|
On November 03 2010 04:58 KaiserJohan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:41 Energizer wrote:On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people? And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism. I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree) I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth. Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today? From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US? Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant?
Yes. Americans are literally deathly afraid of this amorphous thing called socialism\communism.
If you ask them what socialism is, you'll hear everything from Obama to Hitler, then you'll hear a few explanations about how socialism is taxes or making people do things they don't want to do.
America has the highest tolerance for stupidity and ignorance that I have ever seen.
|
While I despise the two party system, I'm going straight dem. I'd rather see a government in synergy doing things, good or bad, than stuck doing NOTHING. Mistakes can be fixed, good things can be kept, wasted time is irreplaceable.
That and the republican candidates for me are crummy this election. =\
|
On November 03 2010 04:58 KaiserJohan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:41 Energizer wrote:On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people? And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism. I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree) I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth. Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism?
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
|
United States7481 Posts
I voted a few weeks ago (early voting ftw) but all we had was a house seat and a few local measures like parks etc. The election I'm really interested in is Reid vs Angle. Angle is a really bad candidate (seriously awful, she's Odonnell level), but people in Nevada might hate Harry Reid so much that she could win. The plus side of her winning is that we might actually find out her views, given that she's refused to talk to the press or take public questions.
|
On November 03 2010 04:41 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people? And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism. I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree) I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
WOW just WOW do you think the french revolution is a bad thing?(when you put t in the same as communism i suppose you do).
Do you realize it is the start,or to the very least the spark that ignited freedom and equality as we know it throughout the word......you might want to read again your history course mate.
|
On November 03 2010 05:34 Gahlo wrote:
While I despise the two party system, I'm going straight dem. I'd rather see a government in synergy doing things, good or bad, than stuck doing NOTHING. Mistakes can be fixed, good things can be kept, wasted time is irreplaceable.
Divided gov't in the US is almost ALWAYS better than one-party rule. The GOP screwed up when they had all the power, and now the dems have screwed up.
With divided gov't it is harder to pass really dumb laws but if one party has total control, it can do whatever it wants and do it very fast and you can get the worst legislation ever.
Even as a staunch republican, I'd rather have democrats control part of the federal government so my party doesn't get corrupted (eg Bush years)
Most people agree with this I believe.
|
On November 03 2010 05:38 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:41 Energizer wrote:On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people? And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism. I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree) I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth. WOW just WOW do you think the french revolution is a bad thing?(when you put t in the same as communism i suppose you do). Do you realize it is the start,or to the very least the spark that ignited freedom and equality as we know it throughout the word......you might want to read again your history course mate.
I think you are confusing the French and the American revolutions.
|
On November 03 2010 05:27 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:58 KaiserJohan wrote:On November 03 2010 04:41 Energizer wrote:On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people? And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism. I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree) I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth. Excuse me for going abit OT but I'm just wondering, are americans still deathly afraid of communists and socialism? When I look at the cold war america it's all boo-boo communism which is understandable given the tense situation but is this also present today? From an outside viewer it looks kinda comical ("Communist from outer SPACE!", "destroy our way of life!", etc) but is it really still viewed seriously in US? Also-- out of interest why is there only two policital parties in the US? For example we have 7 major policital parties in sweden and a number of smaller parties, covering pretty much every political view possible. How can you manage with only two parties, and why is neither dominant? Yes. Americans are literally deathly afraid of this amorphous thing called socialism\communism. If you ask them what socialism is, you'll hear everything from Obama to Hitler, then you'll hear a few explanations about how socialism is taxes or making people do things they don't want to do. America has the highest tolerance for stupidity and ignorance that I have ever seen.
W_Ender_W gave a good response to this in the previous page. But hell, the more open "progressives" are about what they really believe, the better imo. Regarding what "socialism" actually is: just as with most political philosophies, there are several branches within. But ultimately socialism/marxism/communism/fascism all fall under the same umbrella of Collectivism and Statism -- something that yes, most Americans reject. Considering it's .000 rate of success and how fundamentally at odds it is with American principles of free market capitalism, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. -- it's understandable. But hey, if you think that's a winning argument, go for it.
Okay bro. Challenge accepted.
