Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Not taxes. It's the reasoning for raising taxes, not the action itself. Call me crazy, but i believe our government can operate on less than a trillion dollars a year......Originally Posted by .blank cd
Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Not taxes. It's the reasoning for raising taxes, not the action itself. Call me crazy, but i believe our government can operate on less than a trillion dollars a year......
Rather than you usual "this is how im superior" argument.... try something different.......................
sell me your ideas....... tell me how your ideas benefit me personally. Give me a scenario in which i personally benefit from your political ideology. "The burden of proof lies with you"
Ok, but how did you know what socialism is? Did someone tell you? Did you read someone's term paper, how did you come to the conclusion that redistribution of wealth is socialism?
Funny.... for someone who throws around the term "strawman" so much............
rather than actually having a conversation about the beliefs we share and how theyre different, you chose to focus on my labeling of said belief and how i decided on that label.....
I honestly dont care what it's called........ socialism, soccer, lasagna..... doesnt matter. It's not the label that offends me..... it's your own ego that leads you to believing it is. That's the way your mind works.... when someone disagrees with you, you subconsciously divert to trying to figure out how they're mistaken.
So, drop the labels....... put down your strawman..... I do not believe taking care of the community is my responsibility. I do not believe in being a part of one big group that collectively takes care of each other. I dont believe people with more should be required to share with people who have less. I believe capitalism rewards people with what they deserve and if you feel you deserve more, the world is full of opportunity for you to go get it for yourself.
I'm trying to understand how much you understand what socialism is. Why so defensive? There wasn't a wrong answer. Did you read what the political philosophers who were the first to come up with socialism said about it? They seem to have a different idea of what socialism is. Why is your idea of socialism different than theirs?
You said that socialism is the redistribution of money through taxation, then you said the government could operate on $1T. How do you suppose the government get that money, then operate, without taking that money from someone, then giving it to someone else?
I should get a return on my tax dollars spent. Police is a service, firemen are a service... roads are a service. Even though these are things we are "group buying", i can still see an immediate return on my investment.
Why do they have a different idea about what socialism is??? simple. because they believe in it.... the same way a girl stays with her abusive boyfriend, she interprets the abuse as caring.... from the outside looking in, you may think differently, but her description of what's happening might be different.
I do not have a problem with being taxed. I expect a level of representation for those taxes taken.
Using section 8 housing as an example, this is of no benefit to me what so ever.
Francis Bellamy was a Baptist Minister and a Christian Socialist.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Who was the true architect of modern socialism (from the economic perspective)? This should be easy for you, since you studied economics.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
It sounds good, but there is no system in which every person can live the way they want without being influenced by others beliefs. Groups will always have more power to force their beliefs on individuals. Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's.
We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing. The same process that allows us to get together and enforce everyone's freedom of religion is the same process that could theoretically take it away. Democracy is a double edged sword and you can't only use one side.
You can disagree with the results of our representative democracy but that doesn't make it socialism or anything else than a representative democracy. You say no taxation without representation but you do have representation whether you agree with what your representative does or not. Representation does not entitle you to getting things your way, it's just a voice, no more valuable than anyone else's.
You shouldnt have the freedom to support yourself off of my work....... that is where we went wrong. "as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the republic"..... how twisted have we become that you are literally saying to me that me wanting to keep the money i work for is denying someone else their freedom. It's a real tragedy that you or anyone else actually thinks this way. "government allows us...." That's not the way it was meant to be. For too long people have been willing to trade their freedom away to big government in exchange for entitlements... now the monster may be too big to ever be put back in it's cage.
What a great nation we live in..... where the majority can vote away the rights of the minority, no matter how stupid the majority is.
So when the government uses it's agencies to attack political parties that support my views, that is my government representing me? When the government pushes unconstitutional laws, that is my government representing me? Are all of my rights borrowed from the government to be taken away whenever they see fit?
It's really sad.... democrats are ruining this country.
So how do you explain the fact that since social welfare became a thing in the US, the country has become richer and more powerful?...
Yep, and you see the results of big government.
What happens when we reach a disproportionate number of people receiving to those paying in and it's no longer sustainable?
