition? Well these thieving, despicable, pinko socialists would want to take your money, money you earned by the way, and create this big warehouses where they stored row after row of books, literally thousands of books that you and anyone in your community could go to for information, to acquire knowledge, hell even for pleasure. They'd even take our kids, throw them en masse into buildings where our own money would be used to fund their FORCED education. These bastards even dream of a day when if you got really sick, instead of having to put a second mortgage on your home to pay for the doctor's bills, the government would pay for you out of money they took out of your paycheck before you even got sick. I tell you Elgyn, it is truly a dark world these socialists want for us.

You know the last president who had really socialist policies? Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the most popular president during his term in the history of the nation. Elected four times and only allowed to leave office by death. You know who openly advocated and preached socialism in many of his speeches? His vice-president, Henry Wallace, the most popular and beloved person to ever hold executive office (he had a 94% approval rating sustained for a solid year...94%!) Socialism is not some dark evil and it's not the same thing as communism, and we can quit being reactionaries, the red scare days are over. As for Obama, please show me where you see him even flirting with socialism Homyrrh. If he did, I'd like him more, but I've looked at his economic policy and don't see it and until Hillary dropped out, he was actually against socialized health care.

[MadsenOMC]

Be wary = Be aware = be aware of yourself.

I meant that in a lighthearted fashion, though I do find it endlessly amusing that you feel it necessary to make comments of that nature.

[Homyrrh]

He's right man. Under socialism, instead of having to dig and pave the road between your house and your work, the government would take your tax money and do it for you and then all your neighbors could use the road too. Even worse, instead of having to hand deliver all your bills to creditors and letters to friends, the government would take some of your money and create a system of delivering all your mail to the intended addressee AND they'd bring all the mail sent to you directly to your house. Not only that, but you know how right now you keep an arsenal in your house to prevent all the anarchist looters we have from taking your stuff? Well a socialist government would want to take some of your hard-earned money and use it to fund this kind of paramilitary force that would have guns of their own and enforce a whole bunch of laws to keep you safe, they'd go around "policing" your whole town in fact. The government would even use some of your money to pay and train teams of people to fight fires. That's right, FIGHT fires. We need fire! Humanity has thrived on it. I haven't even gotten to the worst part yet, so I hope you're sitting down. You know how now under our capitalist system if you want to learn anything you have to seek an elder and prove yourself worthy so that he will pass on his great knowledge via oral tradition? Well these thieving, despicable, pinko socialists would want to take your money, money you earned by the way, and create this big warehouses where they stored row after row of books, literally thousands of books that you and anyone in your community could go to for information, to acquire knowledge, hell even for pleasure. They'd even take our kids, throw them en masse into buildings where our own money would be used to fund their FORCED education. These bastards even dream of a day when if you got really sick, instead of having to put a second mortgage on your home to pay for the doctor's bills, the government would pay for you out of money they took out of your paycheck before you even got sick. I tell you Elgyn, it is truly a dark world these socialists want for us.

You know the last president who had really socialist policies? Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the most popular president during his term in the history of the nation. Elected four times and only allowed to leave office by death. You know who openly advocated and preached socialism in many of his speeches? His vice-president, Henry Wallace, the most popular and beloved person to ever hold executive office (he had a 94% approval rating sustained for a solid year...94%!) Socialism is not some dark evil and it's not the same thing as communism, and we can quit being reactionaries, the red scare days are over. As for Obama, please show me where you see him even flirting with socialism Homyrrh. If he did, I'd like him more, but I've looked at his economic policy and don't see it and until Hillary dropped out, he was actually against socialized health care.
Cut rich taxes. Give to poor. Equal dispersion of wealth.

You would give such unregulated power to the federal government...you whose expressed nothing but disdain for government and even said, specifically, that you're 'anti-American'.

Like I posted initially, socialism is a vehicle for mediocrity and a lackadaisical life.

[Homyrrh]

I meant that in a lighthearted fashion, though I do find it endlessly amusing that you feel it necessary to make comments of that nature.
It's really no mind of mine, but again, you mocked me. The discussion was legitimate until you decided to post your reply.

[MadsenOMC]

It's really no mind of mine, but again, you mocked me. The discussion was legitimate until you decided to post your reply.

Like I said, the intent was not to mock you. If you felt it was, that's your prerogative, but you're mistaken.

[Homyrrh]

I figure it wasn't. I trust your "word" (literally in the context).

I feel you misunderstood my reply of "be wary". I meant you should be aware of how your post may come off, especially since, like you said, I interpreted differently. This wasn't our first miscommunication.

I really don't want to post anymore about this. Please PM me if you're not cool with it/me.

[MadsenOMC]

I figure it wasn't. I trust your "word" (literally in the context).

I feel you misunderstood my reply of "be wary". I meant you should be aware of how your post may come off, especially since, like you said, I interpreted differently. This wasn't our first miscommunication.

I really don't want to post anymore about this. Please PM me if you're not cool with it/me.

I'm done with PM. I am skipping to an ass beating. No, we're fine, it's cool.

[SpoonMan999]

See it`s just scare tactics.
That`s what I was trying to say, which apparently was deemed 'off-topic' by spoonman even though the OP was asking how anyone can call Obama "leftist" or "socialist".

You post briefly touched on it I'll give you that but your change for the sake of change rant wasn't what we were discussing.

[QUENTIN]

Cut rich taxes.
Uh-huh

Give to poor
So far I'm with you. This sounds like part of the economic policy of all but three presidents in the last 100 years.