Cool. Have you bothered to read that quoted article yet? And as far as what I and others believe? The Tea Party movement is about fiscal sanity; of restoring a Constitutional republic, with limited federal powers. It's in opposition to the ridiculous spending, the deficit, incoming tax hikes, the assault on the free market and small business, TARP, the bailouts, government takeover of entire private sectors, and (as cited there) a whole slew of other examples of an ever-expanding role of the State in our lives. It's that simple.
|
On November 03 2010 05:36 Savio wrote:
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China.
It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
|
On November 03 2010 05:44 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:36 Savio wrote:
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China. It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
The question was about "communists and socialism.
I responded mostly to the communist part. If I have time later, I will address the socialism.
|
On November 03 2010 05:46 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:44 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 05:36 Savio wrote:
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China. It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism The question was about "communists and socialism. I responded mostly to the communist part. If I have time later, I will address the socialism.
It doesn't seem like you have articulated a problem with communism either, I should have added that.
|
On November 03 2010 04:41 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people? And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism. I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree) I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth.
What is wrong with his analysis? It is dead on. I have worked for a 'foreign investment' company in the past. Believe me when I say wealthy individuals are elitist scum. They won't even talk with your company unless you give them lavish dinners and lunches and transportation to prove your own worth, despite them having enough money as it is. The fact they ship their wealth overseas to reduce their own tax burden is further point of their selfishness.
|
On November 03 2010 05:43 Losticus wrote:
Cool. Have you bothered to read that quoted article yet?
You mean the article that taught me nothing new and had nothing to do with my original question or any of the points I raised and isn't even a response to my later reply? Yeah man, I got a couple of good laughs out of it, particularly the end where it warns us the Obama administration might make us into something like "Belgium or Sweden", which is apparently tantamount to the apocalypse. I'm sure all of the Belgians and Swedes on this website will get a big kick out of that.
W_Ender_W gave a good response to this in the previous page. But hell, the more open "progressives" are about what they really believe, the better imo. Regarding what "socialism" actually is: just as with most political philosophies, there are several branches within. But ultimately socialism/marxism/communism/fascism all fall under the same umbrella of Collectivism and Statism -- something that yes, most Americans reject. Considering it's .000 rate of success and how fundamentally at odds it is with American principles of free market capitalism, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. -- it's understandable. But hey, if you think that's a winning argument, go for it.
Marxism and Socialism have a .000 rate of success...? Okay bro.
|
On November 03 2010 05:48 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:46 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 05:44 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 05:36 Savio wrote:
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China. It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism The question was about "communists and socialism. I responded mostly to the communist part. If I have time later, I will address the socialism. It doesn't seem like you have articulated a problem with communism either, I should have added that.
I did. Merely mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted it is enough to get the point across to any rational person.
|
On November 03 2010 05:44 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:36 Savio wrote:
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China. It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism
Socialism is governmental production of the means. By necessity, it must be centralized and totalitarian.
I do admit what most people call "socialism" these days isn't socialism as envisioned by Marx and Engels. There is certainly nothing wrong with wealth transfers and even highly capitalist societies like Singapore and Denmark engage in it. But the original post about class envy being a dangerous viewpoint is true.
|
On November 03 2010 05:54 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:43 Losticus wrote:
Cool. Have you bothered to read that quoted article yet? You mean the article that taught me nothing new and had nothing to do with my original question or any of the points I raised and isn't even a response to my later reply? Yeah man, I got a couple of good laughs out of it, particularly the end where it warns us the Obama administration might make us into something like "Belgium or Sweden", which is apparently tantamount to the apocalypse. I'm sure all of the Belgians and Swedes on this website will get a big kick out of that. Show nested quote +W_Ender_W gave a good response to this in the previous page. But hell, the more open "progressives" are about what they really believe, the better imo. Regarding what "socialism" actually is: just as with most political philosophies, there are several branches within. But ultimately socialism/marxism/communism/fascism all fall under the same umbrella of Collectivism and Statism -- something that yes, most Americans reject. Considering it's .000 rate of success and how fundamentally at odds it is with American principles of free market capitalism, right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc. -- it's understandable. But hey, if you think that's a winning argument, go for it. Marxism and Socialism have a .000 rate of success...? Okay bro.
