The United States of Communism.
- Thread starter LegalizeCannabisHemp
- Start date
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
And that about sums it up in one statement. The earlier "Progressive" movements brought us such Freeing programs as welfare, boy isn't that a great idea...let's take money from those who work and give to those who choose not to. Don't confuse it with unemployment benefits which is helping out people short term while they try to attain employment. And is now a MASSIVE drain on local budgets (case in point...As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it.).
Another sweet, sweet program given to us by our "Progressive" friends is Social Security...I think everyone on both sides of the aisle know where this ponzi scheme is going to end up. But it is the failing of SS that should be a slap in the face to those supporting this move towards socialism....IT ALWAYS FAILS...ALWAYS, eventually there will be more people taking benefits than there are enough people paying into it. Because there becomes less and less incentive to be one of the producers rather than one of the infants to whom the state is providing benefits.
Bringing us to another sweetheart program of our insane, blind, well intentioned friends on the left. Medicare/Medicaid. Say it with me people....DOOMED TO FAIL...GOING BANKRUPT...sooner than even the critics of the program predicted it would fail. And this is the program that Pres. Obama is going to model national healthcare after (NO REALLY...HIS WORDS).
This is why throughout history any society that has allowed it's government to move towards socialism has always ended up dealing with that government facing the business end of a rifle.
medicineman
New Member
So, under your America, there would be no social programs. There would be only the rich and the poor, sort of like a third world country. Just wonderful. You are advocating returning to the status of 1850 America, where the super rich ruled and the only others to have any money at all were Bank Robbers. I think you have your head where the sun don't shine, sorry Charlie. BTW, very appropriate Name, Muy LOCO. I agree, you are one crazy mofo.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Well I guess my argument and examples are so strong and obvious that they were rewarded with such a soft reply from Medman. It's not a wish to remove all social programs at all, just the ones that go completely against the very foundation of this great country. There is and always has been a great social program that has been around longer than any of us can remember...it's called charity, and it usually goes to those in need, not those who want to sit on their ass and live off my hard work. And there always has been and always will be a middle class, not just rich and poor.
And of course your definition of poor is probably quite different than it is in third world countries. If you look at the statistics of people living beneath the poverty line in this country, it looks shockingly like what the upper class and above have in those third world countries you say we would be like. I'm going off the cuff here but as I remember the average American below the poverty line has 2 tv's, 1.5 cars, a cell phone and something like 40% live in an air conditioned/heated home. I think the majority of the remaining live in air conditioned/heated apartments if I remember correctly.
And before you even start, I'm not saying everyone has it great in this country. But it is BECAUSE of 200 years of capitalism that our poorest citizens have so much more than most of the people considered well off in these Socialist countries you statists seem to envy. You have to look at what is sustainable and do as much as you can without lowering everyones standard of living...I'm sorry if thats seems brutal to you, but it is just common sense to me.
If two people fall out of a boat and you only have the ability to save one, you don't try to rescue both and have everyone drown in the process.
And of course your definition of poor is probably quite different than it is in third world countries. If you look at the statistics of people living beneath the poverty line in this country, it looks shockingly like what the upper class and above have in those third world countries you say we would be like. I'm going off the cuff here but as I remember the average American below the poverty line has 2 tv's, 1.5 cars, a cell phone and something like 40% live in an air conditioned/heated home. I think the majority of the remaining live in air conditioned/heated apartments if I remember correctly.
And before you even start, I'm not saying everyone has it great in this country. But it is BECAUSE of 200 years of capitalism that our poorest citizens have so much more than most of the people considered well off in these Socialist countries you statists seem to envy. You have to look at what is sustainable and do as much as you can without lowering everyones standard of living...I'm sorry if thats seems brutal to you, but it is just common sense to me.
If two people fall out of a boat and you only have the ability to save one, you don't try to rescue both and have everyone drown in the process.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Med the key difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that there is a middle class under Capitalism.
In case you failed to read your little red book under Socialism every one is reduced to equal poverty sans the bureaucrats and thus there is no independent (non-state supporting) middle class.
Under a Capitalist system there are plenty of positions that result in a middle class and even an affluent class (outside of the government),
Managers
Engineers
Entreprenuers
Executives (High Level Managers/Managers of Big Businesses)
Inventors
and other Professionals.
I'm sorry you can not see that the training that you hold in so much disregard is often the easiest path towards achieving a middle class livelihood.
Though even some one with out a college degree can attain a middle class income of 30 - 40K/year by working their way up the corporate chain.
Hard work, perseverence, and self-reliance are the qualities that made America Great. Note that they are completely the opposite of the qualities (laziness, easily discouraged, dependent) that the Liberals and their policies are hoisting upon this nation and its citizens.