Equal dispersion of wealth.
BULLSHIT! Big, fat, stinky, flaming pile of bullshit. This is where your erroneous, unfounded statements and implication that Obama is a secret socialist come into play. Taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than you tax the middle and lower class is what we have almost always done in this capitalist country and it friggin' makes sense. Giving to the poor, also something we've almost always done in this country and it friggin' makes sense. This is NOT the same thing as the equal dispersion or distribution of wealth and I can't even believe you think it is. The rich aren't suddenly not rich, the poor aren't suddenly not poor. It's simply that instead of buying that new Rolls with their inherited money, the billionaires will have to settle for a Bentley and instead of starving to death, the tenement dwellers will get a can of spam. That is a far fucking cry from equal dispersion of wealth, it's sensible tax policy that keeps citizens from dying.

You would give such unregulated power to the federal government...you whose expressed nothing but disdain for government and even said, specifically, that you're 'anti-American'.

Such unregulated power to do what exactly? Build schools, build roads, have firefighters or any of the other many socialized systems they have? If you're against socialism, please explain why libraries, a post office, and police officers are a bad idea. And it's not that I have a disdain for "government", I have a disdain for THIS government, largely because it has spent 230 years protecting and benefiting the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%. Government is not inherently bad. In fact, government is only supposed to exist to better serve the needs of the people, so it should be good. We've just had it run by assholes, assholes who've apparently convinced you that fulfilling common needs is a bad thing.

Like I posted initially, socialism is a vehicle for mediocrity and a lackadaisical life.

Tell that to the guy who works three jobs to put food in his table while Paris Hilton blows coke in her Maserati. That's what capitalism is a vehicle for.

[SpoonMan999]

Uh-huh


So far I'm with you. This sounds like part of the economic policy of all but three presidents in the last 100 years.


BULLSHIT! Big, fat, stinky, flaming pile of bullshit. This is where your erroneous, unfounded statements and implication that Obama is a secret socialist come into play. Taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than you tax the middle and lower class is what we have almost always done in this capitalist country and it friggin' makes sense. Giving to the poor, also something we've almost always done in this country and it friggin' makes sense. This is NOT the same thing as the equal dispersion or distribution of wealth and I can't even believe you think it is. The rich aren't suddenly not rich, the poor aren't suddenly not poor. It's simply that instead of buying that new Rolls with their inherited money, the billionaires will have to settle for a Bentley and instead of starving to death, the tenement dwellers will get a can of spam. That is a far fucking cry from equal dispersion of wealth, it's sensible tax policy that keeps citizens from dying.



Such unregulated power to do what exactly? Build schools, build roads, have firefighters or any of the other many socialized systems they have? If you're against socialism, please explain why libraries, a post office, and police officers are a bad idea. And it's not that I have a disdain for "government", I have a disdain for THIS government, largely because it has spent 230 years protecting and benefiting the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%. Government is not inherently bad. In fact, government is only supposed to exist to better serve the needs of the people, so it should be good. We've just had it run by assholes, assholes who've apparently convinced you that fulfilling common needs is a bad thing.



Tell that to the guy who works three jobs to put food in his table while Paris Hilton blows coke in her Maserati. That's what capitalism is a vehicle for.

Taking more money from the rich and distributing it among the poor is a step away from Capitalism...that's all he was realy saying, not saying Obama was going to suddenly turn us into a socialist society. At least, that's not how I interpreted his comments. And quite frankly the rich such not be punished for being succesful, they should be able to keep what rightfuly belongs to them.

[Homyrrh]

Uh-huh


So far I'm with you. This sounds like part of the economic policy of all but three presidents in the last 100 years.


BULLSHIT! Big, fat, stinky, flaming pile of bullshit. This is where your erroneous, unfounded statements and implication that Obama is a secret socialist come into play. Taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than you tax the middle and lower class is what we have almost always done in this capitalist country and it friggin' makes sense. Giving to the poor, also something we've almost always done in this country and it friggin' makes sense. This is NOT the same thing as the equal dispersion or distribution of wealth and I can't even believe you think it is. The rich aren't suddenly not rich, the poor aren't suddenly not poor. It's simply that instead of buying that new Rolls with their inherited money, the billionaires will have to settle for a Bentley and instead of starving to death, the tenement dwellers will get a can of spam. That is a far fucking cry from equal dispersion of wealth, it's sensible tax policy that keeps citizens from dying.



Such unregulated power to do what exactly? Build schools, build roads, have firefighters or any of the other many socialized systems they have? If you're against socialism, please explain why libraries, a post office, and police officers are a bad idea. And it's not that I have a disdain for "government", I have a disdain for THIS government, largely because it has spent 230 years protecting and benefiting the top 1% at the expense of the other 99%. Government is not inherently bad. In fact, government is only supposed to exist to better serve the needs of the people, so it should be good. We've just had it run by assholes, assholes who've apparently convinced you that fulfilling common needs is a bad thing.



Tell that to the guy who works three jobs to put food in his table while Paris Hilton blows coke in her Maserati. That's what capitalism is a vehicle for.
But simply, if you're twice as smart, motivated, capable, educated and comeptent...why would you make as much as I? Taxing the rich is one thing, and currently the brackets are aligned in as much a way, but to raise taxes on the rich, then further cut them on the poor to the point of...EQUAL....DISPERSION...OF...WEALTH is crazytalk.

Again, and I'll emphasize, this begins to legitimately enter into a fundamental ambiguity of socialism. Is socialism, especially its quintessence, EVER going to happen in the US? Fuck no it isn't. There are too many checks and balances in this intrinsically capitalist nation.

