So, McCarthyism.

[J Arcane]

We've got people deciding who is or isn't a "real American", some bitch in Minnesota actually calling for some kind of media investigation into anti-American behavior, and now accusations of "socialism".

Fantastic. 'Cause this is totally a helpful attitude in the middle of a fucking economic crisis.

How about you dickheads focus on getting some goddamn jobs here before you go starting a second Red Scare, hmm?

[Schnoogs]

I guess in some ways if Obama gets elected McCarthy is vindicated.

I KID!!! I KID!!!

[Generation ABXY]

To me, it would seem the issue of socialism is worth talking about especially during an economic slide; the other stuff I'll give you, though.

[Schnoogs]

To me, it would seem the issue of socialism is worth talking about especially during an economic slide; the other stuff I'll give you, though.

Esepcially when one of the solutions involves the government bailing out private companies.

[J Arcane]

To me, it would seem the issue of socialism is worth talking about especially during an economic slide; the other stuff I'll give you, though.
Look, I pretty much AM a socialist, but I know all too well what that word means and the baggage it carries in the American political vocabulary, and you can be damn sure that's exactly why they're using it.

I mean for god's sake, one of the clips shown on the Daily Show last night even resorted to faux Cyrillic lettering and a big red star.

They know exactly what they're doing, and it doesn't have anything to do with a serious discussion of political philosophies.

[Johan]

We've got people deciding who is or isn't a "real American", some bitch in Minnesota actually calling for some kind of media investigation into anti-American behavior, and now accusations of "socialism".

Fantastic. 'Cause this is totally a helpful attitude in the middle of a fucking economic crisis.

How about you dickheads focus on getting some goddamn jobs here before you go starting a second Red Scare, hmm?

Breathe deeply. Hyperbole can hurt your health.

[Bone]

Look, I pretty much AM a socialist, but I know all too well what that word means and the baggage it carries in the American political vocabulary, and you can be damn sure that's exactly why they're using it.

I mean for god's sake, one of the clips shown on the Daily Show last night even resorted to faux Cyrillic lettering and a big red star.

They know exactly what they're doing, and it doesn't have anything to do with a serious discussion of political philosophies.
To me, whether we call it Socialism or not, Obama's ideas of redistribution of wealth do not sit well with me and do appear to have the trappings of, well, Socialism. It's where my biggest problems with the Democratic party lie. Handing out money to people does not work to solve problems, and it does lower people's incentive to succeed.

[Generation ABXY]

They know exactly what they're doing, and it doesn't have anything to do with a serious discussion of political philosophies.

Is it anything like what the Kansas City Star (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493) thinks? :D

[ClannerDelta]

To me, whether we call it Socialism or not, Obama's ideas of redistribution of wealth do not sit well with me and do appear to have the trappings of, well, Socialism. It's where my biggest problems with the Democratic party lie. Handing out money to people does not work to solve problems, and it does lower people's incentive to succeed.

Yeah, why have a $32,000 dollar manicure when you can settle for a brand new transmission!

[J Arcane]

Is it anything like what the Kansas City Star (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493) thinks? :D
Huh. I was not aware of that prior usage, and I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that it was necessarily an automatic codeword for black. J. Edgar was a lot of things but he never struck me as particularly racist, historically.

[Scaryfaced]

To me, a 3% tax increase to the wealthy doesn't sound like Socialism, it sounds like a logical way to help our country in a crisis. Its drastic, but it only effects the money families make over 250k and it will help everyone, including themselves, in the end. Perhaps I just have a different concept of Socialism in mind.
________
Brunette Skinny (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/442/skinny/videos/1)

[Generation ABXY]

To me, a 3% tax increase to the wealthy doesn't sound like Socialism, it sounds like a logical way to help our country in a crisis. Its drastic, but it only effects the money families make over 250k and it will help everyone, including themselves, in the end. Perhaps I just have a different concept of Socialism in mind.

Unfortunately, it has a ripple effect. If you take money from the people at the top, than - trust me - they will find a way to get it back, whether that is by cutting jobs or raising the price on existing goods.

[Bone]

Yeah, why have a $32,000 dollar manicure when you can settle for a brand new transmission!
So at some point, we can decide who is too successful and should be punished for it? I don't buy it.

I know so many people who claim they can't afford health insurance, but they choose to smoke, to drink beer, to eat dinner at restaurants instead of cooking for themselves. They all have a TV with cable, and they buy music. So instead of making personal sacrifices, they claim entitlement to a certain lifestyle and still demand free health care which should simply be a higher priority in their own budgets. I know, I was a person who "couldn't afford healthcare" for years until I realized I just didn't care enough to make the sacrifices to buy it for myself.

Many people are so willing to give up more of their money to taxes and allow the government to spend it, but the last thing I want is the government making the decision on what procedures are covered or not. You think your health provider is stingy, wait until it's a large government organization with no competitors.

This is just one of the many examples where my heart says "of course we need to help" but the reality says otherwise. If you give people an excuse to fail, they will.

[Doctor Setebos]

http://punditkitchen.com/2008/10/22/political-pictures-joe-mccarthy-witchhunts-always-easier-than-addressing-real-issues/
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-joe-mccarthy-witchhunts-always-easier-than-addressing-real-issues.jpg

[Generation ABXY]

So at some point, we can decide who is too successful and should be punished for it? I don't buy it.

I know so many people who claim they can't afford health insurance, but they choose to smoke, to drink beer, to eat dinner at restaurants instead of cooking for themselves. They all have a TV with cable, and they buy music. So instead of making personal sacrifices, they claim entitlement to a certain lifestyle and still demand free health care which should simply be a higher priority in their own budgets. I know, I was a person who "couldn't afford healthcare" for years until I realized I just didn't care enough to make the sacrifices to buy it for myself.

Many people are so willing to give up more of their money to taxes and allow the government to spend it, but the last thing I want is the government making the decision on what procedures are covered or not. You think your health provider is stingy, wait until it's a large government organization with no competitors.