An entry level position (McDonalds) is not supposed to give you a comfortable life style, it's meant for inexperienced people, foreigners, teenagers and people that are just looking for a way to fill time.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
Have any of you actually read the communist manifesto?
I would guess you are relying on the polarizing deficits each system has inherent in the structure. Real communism would describe a society where every person is valued equally, not less than they are now. And to say, welfare is so lazy people don't have to work, how about the people that were born into poverty, weren't great at learning in the institutionalized education as so many are and thus couldn't get a tuition to go to some fancy college. Now they are stuck at entry level positions their whole life, and now even working fulltime can't cover their over head. Is that descriptive of laziness? Why are they any less beneficial to the system?
In Canada we are heading towards more privatization which a great number of people are opposed to, also I have never waited in a hospital or medi-center, not saying there aren't wait times but they certainly aren't what the media might lead you to believe, the media that is owned by the top 10% of the population.
I would say that a system full of doctors or financial consultants is just as doomed as a society of burger flippers, but the society of burger flippers has alot of room to move up. If you can't imagine a system other than capitalism working, which I am not saying doesn't, then you are hopelessly stuck in a paradigm that your masters want to keep you in.
No matter how hard you try, if money is in place, the people on top will stay there.
Peace
I would guess you are relying on the polarizing deficits each system has inherent in the structure. Real communism would describe a society where every person is valued equally, not less than they are now. And to say, welfare is so lazy people don't have to work, how about the people that were born into poverty, weren't great at learning in the institutionalized education as so many are and thus couldn't get a tuition to go to some fancy college. Now they are stuck at entry level positions their whole life, and now even working fulltime can't cover their over head. Is that descriptive of laziness? Why are they any less beneficial to the system?
In Canada we are heading towards more privatization which a great number of people are opposed to, also I have never waited in a hospital or medi-center, not saying there aren't wait times but they certainly aren't what the media might lead you to believe, the media that is owned by the top 10% of the population.
I would say that a system full of doctors or financial consultants is just as doomed as a society of burger flippers, but the society of burger flippers has alot of room to move up. If you can't imagine a system other than capitalism working, which I am not saying doesn't, then you are hopelessly stuck in a paradigm that your masters want to keep you in.
No matter how hard you try, if money is in place, the people on top will stay there.
Peace
But your wrong about this part. There are plenty of people who do not even have a high school diploma who became self made millionaires. My dad is one example, my uncle is another. My mother has a PHD but her highest earnings year doesn't even come close to my dads Monthly income. Education does not make you smarter or more productive than others, it just makes you more educated. My mother now works as a house cleaner for the astute people in their town, she makes double what she did as a head shrinker cleaning other peoples homes.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
So not getting education makes you better at making money?
No I think that is a fluke.
Peace
EDIT: I am an educated, and contributing member of society. I benefit directly via the free market system and I pay taxes, but that does not mean that the ethics are there in order to keep malignant ideas at bay. People may or may not fuck eachother over, regardless should we have measures in place to help prevent this doesn't happen. Or should we educate people to feel they don't need to do that, to make they feel wanted and helpful, rather then the sheeple most are. To show people that if everyone shares everything, everyone will benefit, and the people already benefitting won't any less. I hope you understand I am not advocating total government control, much the opposite but I am completely against market capitalism.
Peace
No I think that is a fluke.
Peace
EDIT: I am an educated, and contributing member of society. I benefit directly via the free market system and I pay taxes, but that does not mean that the ethics are there in order to keep malignant ideas at bay. People may or may not fuck eachother over, regardless should we have measures in place to help prevent this doesn't happen. Or should we educate people to feel they don't need to do that, to make they feel wanted and helpful, rather then the sheeple most are. To show people that if everyone shares everything, everyone will benefit, and the people already benefitting won't any less. I hope you understand I am not advocating total government control, much the opposite but I am completely against market capitalism.
Peace
Your dad is a millionaire and your mother works cleaning houses? Instead of working as a psychiatrist, because she prefers the higher income of a house cleaner?
My head is spinning.