And to grant government that much power--USSR, Mao's China, Cuba, etc.--has yet to yield this naive utopia you seem to envision. Maybe if you realize your hyperbolic posts then you can see no central government should have such power.

Come talk to me about your "civil" liberties then.

[Homyrrh]

Taking more money from the rich and distributing it among the poor is a step away from Capitalism...that's all he was realy saying, not saying Obama was going to suddenly turn us into a socialist society. At least, that's not how I interpreted his comments. And quite frankly the rich such not be punished for being succesful, they should be able to keep what rightfuly belongs to them.
Yeah. We are a capitalist nation and should remain as such.

[QUENTIN]

Taking more money from the rich and distributing it among the poor is a step away from Capitalism...that's all he was realy saying, not saying Obama was going to suddenly turn us into a socialist society. At least, that's not how I interpreted his comments. And quite frankly the rich such not be punished for being succesful, they should be able to keep what rightfuly belongs to them.

Yeah, taking 40% instead of 25% of a billion dollars that someone got merely because their great grandfather created a monopoly in a smoke-filled room to consolidate industry and fuck over his employers back in the Industrial Revolution...that's really punishing the wealthy. Holy shit, the poor bastard only gets to keep $600,000,000 he did nothing to earn this year.

The vast majority of wealth in this nation is inherited wealth. We can quit pretending like the top 1% are bootstrap stories. Paris Hilton really is the personification of what the American wealthy are today, how does all of her money "rightfully" belong to her? What did she succeed in to deserve that? This is what capitalism perpetuates. The poor becoming rich are one in a million stories, most of them happening in the entertainment industry where a good formal education isn't required. The rich staying rich is a birthright guarantee.

I just wish my grandfather had had the foresight to do business with the Nazis, if he had my dad could have been head of the CIA and President and I'd be the President now.

[QUENTIN]

But simply, if you're twice as smart, motivated, capable, educated and comeptent...why would you make as much as I? Taxing the rich is one thing, and currently the brackets are aligned in as much a way, but to raise taxes on the rich, then further cut them on the poor to the point of...EQUAL....DISPERSION...OF...WEALTH is crazytalk.

THIS ISN'T WHAT OBAMA NOR ANY MAJOR POLITICAL FIGURE IS SUGGESTING OR IMPLYING. You know that too. You're intentionally being daft. The rich will be taxed at a higher rate then the ridiculous cut benefits they have now. The poor will be taxed at a lower rate, because they need any money they can get their hands on. The tax rates will NEVER, EVER, not in a million years ever approach the equal dispersion of wealth. To do that you'd need to increase the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans to 99.9999% and on the minimum required to make it into the top 1% to 80% taxation for them to be equal with the median household income, while taking nothing from anyone who makes under $40,000 a year. Higher taxes on the rich and lower on the poor makes sense and is a far, far cry from the equal dispersion of wealth. That is just some doomsday fantasy of yours you're trying to provide as yes, a scare tactic.


Again, and I'll emphasize, this begins to legitimately enter into a fundamental ambiguity of socialism. Is socialism, especially its quintessence, EVER going to happen in the US? Fuck no it isn't. There are too many checks and balances in this intrinsically capitalist nation.

The U.S. already has TONS of socialism. Did you not read my post? Are you not familiar with how schools, public works, the roads you drive, the libraries you go to, the police who keep you safe, the firefighters who keep your house from burning down, and dozens of other programs are funded? They are socialized. Purely socialized. We aren't JUST capitalists, you know. We're a mix of a lot of economic principles. We're capitalist in name only, like being a democracy.

And to grant government that much power--USSR, Mao's China, Cuba, etc.--has yet to yield this naive utopia you seem to envision. Maybe if you realize your hyperbolic posts then you can see no central government should have such power.

Come talk to me about your "civil" liberties then.

Like I asked, what power? The power we already granted them to build schools and roads and post offices? Or the power to take our tax money and spend a little more on our health care and a little less on our weapons budget? Address the fact that we are already socialist in a lot of succesful ways we all benefit from or don't bother replying.

The USSR, China, and Cuba were none of them socialist. They were totalitarian dictatorships that used the promise of communism to take power. Please rise above the level of Joseph McCarthy.

[Homyrrh]

Yeah, taking 40% instead of 25% of a billion dollars that someone got merely because their great grandfather created a monopoly in a smoke-filled room to consolidate industry and fuck over his employers back in the Industrial Revolution...that's really punishing the wealthy. Holy shit, the poor bastard only gets to keep $600,000,000 he did nothing to earn this year.

The vast majority of wealth in this nation is inherited wealth. We can quit pretending like the top 1% are bootstrap stories. Paris Hilton really is the personification of what the American wealthy are today, how does all of her money "rightfully" belong to her? What did she succeed in to deserve that? This is what capitalism perpetuates. The poor becoming rich are one in a million stories, most of them happening in the entertainment industry where a good formal education isn't required. The rich staying rich is a birthright guarantee.

I just wish my grandfather had had the foresight to do business with the Nazis, if he had my dad could have been head of the CIA and President and I'd be the President now.
The principle is that a billionaire shouldn't lose all that much extra because he's rich and you're not.

Plutocratic wealth is one thing, and perhaps a steep "pluto tax" is something I can agree to (i.e.--exponential brackets for inherited wealth). Otherwise, you're making generalizations that overlook, for example, the world's single two richest men, William Gates and Warren Buffett, who, together, have single-handedly created and contributed to the world's most-endowed charity ($37.3 billion). No million people with that combiend wealth would ever donate like that.