This is just one of the many examples where my heart says "of course we need to help" but the reality says otherwise. If you give people an excuse to fail, they will.

This reminds of a story I saw about Hawaii recently. They tried a state-run insurance for children, but they had to cancel it after less than a year when costs ballooned out of control. Apparently even parents who could afford it were dropping their kids' existing insurance in order to enroll them in this other, "free" plan. :rolleyes:

Not saying that will inevitably happen here, but it is certainly something to take into consideration...

[maverick106]

Socialism is a valid politico-economic doctrine. "Genocide" has some pretty bad connotations too, but that doesn't mean we need to find another word for it. A less severe example would be "capitalism".

Discussion of socialist actions, and just how much socialism our government should dabble in is particularly relevant to this election.

P.S. Need a P&R forum? I'll help mod...looks like there's been some unchecked overflow of P&R angst cramping the style of the Lounge, here.

[Karmakin]

Unfortunately, it has a ripple effect. If you take money from the people at the top, than - trust me - they will find a way to get it back, whether that is by cutting jobs or raising the price on existing goods.

No...not really.

Trust me on this. If they could have found a way to get that money, through cutting jobs or raising prices......

They would have already done that, and in fact probably have already done that. If they haven't done that, then they're not "good business people" because they're not maximizing their profit. The assumption has to be that business are run at peak efficiency in terms of profit.

As for the "Socialism" issue. I think that if I were a conservative thinker right now, I'd be going through channels to try and get McCain and Palin to Kindly STFU. Why? They're PROBABLY going to lose by a good margin. The combination of the polls, and the enthusiasm gap and Obama's well-oiled machine..it's not looking good. So at the final days of the race, they're accusing the guy who's going to win of being a socialist.

What that's going to do, is drag the Overton window WAY back to the left. It's going to mainstream much more leftist ideas. And while I'm not really a leftist, I do think they make some important points and deserve a seat at the intellectual table, so to speak. But if you're one of these conservative thinkers who have been really successful at denying them that seat at the table since Reagan....well...that's over.

Edit--Part 1: I should clarify the first point. I do think, very strongly, that they WILL get their money back through having a strengthened consumer market. They just have to work for it. (Not that it's actually doing more work. There's not much difference labor wise between ordering 4 boxes of widgets and 6 boxes of widgets, but you know what I mean.)

Part 2: What Obama (Or at least, the current thinkers for the middle-left) is actually pushing forward, is being very much misrepresented by the McCain camp. Improving infrastructure, be it health care, roads, schools, whatever, isn't socialism, it's not redistribution. It's infrastructure building. It's not sending out checks to people. There IS some redistribution to Obama's plan, in extending unemployment benefits, but that's a very small part of it.

Edit 2: What the McCain camp SHOULD be doing, if they cared about movement longevity (they don't. But whatever), is saying that Obama's plans are very conservative based plans, and if you're going to vote for conservative plans you might as well vote for the conservative. It's the same thing they've done, and have had a TON of success doing again, since Reagan. It's mainstreaming conservatism, not radicalizing it.

[Generation ABXY]

No...not really.

Trust me on this. If they could have found a way to get that money, through cutting jobs or raising prices......

They would have already done that, and in fact probably have already done that. If they haven't done that, then they're not "good business people" because they're not maximizing their profit. The assumption has to be that business are run at peak efficiency in terms of profit.

You addressed this a little more in the edit below, but we still have a very different opinion of the matter. One of us is wrong, and there is no way to tell who until it has happened.

As for the "Socialism" issue. I think that if I were a conservative thinker right now, I'd be going through channels to try and get McCain and Palin to Kindly STFU. Why? They're PROBABLY going to lose by a good margin. The combination of the polls, and the enthusiasm gap and Obama's well-oiled machine..it's not looking good. So at the final days of the race, they're accusing the guy who's going to win of being a socialist.

Actually, it's more Obama's policies that have accused him of being a socialist. I know of many people who are happy McCain is finally calling him on the issue, because it is what a large number on the far right (and, by that, I mean conservative, not religious zealots) have been thinking for a good while.

What that's going to do, is drag the Overton window WAY back to the left. It's going to mainstream much more leftist ideas. And while I'm not really a leftist, I do think they make some important points and deserve a seat at the intellectual table, so to speak. But if you're one of these conservative thinkers who have been really successful at denying them that seat at the table since Reagan....well...that's over.

I am willing to give into a number of left ideas - hell, there's more than a few that I actually support.

Edit--Part 1: I should clarify the first point. I do think, very strongly, that they WILL get their money back through having a strengthened consumer market. They just have to work for it. (Not that it's actually doing more work. There's not much difference labor wise between ordering 4 boxes of widgets and 6 boxes of widgets, but you know what I mean.)

Part 2: What Obama (Or at least, the current thinkers for the middle-left) is actually pushing forward, is being very much misrepresented by the McCain camp. Improving infrastructure, be it health care, roads, schools, whatever, isn't socialism, it's not redistribution. It's infrastructure building. It's not sending out checks to people. There IS some redistribution to Obama's plan, in extending unemployment benefits, but that's a very small part of it.

Edit 2: What the McCain camp SHOULD be doing, if they cared about movement longevity (they don't. But whatever), is saying that Obama's plans are very conservative based plans, and if you're going to vote for conservative plans you might as well vote for the conservative. It's the same thing they've done, and have had a TON of success doing again, since Reagan. It's mainstreaming conservatism, not radicalizing it.

My problem with the "some," is that it is a "some" that has gotten horribly out of control. Many of these things were implemented with, I assume, the best intentions and, even if they weren't, they certainly addressed a need. When they stopped being needed like that, they should have been scaled back and only rolled out again when the time was right, like say this depression we're apparently tettering on the edge of.

