asdfsdiofjioasdf

[dsavi]

This was me talking about politics before I had had time to give my opinions a lot of thought. Nowadays I mostly disagree with the way that I chose to express them here, so they're gone.

[Toxic388]

The image of socialism and communism set by USSR makes the americans stay the hell away from it. If people knew the idea of socialism and how to run it, there'd be no unemployment, unfair tax distribution, poverty.

[deloriagod]

The image of socialism and communism set by USSR makes the americans stay the hell away from it.

 

 

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Americans are scared of things like socialism and communism because they've only really seen them in play in situations like the USSR and have attached a negative stigma to them.

 

 

 

I would like to see capitalism done away with and instead have socialism used in America. But I'm afraid it's just not going to happen any time soon for said reason.

[Sam]

I reckon it would be quite good in America, but it's a shame that they attach a negative badge onto it after the USSR.

[Quoi_Tu]

I dislike pure socialism, but also dislike pure capitalism. The best mix involves a fairly capitalist market with social programs to support the lower income part of the population. The US is currently lopsided favoring the wealthy over the poor and I think that as soon as that is switched we will have a much better system. Edit: To explain that last sentence, the tax structure and some other laws favor the wealthy when allowing them to have more money doesn't help the economy as much as allowing lower income individuals to have more money. In short, people who make less spend a larger part of what they make than people who make more. Wealthy individuals save a lot of their money.

 

 

 

However, you don't really talk about businesses within a socialist economy, which is a big part of the ideal. Do you prefer the government to own the majority of business or for private enterprise? I favor less government owned business because the government then acts like a monopoly, keeping the private sector from starting businesses of a similar nature.

 

 

 

The image of socialism and communism set by USSR makes the americans stay the hell away from it. If people knew the idea of socialism and how to run it, there'd be no unemployment, unfair tax distribution, poverty.

 

 

 

No unemployment is not necessarily a good thing because that would lead one to believe there is little job mobility. If I quit my job at the university, then it could be a few weeks or maybe a month before I get hired at another job. During that time I'm unemployed, but that's not a bad thing (in this case).

[Housepig]

The bullet points outlining socialism seem to describe a good system of government, or at least a good part of one, and one that is perfectly compatible with any form of Democracy. I'm not sure if I am differentiating correctly here, but when it goes to far and becomes Communism, wheer everyone is (theoretically) equal, it is (ironically) a highly unfair system: people are not equal by nature; they should not be so by status.

[Rebdragon]

Never been a fan, never going to be a fan. It's a nice idea and it really does improve general standard of living, but beyond that it essentially serves no other purpose but to hurt the economy, both federally and in the private sector.

 

 

 

Oh ya, and this "taxes favor the rich" bull [cabbage] needs to stop.

 

 

 

The top 1% of taxpayers pay [bleep]ing 40% of the income taxes. The top 5% pay 60%. The bottom half pay 3%.

 

 

 

Ya, right, let's get all Robin Hood on their [wagon]. The US government's totally robbing the poor.

[Dracion1]

Because people are ignorant and don't know any better. I'd say the US has typically been a right wing country (and to an extent the UK too). I get the impression that a lot of people in the US attribute socialism to communism, which links back to the cold war and how people were 'educated' to believe that the system of communism run in the USSR was 'evil'.. The collapse of the USSR hasn't helped this much, and simply it's too soon after that for people to 'accept' what the truth really is. I think the political compass sums it up best. (Horizontal scale is economical, Vertical scale is social)

 

 

 

Notable persona in the the recent US election:

 

 

 

 

Comparison of other notable figures:

 

 

 

 

People assume that socialism will be similar to the ideas of Stalin (Authoritarian), so therefore will turn against it; when infact it is really at the different end of the social scale (vertical).

[Rebdragon]

Because people are ignorant and don't know any better.

 

I feel like I read this at least three times a page in political threads. If some right wing punk came in here and said something as offensive as that (without any prior justification to boot), what would happen? Gang rape I'd assume, at the very least.

 

 

 

And no, socialism and libertarianism don't exactly flow well together (if I'm reading what you're saying right), regardless of the existence of utopian idea of libertarian socialism. Socialism is on the topside of that graph, but not as high as communism.

[Quoi_Tu]

Never been a fan, never going to be a fan. It's a nice idea and it really does improve general standard of living, but beyond that it essentially serves no other purpose but to hurt the economy when it's already in bad enough shape as it is.

 

 

 

Oh ya, and this "taxes favor the rich" bull [cabbage] needs to stop.

