What's wrong with "Democratic Socialism"?

[ZDroid1]

its not for you to decide how a rich person spends their money...... if they want to buy yachts and mansions....... or simply wipe their butt with $100 bills...... its their money...... and they did something to get it

If your next-door neighbor is starving to death, and you're wiping your butt with $100 bills, and you think that's just cool, then we have nothing further to discuss.

This is not an issue of logical debate. It's a matter of values.

 

[ZDroid1]

The USPS serves in ways and places where it makes no sense for a profit-driven entity to do business. That's because it's not profit-driven. To call the USPS a failure and FedEx a success, misses the entire point of the USPS.

 

[mpw]

Oh so if hacking was legal, then it would be OK?...

Yes; but it isn't legal because it's not right or justifiable; the very nature of somebody hacking into private data violates another person's right to privacy. To compare that to a person's right to enter into a mutually agreed contract of trade is ridiculous.

...Do you have ANY idea what an analogy is?...

If your next-door neighbor is starving to death, and you're wiping your butt with $100 bills, and you think that's just cool, then we have nothing further to discuss...

Hmmm, yes I do; would you like it explained?

 

[copestag]

If your next-door neighbor is starving to death, and you're wiping your butt with $100 bills, and you think that's just cool, then we have nothing further to discuss.

This is not an issue of logical debate. It's a matter of values.

this isnt Somalia or some other 3rd world craphole

if youre poor its because you have made a conscious decision to remain poor......

how could it possibly be a logical debate when you think someone who could wipe his butt with $100 bills would allow starving people to be his neighbor...... thats what security gates are for

 

[ZDroid1]

Hmmm, yes I do; would you like it explained?

No thanks. You are clueless.

It is OK to compare two different scenarios if they have at least one aspect in common.

And just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. If you don't think so, then thanks for your opinion.

 

[mpw]

...You are clueless...

Because I don't agree with your opinion? You're the one not understanding the analogies it seems.

...It is OK to compare two different scenarios if they have at least one aspect in common...

You (try to)use an analogy of a hacker illegally accessing and stealing private data for reward, in comparison of a person taking a legal job, doing legal work and receiving an agreed reward for work undertaken by agreement. Your analogy was I believe to show that these two people have both used skills, but the skills shouldn't alone give them the right to reward.

The point is you're making an empty argument, because nobody is saying that somebody has the right to reward based on their skills alone, just they have a right to use their skills with the agreement of all parties to any enterprise to receive a mutually agreed reward.

I've said basically this before, in post #66, but you've chosen to ignore this coherent argument in favour of failing to understand what I've posted and calling me clueless

...And just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right. If you don't think so, then thanks for your opinion.

I agree, I've never said otherwise, so I'm not sure why you've decided to make an issue of this; other than avoid addressing the actual arguments I've made which clearly show the flaws in your own arguments.

 

[OrderFromChaos]

this isnt Somalia or some other 3rd world craphole

if youre poor its because you have made a conscious decision to remain poor......

how could it possibly be a logical debate when you think someone who could wipe his butt with $100 bills would allow starving people to be his neighbor...... thats what security gates are for

LMAO

Only in this country do the poor suffer from obesity.

 

[TheBeardedMann]

LMAO

Only in this country do the poor suffer from obesity.

Then why do we have such fat poor people with cell phones and cable?

Yup, I've said that before and no one has a good answer.

Don't bring your emotions into how much someone makes. A starving neighbor is not your problem. You should feel morally obligated to help that person, but the government shouldn't take more of your money to give to that person.

 

[OrderFromChaos]

Yup, I've said that before and no one has a good answer.

Don't bring your emotions into how much someone makes. A starving neighbor is not your problem. You should feel morally obligated to help that person, but the government shouldn't take more of your money to give to that person.

You will find no emotion from me on this subject. I'm not even sure if I should feel morally obligated to help in the first place. IMO, I've found many people that are in their present circumstances due to decisions that they made in their lives. Basically self-inflicted wounds. Now, there are cases where people do need help, but these people are not the same ones as the "self-inflicted" ones. I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up perfectly.