Now you mention infrastructure up there, but the main reason I have heard for the likes of roadwork and such is to provide jobs. That, in my opinion, is a stupid idea; it is "make-work" and as soon as that road or whatever is done, you have a bunch of people out of work again, so you have to create new projects. It essentially becomes a government work camp for a welfare check. Actually, this happens to be one of my biggest problems with the left: their policy tends to attack symptoms and never the problem itself.

[J Arcane]

Now you mention infrastructure up there, but the main reason I have heard for the likes of roadwork and such is to provide jobs. That, in my opinion, is a stupid idea; it is "make-work" and as soon as that road or whatever is done, you have a bunch of people out of work again, so you have to create new projects. It essentially becomes a government work camp for a welfare check. Actually, this happens to be one of my biggest problems with the left: their policy tends to attack symptoms and never the problem itself.

You do realize that's exactly what FDR's New Deal did, right? And that between that and the industry boom required to support WWII (which is itself effectively just more gov't contracting), it brought the country out of the biggest depression it has ever seen?

[Schnoogs]

To me, a 3% tax increase to the wealthy doesn't sound like Socialism, it sounds like a logical way to help our country in a crisis. .

Well no shit...to most socialists redistributing money from the wealthy to the poor is logical. :p

[fitbabits]

We've got people deciding who is or isn't a "real American", some bitch in Minnesota actually calling for some kind of media investigation into anti-American behavior, and now accusations of "socialism".

Fantastic. 'Cause this is totally a helpful attitude in the middle of a fucking economic crisis.

How about you dickheads focus on getting some goddamn jobs here before you go starting a second Red Scare, hmm?
It's all about distractionism (I made that up!). Let's try to focus people on things that aren't really there so that we can win another election by hooking into people's fears.

[maverick106]

You do realize that's exactly what FDR's New Deal did, right? And that between that and the industry boom required to support WWII (which is itself effectively just more gov't contracting), it brought the country out of the biggest depression it has ever seen?

That's highly debatable. Many would argue that FDR's policies extended the great depression far longer than it would have gone on without him. There is no consensus that the New Deal helped at all.

[J Arcane]

That's highly debatable. Many would argue that FDR's policies extended the great depression far longer than it would have gone on without him. There is no consensus that the New Deal helped at all.
IME there's a rather impressive amount of consensus on the issue among the people who actually had to live through that era.

[Generation ABXY]

You do realize that's exactly what FDR's New Deal did, right? And that between that and the industry boom required to support WWII (which is itself effectively just more gov't contracting), it brought the country out of the biggest depression it has ever seen?

Yes, a great many things came out of that time. And, frankly, I think it spoiled us. A lot of people have built their life around getting a check from the government, and these are the same sort of people who would build their lives around having the government supply them with a job (from which they would, of course, expect more money than your typical welfare check).

I'm sure some will disagree, but I do not think we are in a depression right now. When movie studios stop making movies and theaters shut down instead pulling in mounds of cash, call me. When children are in the streets starving rather than protesting that their cable got shut off, call me. When people have fight for a seat on the bus or hang onto the back instead of merely looking for the best price for a gas or buyng a more efficient car, call me.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the government stepping in and getting things on track, but I think there is a better solution than simply adding cement barriers to a two lane street or widening a road that only hears complaints during the Friday drive home. The key is getting industry back in America, and make-work and government aid is not a solution, it is a stop gap that we are perhaps seeing the effects of today.

[J Arcane]

Yes, a great many things came out of that time. And, frankly, I think it spoiled us.

The only thing I see that's "spoiled" are selfish baby boomers who're still to busy rebelling against their now long dead parents to realize how much of what they have now was as a result of the New Deal.

The key is getting industry back in America

And yet something tells me you'd object to the kinds of strong arming it would take it this point to make that possible.

At the very least it would require serious subsidization in order to entice corporations to believing they can make as much money building this shit here instead of in China where they can pay their workers for pennies on the dollar. And at that point, how is that any less socialist than raising unemployment benefits exactly?

[Atepsflame]

To me, whether we call it Socialism or not, Obama's ideas of redistribution of wealth do not sit well with me and do appear to have the trappings of, well, Socialism. It's where my biggest problems with the Democratic party lie. Handing out money to people does not work to solve problems, and it does lower people's incentive to succeed.

Except when they're giant super banks that we've deemed "too important to fail?"

[Bone]

You do realize that's exactly what FDR's New Deal did, right? And that between that and the industry boom required to support WWII (which is itself effectively just more gov't contracting), it brought the country out of the biggest depression it has ever seen?
The New Deal is a mixed bag. It brought Social Security, the FDIC, Fannie Mae, and FHA. Each with their good and bad points.

And just like our current bailout, it will be hard to say whether throwing large amounts of taxpayer money actually solves the problem, makes it worse, or does nothing but make us all contribute more money to government waste.

[Bone]

Except when they're giant super banks that we've deemed "too important to fail?"

See my above post. I am by no means a Republican, and I already said I have a lot I disagree with in the Democratic ideals. There are issues with both parties that I do agree with.

That said- no, I don't agree with the current bailout at all. But I do believe that at some point, the solvency of those institutions are important to the survival of our economy. I just don't think giving THEM money is any better than giving a poor person money. Neither addresses the problem at hand, it just gives them a little longer to continue the pattern of failure.

[Generation ABXY]

The only thing I see that's "spoiled" are selfish baby boomers who're still to busy rebelling against their now long dead parents to realize how much of what they have now was as a result of the New Deal.

Uh, yeah, and they're kind of the ones who handed us our current fuck-stick. Do it again, and it only stands to reason that you'll breed another generation of the same thing. :p

And yet something tells me you'd object to the kinds of strong arming it would take it this point to make that possible.

At the very least it would require serious subsidization in order to entice corporations to believing they can make as much money building this shit here instead of in China where they can pay their workers for pennies on the dollar. And at that point, how is that any less socialist than raising unemployment benefits exactly?

