Forum Post: Some Call It Socialism, Others Common Sense
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 8:10 a.m. EST by matburn81
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
One day I decided to read a Forbes magazine, the September 18, 2010 edition. There was an article titled “Obama’s Problem with Business” by Dinesh D’Souza, the current President of King’s College in NYC. The article is a great place to see the insanity of ultra-right wing Republicanism in our day.
One thing of the many things that irked me was D’Souza’s obnoxious “the rich already are taxed too much; it’s not fair” attitude. First, it made me realize why I don’t like the rich-deserve-to-get-richer brainwashing that the magazine spews. Second, it prompted me to do a little research. When you total the income taxes, estate taxes, and real estate/property taxes of the top 10% of Americans, they account for 70% of federal and state taxes paid. For D’Souza and others, this is robbery. Why should the top 10% of America pay 70% of the taxes?!? The side they leave UNTOLD is that the top 10% of Americans own 73% of America’s wealth.
For some, taxing the wealthy and holding the Wall Street players accountable for their mistakes is called Socialism. For others, it’s called Common Sense.
So you think that a corrupt government (OWS own words) should be responsible for redistributing the money. Do you really believe that the government is going to send you a "cut-of-the-proceeds" from the increase in taxes on the rich? If they were capable of doing it right, OWS won't be OWS. You are naive.
I don't want socialism or redistribution of income. I just want and end to the corruption of government. The wealthy just happen to be the ones doing the corrupting. I do not want their money. They can keep their money. More to the point, they need to keep their money out of my government! Because it is my government too! It belongs to all of us, not just the 1%
You are not ows
I am part of the 1%. The only money that I give to the government is my tax money. Not all of the 1% is buying-off congressman.
If you are not corrupting the government with your money, then why do you say you are part of the 1%
It has been my understanding that the OWS is targeting the rich. I am starting to see some more level heads prevail. OWS needs to target the small minority of the rich that cause all the problems. I am part of the 99%.....that is....the 99% of the rich that don't use their money for diabolical purposes.
Most "rich people" actually have a heart. They give to charity, raise a family, and treat their employees like human beings. Of course.....that never makes the headlines.
dispite the rhetoric, the real message isn't about the RICH...it is about WEALTH. Rich folks buy lots of goodies and get new cars regularly and have nice homes and maybe staff to help with the work. WEALTH is controlled by very, very few. These WEALTHY control large portions of the entire economy, not just large sums of money. The wealthy are not even individuals so much as corporate entities who , collectively, buy and sell our very government away from us...largely with our own consent, so concerned are we with protecting the RICH, which we all hope to be, or feel is an earned distinction anyway. But WEALTH is more than individual rich people.
Most of those here who believe they are part of the 1% are in fact probably at best in the top 10%. You pay taxes, contribute to charity, donate a scholarship or two and can afford to live quite nicely. You work hard and want a nice world for your children to grow up in.
The wealthy...a much harder group to identify...we only see their minions...the men and women who occupy boardrooms and send out phalanxes of lobbyists to ensure they system continues to work for them and less for the vast majority of us. Yes...we still have a middle class, a petty bourgoisie...for now, but it is tipping toward a world where it is the very wealthy, those who work for them, and the vasty vastness of the rest of us who are soon to be very dispensible--no need for our labor to make widgets for us to buy which we can no longer afford. no need to keep the trains running or the water or air clean now we've deregulated to their satisfaction...soon it will be let em eat cake and nevermind there's only mudpies. Democracy should not be a purchasable commodity.
It can get a little crazy out here sometimes! I'm glad you have spent the time to gain a better understanding.
My #1 "hope" is Election Reform. To take all of the money out of the political system. I do not have anything against wealth. And of course rich people have hearts! I believe all people are fundamentally good! But certain wealthy people and entities use their wealth to buy their representation in government. 1% buys their representation, 99% are left with the scraps. This is the root cause of so many of our problems.
Its simply unfair. And it is not the way our democracy was meant to be. Welcome to the 99%. It's not all that crazy is it?
One of the problems is that the "rich" have a paranoia about being the "target" of everyone's anger. If both sides could calm down a bit....we might be able to accomplish some good together. Remember...the rich have a lot of money. It could be put to some "common good" uses. I would like to see us all become the 100%.
I agree. That would be most desirable. However, I think that may be difficult to attain short term. Not because the 99% would be against including them , the 1%, per se. But I fear that the 1% will not support an end to their monied influence.
Long term - yes. God willing we achieve Election Reform. We become 100% all with fair and equal representation.
