Welcome to PatsFans.com

Do you want more socialism?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Oct 25, 2008.

?

Do you want to see the US become more socialist?

Poll closed Nov 4, 2008.
  1. No way. Our competitive spirit is what's made us great!

    13 vote(s)
    54.2%
  2. I'd like everything to stay the same. No more, no less socialist.

    2 vote(s)
    8.3%
  3. I'd like more socialist programs but with existing tax dollars

    4 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. I'd like to see more socialism even if it means we pay more in taxes

    5 vote(s)
    20.8%
  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    I am betting that even our most liberal members don't want the United States to become a socialist nation. Or at least any more socialist than we already are.

    So here's our chance to chime in to show conservatives that communism is not around the corner.

    My vote goes to NO, I do not want the US to become a more socialist nation. I hate the thought of becoming a socialist nation and bet our most liberal members agree with me. But to put it in other words, I want as much of a safety net for our citizens as we have for corp America.

    I am an America for Americans kind of guy.

    All that means to me is health insurance available to all citizens (no illegals). No one in this country should have to go bankrupt to get the right health care.

    I do NOT want to see our national budget increase, so anything that is done will have to be accomplished by cutting other programs. And I do NOT want to see any tax increases on the middle class. And no, I do not count re-implimenting the tax code before the Bush cuts as a tax increase because the FACT is, it's not a tax increase.

    If your boss tells you that you have to take a temporary pay cut and then they re-impliment your old pay, you wouldn't consider it a raise.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  2. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I agree with you and yet don't PR. So I don't know how to vote.

    I think healthcare should be available to all but don't see how this won't make the USA a more socialist nation. I'm not talking about a slippery slope either. Guaranteeing healthcare to all is an incremental move towards socialism all by itself.
     
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,216
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +667 / 2 / -9

    America doesn't want Socialism but they are going to get it thanks to Far Left Liberalism, the MSM and the election of a "Far Out" Liberal to be the Next President of the USA.

    America doesn't want higher taxes, reduced security, another war (Darfur) socialist liberal nutty programs, radio censorship, internet censorship and probably cable news censorship but they are going to get it, the New Democrats will see to that, we will be on the verge of a Dictatorship.

    Barack Hussein Obama very rapidly before your very eyes will start to show his true colors, he will become overnight another Castro/Chavez.

    America Is Headed For Trouble, You Should All Fear This New Magician (Obama) You Don't Know A Damn Thing About Him, All You Care About Is That He Fits Your Little Politically Correct Liberal Wet Dreams.

    GOD DAMN AMERICA
     
  4. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    All Socialism at it's core is, is what the collective society deems unalienable rights.

    Do we as a society feel that everyone should be entitled to have their life saved if it is in danger? Do we feel everyone should be able to eat something?

    Socialism isn't some scray monster, it simply is a format that an entire society ( majority ) deems worthy to pay for.

    Your entire life ( your's and mine ) is run in a socialistic way. Your Union, is a socialistic system ( could also be communistic, since your really enabling a few to have power on behalf of the masses ) Your local government in regards to Streets, highways, and parks and recreation is socialism.

    Your Job is socialistic when it comes to your healthplan...


    So ask, do we as a society want more facets of society to become available to everyone no matter the cost?

    Public education is socialism? Is that good? I would say Public Education is what turned our society into the strongest ever... I am against how it is run and it should be decided upon more locally, but I see the good in what it has done as well...

    HELL, how many football teams are out there that exist purely based on socialism? It is in the Societies best interest for everyone to have a football team here, if we buy a stadium.


    Socialism isn't bad... Over extending the service is bad...

    I think the major issue with our government, wether acting in a captialistic approach, socialistic, or anything else, is that the people working in government, and the institutions that run within the government are some of the worst run organizations, low talent people, and horrid inefficiencies. Which makes the cost of providing such services an overrun, and therefore a drain on society... the negative effect outweighs the positive gain...