This is just an example, not much of a valid support, but otherwise socialism still accelerates further toward government corruption.

Are you Harlot?

[MadsenOMC]

This is just an example, not much of a valid support, but otherwise socialism still accelerates further toward government corruption.

The government doesn't need to accelerate further towards socialism to become corrupt.

[Elgyn]

You post briefly touched on it I'll give you that but your change for the sake of change rant wasn't what we were discussing.


So I guess I changed the subject.
My subject is better than yours.:)



POW!

THAT.
JUST.
HAPPENED.

[QUENTIN]

The principle is that a billionaire shouldn't lose all that much extra because he's rich and you're not.

Plutocratic wealth is one thing, and perhaps a steep "pluto tax" is something I can agree to (i.e.--exponential brackets for inherited wealth). Otherwise, you're making generalizations that overlook, for example, the world's single two richest men, William Gates and Warren Buffett, who, together, have single-handedly created and contributed to the world's most-endowed charity ($37.3 billion). No million people with that combiend wealth would ever donate like that.


The billionaire isn't losing any extra though. He's keeping a whole lot more. He's losing a larger percentage because he has a bigger piece of the pie.

Let's keep in mind, throughout the majority of the 20th century in supposedly purely capitalist America, the wealthy have been taxed at a higher rate than the poor. Bush's tax cuts alleviated the taxes on the wealthy, helped them disproportionately to everyone else, and now Obama wants to repeal those cuts and make things back to normal and you're calling THAT socialism. That the U.S. economic status quo is somehow socialism because it's not a flat tax. That's hyperbolic, inaccurate, and whether you intend it to be or are just passing it on, is a scare tactic. We are not approaching and will not even discuss or consider the equal distribution of wealth, it's a non-sequitir here. And pretty please, with sugar on top dude, what about all of the socialism we already have in America? You think all of it is bad and needs to be done away with?

As for Gates and Buffett, totally good guys. I'd argue they contributed so much to charity BECAUSE their wealth was earned. Always having whatever you want your whole life, being that privileged, breeds contempt for fellow man and complete narcissism, hence the behavior of the majority of the wealthy. Keeping in mind it's nothing any democrat is proposing, just something I think would be a fair and good idea, if you taxed inherited wealth so that every dollar over say $250,000 (any number you pick will be arbitrary) you inherit, you get to keep 1% of, that would go a long way towards making things more economically even and democratic without punishing anyone for legitimate success. While all billionaires are totally unnecessary (no matter how hard they worked for it, no one needs that much money with so many people starving to death), the few who earned it at least have a solid claim to their money. The Waltons, Bushes, Kennedys, and Hiltons don't.

[Homyrrh]

The government doesn't need to accelerate further towards socialism to become corrupt.
Not all. But if it wants to go even further, they should most definitely enat a socialist mission.

And Q, socialism at the municipal level--my PROPERTY taxes working to protect my safety through the local precinct--is a different application than my INCOME taxes being regulated because I'm rich and the Jones aren't. My town has 20,000 people. My nation has 300 million and supreme power and influence in world politics.

I noted my pluto tax as a method of helping to solve the inherited wealth disparity. You are right, and in agreeance with me, that this is disgusting.

My entire point, almost exclusive of the thread topic itself, is that Obama's move from a single universal tax rate to a system inclusive of tax rates twice as high for the wealthy and half as much for the middle class is a FUNDAMENTAL, if microscopic, move towards socialism. TOWARD socialism. Get more, give more...

We can argue about the politics of capitalism and socialism for the next century and only further cement each other's opinions. These are ideologies in stark contrast to one another. But again, my point, like Spoon mentioned, is that Obama is simply taking a step back from the capitalism of this nation's founding.

[MadsenOMC]

But again, my point, like Spoon mentioned, is that Obama is simply taking a step back from the capitalism of this nation's founding.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. For one thing, there are a few more people in this country now.

[QUENTIN]

And Q, socialism at the municipal level--my PROPERTY taxes working to protect my safety through the local precinct--is a different application than my INCOME taxes being regulated because I'm rich and the Jones aren't. My town has 20,000 people. My nation has 300 million and supreme power and influence in world politics.

So where do you draw the line? Township? City? County? State? At what square footage does socialism go from being good to bad? See my point? Much of the socialism in the country does work. The problems...problems like bad schools, potholed roads, police who don't police, is from the fact that it is only property taxes that fund it and goes towards helping the locals. What fundamental American, democratic principle says rich kids have the right to good public education and safety and poor kids have to have terrible teachers, outdated books, and police who only patrol looking for drug arrests? Why not take everyone's property taxes and collectively use them for the betterment of the nation, rather than just the 20,000 people in your town? Are you opposed to equal quality of libraries, post offices, fire fighters, police forces, roads, and schools regardless of income?


I noted my pluto tax as a method of helping to solve the inherited wealth disparity. You are right, and in agreeance with me, that this is disgusting.

It is disgusting, I'm glad we agree on that and you're not an advocate for the totally undeserving. But keep in mind these people we're talking about are the majority of the wealthy whose money you're so interested in protecting.



My entire point, almost exclusive of the thread topic itself, is that Obama's move from a single universal tax rate to a system inclusive of tax rates twice as high for the wealthy and half as much for the middle class is a FUNDAMENTAL, if microscopic, move towards socialism. TOWARD socialism. Get more, give more...