Murfy
Well-Known Member
the feeling i get more and more from folks of this caliber is of a "divine right" nature-
it's the means they will employ themselves, that when exhibited by others ( especially when it's BETTER), they find most detestable, and most often state for proof of concept
i'm pretty sure with all the fancy talkin all i can say is
i can skin a buck, i can run a trot line
i need the man like a flippin hole in the head
it's the means they will employ themselves, that when exhibited by others ( especially when it's BETTER), they find most detestable, and most often state for proof of concept
i'm pretty sure with all the fancy talkin all i can say is
i can skin a buck, i can run a trot line
i need the man like a flippin hole in the head
medicineman
New Member
So, this makes you a "man"? Say, I can dot an i, and cross a t, geeze, I must be a man, Your reasoning is extremely fallible.
sharon1
Active Member
Oh please, who are you trying to kid? You have made the choice to debate in this particular online political discussion, appartently wasting your 'valuable' time several times now. As a teacher, you understand full well that taking such a "holier-than-thou" stance is merely a flounce and an insult to all who have engaged you thus far.
Bounce off and talk to all of your like-minded colleagues all you want, but those statements (are) trolltastic-classics.
Operation 420
Well-Known Member
The countries jrh was praising are all going bankrupt now and headed towards chaos. Great "philosophy" there bud. lol
doc111
Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure I'd be advertising that these days.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
I have one problem with the idea, "live the life you have earned." Well I have draw attention to the workers who do work their asses off, like straight to the bone, and they get fucked face and fist by the government every corner they turn. I mean the people who sew your nike shoes and your tote bags, the kids who pick the materials to make the shirt on your back. They have no means to fend, nor can the ever hope for anything other than food tonight, maybe.
Do you not think these people earned a life reminiscent of any kind of dignity and freedom?
In an idealists world, no money circulates, everyone is able to access everything the community of humans has to offer, in this world ideas and life would flourish. Robots and computers would take care of the laborious, meaningless tasks. Food systems would be set up in the best locations, rather than where ever is cheapest. Scientists and doctors wouldn't be taking considerations because of money, rather on how to help society in order to help themselves. People would be happy because if you have an issue, you don't need to pay someone your money to force the government to fix it, because it(the laws) was set up for you not to understand it in the first place. Every chance they get, they want you in a smaller and smaller box, one so small you can't even breath.
Its never been about money, just about the resources.
Watch this genuine intellectual : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpjkDJMfLpA
Peace
Do you not think these people earned a life reminiscent of any kind of dignity and freedom?
In an idealists world, no money circulates, everyone is able to access everything the community of humans has to offer, in this world ideas and life would flourish. Robots and computers would take care of the laborious, meaningless tasks. Food systems would be set up in the best locations, rather than where ever is cheapest. Scientists and doctors wouldn't be taking considerations because of money, rather on how to help society in order to help themselves. People would be happy because if you have an issue, you don't need to pay someone your money to force the government to fix it, because it(the laws) was set up for you not to understand it in the first place. Every chance they get, they want you in a smaller and smaller box, one so small you can't even breath.
Its never been about money, just about the resources.
Watch this genuine intellectual : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpjkDJMfLpA
Peace
EdGreyfox
Well-Known Member
You folks are all missing something. It doesn't require a socialistic society to ensure a fair distribtion of wealth, just regulations on just how much of a profit any given owner/stockholder can make off their investment in comparison to the wages paid to the companies employees. Look, the purpose of a business is to make a profit, and without a decent profit there isn't any incentive for someone to risk their money or energy starting one going. The question (which has never really been answered) is WHAT constitutes an acceptable profit?
I'm an accountant, and i know from the inside just how badly Americas SMALL business owners are gaming and cheating the system (and their employees). The company I work for showed a big fat zero for profit last year, but do you really think that means the owners didn't make a ton of money? They use the company to pay personal expense (like their cars, insurance, gas, vacations, etc) and take it as a business write off, which not only reduces their tax liability but also decreases the amount of money the company has for things like raises for employees. Then they have me run the profit numbers for the year and cut thems a bonus check for that exact amount so that they will only pay personal taxes on it (which are collected at a lower rate then business taxes are). In effect, they paid no taxes at all on the money that was used to pay for the personal expense mentioned above, and if the company goes broke trying to pay those bills they aren't personally liable for them anyway. I'm sorry, but why is it fair that they should be able to take advantage of accounting rules to both cheat the IRS and their employees? Sure, it's legal, but it's unethical as hell, and virtually everyone does it.
The point I'm trying to make is that everyone keeps pointing the finger at big business when it's ALL business owners (or most of them) that are the problem. There is a belief in this country that just because you own the company that all the profits should go to you, and while I can see why people might feel that way it ignores the obvious fact that you couldn't make those profits without the help of your employees, and that they should have as much right to share in the profits as you do. That is not communism or socialism, it's simple fair play.
Now, the counter arguement is that the owner/investor is the one taking the risk, and that he deserves to be compensated for that risk, since he's also the one that has to bear any losses. Problem is, that argument is only sort of true today, because just about anyone can set up a corporation so that they are only personally liable for losses up to the amount of their investment. Thus, they are gaining the benefits of having little or no risk while also enjoying the benefit of all the profits. Obviously something is wrong with the ethics in this situation, but it's common practice in America today.