    Everytime a system is created, a organization in the government to manage something, they should be given goals, and fail limits... example ( Provide healthcare to 40,000 people this year with X amount of money ) if that is failed, the top management lose their jobs by law, and new management comes in. There must be specific business liek accountability measures to acheieve success rather than blank checks that we can't cash...

    All socialistic services should be run with a capitalistic management process. 3 failed years in a row, the services goes away and congress must pass something again to reenact it. The Problem with our social services is they are allowed gross waste, and just ask the tax payer for more to keep going... and that is where the Right have such a hard time accepting social services.

    So to sum up, Does anyone feel there are certain services, that are deemed a right that are positive on our society?
     
  5. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,671
    Likes Received:
    385
    Ratings:
    +1,162 / 5 / -19

    #61 Jersey

    I know people from quasi-socialist countries in Scandinavia and they're pretty damn happy. They don't have to work 60-70 hours a week and are a lot less stressed.
     
  6. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,216
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +667 / 2 / -9

    Certain aspects of socialism are good, in fact they are great but you can't draw a line on when enough is enough, not with the likes of The Pelosi Gang Or Your New God Like President, they won't be satisfied until they are completely running your life and your wallet.

    GOD DAMN AMERICA
     
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,541
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    I voted for "more socialism," although it's a terrible poll.

    It is very unlikely that the "amount of socialism" that comes in the years ahead will get close to the "amount of socialism" imposed since September.

    We want to throw around the "S" word to talk about progressive taxation -- including a return to the system prior to the Bush tax cuts, which is really what Obama's plan primarily consists of.

    But even if you DID have a high marginal tax rate in the US (we do not,) or even if we DID have a high total corparate tax in the US (we do not,) that STILL would not be Socialism.

    Know what is? Government ownership of the banks.

    Currently we are, in fact, tottering toward that sort of situation, but it's got nothing to do with changes in taxation such as we've recently seen proposed (unless you call the socialist corporate welfare of the last seven years or so.)

    Do we need more "socialism"? I think you need to define your terms. But I would say we do, in ways that aren't even on the table. Health care is a perfect example.

    Will I pay more taxes?

    WAKE UP PEOPLE. We will anyway, regardless who we vote for. The opening salvo is all we're discussing here. With 10-11 trillion in debt, it is irresponsible, long-term, NOT to raise taxes one way or another.

    This mantra of "let's have another magic economic runup" to fix things will run into opposition. We've seen over and over what we're creating is not wealth but debt. To create wealth you have to make products and perform services.

    So if you're a programmer paid in dot-com stock, and there's a bubble, surprise, you made the mimimum wage you got in your take-home check, and nothing else.

    If you got a half million bucks in paper money on your home, then borrowed against it, surprise, you now own a house worth ohhhhh about what it was before this nonsense really started in earnest. But oops, you borrowed against it to get more toys.

    And the government credit card is an even worse situation. So you bought military adventurism for eight years, plus a trillion dollars worth of buy-in to banks, insurance companies, and the financial markets? So you signed check after check, year after year, to buy a product called "Rich guy tax breaks?"

    Surprise. You don't have the revenue for it. You're 11 trillion bucks in debt. For comparison, by the way, it was 5 trillion before the Bush regime.

    So if you mean by "socialism" a combination of "paying your way," and "taking care of national 'must-do' items," I suppose you can tack the S word on me.

    But make no mistake: we're talking about the basics. You don't get out of this mess by cutting 18 billion bucks in earmarks. That might pay one-twentieth of the INTEREST on our debt for one year. GET IT?

    So, what we have here is 300 billion or so PER YEAR which we can get at JUST BY NOT BEING IN DEBT. It's like the individual who's paying 500 bucks a month against interest alone, suddenly paying off his bill... "Hey look! 500 extra bucks! Where'd that come from?"

    Well we're a long way from there. But there's a clear path to getting there:

    Tax the wealthy and the corporations in a way comparable to other nations in the developed world. And yes, before you dimwits respond, I mean including the Value Added Tax we don't have here.