We can argue about the politics of capitalism and socialism for the next century and only further cement each other's opinions. These are ideologies in stark contrast to one another. But again, my point, like Spoon mentioned, is that Obama is simply taking a step back from the capitalism of this nation's founding.

And my argument was, Bush changed the status quo of the tax rate system of the last 100 years. Generally and during much, much more of the time than not, America has taxed its wealthy at a higher rate than its poor and middle class. So by arguing that Obama's move towards the normal, status quo taxing of Americans as it has historically and usually is a step towards socialism, you're arguing that we have usually taxed our people in a socialist way. Is flat tax the only socialist-free way to tax people? Were Bush's tax cuts a move towards fascism? I think you're overstating your case and misusing the word, even now when trying to apply it more delicately.

[The Postmaster General]

Sadly, most of what this is about is off-setting the affects of manipulation by the top tier earners within the tax system. Our government is for the people and the people by the majority feel that it is important to assist the lower classes and this is seen through things like our recent rebate checks. The problem, however, is that this money is largely being used as a way of passing more profits to pharmaceutical, oil, and other large lobbyists corporations. No one used that $600 to start a small business or invest. Food, oil, medicine and debt are at all time highs, and we get a fucking christmas card.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that there's nothing about Capitalism that says a government needs to work for corporate and private interests and not for the people.

[The Heart Collector]

Yeah. We are a capitalist nation and should remain as such.

From the 1940's to the 1970's, based on more taxing and more redistribution of wealth, America became the strongest country in the world, the economy grew immensely, the middle class grew stronger, and income inequality was reduced dramatically.

Sincer the 1980s, using what you consider to be "capitalist" policies, the policies of supply-side economics and Reagan, income inequality has increased, the top 0.1% of the country control a much greater percentage of the total wealth of the country, the middle class has grown weaker, real wages have gone stagnant, the poor have gotten fucked, and the country has lost all its prestige.


Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party in general, want to return to higher taxation, higher government intervention/works, and therefore strenghten the middle class, redistribute income, aid the poor, give people basic rights such as healthcare, etc.


You can call it socialism if you want to. I don't care. You can call it satanism if you want to. I don't give a shit. What I give a shit about is its result. If you want to argue that Barack's policies are going to turn America socialist, then please explain to me why we were fighting the cold war in the 50s-60s-70s then, if we were socialists. Why we were supporting all those capitalist governments in South America, if we were socialists.

[The Heart Collector]

My entire point, almost exclusive of the thread topic itself, is that Obama's move from a single universal tax rate to a system inclusive of tax rates twice as high for the wealthy and half as much for the middle class is a FUNDAMENTAL, if microscopic, move towards socialism. TOWARD socialism. Get more, give more...


You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

- Adam Smith

Was Adam Smith a socialist? The Communist Manifesto by Marx, Engels, and Smith? He didn't co-author my copy. In fact, the last time I checked, he is the father of capitalism.

Stop saying that progressive taxation is a step away from capitalism. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

That Adam Smith quote just goes to show that liberals have really stayed towards the middle all these years while the conservatives continually grow more extreme and stubborn in their views. It's on all issues, too. Louisiana's new governor is so irrationally pro-life he actually believes that no woman should be allowed to get an abortion even if her own life and the life of the fetus are in danger. This is the mindset in this country. And now people are saying he could be the "maverick" McCain's running mate.

[The Postmaster General]

I think many politicians have our straying from capitalism as a scare tactic by overstating and exaggerating how it relates to how we govern. I think economy has become the new religion is it needing to be separated from the state. There is too much governing concerned with profit potentials.

[Vong]

But again, my point, like Spoon mentioned, is that Obama is simply taking a step back from the capitalism of this nation's founding.

Holy shit dude, you're one step closer to claiming America created capitalism.

I think you have put too much faith in capitalism in how far it will take us. Capitalism has it's limits and the world is reaching it with the U.S. at its helm. Eventually there will be a turn in events that will require government intervention (possibly Keynesianism) to shift things to the left and boost the slump capitalism is creating (arguably, already has). It has happened before, it surely will happen again.

Obama is merely taking a step to creating a "patchwork-capitalist" system, just like after the Depression, in order to boost the economy and save itself from total collapse.

[Jon Lyrik]

But let's not ignore HC's point on Obama. He's really not a left-liberal, those have been dead as politicians for three decades. He's another unequivocally centrist cog in our system who can orate and who can make a flagging populace feel good about themselves.

[Elgyn]

Obama is merely taking a step to creating a "patchwork-capitalist" system, just like after the Depression, in order to boost the economy and save itself from total collapse.

Doesn`t sound like a bad idea to me.

[Cop No. 633]

You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

- Adam Smith

Was Adam Smith a socialist? The Communist Manifesto by Marx, Engels, and Smith? He didn't co-author my copy. In fact, the last time I checked, he is the father of capitalism.

Stop saying that progressive taxation is a step away from capitalism. You don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.cartermuseum.org/files/amon-g-carter-hat.jpg

[QUENTIN]

Because American politics are still completely a joke, because Barack Obama the neoconservative-protecting centrist is still decried as a socialist and far-leftist by idiots, and because the debate over the economy, taxation, and universal health care is still being ruined by the massively, unbelievably uninformed:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/graph.jpg

If the woefully undereducated loons crying foul about America's tax rates think the miniscule current top tax rate is socialist, surely they must think America was the worst socialist state in Western history from 1944-1963, when the top bracket paid up to 94% in taxes (!) and averaged 89%, including under favorite Republican President Ike Eisenhower. God forbid we let taxes get back to 50% for the top earners, like we had under infamous Communist Czar Ronald Reagan.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Funny too that the lowest top income tax rates (1925-1931, 1988-1990, and 2003-2008) were always followed by budget crises, high unemployment, recession, depression, and global economic strife.