Its obvious your definition of fair is different from D'Souza. That is why it is utterly pointless to use phrases which are subjective - like fair, and common sense.
So, you are saying the tax burden is pretty fair then, right? 70%/73% So, not much need to change things then?
Where do you think the "Rich" get the money to pay Obama's taxes? Every time you buy anything or pay rent you are paying THEIR TAXES! The cost of everything goes up. Obama is pushing a Socialist Aristocracy. If the people wanted Communism or Socialism it would have happened during the Great Depression.
Where do you think the "Rich" get the money to pay Obama's taxes? Every time you buy anything or pay rent you are paying THEIR TAXES! The cost of everything goes up. Obama is pushing a Socialist Aristocracy. If the people wanted Communism or Socialism it would have happened during the Great Depression.
I just don't think that people are fully acquainted with the notion that 2005 to 2007 were bubble years that will never come back again whether or not we have a free market system or a socialist system, and its got nothing to do with laziness. The next few years should change the minds of a lot of people.
Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.
So please JOIN the 2nd link, so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for by e-mail from the group in the 2nd link, and then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the strategy of the 1st link as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.
Andrey Pogudin is from Russia and actually joined a Socialist party group in London, yet he's now a banker at RBS and, putting aside taxes, he does not even pay his child support for his own son! It makes little sense that people who have so much, more than they could ever possibly need for themselves, can be so amazingly greedy, but when you have a banker who will not even pay the nominal amount of child support he is obliged to pay (FAR less than his tax bill), it should be no surprise that higher taxes are so strongly opposed.
The government gets plenty of taxes from everyone. Even those who make so little they don't pay income taxes pay taxes on purchases and services they use. The government just doesn't audit itself to delete waste. The government is too big and complex to regulate itself. It is to distant from the people. I think it is an object barrelling down a steep hill accumulating everything it can until it reaches the bottom and bursts apart. No one can stop it. It is enevitable.
Typical spew from someone who probably doesn't know squat about economics - tool - The only really FAIR way to make sure everyone is paying their "fair share" is a flat tax - Straight up 9% - that is what my actual tax has been the last 10 years and counting - Just think of all the government waste that could be reduced by that - an IRS department cut down to just a few hundred- instead of the thousands they currently have to have - Now THAT is common sense - reduce government by making those depts. obsolete.
Typical spew from someone who probably doesn't know squat about economics - tool - The only really FAIR way to make sure everyone is paying their "fair share" is a flat tax - Straight up 9% - that is what my actual tax has been the last 10 years and counting - Just think of all the government waste that could be reduced by that - an IRS department cut down to just a few hundred- instead of the thousands they currently have to have - Now THAT is common sense - reduce government by making those depts. obsolete.
No, it's not common sense. It's punishing people for succeeding and saying that nobody has the right to enjoy the fruits of their labors and successes.
Because the top 10% of Americans are the only ones working hard enough to pay for the 49% who don't pay taxes.
You ignoramuses don't even know what you are protesting. If it wasn't for Corporate America you wouldn't be able to Twitter on your iPhone. Go back to your parents basements.
Wrong, if it wasn't for the blue collard workers there would be no corporate America, or anything for that matter. I'm pretty sure America was established with hard physical work, not numbers and financial bs. Its incredible that people who provide nothing physical to this world get all the physical benefits and those who do provide physical things get the bare minimum in comparison. But it's not just America, it's the same story all over, because oh ya, the elite are all connected and running the show. I work in a shipyard, I'm a machinist and I repair ships, I would say I know what hard work is. So what do you do? Now get back under your bosses desk.
If it wasn't for corporate America there would be no war.
If it wasn't for corporate America there would be no dioxin dumped in the rivers.
If it wasn't for corporate America there would be no hydrofracking or deforestation.
I can live without twitter and iphones, but not without clean air and water.
Corporate America, the war mongers of the entire world. Geez, get a clue.
Pretty much, though it's not just America alone, it's capitalism in general.
They bombed Vietnam and Cambodia to stop social experiments that would throw out the french colonists.
They placed an embargo and launched the bay of pigs invasion on Cuba when it had a social revolution.
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are all about securing Oil interests.
Most wars are about expanding the capitalist economy.
You really believe that? Wars have been an unfortunate part of the human condition since time began. Capitalism is a rather new thing when put into the timeline of history. Care to explain the other 99% of the wars that have occurred? And yes, you said most, so start explaining them.
And you are another one of those who has bought into the myth that recent wars have been about "securing oil interests". No doubt the presence of oil is a factor, however "securing oil interests". If that was true, then we would have that oil flowing to the US. But we don't. That's kind of hard to explain, huh? Also, if it was about securing oil interests, as you say, why go into Afghanistan where there is no oil?