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin

 

[TheBeardedMann]

You will find no emotion from me on this subject. I'm not even sure if I should feel morally obligated to help in the first place. IMO, I've found many people that are in their present circumstances due to decisions that they made in their lives. Basically self-inflicted wounds. Now, there are cases where people do need help, but these people are not the same ones as the "self-inflicted" ones. I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up perfectly.

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin

I wasn't referring to you, sorry about that. I meant to quote another post from someone else, zdroid1.

 

[hood420]

It's true that we cannot be purely capitalist and still succeed as a nation, some things, like the military, police/fire, roads and other such things will likely have to remain the domain of governments for the foreseeable future. But the list of government must-haves is an ever evolving one. The USPS is a prime example of one government service that was at one time critical to our nation, and is now no longer necessary due to both technology and private companies meeting the need for their service. Another example that is around the corner is our road system, which will not be necessary when we're all in flying vehicles.

Another important point is that our assumption that some things must remain the governments responsibility only comes from our being used to the way things are. I would imagine that privatized police and fire departments could save taxpayers some money and could provide better service.

 

[hakr100]

The USPS is a prime example of one government service that was at one time critical to our nation, and is now no longer necessary due to both technology and private companies meeting the need for their service.

Another important point is that our assumption that some things must remain the governments responsibility only comes from our being used to the way things are. I would imagine that privatized police and fire departments could save taxpayers some money and could provide better service.

1. The USPS provides vital services that other carriers cannot and will nor provide. It carries letters to every address in the United States at a fixed price, and its prices for packages typically are lower than those of the private carriers like UPS and FEDEX.

2. Privatized police and fire departments? Surely you jest. While publicly funded police departments have their problems, there are no police forces as corrupt as the privatized police (e.g., blackwater) that we sent to Iraq. I don't even like privatized hospitals, unless they are run by university med schools.

One of the serious problems with this country is our worship of profit, profit at the expense of humanity and service. Profit is fine if you are a maker or user of widgets, but not for essential public services.

 

[alex51]

To rebuild the middle class you start out by rebuilding the upper class. And $250,000 is not the upper class. The definition our current president gave the middle class to me is bogus, I have friends who make $280,000 and own a small business, unfortunately they dont even end up with half that from having to pay employees, taxes and other stuff. For a strong middle class you must lower taxes on businesses, that way they have more leftover money to expand and employ middle class workers.

Wow,you're make it sound as though you are looking out for the best interest of the masses when in reality those who say that always are trying to do whats best for themselves at the expense of the masses.Lawyers and used car salesmen come to mind.Oh how the right hates the masses to have a well informed opinion.
Oh yes,tell us how the trickle down effect works,I well remember the 12 yr's of being trickled on (Reagan/Bush yr's),a period in which more American jobs left this country than any period in US history.
The right wing is interested in one thing, themselves and more $.

 

[TambourineMan]

Whoever got a job from a poor man?

 

[copestag]

thats a term and argument I always get quite a chuckle out of.....

lefties always criticize the trickle down effect..... wherein money from the top makes its way through the economy to help the bottom through jobs and purchases

they prefer the leftie method........ just steal the money from the rich and redistribute the wealth...... this way they dont actually have to do anything to earn it themselves

tambourineman hit the nail right on the head......... who ever got a job from a poor person......

 

[ZDroid1]

The Left is vilified because they don't believe those who failed to make it in the dog-eat-dog capitalistic game should be left to starve and die.

Conservatives believe that, well, sh!t happens. If you don't make it, you don't make it.

 

[hakr100]

Trickle-down economics makes the wealthy wealthier. It's been shown time and again it doesn't do anything for anyone but the rich.

We need much higher taxes on the wealthy, and we need to assess full social security taxes on the income of the wealthy. We also need to ensure that all income except long term investment income be taxed at ordinary income rates.

Since the rich have destroyed the economy to benefit only themselves, they ought to pay the price to rebuild it.

Oh...and corporations that build or buy plants overseas or hire workers overseas to avoid paying decent wages? No tax cuts whatsoever. And if they relocate overseas...they can't export to the United States.