Depends on what's considered a strong arm tactic or subsidization, really. If done properly, that doesn't have to be a direct infusion of money, if that's what you're thinking.

[Atepsflame]

Uh, yeah, and they're kind of the ones who handed us our current fuck-stick. Do it again, and it only stands to reason that you'll breed another generation of the same thing. :p



Depends on what's considered a strong arm tactic or subsidization, really. If done properly, that doesn't have to be a direct infusion of money, if that's what you're thinking.

Then what? J's right, the ONLY way you are going to be able to convince industry to come back to the U.S. is to make doing so somehow cheaper than going somewhere else. ANd that isn't going to happen without some sort of government intervention, or having our property values and expected wages plummet. So... how would you suggest we do it that doesn't involve giving them massive tax breaks (which would certainly hurt the government in the short term) or straight up giving them money... which would have much the same effect. So, what's the alternative?

[J Arcane]

Depends on what's considered a strong arm tactic or subsidization, really. If done properly, that doesn't have to be a direct infusion of money, if that's what you're thinking.

Well, we could always just start writing up some laws forcing them to keep industry here, but that's not exactly a "free market" solution either, now is it? Besides which, with the corporations being the one's who write all the checks for the campaigns, fat chance getting anything like that passed.

And lest we forget, the current out-sourcing drain is largely the result of a number of international treaties and agreements, whose co-signers would probably be less than pleased about us trying to subvert the intentions of said agreements.

[Kelegacy]

To me, a 3% tax increase to the wealthy doesn't sound like Socialism, it sounds like a logical way to help our country in a crisis. Its drastic, but it only effects the money families make over 250k and it will help everyone, including themselves, in the end. Perhaps I just have a different concept of Socialism in mind.

And it's not really a tax "increase", it's repealing the Bush tax breaks by letting them expire. Yeah, that will increase the taxes for higher income people, but it's not like it's a "new" tax.

I'm all for helping out the middle class, and I'd probably be more Republican if I was richer. But I'm not. I'm not for redistributing wealth, but helping out the middle class, which gets overlooked so fucking often, is fine with me.

[Shrinn]

And lest we forget, the current out-sourcing drain is largely the result of a number of international treaties and agreements, whose co-signers would probably be less than pleased about us trying to subvert the intentions of said agreements.

Do you have any proof of this? Like a quick link explaining it? That'd be interesting to bring up in the next half of my class.

[J Arcane]

Do you have any proof of this? Like a quick link explaining it? That'd be interesting to bring up in the next half of my class.
Remember NAFTA?

[Schnoogs]

I'm not for redistributing wealth, but helping out the middle class, which gets overlooked so fucking often, is fine with me.

If you believe people should be taxed a higher percentage if they make more then you're all for the redistribution of wealth.

People should pay the same amount to play.

[Johan]

Flat consumption tax, no other taxes or deductions, at all. Tax code gone, IRS gone, economy grows gangbusters because of savings and increases in income, and tax receipts go up.

[Bone]

Flat consumption tax, no other taxes or deductions, at all. Tax code gone, IRS gone, economy grows gangbusters because of savings and increases in income, and tax receipts go up.

Thank you, voice of reason!

Wait... it's Johan *head explodes* ;)

[J Arcane]

I love when people suggest flat taxes are "fair". The ignorance required to believe that is absolutely comical.

[ShivaX]

If you believe people should be taxed a higher percentage if they make more then you're all for the redistribution of wealth.

People should pay the same amount to play.

Then we're already socialist and have been for almost 100 years. So the whole accusation of socialism doesn't stand.

Lets not forget what McCain said about our current tax structure in 2000.

“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]


Now that he's the GOP candidate he wants to go further in the direction he opposed. So McCain was a socialist in 2000? The reality is that Bush slashed taxes for the wealthy. Now that we're talking about reverting that tax cut its socialism (cause things were so terrible under Reagan and Clinton for them). That logic is a slippery slope since it says that we can never raise taxes again unless its on the middle class. I don't think that $10 trillion+ debt is going to disappear without someone paying for it.

When you look at wealth distribution its not like the people at the top are suffering. They own a vast majority of everything, the top 5% possess like 80%+ of all the wealth, while the bottom 40% possess 0.2% of the wealth. The only way you can make a case that Obama's tax change would hurt companies is by making the case that they've been suffering since Reagan and have improved since Bush 43. Thats obviously not the case. The reality is that the collapse of the middle class' purchasing power kills everyone at every level. If you can't sell your products, you can't make money.

[Johan]

I love when people suggest flat taxes are "fair". The ignorance required to believe that is absolutely comical.

1. I love when people invent quotes that don't exist in a post, like "fair."
2. I love when people accuse others of ignorance when their original post in a thread uses "bitch" and "dickheads" in the place of an actual vocabulary.
3. I love when people refute an idea by calling it ignorant and comical; the thought and intelligence required for such depth of understanding is apparent to all.
4. I love when people implicitly think that taxes can ever be "fair." There are no "fair" taxes. There are only taxes that are bad (YOU pay them) and taxes that are good (OTHERS pay them).
5. I just love you. You're a wonder to behold! :D

[Bone]

1. I love when people invent quotes that don't exist in a post, like "fair."
2. I love when people accuse others of ignorance when their original post in a thread uses "bitch" and "dickheads" in the place of an actual vocabulary.
3. I love when people refute an idea by calling it ignorant and comical; the thought and intelligence required for such depth of understanding is apparent to all.
4. I love when people implicitly think that taxes can ever be "fair." There are no "fair" taxes. There are only taxes that are bad (YOU pay them) and taxes that are good (OTHERS pay them).
5. I just love you. You're a wonder to behold! :D

I'm with Johan on this. Resorting to calling people with different views ignorant is really no way to have a discussion.

[J Arcane]

I'm with Johan on this. Resorting to calling people with different views ignorant is really no way to have a discussion.
"It's just an opinion" is one of the biggest cop outs in history.

