Socialism

[trux]

Question: Why is it that when someone making 20k or 40K or 80k or 150k or 200k a year gets a tax cut that's being defined as socialism in this election, but when someone making 250k or more gets a tax cut somehow that's not socialism?

In 2005 only 1.5% of all households in the USA were bringing in 250k or more, from the posts on this board a person would have to guess a large number of truck drivers are in that 1.5%.

[Colin]

Socialism: The advocation of government controlling manufacturing and/or business.

[partssman]

1% of the population is paying 60% of the taxes......on O'reilly last night is the current system....

Watch for phrases like "for the common good" heilhitlery or "spread the wealth around" obammy
and notice who they pal around with......

Here's what marx said.....in the communist manifesto...see if any sounds fimiliar...
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/commu...s12sep06.shtml


The 10 planks are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Comments are at the link from US laws etc.....worth a look

[trux]

partssman, thanks for the response but changing the subject really isn't answering the question. In fact, when people change the subject it generally means they can't answer the question or that they know they can't win the argument.

So let me rephrase the question:

If I make $45k a year and the government gives me a tax cut and allows me to keep more of my "hard earned money", how can that be called "socialism"?

And if you can keep yourself focused on that question consider this:

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2007, the median income for men working full time was $45,113. I think we can agree that would represent several million people. (To the ladies: Sorry to leave you out, but I'm trying to keep this simple)

Now what would happen if you gave those several million people all a $500 tax cut? A lot of people like to shop at Wally World so to keep it simple for this conversation let's say that, throughout the year, they spend it all at Wally World.

Who benefits here?

Would Wally World benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET
Would they have to hire more people at all levels to handle the increased business? YOU BET

Would the companies who manufacture and sell the products to Wally World benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET
Would the companies who supply those manufacturers with raw materials sell more of their product? Would they benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET

Would the trucking companies who haul the raw materials to the manufacturers get more business and make more money? YOU BET
Would the trucking companies who haul the finished products from the manufacturers to the Wally World warehouses make more money? YOU BET
Would the truck manufacturers sell more trucks to the trucking companies? YOU BET

Would the stock holders of all these companies see the value of their investments go up as the bottom line improves for all these companies? YOU BET

Would your "1% of the population who pay 60% of the taxes" see their income go up? YOU BET

And so it goes, on and on.

Now over the last several years we've heard a lot about "trickle down theory" of stimulating the economy. But the truth is the economy can be stimulated at either the supply side or the demand side. Of course the trick is to keep the supply/demand relationship balanced to avoid inflation or deflation.

So partssman, at this point I've gotta ask you the obvious questions:

Is this what you mean by "spreading the wealth around"?

Is this what you mean by "for the common good"?

Is this your "heilhitlery"?

Is this your hated "socialism"?

[Uturn2001]

When it comes to taxes you the system in the US is screwed up IMHO.

The way the system is set up is really not fair and in the end you have those who pay more than their share and others who pay less.

When people argue about taxes and which group pay more it boils down to one group saying the do because the pay in more dollars and the other group saying they do because they pay in a higher percentage of their income.

While the initial tax (%) may be higher for those making a lot more money, often times in the end they pay in a lower total percent than someone making less because they are able to afford to take advantage of many more deductions than someone with a more limited income.

There are valid points made on each side of the argument, but the only way to have a truly fair tax is for most everyone to pay in the same % and remove most of the deductions.

As far as the wealth redistribution argument goes, the truth is that has been going on for a long time. What else would you call it when someone pays in $500 in income taxes and gets a refund check of $2000.

[marylandkw]

partssman, thanks for the response but changing the subject really isn't answering the question. In fact, when people change the subject it generally means they can't answer the question or that they know they can't win the argument.

So let me rephrase the question:

If I make $45k a year and the government gives me a tax cut and allows me to keep more of my "hard earned money", how can that be called "socialism"?