 

 

 

The top 1% of taxpayers pay [bleep] 40% of the income taxes. The top 5% pay 60%. The bottom half pay 3%.

 

 

 

Ya, right, let's get all Robin Hood on their [wagon]. The US government's totally robbing the poor.

 

 

 

They pay a lot because they have a lot. 35% (the going $350k tax rate) of $350,000 is still ~$225,000. It's quite easy to live luxuriously on $225k (or lets say $200k after state), but not so easy to live comfortably on $25,000. Also, when stimulating the economy, you want to give the poor more money because they will spend more of it instead of saving it. In other words, less taxes on the poor increases their spending, boosting the economy. Less taxes on the rich don't do much.

[l0l0lpur32]

Although capitalism makes people unequally rich, socialism just makes everyone equally poor.

[Rebdragon]

They pay a lot because they have a lot. 35% (the going $350k tax rate) of $350,000 is still ~$225,000. It's quite easy to live luxuriously on $225k (or lets say $200k after state), but not so easy to live comfortably on $25,000.

 

Honest answer, apart from the already stated fact that the rich pay a crapload of the taxes as it is?: Tough cookies, it's their money, they earned it.

 

 

 

Also, when stimulating the economy, you want to give the poor more money because they will spend more of it instead of saving it. In other words, less taxes on the poor increases their spending, boosting the economy. Less taxes on the rich don't do much.

 

If you seriously think that the fact that the rich "save" their money means they hurt the economy, I really don't know what to tell you other than you need to take an econ class. Or google the word "stock" at the very least.

 

 

 

Brief lesson: The rich understand that keeping their money in saving's accounts hurts them in the long run because of inflation. That's where things like bonds and stocks come in. These investments support the economy in both the private and public sector.

[Yomyth105]

In a socialism/communist society the upperclass must pay the lower class so that the two classes are balanced. Eventually it will evolve into being that everyone has the same pay, the same house, the same value. This will then be known as a utopia but people are not perfect so this will never work. Why must the hard working who make alot of money give their money to the poor. I dont care if it would help the economy become stable rather than up and down. its just not right.

 

 

 

that is where communism fails.

[Rebdragon]

In a socialism/communist society the upperclass must pay the lower class so that the two classes are balanced. Eventually it will evolve into being that everyone has the same pay, the same house, the same value. This will then be known as a utopia but people are not perfect so this will never work. Why must the hard working who make alot of money give their money to the poor. I dont care if it would help the economy become stable rather than up and down. its just not right.

 

 

 

that is where communism fails.

 

But socialism works; it doesn't go that far.

[dangeresque]

 

Oh ya, and this "taxes favor the rich" bull [cabbage] needs to stop.

 

 

 

The top 1% of taxpayers pay [bleep] 40% of the income taxes. The top 5% pay 60%. The bottom half pay 3%.

 

 

 

Ya, right, let's get all Robin Hood on their [wagon]. The US government's totally robbing the poor.

 

Wisdom.

[Yomyth105]

In a socialism/communist society the upperclass must pay the lower class so that the two classes are balanced. Eventually it will evolve into being that everyone has the same pay, the same house, the same value. This will then be known as a utopia but people are not perfect so this will never work. Why must the hard working who make alot of money give their money to the poor. I dont care if it would help the economy become stable rather than up and down. its just not right.

 

 

 

that is where communism fails.

 

But socialism works; it doesn't go that far.

 

 

 

true but Obama imo will go further and truly make this socialism higher into a communistic level. that is why i dont support him. democrats tend to do socialism but Obama is all over it. i think this nation will turn into a communism. i hope not :pray:

 

 

 

its also unright to take money from 200k+ and give to poor. i say just tax big money oil companies and put tariffs and perhaps we can turn the economy around. a socialism wont solve anything longterm.

[Quoi_Tu]

Also, when stimulating the economy, you want to give the poor more money because they will spend more of it instead of saving it. In other words, less taxes on the poor increases their spending, boosting the economy. Less taxes on the rich don't do much.

 

If you seriously think that the fact that the rich "save" their money means they hurt the economy, I really don't know what to tell you other than you need to take an econ class. Or google the word "stock" at the very least.

 

 

 

Brief lesson: The rich understand that keeping their money in saving's accounts hurts them in the long run because of inflation. That's where things like bonds and stocks come in. These investments support the economy in both the private and public sector.

 

 

 

Saving doesn't hurt the economy, and I never said it did... Stocks don't help the economy either. After they've been sold by the company, there is no addition to GDP through stock trading.