I called it ignorant, because it is. Flat tax/"FairTax" and national sales tax proponents completely ignore the rationale and reason behind the way the entire tax system works.

It's like wandering into the conversation at the last 30 secs and then presuming to give advice to everyone involved.

[ShivaX]

I'm with Johan on this. Resorting to calling people with different views ignorant is really no way to have a discussion.

I'll agree with this to an extent, though I think a flat tax is an extremely flawed concept. I'd go so far as to say its so flawed that anyone touting it is ignorant to how bad it really is. That doesn't make them idiots, just uniformed, at least in my opinion (and most of these things tend to be opinion).

If someones in support of a flat tax you have to make the case that its somehow better. Saying its "fair" doesn't really cut it since it ignores the vast financial discrepencies across tax payers. Its only fair in that the number is the same, the effect is far worse for those struggling to get by than it is for those who spend more than most make in a year daily.

[Karmakin]

Well, I think ignorance is way overused in terms of these arguments. However, frankly, I think that claims of ignorance sometimes is used to be NICE to people. So frankly I just ignore it :)

That said, often when it comes to flat consumption taxes, there's often a bit of ignorance when it comes to what said tax would have to be in order to maintain current funding levels. Not that I'm accusing someone of being ignorant. Just saying that we all are in our own ways.

[Schnoogs]

Then we're already socialist and have been for almost 100 years. So the whole accusation of socialism doesn't stand..

Nonsense...we're talking about a trend. The people who are accusing him of this don't want to see that trend continue or increase.

[Schnoogs]

I love when people suggest flat taxes are "fair". The ignorance required to believe that is absolutely comical.

What I love is when people offer no supporting evidence yet expect people to buy into their opinion. :rolleyes:

The ignorance required to believe THAT is absolutely pathetic.

[ShivaX]

Nonsense...we're talking about a trend. The people who are accusing him of this don't want to see that trend continue or increase.

But hes not increasing the trend, hes just reverting extremely recent tax cuts. To call him a socialist is calling Reagan and Clinton socialists. Its saying once something changes we can never go back because that instantly makes you a socialist. Its the perfect slippery slope argument. Taxes can now only go down for the rich, anything else is instantly socialism using this logic.

[Schnoogs]

But hes not increasing the trend, hes just reverting extremely recent tax cuts. .

So in other words it was trending down and now it's trending back up...

[alienmastermind]

This is Ronald Reagan when he was a Democrat:

uJDhS4oUm0M

He was a socialist, I guess. Here's 'proof'. But, if you took some of the stuff I said in 1993 out of context, I'd still be hatin' on The Cure and likin' me some Ugly Kid Joe.

I'm a Democrat, and have some leftist leanings on social issues, but here's a fact:

In a time of war, we usually don't give tax cuts. The Iraq War is a war, and we're cutting taxes for everyone.

Voodoo economics doesn't work. De-regulation doesn't work. Over regulation causes businesses to leave the United States, so that doesn't work either.

What's funny, to me anyhow, is Obama is a reasonably moderate 'liberal' when compared to guys like Charlie Rangel and the one Socialist member of Congress...(I forget the guy's name).

EDIT: The point is for me, questioning the patriotism of American citizens is in itself unpatriotic. Ask Joe McCarthy, who asserted he had a 'list of Commies' who had infiltrated the State Department of Truman's administration. He drank himself to death by many accounts, because he knew it was just political positioning. Also, his laundry list of Commies in US government? Turns out it was just a laundry list.

So, Michelle Bachman, have you no decency? At long last, ma'am have you no shred of decency? Should probably ask that one if I ever see her.

[Johan]

...questioning the patriotism of American citizens is in itself unpatriotic.

I think you have a point there! A good one!

Really, it's just silly, because everyone has a different idea of what patriotism is and how it's best displayed (or not displayed).

[J Arcane]

Well, I think ignorance is way overused in terms of these arguments. However, frankly, I think that claims of ignorance sometimes is used to be NICE to people.

I assure you that is quite definitely the case here.

The phrase "never ascribe to malice what can be explained my mere incompetence" is quite apt when it comes to tax discussions.

[GunnyMo]

I blogged about this yesterday. I win! :p

[KingGorilla]

To me, it would seem the issue of socialism is worth talking about especially during an economic slide; the other stuff I'll give you, though.

What I find as disturbing, is that the people who seem to be decrying socialism, or any socialized programs tend to be the ones supporting fascism: a state run by corporations. Have a look at which of those people has their strings pulled by Haliberton or Exxon.

As if the 1920's, 80's, and current situation did not spell things out clear enough, we NEED oversight of corporate America, of Healthcare, of the Airlines, etc. They are completely incapable of policing themselves. How far back has environmental research and alternate fuel funding been set back by Big Oil Bush and the direct manipulation of environmental studies?

[Schnoogs]

What I find as disturbing, is that the people who seem to be decrying socialism, or any socialized programs tend to be the ones supporting fascism: a state run by corporations. Have a look at which of those people has their strings pulled by Haliberton or Exxon.

I guess the definition of fascism changed :p

Corporatism is one of 20 distinct characteristics of fascism. Fascism isn't the absence of socialism or vice versa. You've created a false dichotomy or at least you're alluding to one.

[KingGorilla]

One of the main tiers of fascism is private entities, coroprations, controlling large segments of government. It is not just about nationalism, that is another of the tiers. Look it up some time. Then look at all of the public interests that are currently run by private corporations.

One of the reasons it takes off is that certain societies put high regard in men with large sums of money, it equates to power. Germany, Italy, America were more of less governed by the same ideals and practices at the turn of the century.

[Generation ABXY]

Then what? J's right, the ONLY way you are going to be able to convince industry to come back to the U.S. is to make doing so somehow cheaper than going somewhere else. ANd that isn't going to happen without some sort of government intervention, or having our property values and expected wages plummet. So... how would you suggest we do it that doesn't involve giving them massive tax breaks (which would certainly hurt the government in the short term) or straight up giving them money... which would have much the same effect. So, what's the alternative?