    Or you can cry and whine about Socialists and high taxes and all the rest, and hand the future to the Peoples' Republic of China. ("Oh but it's okay now... they're capitalists now...")

    PFnV
     
  8. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    excellent post pvn. can you elaborate on the tax cuts. pre-bush, current bush and post bush(what obama wants to do).

    i would figure the interest on the national debt was closing in on 500 billion with this added 2.2 trillion.

    the poll is a bit skewed since "socialism" has a negative connotation. re-verse socialism which we call capitalism is alright but in the end 95% of us aren't rich though many of us like to think that way.

    too many people are scared and are living in the past. big deal if obama is black, wants to give back to the people.

    I jsut can't see 8 more years of the GOP running us into the ground.

    mcCain is no maverick what so ever. and i can't stand the argument of him being a POW. i repsect it, but it doesn't enhance the qualifications.

    people in the general public need to get over their hidden racism.
     
  9. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    I think our greed has been what made us great. not competition and it's come back to bite us.
     
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Maybe it wouldn't be if we cut back on welfare, food stamps and the like. I am absolutely against permanently being on welfare anyway. I'd rather see work training. no one deserves to not have to work ever and "live off the system" for life
     
  11. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey


    Harry, if you think Obama will implement programs to please the few, you're out of your mind. No president will do things totally opposite the will of the people.

    There may be 10% of the country (max) that want us to become a socialist nation. no president or congress will impose the will of 5-10% upon the majority. You're WAY over-reacting.
     
  12. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    I had a difficult time trying to figure out the choices for the poll. What would you have done differently to make it a "good poll"
     
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    I agree that being a POW doesn't mean someone earns any more credit toward being president than anyone else. As a matter of fact, being a POW does earn that person any more rights than anyone else. It is heroic and tragic for sure and such people deserve to be called heroic. But they dont earn any credits for being elected in any public office.
     
  14. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,541
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    Bigs, here's the tax policy center's table of the top marginal tax rates:

    Historical Top Tax Rate

    About marginal tax rates. They're called marginal rates because they're the rate you pay at income over a certain amount. So if you have a top marginal rate of 90% at $500,000 (NOT an example currently on the table,) that means that once you earn dollar number $500,001, that one dollar turns into a dime for you and 90 cents for uncle same. You'll have lower marginal rates. Let's say the marginal rate between 300,000 and 500,000 is 50%. That means that 200 grand of your money would be 100 for you, 100 for uncle sam. Again, these are not current examples.

    So whatever your tax bracket is, unless you're in the lowest one, you have more than one rate applying to your total tax bill.

    Currently the top marginal rate is 35%. That kicked in in 2003. Before that it was 38.6% for two years, and before that (the previous administration), the top marginal rate was 39.6%. So we have a 4.9% difference between those two administrations.

    During the 1990s, we primarily did not fight foreign wars, and we also benefitted from the emergence of the internet economy. This made it okay to keep taxes low, unless one insists on raising taxes during an era of declining deficits and surpluses. But marginal rates at 39.6% were still extremely low, in historical terms.

    In the late 80s/early 90s, reflecting George I's priorities, the top marginal rate went as low as 28%. During the Reagan years, the top marginal rate was 50%. But here's the shocker: prior to the Reagan years -- the beginning of our "supply side" deregulatory fairy tale -- top marginal rates were 70% and above going back to the beginning of the taxation system.

    And that's the system that primarily kept our budget relatively solvent. We wanted all those things that you buy with taxes: Eisenhower's highways, Kennedy/Johnson's simultaneous wars and "great society" programs at home, Nixon's affirmative action initiatives, etc. And through it all, the drain of a Cold War. Anything that cost money, by and large, we were willing to pay that money, and we would pay it in large part from the share paid by the rich.

    Since the time of Reagan, however, we have complained about how unfair we are to people with already extremely comfortable lifestyles.

    Why? Because we Americans like fairness, and Reagan was able to tap into the frustration of working people, and tie it to the desires of the very wealthy. That has been the formula since the 1980s: Convince "Joe the Plumber" that taxing "J. Worthington Plumbing Conglomerate Owner" is unfair to him.... because that's who he'll be any minute now.