 

[wiretap]

Trickle-down economics makes the wealthy wealthier. It's been shown time and again it doesn't do anything for anyone but the rich.

We need much higher taxes on the wealthy, and we need to assess full social security taxes on the income of the wealthy. We also need to ensure that all income except long term investment income be taxed at ordinary income rates.

Since the rich have destroyed the economy to benefit only themselves, they ought to pay the price to rebuild it.

Oh...and corporations that build or buy plants overseas or hire workers overseas to avoid paying decent wages? No tax cuts whatsoever. And if they relocate overseas...they can't export to the United States.

rofl.. say goodbye to wealth in the US then. They've been relocating overseas because they have lower tax rates, cheaper employment, and less regulation. The "rich" aren't going to pay to rebuild it because you believe that's the moral thing to do. The only way they're going to rebuild is if you give them carrots, not sticks. Why the hell would a guy's wife keep coming home to him if he kept beating her.. only for the sole reason of if she left she knows he'd kill him. Great philosophy.. totalitarian control, or government merged with corporatism.. aka fascism. It's too bad we're seeing so much of that in this day and age with government corporate takeovers. Then again, I wouldn't expect much else out of your keyboard. You're a globalist shill advocating for new world order fascism in every thread.

 

[copestag]

exactly what reason....... other than jealousy...... is there to take an unequal amount of money from someone simply because they arent as lazy as you and actually did something with their life other than whine about why someone else has more than them

please say something along the lines of "its the right thing to do" or "moral compass" blah blah blah.....

I bet there are people within 10 miles of you who have much less than you...... are you giving part of your paycheck to them? wouldnt this be the right thing to do? that way they arent struggling any more than you are.....

oh wait........ its only the right thing to do when your stealing someone elses money

 

[alex51]

Wow.Does anyone here believe your view is going to change the others view?In most debates the most truth lies somewhere towards the middle.The bottom line is it's about balance of power,when it gets too far one way voters swing it back the other way.
I am thankful we have a way to balance and everyone has their right to express themselves,here and wherever we choose.

 

[wiretap]

Wow.Does anyone here believe your view is going to change the others view?In most debates the most truth lies somewhere towards the middle.The bottom line is it's about balance of power,when it gets too far one way voters swing it back the other way.
I am thankful we have a way to balance and everyone has their right to express themselves,here and wherever we choose.

We're past that point of swinging back and forth. Both parties have completely ruined the country and the corruption is coming from the highest levels of unelected officials. Elected officials are merely puppets.

 

[sliderhd]

This is my first post here but I felt almost obligated to join in. My thoughts are as follows:
1. No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
2. "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later one runs out of someone else's money." Magaret Thatcher.
Right now I pay 39% of my wages to God knows who for what.
I do however respect and appreciate everyones opinion.

 

[ZDroid1]

This is my first post here but I felt almost obligated to join in. My thoughts are as follows:
1. No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
2. "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later one runs out of someone else's money." Magaret Thatcher.
Right now I pay 39% of my wages to God knows who for what.
I do however respect and appreciate everyones opinion.

when it comes to taxes, what is the upper limit that we shouldn't exceed percentage wise?

 

[ZDroid1]

It seems to me most fiscal conservatives in this thread have this religious belief that all the poor are lazy idiots who chose to be poor, and all the rich are honest hard working people who chose to do something with their lives.

And that any expectation that the rich contribute anything sterns from jealousy and envy and has no other basis.

 

[wiretap]

when it comes to taxes, what is the upper limit that we shouldn't exceed percentage wise?

Based on what it costs for critical functions of government, less than 15% GDP. Equal taxation to all, none of this progressive tax bracket shit where some people are actually getting money back and some people pay over half their income.

It seems to me most fiscal conservatives in this thread have this religious belief that all the poor are lazy idiots who chose to be poor, and all the rich are honest hard working people who chose to do something with their lives.

And that any expectation that the rich contribute anything sterns from jealousy and envy and has no other basis.

That's alright, you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of what charity is.