Well, we could always just start writing up some laws forcing them to keep industry here, but that's not exactly a "free market" solution either, now is it? Besides which, with the corporations being the one's who write all the checks for the campaigns, fat chance getting anything like that passed.

And lest we forget, the current out-sourcing drain is largely the result of a number of international treaties and agreements, whose co-signers would probably be less than pleased about us trying to subvert the intentions of said agreements.

Again, I'm not suggesting we hand money to these companies (though I think I would be in favor of competitive taxes), but that is far from our only option. Whatever you would attribute it to (our schools, free-thinking lifestyle, etc.), one of the greatest resources is good, old fashioned American ingenuity, and we can harness this to our advantage.

I had a long and rambling piece, but in the interest of time, I'll give you broad strokes of an idea I have. I know it needs some polish and there are sure to be some flaws in it (and I'm sure they'll be gladly pointed out), but this is, for now, a loose proposal I think could go a long way towards solving the problem:

We cull some of the great minds in the country into a think tank and set them to work solving the problems that face us (like alternative fuels). When we have a working prototype, we show it to their respecitve companies – Ford and Chevy for cars, Nike and Reebok for shoes, etc. - and they then bid to see who can provide it to the American people for the lowest retail cost, while still being developed in the U.S. The winner gets exclusive rights to the patent for, say, 10 years, after which other companies can then use it, too (perhaps with a licensing fee to be applied against the national debt).

Oh, and sorry it took so long to respond. :)

[J Arcane]

So in other words, we create government sanctioned monopolies.

Yeah, that's a great idea for a country with significant economic imbalance and rampant corporate influence.

[Generation ABXY]

So in other words, we create government sanctioned monopolies.

Yeah, that's a great idea for a country with significant economic imbalance and rampant corporate influence.

Yes, one company gets to use a patent for a time, but the benefit is offering it to the American people at the cheapest cost, and it becomes fair game at the end of that time (5, 10 years or so). That is really no different than you find nowadays with, say, the drug companies.

One of the real dangers of a monopoly, though, is that the person who controls it can also control the cost - that part is eliminated here.

[J Arcane]

Yes, one company gets to use a patent for a time, but the benefit is offering it to the American people at the cheapest cost, and it becomes fair game at the end of that time (5, 10 years or so). That is really no different than you find nowadays with, say, the drug companies.

One of the real dangers of a monopoly, though, is that the person who controls it can also control the cost - that part is eliminated here.
And those drug companiese you mention are some of the most corrupt entities in the United States.

It doesn't matter if it's time-limited, 5-10 years is more than enough time to build up the kind of momentum it's competitors will have a hell of a lot of trouble overcoming, if ever.

And of course, the bidding process itself only further ensures that the company with the most ability to seize and control a monopoly will get one, because it's ultimately going to be the company with the most cash they can afford to risk and the biggest infrastructure in place that's going to be able to bid the lowest price for the patent.

[Generation ABXY]

And those drug companiese you mention are some of the most corrupt entities in the United States.

It doesn't matter if it's time-limited, 5-10 years is more than enough time to build up the kind of momentum it's competitors will have a hell of a lot of trouble overcoming, if ever.

And of course, the bidding process itself only further ensures that the company with the most ability to seize and control a monopoly will get one, because it's ultimately going to be the company with the most cash they can afford to risk and the biggest infrastructure in place that's going to be able to bid the lowest price for the patent.

It would get jobs back in the country, though. :p

Okay, I freely admit it needs work; I said as much in the original post. But, I'm sure there is a foundation there that can be built upon. Any suggestions to actually improving it?

[J Arcane]

I think, for starters, that if you really wanted to do it in a way that would promote honest-to-god economic growth, the first thing you would dump would be the very things I've complained about: bidding, and exclusivity.

Instead, I'd leave the patent in the gov't's hands, but instead allow any company to license the patent from the gov't provided they promise to keep all production and further development inside the US. I might even lighten export taxes for overseas sales of products made using those patents, so that money could more freely come in from outside the country, as opposed to shipping it all out.

[Schnoogs]

State owned patents?

Communism for the win.

[Generation ABXY]

I think, for starters, that if you really wanted to do it in a way that would promote honest-to-god economic growth, the first thing you would dump would be the very things I've complained about: bidding, and exclusivity.

I rather thought that was key to keep the cost down; but I suppose giving it to everyone would let the free market reign, too.

Instead, I'd leave the patent in the gov't's hands, but instead allow any company to license the patent from the gov't provided they promise to keep all production and further development inside the US. I might even lighten export taxes for overseas sales of products made using those patents, so that money could more freely come in from outside the country, as opposed to shipping it all out.

Oh, the patent is never owned by the company or country; I want it to be owned by "We the People," so to speak...I just haven't quite figured out how to do it, yet. :p

Also, as I thought I noted, production must be kept in the U.S., so you're not really adding anything there. And I'm not quite sure what you mean with the taxes, but that is probably more due to it being late than anything.

[Schnoogs]

Oh, the patent is never owned by the company or country; I want it to be owned by "We the People," so to speak...I just haven't quite figured out how to do it, yet. :p.

It's called communism and it's been around for a while...and it doesn't work either BTW.

[J Arcane]

I rather thought that was key to keep the cost down; but I suppose giving it to everyone would let the free market reign, too.

Oh, the patent is never owned by the company or country; I want it to be owned by "We the People," so to speak...I just haven't quite figured out how to do it, yet. :p

Well, I suppose something akin to an open license a la GPL but with some sort of additional proviso to keep things on our shores could work, but one way or another, you're still technically leaving control of the patent in gov't hands, it's just that anyone can feel free to have their shot at it.

One way or another though, it just needs to be freely available to any company willing to keep it in the family, so to speak.