The number of people receing and paying in is not the limitation. The amount of revenue being collected, minus operation needs, and the amount being distributed, is where the limitations are. Technically, you could ahve jsut one person paying in, and as long as he had enough to start with, the rest of the people could be receiving from that one individual. Of course, that one individual would likely be a king or dictator.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
"there is no system in which every person can live the way they want without being influenced by others beliefs" - I completely agree.
"Groups will always have more power to force their beliefs on individuals" - true in many cases, but not all
"Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's" - My disagreement here is with the term "allow". Allow assumes that the government has ownership of one's freedom of choice. That's not correct. Our government should be a management company, not a ruling entity that allows you to take actions. Our founding fathers never intended that the government would allow you to do anything, rather, they setup a government that would be a servant entity to the people. You may not have intended your statement that way, but that is something to consider in the choice of the word.
"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - "On Government No. I", John Webbe, published in Benjamin Franklin's paper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 1, 1736
"We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing" - I have to disagree. We have freedom of religion because it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. Our fore-fathers recognized this as one of the most important reasons that the first Pilgrims came to America, and determined to make this a founding principal of this country from the beginning. "We the people" did not vote on this, or collectively agree - the founding fathers decided to collectively agree that this was an important founding principal that must be protected.
A democracy is not the same as a republic. A democracy is the rule of the majority over the individual. and the majority's power is absolute and not limited. A Republic protects the minority and individuals by establishing rights that are not designed to simply be overwritten by the collective will of the majority. That does not mean that it cannot be changed, but that amendments go through the proper checks and balances first, and pass Constitutional muster.
"You say no taxation without representation but you do have representation whether you agree with what your representative does or not. Representation does not entitle you to getting things your way, it's just a voice, no more valuable than anyone else's." - Very true, and well-stated.
Last edited by David88vert; 05-23-2013 at 09:29 AM.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
" A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner "
Technically yes, but our system is not single payer, it is payed for through taxation. At some point the amount of taxes a small percentage must pay to support the majority is no longer viable, people either won't be able to survive or they will find ways to take their money/business etc. elsewhere. So technically percentage is not the factor, the taxation on that small percentage in order to maintain the needed amount of revenue will be. Then what happens? There is a tipping point that the system is unsustainable, what is it?
^^ Gary Strand, Usenet group sci.environment, 23 April 1990
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
The system becomes unsustainable once the revenue amount collected through taxation cannot support the collective.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
On the bright side...... hopefully i'll be dead before entitlement society completely takes over this country.
Yes, clearly.
Eventually in our system you will reach a point where the percent of people paying cannot meet the amount of revenue needed, or should I say will not? If you reach the point that you must tax someone at an exorbitant rate to sustain the revenue, even though the revenue is there the system is still unsustainable.
Let me state this another way.
First, let's assume that the total cost/need of the collective (including governmetn operation expenses) is $5 trillion per year ($5T/yr).
Second, let's make the assumption that a single person makes $5T/yr. No one else has any income at all.
Third, let's assume that the government taxes income at 100%.
If the government is collecting all of the tax revenue from that individual, then technically, the system is sustainable. As long as the individual continues to work, collect, and then pay out, and not increased cost impacts the government's expenses, then the system still works. If the costs increase over the amount collected, or anything else that makes revenue be less than what is being spent, then the budget starts into deficit spending. Technically, that is still sustainable as long as we have credit being extended to the government.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I believe he's saying that there is a point when the mule is going to say no to the wagon. I'm pretty sure that will happen long before the "mule" is contributing 100% of what it's capable of.
That is where deficit spending comes into play. We currently are already in deficit spending and have a national debt as our yearly spending outpaces our revenue.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Democrats would have us beat the mule to death first.
I've got a really crazy idea.......
lets create a currency... make it good for everything. Then have it to where people can do whatever they want to get this currency and trade it for anything they want. So that whether you want to pick vegetables and sell them for currency, or get paid to provide labor for currency... ect ect...
That way people can go out into the world and acquire their own currency rather than relying on the government to hand it out???
I know that's a crazy concept..... but i think it could work.
Yes. I don't know why this had to be taken to such a technical point.
Which cannot continue forever. You can't just borrow and print forever, eventually the well runs dry.
Future of our country doesnt matter.... as long as this month's welfare checks go out.