And if you can keep yourself focused on that question consider this:

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2007, the median income for men working full time was $45,113. I think we can agree that would represent several million people. (To the ladies: Sorry to leave you out, but I'm trying to keep this simple)

Now what would happen if you gave those several million people all a $500 tax cut? A lot of people like to shop at Wally World so to keep it simple for this conversation let's say that, throughout the year, they spend it all at Wally World.

Who benefits here?

Would Wally World benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET
Would they have to hire more people at all levels to handle the increased business? YOU BET

Would the companies who manufacture and sell the products to Wally World benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET
Would the companies who supply those manufacturers with raw materials sell more of their product? Would they benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET

Would the trucking companies who haul the raw materials to the manufacturers get more business and make more money? YOU BET
Would the trucking companies who haul the finished products from the manufacturers to the Wally World warehouses make more money? YOU BET
Would the truck manufacturers sell more trucks to the trucking companies? YOU BET

Would the stock holders of all these companies see the value of their investments go up as the bottom line improves for all these companies? YOU BET

Would your "1% of the population who pay 60% of the taxes" see their income go up? YOU BET

And so it goes, on and on.

Now over the last several years we've heard a lot about "trickle down theory" of stimulating the economy. But the truth is the economy can be stimulated at either the supply side or the demand side. Of course the trick is to keep the supply/demand relationship balanced to avoid inflation or deflation.

So partssman, at this point I've gotta ask you the obvious questions:

Is this what you mean by "spreading the wealth around"?

Is this what you mean by "for the common good"?

Is this your "heilhitlery"?

Is this your hated "socialism"?

I wish I could give rep to your post more than once a day!

[trux]

When it comes to taxes you the system in the US is screwed up IMHO.

The way the system is set up is really not fair and in the end you have those who pay more than their share and others who pay less. .

Uturn, part of my point here is that I believe we are all off base when the main tax arguments center around "fairness" and who "deserves" a tax break or cut. In my view a "good" tax policy argument should be aimed at what will stimulate the economy in the ways we want it stimulated, and therefore benefit not only the people who get the tax break but as many other people as possible as well.

For instance, lets look at a small retail convenience store business owner who has a taxable income of about $300k. If the Dems win the election, they're wanting to raise his tax by 2%. But that 2% increase isn't on the entire $300k, it's only on the portion that's above and beyond the $250k limit. So he's paying an extra 2% on $50k, or $1000.

Is that fair? No it's not. Here's a guy who takes all the risks, employs let's say 5 to 10 people, pays their wage, their health insurance, contributes to their retirement accounts, etc., etc., and he thinks/plans/worries about that business every single second that he's awake. And the thanks he gets is the government raises his da*n taxes.

But that's not the whole story. The rest of the story is that nearly all his customers got a tax break this year. They've all got a few more dollars in their pocket when they walk into his store. And they spend a couple of those extra dollars in his store each week. A fairly conservative estimate might be an increase in his business gross and taxable net income by 5% per year. So instead of $300k, he nets $315k the next year. So despite a tax increase, his take home went up.

BOTTOM LINE: My point here is that as a business owner, you're potentially much better off if your customers get a tax cut rather than you.

Is that "fair"? In this example, why would that business owner care if its "fair"? The truth is, if you're trying to make money, worrying about what's "fair" is a waste of time.

[partssman]

1. partssman, thanks for the response but changing the subject really isn't answering the question. In fact, when people change the subject it generally means they can't answer the question or that they know they can't win the argument.

So let me rephrase the question:

2. If I make $45k a year and the government gives me a tax cut and allows me to keep more of my "hard earned money", how can that be called "socialism"?

3. And if you can keep yourself focused on that question consider this:

According to the US Census Bureau, in 2007, the median income for men working full time was $45,113. I think we can agree that would represent several million people. (To the ladies: Sorry to leave you out, but I'm trying to keep this simple)

Now what would happen if you gave those several million people all a $500 tax cut? A lot of people like to shop at Wally World so to keep it simple for this conversation let's say that, throughout the year, they spend it all at Wally World.