    It's a combination of con-game (people banking that they're going to be rich any minute now,) elitism ("those dumbasses will never look at the fine print anyway"), and preying on the American sense of fairness -- the idea that all things should be equal, including tax rates.

    Well, as was recognized for most of the history of the income tax, all things are not equal. If a middle-class taxpayer faces an impact of "can't buy anything but basics," and J. Worthington faces an impact of "all my needs are met, can still buy everything I want, but the trust fund is smaller," which do you think is fairer? And -- this is key -- which will have the most deleterious effect on the production/consumption of goods?

    Take a look at the direction the top marginal rate took just before the great depression.

    At any rate: Obama's proposal is to return the top marginal rate to the 39.6% rate, from the present rate of 35%. Everyone else would get a slight tax break or be unaffected. McCain's proposal is to slightly cut middle class taxes, but to cut the top marginal rate below the current 35% ("an across the board tax cut.)

    To me it's apparent neither is doing the math. But Obama is showing the right instinct. RIGHT NOW, it might indeed be wiser not to pinch the middle class too tightly. But very soon we need to look at some important priorities, and do it before the next crisis.

    Look: We may soon see double-digit unemployment. Liquidity is still in a slow-thaw routine, if it is thawing at all. Debt is still crippling us. "Supply-side" economics has finally run its predictable course. Meanwhile, we have decided to turn the country into a casino. Joe this and Joe that are all gambling their retirements, since we have made private investment vehicles (401Ks) the standard rather than defined benefit plans.

    That did nothing but transfer risk from the company to the individual. But whereas the company could once make do with returns that outpace inflation over decades, the individual tends to gamble. Beyond that, companies and institutions are gambling as well, far too often. A diversified portfolio is fine, but evidently people like the CALPERS system really fell in love with free money -- then when the music stopped, well, what the hell do you THINK would happen?

    I know I have gone on far too long and blathered far too much about this... I just don't know the event in 1982 that made it possible for us to pay the bills we use to pay with a 70% top marginal rate, with a 50% top marginal rate. I sure as hell don't know the event that made it possible to do it with a 28% top marginal rate.

    But I do know that the lifestyle of the average American from the early 70s to the present, has gone from a single-earner larger home with 2 cars in the garage, to a two-earner smaller home more likely to have 1 car or be dependent on public transportation. Ignore for a moment that it's also PREFERABLE that we make do with less... where the hell did the rest of that money go, since in real terms we get less at the middle class level, but the economy has grown many times over?

    Boy I'm sure we're being fairer to the wealthy.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  15. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    If what Sweden and co. have is "socialism" then I want that. The only "slippery slope" I fear is authoritarian government, which is not inherently connected to "socialism" anymore than it is "capitalism," whatever your definition of those two labels are.

    In reality, I think democratic socialists like myself want more of a hybrid socialist/capitalist society in which we have:

    - Universal healthcare for 100% of the population

    - Equality of opportunity in the education system. This means that urban schools are every bit as good as suburban schools and that all schools improve greatly. The best safeguard against totalitarianism in all of its forms is an educated, politically engaged population. The idea that America is a meritocracy only holds water if everyone is born with the same chances to get ahead.

    - Implementation of a living wage. Paying people less than what they can live on is economic exploitation.

    - Progressive tax structure, and flat fines. If you are a millionaire who gets pulled over for speeding, you should be fined the same percentage of your income as someone making 50k a year.

    - Increased support and maternity leaves for new parents.

    - Increased environmental restrictions on corporations.

    - Increased restrictions on oligopolies. Most notably, the media. Media conglomeration is the single most corrosive force against democracy in America today.

    - ceilings on Executive pay according to base salary of employees with lowest income.

    - further funding of public housing and support for the homeless. There should be a social safety net that stops any American from living n the street. Call that a "welfare state" if you want, and I'm happy to try and get these people jobs, but there is an institutional unemployment rate and a number of factors that can cause a person to fall on hard times. I think it's a basic human right that we not allow them to slip through the cracks.