 

 

 

I guess I haven't been very clear, or coherent. I'm refering to what is called the marginal propensity to consume, which is the increase in consumer spending when disposable income rises by $1. The higher it is the higher consumer spending increases per $1 of disposable income. Its been found that fiscal policies benefiting lower income individuals gives a greater increase in real GDP. Such as reducing the tax rate from 15% to 10% (for those that apply). However, policies such as reducing dividends and capital gains shows little to no increase in real GDP. If I was confusing, I apologize, but I hope this sheds some light on where I was coming from.

 

 

 

I'll sign up for that econ class now :D

[Skull]

Because people are ignorant and don't know any better. I'd say the US has typically been a right wing country (and to an extent the UK too). I get the impression that a lot of people in the US attribute socialism to communism, which links back to the cold war and how people were 'educated' to believe that the system of communism run in the USSR was 'evil'.. The collapse of the USSR hasn't helped this much, and simply it's too soon after that for people to 'accept' what the truth really is. I think the political compass sums it up best. (Horizontal scale is economical, Vertical scale is social)

 

 

 

Notable persona in the the recent US election:

 

 

 

 

Comparison of other notable figures:

 

 

 

 

People assume that socialism will be similar to the ideas of Stalin (Authoritarian), so therefore will turn against it; when infact it is really at the different end of the social scale (vertical).

 

I remember taking that, I was slightly below and to the left of Stalin if I remember correctly. :lol:

[deloriagod]

 

true but Obama imo will go further and truly make this socialism higher into a communistic level. that is why i dont support him. democrats tend to do socialism but Obama is all over it. i think this nation will turn into a communism. i hope not :pray:

 

 

 

This is why you and your parents' biased views need to stay out of political threads. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is absolutely no way the U.S. will ever become a communist country. We have a worse stigma attached to that than socialism and part of our reasons for going into some wars was to spread democracy and stop communism. You're an idiot for thinking the U.S. even has a slim chance of becoming communist.

 

 

 

*Note: I do know what communism is and I think it will never work like it's intended. Please don't view me as some commy hating redneck.

[Lionheart_0]

Every time I see this argument I simply make sure people remember that many northern European countries, and Canada are socialist pretty much... Aren't we doing pretty good ourselves? If it works for us, why couldn't it work for the USA?

[l0l0lpur32]

 

true but Obama imo will go further and truly make this socialism higher into a communistic level. that is why i dont support him. democrats tend to do socialism but Obama is all over it. i think this nation will turn into a communism. i hope not :pray:

 

 

 

its also unright to take money from 200k+ and give to poor. i say just tax big money oil companies and put tariffs and perhaps we can turn the economy around. a socialism wont solve anything longterm.

 

Do you even understand what you just wrote?

[Deiophobus]

Yomyth, I thought we told you that you weren't allowed to post in any real discussion threads until you graduated from the 3rd grade.

[Rebdragon]

Saving doesn't hurt the economy, and I never said it did... Stocks don't help the economy either. After they've been sold by the company, there is no addition to GDP through stock trading.

 

 

 

I guess I haven't been very clear, or coherent. I'm refering to what is called the marginal propensity to save, which is the increase in consumer spending when disposable income rises by $1. The higher it is the higher consumer spending increases per $1 of disposable income. Its been found that fiscal policies benefiting lower income individuals gives a greater increase in real GDP. Such as reducing the tax rate from 15% to 10% (for those that apply). However, policies such as reducing dividends and capital gains shows little to no increase in real GDP. If I was confusing, I apologize, but I hope this sheds some light on where I was coming from.

 

 

 

I'll sign up for that econ class now :D

 

What I'm confused about is, according to that study (source?), communist states should have optimal GDP, as the rich and poor are given more equality, as in your example. But somewhere that trend must break down, because the former statement is not true.

 

 

 

Every time I see this argument I simply make sure people remember that many northern European countries, and Canada are socialist pretty much... Aren't we doing pretty good ourselves? If it works for us, why couldn't it work for the USA?

 

I've noted before that standard of living is amazing in those countries, but economically they are generally weak because of socialism. I get that heightening the standard of living is nice, I'd be a psycho if I didn't, but the trade-off with the national economy is too much in my opinion.

[dsavi]

dafsdaf

[ThurinEthir]

The thing I always tell the few people who blast socialism at my school - Stop listening to everything your parents and the government are feeding you. Learn to think for yourself.

 

I won't say that here though (Though with yomyth...), as most of you bring up some really good points. I kind of lean socialist, I suppose. I'm surprised that though I live in a town with ridiculously wealthy people, I'm not dead yet. What surprises me more? Some of those people are socialist as well.