4. Who benefits here?

Would Wally World benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET
Would they have to hire more people at all levels to handle the increased business? YOU BET

5. Would the companies who manufacture and sell the products to Wally World benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET
6. Would the companies who supply those manufacturers with raw materials sell more of their product? Would they benefit? Would they make more money? YOU BET

7. Would the trucking companies who haul the raw materials to the manufacturers get more business and make more money? YOU BET
8. Would the trucking companies who haul the finished products from the manufacturers to the Wally World warehouses make more money? YOU BET
Would the truck manufacturers sell more trucks to the trucking companies? YOU BET

Would the stock holders of all these companies see the value of their investments go up as the bottom line improves for all these companies? YOU BET

Would your "1% of the population who pay 60% of the taxes" see their income go up? YOU BET

And so it goes, on and on.

9. Now over the last several years we've heard a lot about "trickle down theory" of stimulating the economy. But the truth is the economy can be stimulated at either the supply side or the demand side. Of course the trick is to keep the supply/demand relationship balanced to avoid inflation or deflation.

So partssman, at this point I've gotta ask you the obvious questions:

10. Is this what you mean by "spreading the wealth around"?

Is this what you mean by "for the common good"?

Is this your "heilhitlery"?

11. Is this your hated "socialism"?

1. Well I made a mistake huh? I didn't try to change the subject on you and just for the record, I don't argue on the net...the old saying about running in the special olympics, right? Getting my butt kicked in a discussion...you ain't getting no cherry and when the dust settles I'll still be sticking my guns....you know what they say about us Southern boys being hard headed.

2. No it's not

3. Focused ain't the issue

4. Nice spill

5. China ?

6. China again?

7. Ain't none of us

8. Container haulers would

9. Good point

10. Not me but quote from B. Hussein Obama.

11. My hatred for socialism, yep I got it. Does it apply to your original question of ...

Question: Why is it that when someone making 20k or 40K or 80k or 150k or 200k a year gets a tax cut that's being defined as socialism in this election, but when someone making 250k or more gets a tax cut somehow that's not socialism?

In 2005 only 1.5% of all households in the USA were bringing in 250k or more, from the posts on this board a person would have to guess a large number of truck drivers are in that 1.5%.

probably not.


Now a question for you. In the above quote of yours, who said what you are saying? I don't recall seeing or reading this anywhere. Who said this is socialism or did they say Hussein was a socialist?

Now if you believe all the **** and bull stories about how Hussein is going to give us working stiffs a tax break, all the major "economists" say that it's impossible for him to pull this off, it would bankrupt the country. Because it's us in that 1% that's paying 60% of the taxes...if we don't pay it....who does?

Oh I forget, he's gonna raise taxes on those making 1/4 million a year or more....my big ol butt. It'll never happen and you know it too. It's all campaign smoke and mirrors.. ..business as usual in every election. Ain't nothing gonna change. Besides it those making a 1/4 million a year or more who give big money to both canidates...Our congress and senate leeches are in that category and that bunch is gonna let a tax hike pass on them....bull cookies.

Now is Hussein a socialist i.e. kommiekrat. I think so and so do a lot more people.

By the way, keeping with the standards set by Skinner and his crowd, you never called me a bigot because I disagree with you. Kinda hurt my feelings.

[partssman]

Do Americans Understand What Socialism Is?

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publi...le_21641.shtml


By Frank Salvato
MichNews.com
Oct 24, 2008



Barack Obama’s short but illuminating conversation with Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher has ushered the subject of
Socialism to center stage. By stating that he champions an economic policy that would “spread the wealth around,” Senator Obama alarmed many Americans who recognize the parallels between his statement and one espoused by French Socialist Louis Blanc in 1840:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

In defense of his statement, Obama, his campaign and his massive army of Obamabot surrogates have come out hard against those who are making the correlation between the Obama economic agenda and the Marxist economic model.