It would be best if you didn't just blindly repeat myths that you have heard.
But go ahead, show how "most" wars are about "expanding the capitalist economy". Go ahead. You said it. You just can't back it up.
If they poured the oil into the US, how would they make any money? Its enough for them to control it all and scarely provide it to us. The oil that is. Even though that's not what this is about.
That is so ridiculous. You say "they". Who are "they" who is constricting the flow of oil? Other than the cartel known as OPEC and the Obama administration who has restricted the exploration and production of domestic supplies.
There's a pipeline in Afghanistan - the project started in 2002, it would not have been able to occur were it not for the invasion. This is to produce profits for the global capitalist economy, at the cost of fucking over the lives of thousands of innocent afghans.
I'll explain wars in a tribal context of the aboriginals of Australia, who existed for 120,000 years without capitalism, agriculture and industry.
Keep in mind, I am not aboriginal myself so their may be inaccuracies but this is how it goes as far as I know.
They followed a very sophisticated pattern of society which was modeled around a symbiosis with nature. They passed this knowledge through song, dance, story and poetry. They organized their marriages and relationships in a way that saw no imbalances.
When the was occurrences of too many children or people, they practiced infanticide or the men went to battle with a neighboring tribe.
The men who chose not to battle gave up their women and right to have children.
That is how they managed balance, and were able to survive for hundred's of thousands of years without doing what we do - destroying the planet.
Our wars kill innocent people. We wage them for resources. Whenever a country has a social experiment - like Vietnam, America bombs them into the ground.
This forces the communist party to industrialize and militarize, in order to defend the country from the capitalists and engage in the global capitalist economy.
Some communist countries went wrong - North Korea became an authoritarian dictator ship. Mao failed to disband the communist party, as did Stalin.
The reason is that the revolution must be global, with all workers across the globe. Then there would be no need for a military industrial complex.
Wow. You are obviously a fan of communism. At least you agree on the failures that I pointed out. The Viet Cong were nice people? Not, hardly. So you seem to like the aboriginal way of life. So, I guess the next time we have too many people you will kill your children. And maybe if you and your daddon't go to battle, then I get your wife and mother?
Were the American marines who gunned down innocent villagers and dropped agent orange on them nice people?
War is unpleasant. But who invaded who, and for what reason.
It would be stupid for anyone to assert complete sanctity on either side of any war. But in Viet Nam, the rebels started in the south and invaded the north. The US assisted the north. That was done to stem the expansion of communism in that area of the world.
Are you really a fan of communism?
The french had colonized Vietnam beforehand. The west was interested in keeping the french colony for their coffee trade.
The land belonged to the people of Vietnam, not the french, or the Americans.
Yes, I am a fan of communism, socialism, and freedom.
Socialism looks after people. There's thousands of Americans living in tents right now. Their impoverished, they can't afford healthcare, and there isn't enough jobs, and their never will be.
It's the nature of capitalism. You either exploit others, or be exploited. It doesn't work.
So, this is all about the french. You are so laughable. Capitalism does work, it's just not perfect. No other system has raised standards of living as capitalism has. Not to be crass, but those living in tents, as you say, are living in much better tents than those living in tents in non capitalistic systems.
You still haven't pointed out an instance in history where communism or socialism has worked. And I'm not interested in hearing about the aborigines who practiced infanticide.
Honestly, If I had a choice to live in Cuba or America, I'd choose Cuba.
If I got sick I'd be taken care of and not left to die.
You do have a choice. If, of course, Cuba is a free country.
Governments, at the behest of the wealthy, start wars over financial interests and resources. Communist governments, at the behest of the rich, seize control over financial interests and resources then use that power over who gets to eat/work/live to control the masses. Capitalist governments are vulnerable to fascism. There is no easy solution here, no easy answer. And anyone who offers you the solution like a can of soda is either dangerous or stupid or an opportunist. There is no system that will inherently prevent exploitation by the rich.
Not sure why I can't reply to your Luparb, but what systems exist where capital cannot be accumulated? Where is that happening? Where is there no rich?
a communist government which is truly adhering to it's theory is transitory.
There exists systems in which capital cannot be accumulated, therefore 'the rich' do not exist and therefore cannot exploit.
In regards to the "capitalism vs. socialism" debate, my personal preference is Geoism. I think geoism transcends such a dichotomy by taking the best of both and leaving the rest behind.