    I don't necessarily want to raise taxes to accomplish any of this. I'd like to see the military be cut by about 75% not only to free up revenue but also to break the military industrial complex. I'm also not opposed to getting rid of earmarks and certain aspects of welfare reform.

    EDIT - By the way, if you think Obama is going to bring us anywhere near this you're mistaken, which is what makes the accusation that he's a "socialist" and a "left wing extremist" so laughable, and is also telling about just how far this country has swung to the right.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,667
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +387 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Wildo...I gotta tell ya bud, you are in the vast minority. Nothing wrong with that though. Personally, I don't want anything implemented that takes away a desire to make tons of money or the opportunity to make tons of money. There is no reason to have everyone making close to the same. If you don't want to go to college or work your tail off, you gotta make way less than those that do.

    I'll give you an example of a policy that is already in effect. Last year I was told my 401K contributions would be cut from $15,500 to about $6,000 annually due to some "highly compensated employee law" that says if you make over a certain amount (which isn't that much), then you can only contrubute 2% more than the average contribution for the company. In this case, our average is 4% due to all those who choose not to contribute.

    That to me is utter bs. Those who make less than me could very well have $100K more than me in their 401K's and that is not taken into consideration.

    No, I don't want any law that may allow someone to retire comfortable at 40 even if others have to work until they're 65...that's fine by me.
     
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,541
    Likes Received:
    292
    Ratings:
    +564 / 8 / -8

    I'd use the things you're covering under the word "socialism," because that's such a loaded word. So...

    "More government intervention"?
    "More taxation"?
    "More government regulation"?

    I just don't know what you mean by "more socialism"... I probably came off as pretty "snappish" there but I think in its current form it's more a referendum on the word "socialism", it's sort of a rorshach socialism.

    PFnV
     
  18. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Obviously I'm in the vast minority, that's why I vote for Nader;) The only people I know who aren't in college because "they don't want to go or work their tails off" are suburban kids who are going to be fine working in Starbucks anyway. Without an equal opportunity to actually get to college, there's no such thing as the meritocracy you describe. The idea that salaries in the United States today are directly related to how hard people work is simply incorrect. Our insanely low rate of social mobility can attest to that. No offense PR, but the immigrant who has come to this country, learned english and works as a dishwasher at Applebee's has worked harder than you or I could ever dream of.


    As the economy gets worse, and unemployment rises, salaries will fall and the gap between the rich and poor will only increase to the point where we are literally a society of the ruling class/power elite (Domhoff) and the proletariat.

    Are you an executive? You are describing a specific 401k policy that I don't know the ins and outs of. As far as ceilings on executive pay, I'm mostly talking about executives walking away with millions of dollars while paying the work force brutal wages. In a globalizing economy, the lower they can pay the labor force to produce what they profit off of, the better for them, and that's just wrong. Americans seem happy to say "so what if they pay the Chinese pennies a day, it provides cheap goods for the American consumer." Something tells me they'll be singing a different tune when the situation is reversed. See Ben and Jerry's as an example of what I'm talking about:D
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  19. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Sarah Palin, in her latest contradiction, is actually right about one thing; labels are stupid. I guarantee you if you asked every American what they think "socialism" is, they'd have markedly different and incorrect answers. The word "socialism" is used almost interchangably with totalitarianism on this board for example.

    I certainly don't believe in nationalizing everything, though I do agree with it for a country like Venezuela under Chavez or Egypt under Nasser or any country who is basically being pillaged by international mega corporations at the behest of the western/northern-controlled IMF, World Bank and WTO.

    If you asked steel workers in Pittsburgh, for example, whether they think steel tariffs constitute "socialism," they'd probably say no.

    It is a very puzzling and very loaded poll question.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,216
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +667 / 2 / -9

    There you go again, I told you that you had some of Me In You (but your not racist)---:singing::singing:
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>