The facts are indisputable, but I'm sure they'll find a way to weasel argue that the current tax rate is unacceptably high, unprecedented, and will lead to a whole host of problems despite much higher rates fostering economic growth and prosperity throughout the rest of our history.

[John Galt]

This thread is predominantly disgusting.

I can't believe that some of you actually believe that slavery, er, excuse me*, socialism is actually not an evil and capitalism, is.

So not having a choice is better than having a choice about what kind of system I want to live under?

Really? I mean.....

Really?

I mean every place it has been tried, any place that has chosen to become more statist and less capitalist, the economy has worsened.

And another thing, we are not a capitalist nation, and definitely not a free market one. So please stop saying we are. Every single tenet of the laughable communist manifesto exists in some form in the US today, starting with the progressive income tax, onwards. Under Bush we were right wing socialist/corporate welfare. Now we are going in the same direction, only gathering toward the other private interests on the left that Bush left out.

We are becoming more socialist but apparently Uh-Bama's great masquerade has succeeded in having so many of you fooled.

He is leading us into increasingly deeper socialist waters, only doing so, galloping, in the name of capitalism.

Well,
"you can lead a man to water but you can't make him think."

[Cenopath]

The facts are indisputable, but I'm sure they'll find a way to weasel argue that the current tax rate is unacceptably high, unprecedented, and will lead to a whole host of problems despite much higher rates fostering economic growth and prosperity throughout the rest of our history.

Not exactly. There was the double-digit inflation of the 1970s that resulted in gasoline lines and gasoline rationing, and that kind of inflation occured at a time when the top tax rates were higher than they were today. And the recession of 1988-90 had more to do with out of control deficits that led to the Federal Reserve hiking interest rates to prevent another outbreak of inflation.

[Vong]

.I can't believe that some of you actually believe that slavery, er, excuse me*, socialism is actually not an evil and capitalism, is.

Really?

I mean every place it has been tried, any place that has chosen to become more statist and less capitalist, the economy has worsened.

Really?

And another thing, we are not a capitalist nation, and definitely not a free market one. So please stop saying we are. Every single tenet of the laughable communist manifesto exists in some form in the US today, starting with the progressive income tax, onwards. Under Bush we were right wing socialist/corporate welfare. Now we are going in the same direction, only gathering toward the other private interests on the left that Bush left out.

Really?


We are becoming more socialist but apparently Uh-Bama's great masquerade has succeeded in having so many of you fooled.

Really?

He is leading us into increasingly deeper socialist waters, only doing so, galloping, in the name of capitalism.

Really?

[Cenopath]

http://tenncva.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/newsweek-socialist-cover.jpg

Except it's not really "now" - the Republican Party has supported socialism for the rich (corporate welfare) for a long time, especially with their subsidies to oil and gas companies.

[QUENTIN]

Progressive taxation ISN'T SOCIALISM, particularly the taxation being implemented today that isn't progressive (94% is progressive taxation, 39.6 is almost as low as it's ever been).

Those saying it is, plainly don't know what capitalism and socialism are. They think only completely unregulated, 100% laissez-faire, Milton Friedman-ish, Ayn Rand-esque, trickle-down theory, unfettered capitalism is capitalism and that any state run social or quality of life program is socialism. This simply isn't true, those who feel this way don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about and are misusing terms and misunderstanding history and economic theory.

It's really as simple as that.

[Cenopath]

You are correct about the laissez-faire capitalism not being capitalism in its truest form. Capitalism essentially means private ownership of the means of production, and if that were the case, then we would be living in a stateless society without a military (anarcho-capitalism).

The progressive taxation/socialism comparison is also correct. Socialism refers to the public ownership of the means of production, not the redistribution of wealth as many have claimed - wealth redistribution and taxation are aspects of collectivism, not socialism.

[The Heart Collector]

Every single tenet of the laughable communist manifesto exists in some form in the US today, starting with the progressive income tax, onwards.

Most capitalists support the progressive income tax, though.

In The Wealth of the Nations, Adam Smith wrote "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion." That book was written in 1776 and is considerably older than The Community Manifesto or anything Karl Marx ever wrote. Since Wealth of the Nations is considered to be the the book that shaped the study of political economy, and the book that described capitalism, it would be an exaggeration to say that "progressive income tax" should be associated solely with Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto.

The first income taxes in America were also progressive; they did not tax all income, just income past a certain point, which would allow those with lesser income to survive. So principles of progressive taxation have existed at all points in the history of taxes in America. Wikipedia says: "in 1954 the Congress imposed a federal income tax on individuals, with the tax imposed in layers of 24 income brackets at tax rates ranging from 20% to 91%". That's more or less at the height of the Red Scare. I was not aware that the Reds had infiltrated Congress at the time.

Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the United States of America, supported progressive taxation in his famous book Rights of Man explicitly to prevent aristocracies or concentrations of power.

Is there any particular reason why you think America is against all these ideas, if even one of the Founding Fathers of the nation advocated them? Was Thomas Paine a follower of Karl Marx? Or was Karl Marx a follower of Thomas Paine?

[The Heart Collector]

Not exactly. There was the double-digit inflation of the 1970s that resulted in gasoline lines and gasoline rationing, and that kind of inflation occured at a time when the top tax rates were higher than they were today.

