Ponderable

Wez said:
A mix of Socialist like policies is necessary to curb the abuses found in a pure Capitalism system. Totally free markets have never been good for society, they allow human greed to take over.
Click to expand...

Greed?
Greed and hard work made our the greatest country in history.
I posted earlier that 50% of wage earners don't pay income taxes, that seems pretty progressive.
The greedy bastards at the top are paying nearly 40%, hell make them pay more.
After all, they're greedy capitalist....pffff.
Why should one work hard when a progressive government will take it from you?
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" [/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Here's a good old analogy that had been posted several times before the site was erased. Enjoy.

Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.

One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.

Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.

I guess this is why American businesses have $10 trillion or so in offshore deposits.
Perhaps they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”
 
Bruddah IZ said:
The Wages of Communism -- The Chinese Catastrophe Under Mao

Apparently new Communist Party archives are becoming available to scholars in China, and the true story of the Great Leap Forward appears to be even worse than we imagined.

A catastrophe of gargantuan proportions ensued. Extrapolating from published population statistics, historians have speculated that tens of millions of people died of starvation. But the true dimensions of what happened are only now coming to light thanks to the meticulous reports the party itself compiled during the famine. My study, Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe (2010), relies on hundreds of hitherto unseen party archives, including: secret reports from the Public Security Bureau; detailed minutes of top party meetings; unexpunged versions of leadership speeches; surveys of working conditions in the countryside; investigations into cases of mass murder; confessions of leaders responsible for the deaths of millions of people; inquiries compiled by special teams sent in to discover the extent of the catastrophe in the last stages of the Great Leap Forward; general reports on peasant resistance during the collectivisation campaign; secret police opinion surveys; letters of complaint written by ordinary people; and much more.

What comes out of this massive and detailed dossier is a tale of horror in which Mao emerges as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, responsible for the deaths of at least 45 million people between 1958 and 1962. It is not merely the extent of the catastrophe that dwarfs earlier estimates, but also the manner in which many people died: between two and three million victims were tortured to death or summarily killed, often for the slightest infraction. When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, local boss Xiong Dechang forced his father to bury him alive. The father died of grief a few days later. The case of Wang Ziyou was reported to the central leadership: one of his ears was chopped off, his legs were tied with iron wire, a ten kilogram stone was dropped on his back and then he was branded with a sizzling tool – punishment for digging up a potato.

There is more like this in the article. When I read this, I can't help thinking about Hannah Arendt and her classic "Origins of Totalitarianism." During the 60's and 70's, this fabulous work was targeted for marginalization by the academic Left because many in academia were admirers of Stalin and the Soviet Union and deeply resented the parallels Arendt raised between European fascism and Soviet communism. Arendt's partial rehabilitation came after 1989, when Eastern European scholars and historians coming out from under communism looked around for a framework to describe their experiences under communism, and found Hannah Arendt to be most compelling. This new wave of scholarship on communist China likely will vindicate Arendt as well.

American university campuses, in their current orgy of admiration for socialism, will have to work extra hard to whitewash this, but I am sure they are up to the task.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_bl...munism-the-chinese-catastrophe-under-mao.html
Click to expand...

Got to say this post, and the fact that it's this sort of reasoning is how republican leaders use in decision making, reminds me of why here in the state of California we removed Republicans from positions of power in state government. And also it reminds me of how much better the state is doing since we did so...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
Lion Eyes said:
Here's a good old analogy that had been posted several times before the site was erased. Enjoy.

Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.

One night the restaurant owner announces that because they're such good customers, he's dropping their group dinner bill to $80. Let's call that a tax cut. They want to continue paying their bill as we pay taxes. So the four poorest men still eat free. But if the other six split the $20 tax cut evenly, each would save $3.33. That means the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat. The restaurant owner works out a plan: The fifth man eats free; the sixth pays $2; the seventh, $5; the eighth, $9; the ninth, $12; and the 10th guy pays $52. All six are better off than before, and the four poor guys still eat for nothing. The trouble starts when they leave the restaurant and begin to compare what they reaped from the $20 cut. "I only got a dollar of it," says the sixth man, "but he (pointing at No. 10) got $7." The fifth guy, who also saved a dollar by getting his meal free, agrees that it's not fair for the richest to get seven times the savings as he. No. 7, grousing that the wealthy get all the breaks, points out that he only got two bucks. "Wait a minute," the first four poor guys yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men jump the 10th and administer a severe beating. The next night he doesn't come for dinner. They shrug it off and eat without him. The customary $80 bill comes. Surprise! They're $52 short.

Yes, those who pay the most taxes get the most back from tax reductions. But tax them too much — punish them for the wealth they may have — and they just might stop bringing their money to the table.

I guess this is why American businesses have $10 trillion or so in offshore deposits.
Perhaps they got tired of getting beat up to forfeit their “fair share.”
Click to expand...

Have to say... Found this to be a lot better argument before we saw the tea party ruin the economies of Kansas and Mississippi. Now it just sounds like the dying squawks of a bankrupt economic theory we all know doesn't work.

Sorta like communism talking about stealing from the rich to give to the poor- conservative economic models of using tax cuts to steal from the middle class to give to the rich is equally naive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
tenacious said:
Have to say... Found this to be a lot better argument before we saw the tea party ruin the economies of Kansas and Mississippi. Now it just sounds like the dying squawks of a bankrupt economic theory we all know doesn't work.