[KingGorilla]

Wait, how is that any different from the way copyright works? Other than being reasonable, of course. Eventually, 75 years(those rotten motherfuckers) movies, music, books are free to use for the whole society.

[Karmakin]

We cull some of the great minds in the country into a think tank and set them to work solving the problems that face us (like alternative fuels). When we have a working prototype, we show it to their respecitve companies – Ford and Chevy for cars, Nike and Reebok for shoes, etc. - and they then bid to see who can provide it to the American people for the lowest retail cost, while still being developed in the U.S. The winner gets exclusive rights to the patent for, say, 10 years, after which other companies can then use it, too (perhaps with a licensing fee to be applied against the national debt).


See, that's a really good idea IMO. The reason why myself and others push back quite hard on the knee-jerk anti-socialism is that the knee-jerk anti-socialism would keep out good pragmatic, moderate ideas such as this one.

Two parts jump out. First, would be price controls. The sale price of the product would be written into the contract, as the goal would be to get the tech out there into as many hands as possible. The second would be trade controls, insisting that the product be made domestically. Both would be labeled as socialism, or at least fought against as such.

[Schnoogs]

More proof that our high schools are failing us. I'd say colleges too but I see no evidence that they factor into this conversation. ;)

[J Arcane]

I might also note that the other hole in the plan is getting the think tank together in the first place would be rather expensive.

Patents are big business, and many big universities these days even make a substantial amount of their income off patents and patent sales and the like that come out of internal research.

For a position in this new research body, it would have to be fairly lucrative in order to ensure a given researcher will even want to partake instead of remaining private sector, and would probably have to work with the universities in some fashion.

I think this is one instance in which a bidding war actually WOULD make some sense, in having various research laboratories and universities compete to put out the first patent for any given request that got approved for this new gov't patent agency. Which ever one gets first gets extra funding from the US.

Of course, the hole in that too is the possibility of unfair competition, admittedly, as some schools are just plain going to be better funded than others and thus potentially able to out pace other schools in this kind of competition.

[Generation ABXY]

It's called communism and it's been around for a while...and it doesn't work either BTW.

Well, I suppose the idea itself could instead become a trust between the inventors who actually worked on the project. But, then comes the problem that we (tax payers) paid to have it done. Of course, if we try to control it, it puts the government in an awkward position of power.

I'm sure there is a way around this! :D

[Church42]

If someones in support of a flat tax you have to make the case that its somehow better. Saying its "fair" doesn't really cut it since it ignores the vast financial discrepencies across tax payers. Its only fair in that the number is the same, the effect is far worse for those struggling to get by than it is for those who spend more than most make in a year daily.

That's assuming the flat tax rate is at a rate that actually hurts those that are struggling. A rate of 25% or higher? I doubt it would ever be that high. For example's sake, a poorer person makes 25k a year and there is a flat rate of 15%...$3,750 in taxes...now let's say that the rate is 10%, or 2,500 in taxes. When you're only making $25k a year, that $1,250 is pretty substantial I guess, but does that $1250 really go that much further...hard to say. 10% is the lowest tax bracket anyway already.

Going to a flat tax rate system eliminates all the exemptions, deductions, and credits, which, yeah, hurt the poor but there are plenty of tax laws that the rich use to shelter their income from taxes. I think, in the end, a flat tax rate may generate more tax revenues, but also spur personal consumption and investments (one of the more hated taxes is capital gains & inheritance taxes...capital gains taxes discourage market investments and inheritance tax is stupid b/c its a tax on already taxed wealth).

[Generation ABXY]

I might also note that the other hole in the plan is getting the think tank together in the first place would be rather expensive.

Patents are big business, and many big universities these days even make a substantial amount of their income off patents and patent sales and the like that come out of internal research.

For a position in this new research body, it would have to be fairly lucrative in order to ensure a given researcher will even want to partake instead of remaining private sector, and would probably have to work with the universities in some fashion.

I think this is one instance in which a bidding war actually WOULD make some sense, in having various research laboratories and universities compete to put out the first patent for any given request that got approved for this new gov't patent agency. Which ever one gets first gets extra funding from the US.

Of course, the hole in that too is the possibility of unfair competition, admittedly, as some schools are just plain going to be better funded than others and thus potentially able to out pace other schools in this kind of competition.

Well, I've seen the two kinds of people at work, and their methods are very different. My brother is more the sort of garage engineer you hear about, while his associate is a college-educated engineer. The college guy, I've found, goes through a lot of trial and error, and, to be quite honest, is very wasteful. My brother, on the other hand, will try and work through every step of the problem on paper as far as he can, and if the finished product doesn't work, he'll try to cannibalize as much as possible from the failed one. Neither one has sold an invention, but one guy was able to get loans for an R&D company, and when he gets stuck, he comissions my brother.

I'm sure know this, but my point is just that all the great minds aren't in colleges - sometimes they're right next door - and I think too much importance is placed on that kind of an education, to the exclusion of some free-thinking brilliance. I think if you cull all those sort of minds, it'll be comparable to the college engineers.

[Zero]

I'm sure some will disagree, but I do not think we are in a depression right now. When movie studios stop making movies and theaters shut down instead pulling in mounds of cash, call me.

The movie industry was actually one of the few industries that was decently well off during the Great Depression, just like how video games was the only entertainment industry to grow during these somewhat turbulent times. If the studios ever stop making movies, it's actually time for the Apocalypse, not a depression.

[J Arcane]

Well, I've seen the two kinds of people at work, and their methods are very different. My brother is more the sort of garage engineer you hear about, while his associate is a college-educated engineer. The college guy, I've found, goes through a lot of trial and error, and, to be quite honest, is very wasteful. My brother, on the other hand, will try and work through every step of the problem on paper as far as he can, and if the finished product doesn't work, he'll try to cannibalize as much as possible from the failed one. Neither one has sold an invention, but one guy was able to get loans for an R&D company, and when he gets stuck, he comissions my brother.