You're defending Marxism and Socialism now? Awesome. I'd love you to cite the successes, and what you find endearing in those political philosophies.
And just, for the record, the USSR was not a Marxist or Communist state? That Marxism or Communism is separate from Statism, Collectivism, and Totalitarianism? If not, please defend those as well.
|
On November 03 2010 05:43 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:38 clementdudu wrote:On November 03 2010 04:41 Energizer wrote:On November 03 2010 04:33 Obsidian wrote:
I really have no pity and little enough patience when we talk about tax breaks for the 'wealthy'.
The wealth distribution within America is horrible, and not likely to change any time soon. The wealthy (as a whole, not individually) have proven, time after time, that they can not be trusted, or relied upon to help drive the economy. There is a finite amount at which point, you really can't spend any more, and a very real hoarding effect takes over.
I don't really want to influence a massive re-distribution of wealth, as it's fairly selfish of me to consider it, but in light of other options, I don't see much of a choice. Taxes on the upper brackets are far to low, there are too many loopholes and shelters and ways to avoid paying.
Even if we managed to get them to not only pay what they should, but doubled it on top of that... they would still have a standard of living many times, if not exponentially better than your average American. What good does it do anyone to have so much wealth bottled up into so few a number of people? And its this kind of thinking that started the french revolution... and communism. I fail to understand why people such as the gentleman above continuously believe that the wealthy are an elite group of people who are seeking to control society at their whim (though granted, it is justified to some degree) I find it quite humorous that people dont understand just how taxes work, especially if you're a business owner. I find it even more funny that people think raising taxes on the wealthy has absolutely no affect on the lower pyramid structure of American wealth. WOW just WOW do you think the french revolution is a bad thing?(when you put t in the same as communism i suppose you do). Do you realize it is the start,or to the very least the spark that ignited freedom and equality as we know it throughout the word......you might want to read again your history course mate. I think you are confusing the French and the American revolutions.
Allright now i know you need to read those courses again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution
Just so you dont have to go through the hassle of reading it:
Woman's right,separation of church and state,writing of a constitution,writing of the Declaration of man and citizen(which is pretty much the rough draft of the modern Declaration),and so on.
"Historians widely regard the Revolution as one of the most important events in human history, and the end of the early modern period, which started around 1500, is traditionally attributed to the onset of the French Revolution in 1789.The Revolution is, in fact, often seen as marking the "dawn of the modern era""
Guess who was confused.
|
On November 03 2010 05:56 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:48 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 05:46 Savio wrote:On November 03 2010 05:44 Romantic wrote:On November 03 2010 05:36 Savio wrote:
Yes. We don't particularly envy the success of Cuba, USSR, North Korea, and Mao China. It sounds like you have a problem with centralized totalitarian governments, not socialism The question was about "communists and socialism. I responded mostly to the communist part. If I have time later, I will address the socialism. It doesn't seem like you have articulated a problem with communism either, I should have added that. I did. Merely mentioning the names of the countries that have attempted is enough to get the point across to any rational person.
Rational people would have realized totalitarian governments =\= a classeless and stateless society (communism) or collective ownership and management (socialism).
I understand the comparison to totalitarian governments and socialism has been pushed by the major propaganda agencies since the October Revolution, but now is the time to ~*Open your eyes*~
|
On November 03 2010 05:49 a176 wrote:
What is wrong with his analysis? It is dead on. I have worked for a 'foreign investment' company in the past. Believe me when I say wealthy individuals are elitist scum. They won't even talk with your company unless you give them lavish dinners and lunches and transportation to prove your own worth, despite them having enough money as it is. The fact they ship their wealth overseas to reduce their own tax burden is further point of their selfishness.
Several points:
1) You live in Canada, so it's very, very likely that you are a wealthy individual relative to the rest of the world.
2) At least in the US, the wealthiest individuals tend to be the most proactive in donating their money.
3) I've worked with plenty of very wealthy individuals interested in investing. They are not in general elitist toward the companies they are interested in.
|
man i havent been following any political news in probably a year. it would be insane if the democrats lost the house/senate. it always seems like one party blames the other for not doing shit and then they get in and do absolute shit, and then the cycle continues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