During a campaign stop in Richmond, Virginia, Obama scoffed at the charge that his economic policies were born of Socialist ideology and the Marxist influence predominant among the adults who surrounded him in his youth, calling the use of such "implausible" arguments an, "indication they have run out of ideas."

A barrage of callers to conservatives talk radio programs – not surprisingly the overwhelming majority of them Black, took an indignant tone calling any and all criticism of Barack Obama’s economic policies – and for that matter any criticism of Barack Obama at all – as an emanation of the underlying racism that exists in each and every Caucasian heart in the United States...not among other races, not among the Black population, just the Caucasian race.

One Kansas City Star editorialist, Lewis Diuguid, concurred with the talk radio program callers in declaring, albeit in that publication’s blog and at great homage to the art of “spin,” that those noting the similarities between “spreading the wealth around” and wealth redistribution are “racist.” We are, of course, well within our purview in declaring that the mainstream media has become increasingly irrelevant in matters of fact and honesty, especially where the 2008 election is concerned.

The “instant-on” protestation of Obama, his campaign and his Obamabots indicate one of three things:

1) They are angry that someone has finally had the nerve to call them out on the inequitable practice of wealth redistribution; rewarding the non-productive among us with other people’s hard earned wages.

2) They are arrogantly over-exposing their penchant for playing the race card whenever someone doesn’t immediately roll-over and give them exactly what they want, degrading the hardships, sacrifices and accomplishments of generations past.

3) They have absolutely no clue as to what Socialism is.

Socialism, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is defined as:

“Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; A system of society or group living in which there is no private property; A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

So, what does this mean?

Socialism promotes increased government control over the private sector, both socially and in business. It is achieved by instituting a system that redistributes wealth in an effort to artificially equalize wealth in society, regardless of productivity. When a politician says – in no uncertain terms – that he believes it is a good thing to excessively taxing the productive only to redistribute those extracted taxes to the non-productive, exclusively for the sake of altering the social status of individuals, he possesses a Socialist ideology.

The belief that government has the authority to take a citizen’s earnings, no matter what the amount, to bestow it upon another citizen in a quest to socially engineer a more equitable society is squarely rooted in Socialist dogma. This belief is championed and possessed by Barack Obama and is proven beyond doubt in his statement to Samuel Wurzelbacher:

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.” (Emphasis mine).

The complete text of Karl Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program statement is as follows:

“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

Some say that Barack Obama is a great orator. Other say he reads the teleprompter pretty well. And still others think that he is simply a political con-artist specializing in bovine feces. But after comparing Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program statement and Obama’s “Joe the Plumber” statement I think it is safe to say that Barack Obama is, simply put, a well-marketed Democratic Socialist peddling a pathetic and failed ideology under the guise of “hope” and “change,” just like Fidel Castro circa 1959.

And there’s nothing “racist” about that.

[trux]

"Question: Why is it that when someone making 20k or 40K or 80k or 150k or 200k a year gets a tax cut that's being defined as socialism in this election, but when someone making 250k or more gets a tax cut somehow that's not socialism?"

Now a question for you. In the above quote of yours, who said what you are saying? I don't recall seeing or reading this anywhere. Who said this is socialism or did they say Hussein was a socialist?

When Obama described his proposed tax policy to "Joe the Plumber" as "spreading the wealth around", that was described by the Reps as "socialism" and they declared that Obama is therefore a "socialist".

However, when I describe the EXACT SAME tax policy and it's effects on the economy, you agree that it's not "socialism".

I'm just looking for consistency here.

Let's look at it from another angle:
Q: What are the Republicans trying to do with the "Trickle down theory" of economics?
A: They're trying to "spread the wealth".
Q: What was the government trying to do with the $600 tax rebate to every tax payer in America?
A: They wanted you to spend it to "spread the wealth".