Sorta like communism talking about stealing from the rich to give to the poor- conservative economic models of using tax cuts to steal from the middle class to give to the rich is equally naive.
Click to expand...

The tea party? Hmmm
Apparently the concept escapes you TD.
And you seem to believe this is what happened in Kansas & Mississippi?
Tell us what happened in Wisconsin & Indiana. Please.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Right.
About as sensitive as you are when I referred to Hillary as your old lady....
Perhaps you mistake sensitive for insult...
Click to expand...

I assumed, with good reason, that you were clueless enough not to remember the many times that I have said I don't support Hillary.

I'm keeping you on the Trump-supporter list until you explicitly announce that you have come to your senses.
 
espola said:
I assumed, with good reason, that you were clueless enough not to remember the many times that I have said I don't support Hillary.

I'm keeping you on the Trump-supporter list until you explicitly announce that you have come to your senses.
Click to expand...

You keep lists Magoo?
That's explicitly odd.
I've stated many times that this maybe the first time I vote for a third party candidate...
When the old site was erased apparently your memory was too.
 
Lion Eyes said:
The tea party? Hmmm
Apparently the concept escapes you TD.
And you seem to believe this is what happened in Kansas & Mississippi?
Tell us what happened in Wisconsin & Indiana. Please.
Click to expand...

Well let's see, as I recall in Indiana is where Trump ended Cruz's run. As for Wisconsin... guess from now on I'll make sure to list them with Kansas and Mississippi, as just another state in an abusive relationship with tea party economics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
Lion Eyes said:
Greed?
Greed and hard work made our the greatest country in history.
Click to expand...

Don't mistake my comments about Capitalism needing to be regulated, as a criticism of Capitalism. My point was Capitalism alone, with no controls, is what leads to horrible abuses born of greed. Yes, greed as a basic driver is what pushes us to excel, but it's also what pushes us to commit abuses against other men. Capitalism did not create the SEC, OSHA, DOL, FDA, EPA, etc., these protective agencies were created to curb the abuses created by greed.

Lion Eyes said:
I posted earlier that 50% of wage earners don't pay income taxes, that seems pretty progressive.
The greedy bastards at the top are paying nearly 40%, hell make them pay more.
After all, they're greedy capitalist....pffff.
Why should one work hard when a progressive government will take it from you?
Click to expand...

I actually think our tax system is working as intended. Don't put me in a "liberal box", I work hard too and also hate tax season. You can acknowledge the power and efficiency of Capitalism and enjoy your life under our system, while at the same time acknowledge that Capitalism alone is not the answer to everything. We have a horrible track record when it comes to providing health care to our people and our Justice system needs an overhaul as well, otherwise we wouldn't have the largest prison population in the world.
 
Last edited:
tenacious said:
Ahhh right... and thats why you're voting for Trump- the nominee who has the support of Russia, China and North Korea. Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
I am supporting Hillary, as I stated at the convention.
My response was directed toward the poster who doubted there were any socialists, or socialist policies forming the democratic party platform.
 
Democrat is not synonymous with Socialist. There are tons of Democrats that enjoy our Capitalist society, but are open to some compassion.
 
Wez said:
Don't mistake my comments about Capitalism needing to be regulated, as a criticism of Capitalism. My point was Capitalism alone, with no controls, is what leads to horrible abuses born of greed. Yes, greed as a basic driver is what pushes us to excel, but it's also what pushes us to commit abuses against other men. Capitalism did not create the SEC, OSHA, DOL, FDA, EPA, etc., these protective agencies were created to curb the abuses created by greed.



I actually think our tax system is working as intended. Don't put me in a "liberal box", I work hard too and also hate tax season. You can acknowledge the power and efficiency of Capitalism and enjoy your life under our system, while at the same time acknowledge that Capitalism alone is not the answer to everything. We have a horrible track record when it comes to providing health care to our people and our Justice system needs an overhaul as well, otherwise we wouldn't have the largest prison population in the world.
Click to expand...
Wez said:
Democrat is not synonymous with Socialist. There are tons of Democrats that enjoy our Capitalist society, but are open to some compassion.
Click to expand...

When one doesn't have any money in the game, why care about high taxes.
Why not vote for the party that will give one everything needed to live a comfortable life?
Food, lodging, medical care...Only in America can someone be living at or below the poverty and own a house, a car, a flat screen tv, iphone & computer.
Democrat is not synonymous with compassion. There are tons of Republicans that are anti socialist and are very compassionate.

from 2014:
This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years
 
Lion Eyes said:
Food, lodging, medical care...Only in America can someone be living at or below the poverty and own a house, a car, a flat screen tv, iphone & computer.
Click to expand...

This is the narrative that the right likes to promote, I don't buy it and never have. Many middle class Americans are struggling and being priced out the housing markets, much less poor people living high on the hog. It's a myth. No need to post click bait articles about welfare abuse, I know it happens and should be mitigated just as Medicare abuse does.

Lion Eyes said:
There are tons of Republicans that are anti socialist and are very compassionate.
Click to expand...

Never said there isn't, but in general, the right tends to be against public relief, which you go on to promote below.

Lion Eyes said:
Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.
Click to expand...

That's an extremely creative use of statistics. What we have spent on the Defense department over that time period is exponentially more and yet there is still conflict.

There will always be poor people. I agree a "War on poverty" is as fruitless as a "War" on drugs. What that line above doesn't quantify is the amount of relief and happiness that has been brought about by public assistance. It's all how you choose to view things. The right prefers to view public assistance as an unnecessary expense. I don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top