It isn't. This "outpacing" has been drawing back since 2009. And as long as growth continues to happen, the well wont run dry
You are misinterpreting me. Take for example, your right to bear arms. It is an important freedom but it can also be used to deny others freedom. You can deny someone their right to live with it. You could also enslave someone with it and force them to support you with their work (the exact same thing you are complaining about). You can say how you think things should be but at the end of the day we have to deal with reality. Reality is that if enough people want to force you to follow their rules, you will never achieve that life you are hoping for.
If you have a better system please let me know.
The government is not one thing that represents one view. It is a conglomeration of many different views. If you don't feel your opinion is represented it's probably just because it is getting drown out by the other 300,000,000+ views. Your rights are not borrowed from the government but your rights don't always enforce themselves either.
The word allow is confusing things here. A grill "allows" you to grill a steak. It doesn't give you permission. When I say the government allows us to determine our freedoms, I mean government is only a tool through which citizens can collectively decide and enforce those freedoms. It's still the citizens deciding, not the government as some separate entity. Also, freedoms may not last long if you don't have any way to enforce them. Of course governments are just as capable at taking away freedoms as it is protecting them. There is no solution to that problem that I know of. Checks and balances are the best we have.
Very true, but God and nature do not enforce those freedoms.
The constitution was and still is that agreement. The founding fathers were not dictators, they provided us a method to change the constitution. If enough citizens disagreed with the first amendment, it could be repealed through our constitutional process. The fact no one is trying to do that is reflective of our ongoing agreement.
I think some people are too caught up on the difference between a democracy and republic. The central issue in this discussion which you mention is that there is a process for the constitution to be changed. Thus there is no rule that isn't subjected to the citizens will. True, our republic requires more than 51% to change it but the core principle of collective agreement remains.
I think that we share mostly the same view, but are expressing it from different viewpoints.
The process to amend the Constitution is not a simple majority vote, and was designed to be a detailed process in order to make sure that the Amendments would be at a more fundamental level than regular laws. If the people were to amend the Constitution through just a popular vote, that would be a Popular Amendment. This has never been done in the US, and is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Our current Amendment process has only been done 2 ways, of the 4 possible ways.
1) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
2) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
3) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
4) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
Right now, for an Amendment to pass, you have to have both the House and the Senate pass it by 2/3 vote each, then have it ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. It's not just a simple vote by Congress to pass an Amendment - and that is by design.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Yep, we both understand the details of how a constitutional amendment is passed. Sinflix seemed to imply that whatever the constitution says is more or less written in stone, can never change, and is not subject to the will of the people. That is what I was refuting. While our rights may be god given, the enforcement and collective recognition of those rights are written in the constitution and thus can change.
You are wrong here. We the People do not get a vote on Constitutional Amendments.
I just explained that - read again - I am not wrong. The people do not get to vote directly, that would be a Popular Amendment, which is not described as the process to amend the US Constitution. This is the same as what you are saying.
Constitutional Amendments - How is the Constitution amended?
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
This is probably the poorest argument i've ever seen you construct. I am highly disappointed by this. You dont legislate based off the possibility of what someone could do. The problem is that you support a system that allows the majority to prey off the minority. What if everyone voted to re-enslave black people, would you just shrug and say "oh well, that's democracy massa" . THIS SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUIT VOTING FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quit voting for those who want to further expand and empower the government's ability to control your life.
I do.... quit voting for democrats.
It shouldnt be that way. Nothing i believe in would effect anyone else's life what so ever....... we shouldnt allow the majority to vote themselves the freedoms of the minority. Some things should not be up for vote.....
Why dont democrats just be honest? you keep saying the constitution is not set in stone and can be changed...... its plenty obvious that it's one of the main goals of Obama to see that happen..... be honest then... run on that ticket..... instead of "hope and change" run on "The constitution gets in my way, lets get rid of it"
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 05-24-2013 at 07:21 AM.
Win back? Which 2nd amendment right did they lose?
I forgot..... you feel that as long as someone can own a potato gun their right to bear arms is intact.
And you feel that its a constitutional right to own a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity and no serial number on it, and to be able to buy guns with no background checks.
So which 2nd amendment right got removed? I didn't see any news about the government amending the constitution.
I dont believe the government should be able to reduce a right that was designed, in part, to defend you from the government. We should just let bank robbers decide what kind of vaults a bank can have....
If you still believe in big government, then there's really no hope for you.
"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice" - Montesquieu
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 05-24-2013 at 09:11 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