You seem to be confusing causes and effects here, because this is not entirely right. The oil scarcity issues in the 1970s had to do with the conditions of the countries that exported oil in the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, the nations in OPEC), not with the inflation in America; the inflation and scarcity are the effects of that, not the causes.

[The Heart Collector]

Tom Paine? Adam Smith? lol wtf do those guys know. Let's listen to "forums posted named after an Ayn Rand character" instead.

[John Galt]

Is there any particular reason why you think America is against all these ideas, if even one of the Founding Fathers of the nation advocated them? Was Thomas Paine a follower of Karl Marx? Or was Karl Marx a follower of Thomas Paine?

I would be a hypocrite if I agreed with what every single Founding Father had said. A few of them were downright deplorable; most namely Alexander Hamilton(though the one thing I'll give him was his insistence that there be a Bill Of Rights).

Corruption was in our government before the ink on the Constitution was even dry. It was Hamilton who came up with the terminology of 'Federalists' vs. 'Anti-Federalists'. If you look up what Federalism is in the Black Law Dictionary, you will see that it refers to a system of a decentralized government and the defense of state's rights against those who favor a centralized government, who are called 'Nationalists'.

So an "Anti-Federalist" is really a "Federalist" and a "Federalist" is really a "Nationalist". Hamilton came up with "Anti-Federalist" to demonize the group and ratify a document that was nowhere near being properly checked.

But, as it turned out, The "Anti-Federalists" were right. People like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Robert Yates. They were prescient in their ability to see that the government would grow far beyond what was intended in size and scope. That they would pervert the speech of the "general welfare" clause to enact any law they deemed necessary and the "all laws necessary and proper" clause which they would use to override limits on delegated federal powers.

But most importantly, the "Anti-Federalists" saw that our new government would not be restricted in its taxing power and would have despised the idea of any system of progressive taxation. This country originally got by on tariffs and excise taxes alone; and if our government were ever reduced back down to its constitutional functions(I'm not holding my breath), it could continue to do so.

So, I guess basically, to sum up: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine were wrong.

[The Heart Collector]

lol.


Can I just ask you exactly who are the economists and political thinkers that you follow in order to come up with your idea of America and capitalism?

It clearly isn't the political economists that described and defined capitalism, as they follow a bunch of things you seem to consider socialist.

It clearly isn't the people that founded the United States of America, since they follow a bunch of things you seem to consider socialist.

It clearly isn't someone like John Maynard Keynes, who followed a bunch of things you seem to consider socialist.

It also clearly isn't someone like american conservative darling Milton Friedman, who followed a bunch of things (such as a basic government-handed salary for everyone) you would likely consider socialist.

I mean. I am kind of confused here.

The thing that bothers me isn't the beliefs you hold, it's that you advocate them as if they are the American way. Or the capitalist way. They are extremely fringe beliefs and they're way to the right of almost the entire country. So I don't really understand why you present them as if they have anything to do with some mythical concept of what America "is".

[The Heart Collector]

I think the country you're looking for is Galt's Gulch, not The United States of America.

[John Galt]

Besides the "Anti-Federalist" founders, I could also mention Ludwig Von Mises or Spooner.

Since Marx invented the term capitalism, I'd rather not play the game of saying that it defines our heritage. That would be giving him and you undue clout. And Marx is the furthest thing from a political economist. You make me laugh. Let's just stick with free enterprise shall we?

Benjamin Franklin's Albany Plan Of Union was a central government plan of sorts. Let us be thankful though that this great man wised up in his later years. You know, during the Revolution and Declaration years.

And stop saying that my ideas are part of the right or that they are not the basis of our founding. You know perfectly well as I do that our roots are in individual liberty, private property, and a free market.

One more thing: These are people who birthed a free republic, that is now gone. Have a little fucking reverence and stop trying to defile them with your pennyanny, puerile anti-capitalistic nonsense.

http://www.mises.org/images4/gadsdenflag.jpg

[Vong]

Since Marx invented the term capitalism, I'd rather not play the game of saying that it defines our heritage. That would be giving him and you undue clout. And Marx is the furthest thing from a political economist. You make me laugh. Let's just stick with free enterprise shall we?

First off, Marx didn't invent the word "capitalism". It was used long before the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital came out.

And second, read a book before you ever say something like "Marx is the furthest thing from a political economist". Either you are saying it out of spite because you don't agree with Marx's theories on the means/mode of production, or you don't know what the term "political economist" means.

You're continuing to prove that you know nothing about Marx or his work. I don't know if it's just blind hatred towards someone who theorized communism or you are neo-conservative born to hate anything communist...

[The Heart Collector]

I'm not sure why you'd state that Marx is "the furthest thing from a political economist". Karl Marx wrote about political ecnomy and was an influential thinker in political economy.

A quick Amazon search for Marx + political economy yields:

The Political Economy of Marx
The Value of Marx: Political Economy for Contemporary Capitalism
Introduction to Political Economy: Marx, Veblen, Keynes, Keynes, and the Political Economy view
Marx's Critique Of Political Economy (Routledge Economics series)
The Macrodynamics of Capitalism: Elements for a synthesis of Marx, Keynes, and Schumpeter
The Big Three In Economics: Smith, Marx, and Keynes
Ten Great Economists from Marx to Keynes by Joseph Schumpeter




etc.


I know a lot of Americans reflexively react to mentions of Marx as if we were discussing The Great Satan or something but he's a pretty reknowned thinker who influenced thousands of economists. By comparison, Mises is fairly fringe.