I'm sure know this, but my point is just that all the great minds aren't in colleges - sometimes they're right next door - and I think too much importance is placed on that kind of an education, to the exclusion of some free-thinking brilliance. I think if you cull all those sort of minds, it'll be comparable to the college engineers.
This is a good point, but I don't think that the kinds of garage inventors you describe would necessarily even get noticed by a gov't agency anyway.

Perhaps it would instead be possible to make the competition nationwide in some fashion, with the winner getting a healthy grant from the gov't to continue working on more shinies or something.

[Generation ABXY]

This is a good point, but I don't think that the kinds of garage inventors you describe would necessarily even get noticed by a gov't agency anyway.

Perhaps it would instead be possible to make the competition nationwide in some fashion, with the winner getting a healthy grant from the gov't to continue working on more shinies or something.

You'd be surprised at the number of patents some of these guys file. Not to mention some of the venues you could recruit at (MAKE magazine holds a big one, I know). And then, as you suggested, there could be competitions. There are plenty of ways to find these guys, and if anybody would know how to do it, it'll probably be the government. :p

[MalReynolds]

Whats wrong with being socialist ? Canada is a socialist Democracy

[Schnoogs]

Whats wrong with being socialist ? Canada is a socialist Democracy

HAHAHAHAH!

Oh wait...that wasn't a joke meant to illiustrate why socialist democracy's suck.

Awkward

[MalReynolds]

hey are economy is doing better then yours :P

[TrackZero]

To me, whether we call it Socialism or not, Obama's ideas of redistribution of wealth do not sit well with me and do appear to have the trappings of, well, Socialism. It's where my biggest problems with the Democratic party lie. Handing out money to people does not work to solve problems, and it does lower people's incentive to succeed.

Ah, there's nothing like the dissolution of the middle class through greed. What a world you'll help make. ;)

Edit: Sorry, that was snarky. What I mean to say is, taxing the rich and putting the money back into government social programs for those less fortunate is hardly comparable to handing out cold hard cash to the masses. You just need to look at how Canada treats Native Americans (handholding) versus Norwegian Socialism to see the drastic differences in how to properly implement these processes. (And the Canada way, sucks, and we're finally changing it.) My point being it comes down to a problem with implementation, not with the theory itself (and the same goes for capitalism).

[Schnoogs]

hey are economy is doing better then yours :P

It's the size of a pea in comparison and noone would even notice if Canada's economy was suffering. Plus if our economy is suffering there is gonna be a ripple effect. Noone is immune when the world's only superpower has issues.

None of that though is an indicator that socialism works...

[Schnoogs]

Ah, there's nothing like the dissolution of the middle class through greed. What a world you'll help make. ;)

Agreed....we're much better off with everyone being equally poor.

Oh wait.

[Purple Santa]

Look, I pretty much AM a socialist, *snip*


As long as you are not some commie pinko:eek::p;)

[ShivaX]

Agreed....we're much better off with everyone being equally poor.

Oh wait.

So a 3% increase in taxes on someone making say $750k a year will make them as poor as someone who makes $12k a year? I think your calculator is broken.

[Schnoogs]

So a 3% increase in taxes on someone making say $750k a year will make them as poor as someone who makes $12k a year? I think your calculator is broken.

Try looking at what I quoted before you randomly interpret my post...it's called context. :rolleyes:

[ShivaX]

Try looking at what I quoted before you randomly interpret my post...it's called context. :rolleyes:

Honestly your statement doesn't hold much water regardless of the context.

[Mr. Murphy]

I can solve all of these problems in about ten years with one change in our government:

Make education the most important thing in our country.

We are having all of these problems, and have such drastically different opinions on how to solve them, because so few of us know enough about the subject at hand. Everyone knows a little, some of us know a lot... but very, very few of us know enough.

For ten years we make education top priority, and pump out a graduating class of kids that know ten times more than the average american today. It creates jobs, solves problems, develops technologies...

The problem with this country? We're stupid. We don't value education. In this thread, one of us proposed a solution, five more will shoot down the idea, and propose their own idea: five more submit (very valid) reasons why that idea wouldn't work, and one of those five has their own idea. Repeat. We all know a little, but practically none of us know enough - and if we don't know, how can we even tell if the people in charge know?

Education is the most important thing in the country if you want America to stay great.

Edit: and to clarify, I mean some seriously hardcore educatin'! I want a child to graduate from 8-12 years of school knowing three languages, knowing exactly how the government works as well as the governments of all the other superpowers, having studied history extensively, economics, world politics... and a focus on knowledge retention and application, not rote memorization to get through a test. I mean, honestly, how many of you even remember the structure of our own government? (I'm not talking to you, Schnoogs. Or Ox.) I'm not judging anybody, but I believe our lack of effective education, as a country, has been the problem here for about fifty years.

[Schnoogs]

Honestly your statement doesn't hold much water regardless of the context.

Someone give this KID a book on the Soviet Union and the other shining examples of socialism.

Go waste someone elses time. :rolleyes:

[ShivaX]

Someone give this KID a book on the Soviet Union and the other shining examples of socialism.

Go waste someone elses time. :rolleyes:

Look...

Heres what was said:
Ah, there's nothing like the dissolution of the middle class through greed. What a world you'll help make.
Heres what you said:
Agreed....we're much better off with everyone being equally poor.

Oh wait.

So your implying that saving the middle class equates into making everyone poor.

Theres no logic or reason behind your statement. You made it to be an ass. If you want to say how greed at the top somehow is currently helping the middle class, go for it. As it is you're throwing out crap that isn't related to what was said and acting like its somehow correct.

If we revert to Reagan/Clinton-like tax policies will we magically become the USSR? I'm pretty sure that didn't fucking happen in the 80's or 90's. You're making the case that in that time frame we were Communist Russia. Its not correct and theres so little logic in the statement that what your saying doesn't even make sense.

So instead you just revert to name calling. Well I shouldn't say revert because thats basically been what you were doing from the start.