BTW, I haul a lot "stuff" into those Wally World warehouses, including:

American made lawnmowers
American made generators
American made paper products
American grown and processed food products
American made pillows
American made cleaning products
American bottled water

Edit: As for not calling you a bigot and hurting your feelings. Was it that obvious?

[golfhobo]

As I said in another thread, I wish Obama had not used that terminology. It is a big red flag to those who are still "hunkered down" in their compounds stockpiled with guns, wearing tinfoil hats, saying the Commies are coming! News flash.... they aren't coming!

I'm sure I will be once again accused of being psychic, but I think what he MEANT was, "spreading the opportunity around."

The Bush tax CUTS gave even MORE "opportunity" for amassing wealth to the super rich, while ignoring the strapped budgets of the middle class. Obama simply wants to roll back those unecessary and ill-conceived cuts, so that MORE "relief" from the tax burden can be given to those who need it the most.... to stimulate buying power.

Right now, our system gives HUGE tax relief and credits to corporations "supposedly" to stimulate investment and jobs from them. But, no one calls THAT Socialism. Obama just wants to "spread" that type of incentive across the consumer base for the same purpose.

I agree with Trux. The trickle down philosophy hasn't worked. The best way to stimulate the economy [which is what this is all about] is to promote consumer spending. Even BUSH realized that when he pushed for an economic stimulation bill this year. But, a onetime piddly check won't do it. Permanent tax reductions on the middle class will.

[partssman]

I'm just looking for consistency here.

Let's look at it from another angle:
Q: What are the Republicans trying to do with the "Trickle down theory" of economics?
A: They're trying to "spread the wealth".
Q: What was the government trying to do with the $600 tax rebate to every tax payer in America?
A: They wanted you to spend it to "spread the wealth".

BTW, I haul a lot "stuff" into those Wally World warehouses, including:

American made lawnmowers
American made generators
American made paper products
American grown and processed food products
American made pillows
American made cleaning products
American bottled water

Edit: As for not calling you a bigot and hurting your feelings. Was it that obvious?

Trickle down economics was supposed to be that if I worked for you and the gubmint gave you a tax break sooner or later some benefits would end up coming my way. However Reagan didn't figure one thing into the equation....the greed of the wealthy in this country. If greed is at the top....us working stiffs remain the same.

As far as the rebates go..like the joke going around last time on how it would stimulate our economy...

If you spend it at wally world the chinese economy benefits

If you buy a new car the Japanese economy benefits

If you buy food, mexico and Honduras benefits

So whose economy really is gonna benefit with money borrowed from China...ain't ours

The items you mentioned seriously on the whole that wal mart sells is a drop in the bucket. I bet it's less than 0.02% of what they sell but I do get your point.

Obvious is an understatement

[trux]

golfhobo, I think that in the long run the economy is a moving target. By that I mean that sometimes it's going to be necessary to stimulate the supply side, and at other times it's going to be necessary to stimulate the demand side.

As I watch these processes it becomes obvious that it's a delicate balance, 1.5 - 2.0% too much or too little on either the supply side or the demand side can have serious consequences.

As it is right now with store shelves full of products that aren't moving, car lots full of cars not moving, thousands of empty houses not moving, etc., etc. I think, regardless of politics, everyone in this country can agree that the demand side needs attention.

As a side note, I think it's becoming obvious recently that we're all in the same boat and I think everyone can see it. I can see the $400k - $500k Wall Street people in danger of losing their jobs. I can see that they're in danger of not being able to find another job, (at any wage) i can see they're in danger of not being able to sell their house, I can see they're in danger of being on food stamps at this time next year.

They're in the same situation as the $35k a year guy working at a local factory that is seeing orders decline and planning layoffs.

So I think a possible benefit we're all going to see from this recent financial mess is that despite the "us and them" crapola that the Reps and Dems cram down our throats, we're all going to realize that we're all in this together, and until we get the economy running well again, we're all screwed.