[John Galt]

Marx led a scholar's life and claimed that he was scientific. In a much deeper sense though he was not really a scholar and not a scientist at all. He was not interested in finding the truth but in proclaiming it. There's three parts to Marx: the poet, the journalist, and the moralist. Together, combined with an enormous will, they made him a formidable writer and seer. But there was nothing scientific about him; in fact, in all that matters he was anti-scientific.

As a poet, he wrote around two main themes: his love for his wife and world destruction. I wanna focus on the latter. He published 'Savage Songs' in Berlin in 1841, and savagery is a characteristic note of his verse, together with an intense pessimism about the human condition, hatred, a fascination with corruption and violence, suicide pacts and pacts with the devil. He was fond of quoting Mephistopheles' line from Goethe's Faust, 'Everything that exists deserves to perish', and Marx has himself, in the person of God say, 'I shall howl gigantic curses at mankind.'

Marx is an eschatological writer from start to finish. The apocalyptic vision of an immense, impending catastrophe on the existing system is through all of his life's work. The point is that Marx's concept of a Doomsday, whether in its poetic version or later his economic one, is an artistic and not a scientific vision. It was always in Marx's mind, and being such a *brilliant and gifted political economist*, he worked backwards from it, seeking the evidence that made it inevitable, rather than forward to it, from objectively examined data. In the sense that he intuited rather than reasoned or calculated, Marx was a poet to the end.

Anti-Semitism is also at the very root of Marxism. He was a jew himself, who then converted to a Protestant, and then secularized. While engaging one day in jubiliant student cafe anti-Semitism, he disagreed that the anti-social nature of the Jew was religious in origin and could be remedied by tearing the Jew away from his faith. In Marx's view, the evil was social and economic. He called money and practical self-interest their God and their profane basis and that "the god of the jews has been secularized and has become the god of the world". So it was necessary to abolish the existing preconditions and the kind of money activities which spawned people of their ilk.
So he broadened his philosophy over the next few years, ultimately deciding that the evil element in society, the agents of the usurious money-power, weren't just the Jews but the bourgeois class as a whole.

The problem with Marx's views is that they have nothing whatsover the fuck to do with the real world. Marx had an ambivalent attitude towards facts. He spent entire decades of his life collecting facts. But these were the facts to be found in libraries, Blue Book facts. The kinds of facts which didn't interest Marx were the facts to be discovered by examining the world and its people with his own eyes and ears. But nobody could ever get him out of the fucking library. Marx wrote about finance and industry all his life but he only knew two people connected with financial and industrial processes. One was his uncle who was a successful business man; but Marx only visited him a few times to borrow money(he had a real problem managing his own money). The other was Engels, but Marx declined an invitation from him to visit a cotten mill, and so far as we know Marx never set foot in a mill, factory, mine, or other place of industry in the whole of his life.

In fact Marx despised and was openly and outwardly hostile against his fellow revolutionaries who had roots and experience in the workplace; or on any leaders who had secured a large following of working men by preaching practical solutions to actual problems of work and wages, rather than doctrinaire revolution. He referred to one of them as the "Jewish Nigger".

Marx was highly deceptive. He only chose facts that would only confirm his theories and he would often misuse sources and misquote for effect. He drastically misquoted W.E. Gladstone and Adam Smith. Engels collaborated in the deceptions; though Marx was the more audacious forger.
But the spirit of gross carelessness, tendentious distortion, and downright dishonesty was heavy handed. It all basically amounts to nothing more than political polemics rather than anything empirical.

Karl Marx simply cannot be trusted though. His crimes against the truth fall on numerous heads. First, he uses out-of-date material because up-to-date material does not support his case. Second, he selects certain industries, where conditions were particularly bad, as typical of capitalism. His thesis was that capitalism produces ever-worsening conditions; the more capital employed, the more badly the workers had to be treated to secure adequate returns. The evidence he uses to justify this comes almost entirely from small, inefficient, undercapitalized firms in archaic industries which in most cases were pre-capitalist. In many of the conditions he cites(e.g. baking), conditions were bad precisely because the firm had not been able to afford to introduce machinery, since it lacked capital. In effect, Marx is dealing with pre-capitalist conditions, and ignoring the truth which stared him in the face:*zing* the more capital, the less suffering.

What Marx could not or would not get, because he made no effort to understand how industry worked, was that from the very dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the most efficient manufacturers, who had ample access to capital, habitually favored better conditions for their workforce; so conditions improved, and because conditions improved, the workers failed to rise, as Marx predicted they would. The prophet was thus confounded. What emerges from reading Marx is Marx's fundamental failure to understand capitalism. He failed precisely because he was unscientific- he would not investigate the facts himself, or use objectively the facts investigated by others. From start to finish, not just the Communist Manifesto, but all of his work reflects a disregard for truth which at times amounts to contempt. That is the primary reason why Marxism, as a system, cannot produce the results claimed for it; and to call it 'scientific' is preposterous.

And to call him a political economist along with the likes of Keynes and Friedman(who actually use science), is ludicrous, asinine, and laughable.

[QUENTIN]

Anyone on the right/opposed to current or higher tax rates on the top bracket care to explain or defend their position in regards to the fact that our top tax rate has historically been much, much higher for the vast majority of the time we've been collecting income taxes and yet we did not become a socialist state and fall into Communistic, tyrannical despotism?

Can anyone address that?

Bueller?

[Jon Lyrik]

Seriously. I see a LOT of dodging on that little factoid, but a lot of empty rhetoric about Marx and capitalism and socialism and blah blah blah. It's boring, it's been done before.