In my opinion, the way to close the gap requires a couple of steps:
First, the accounting rules need to be changed so that companies do not get to write off expenses for things like cars and vacations for executives. It's too easy to cheat under the current rules, and it encourages unethical behavior. There is no reason why a companies owners should be able to drive an 85K car and take his families on weeklong expenses on the companies dime, but it happens every day. Accounting is supposed to provide people with accurate information, it is not supposed to be used as a tool to hide the profits from the IRS.
Second, there needs to be a limit on owner/executive pay and compensation that is directly tied to how much their employees are making. If an owner is limited to making 10x the amount of their lowest paid employee they can still get rich, but not by holding down wages and screwing the employees that make their profit possible. Your employees are also going to be willing to put in a lot more effort if they know that they are going to be sharing in the rewards, not just making their $10 or $15/hr paycheck.
I'm an accountant, and i know from the inside just how badly Americas SMALL business owners are gaming and cheating the system (and their employees). The company I work for showed a big fat zero for profit last year, but do you really think that means the owners didn't make a ton of money? They use the company to pay personal expense (like their cars, insurance, gas, vacations, etc) and take it as a business write off, which not only reduces their tax liability but also decreases the amount of money the company has for things like raises for employees. Then they have me run the profit numbers for the year and cut thems a bonus check for that exact amount so that they will only pay personal taxes on it (which are collected at a lower rate then business taxes are). In effect, they paid no taxes at all on the money that was used to pay for the personal expense mentioned above, and if the company goes broke trying to pay those bills they aren't personally liable for them anyway. I'm sorry, but why is it fair that they should be able to take advantage of accounting rules to both cheat the IRS and their employees? Sure, it's legal, but it's unethical as hell, and virtually everyone does it.
The point I'm trying to make is that everyone keeps pointing the finger at big business when it's ALL business owners (or most of them) that are the problem. There is a belief in this country that just because you own the company that all the profits should go to you, and while I can see why people might feel that way it ignores the obvious fact that you couldn't make those profits without the help of your employees, and that they should have as much right to share in the profits as you do. That is not communism or socialism, it's simple fair play.
Now, the counter arguement is that the owner/investor is the one taking the risk, and that he deserves to be compensated for that risk, since he's also the one that has to bear any losses. Problem is, that argument is only sort of true today, because just about anyone can set up a corporation so that they are only personally liable for losses up to the amount of their investment. Thus, they are gaining the benefits of having little or no risk while also enjoying the benefit of all the profits. Obviously something is wrong with the ethics in this situation, but it's common practice in America today.
In my opinion, the way to close the gap requires a couple of steps:
First, the accounting rules need to be changed so that companies do not get to write off expenses for things like cars and vacations for executives. It's too easy to cheat under the current rules, and it encourages unethical behavior. There is no reason why a companies owners should be able to drive an 85K car and take his families on weeklong expenses on the companies dime, but it happens every day. Accounting is supposed to provide people with accurate information, it is not supposed to be used as a tool to hide the profits from the IRS.
Second, there needs to be a limit on owner/executive pay and compensation that is directly tied to how much their employees are making. If an owner is limited to making 10x the amount of their lowest paid employee they can still get rich, but not by holding down wages and screwing the employees that make their profit possible. Your employees are also going to be willing to put in a lot more effort if they know that they are going to be sharing in the rewards, not just making their $10 or $15/hr paycheck.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
The more rules you have the more you prove the people don't have faith in the system.
The reason that socialism works on paper, but not in the real world is the same reason capitalism doesn't work, all agents need complete and accurate information. Not to mention there is no way, when any profit is worked in, to make on party better off without necessarily making another worse off. Its called the pareto efficiency, it can be mathematically proven.
There is no need for more when the only thing, death, will leave you with nothing. To elucidate, to help yourself you must help society.
Peace
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Really good post for a look into the accountants perspective on this issue, since you are the ones with your eyes on the books you would see the shit first hand. And that does seem like a very good way to go about it, not sure about only 10x because if you are running a huge corporation you will have entry level slots for basically minimum wage and I don't see an exec being cool with $80 an hour which would put them around 200k a year if they worked 50 hours a week.
With all the rules out there, there can be a rewriting and come up with far fewer and be more efficient. The problem is nobody trusts anyone enough to allow them to make the needed changes. Eventually (a loong loong ways off in the future) our system will have to essentially 'reboot' and we will have to rewrite all the rules like every civilization has done throughout history.