See http://www.progress.org/geo.html http://www.truefreetrade.org/scg.htm
Ask yourself, "Who does the earth belong to?" Does it belong to a handful of corporations? Or does it belong to all of us human beings? I'll go with the latter.
How much do you think the land on Wall St. is worth? Do you think an acre of land on Wall St. is worth more than an acre of land out in the middle of rural Iowa? I'm guessing, "Yes...a whole lot more!!"
But why would the land on Wall St. be worth so much more,other than by virtue of its location? Is not the location value of Wall St. land a result of things like public works projects paid for by taxpayers? Why should those Wall St. folks pocket an increase in value that was created by the community? Ought not that value go back to the community, say in the form of a land value tax, (i.e., "compensate the community")?
How come these corporations get to reap all the natural benefits of the earth, like oil, coal, natural gas, raw minerals...heck even the electromagnetic spectrum for things like broadcasting! Do not the natural resources rightfully belong to all of us?
If so,ought not these corporations be compensating us for all this monopolistic access to the earth. Why not? It's our earth, not theirs, right?
It makes one wonder...how much of the wealth of these corporations is actually EARNED! I'm guessing not nearly as much as D'Souza thinks, which in turn should make people like D'Souza re-think who's really doing the robbing, and who's being robbed!
The top 3 percent own 48 percent of the taxable wealth. The top 20 percent own 80 percent of the taxable wealth, leaving the bottom 80 percent of the United States population with 20 percent of the taxable wealth, which is mostly accumulated after the age of 55. 98 percent of African-Americans dont have taxable wealth. Basically, the vast majority of the American public live the majority of their lives owing more than they have, allowing the super rich to impose interest and ludicrous rates on 'high-risk' loans to those without collateral...A vicious cycle if I have ever seen one!
what ludicrous rate are you referring to?
APR of 25 percent and higher are criminal...
Then why borrow at that rate? Just say no.
Unfortuntely some people have little choice. When they are forced to work a job at minimum wage job to re-pay college loans, pay their rent, feed their family and function within a society that revolves around consumerism. Lets not pretend that people have the luxury of choice, because most of us do not!
That used to be called the school of hard knocks. Looks like a lot of economic decisions that were made there. No one forced anyone to take out college loans. An option is to take more time to get through school so you can work to pay more of the cost in cash instead of incurring debt. The starting of families can be postponed. That has been done by a lot of people throughout history. No one said life is, or can be fair.
Consumerism is the culprit? The fact that you have a large array of goods and services available for purchase is a problem? If you are accessing this via a smart phone......you really don't need a smart phone. Really.
Life can be fair...sorry to hear of your pessimistic views. The school of hard knocks is outdated and not suitable for the possibilities of what life could be...its called progression. I'm also sorry to hear that you think life can be lived according to guidlines that people so irresponsibly ignore. What do you benefit from this way of life? Would like it to be easier?
Connsumerism is based on supply-side economics and that only leads to the explotation of the global work force. It keeps the rich people rich and the lower classes lower. Yes, people can obtain socio-econimc individually and that is what is promoted because it keeps the rich people rich. Socio-economic mobility can be obtained easier collectively and this would benefit more people without lending themselves to evils of capitalism, consumerism and their culture of greed!
No, life is never going to be fair. Not as long as humans are involved. It's not even fair in the animal kingdom. And its funny how you have pronounced the death of the school of hard knocks. Let's make sure we don't have to make any sacrifices.
So, communism is the answer? Why? What hint do you have throughout history that it works?
I don not advocate for communism. Socialism does work in many different forms...ie Denmark.
We as humans can remove ourselves from impulse thinking towards abstract thought...that is the single thing that seperates humans from other species. Ideas are what democracy is all about. Do you think we are born with the concepts of greed and wealth, or are they part of our learned behavior?
Greed and wealth are part of the human condition, since the time when man competed for the best cave. You people who think there is such a thing as utopia are just dreaming. That does not, and will not and cannot exist on earth.
How do you account for the capitalist portion of the Danish economy? What evil must exist within the confines of socialism, eh?
Survival is a part of human condition, greed and wealth are learned behaviors... The point of the Danish economy isnt private vs public property. It is the fact that everybody pays 70 percent tax and the public services are remarkable as a result. Nobody is advocating for removing the private sector from any country's economy. The are saying that those who benefit from the social contract of the public sector should pay a progressive tax that reflects their portion of the private wealth.
Greed and wealth are integral to survival. So, Denmark is this utopia here on earth, huh? They are nice people, but if we relied on the Danes to improve standards of living for the world, we would be waiting a long time.
Well their standard of living is higher than ours in many, many respects - for all!
Very arguable. I'm not telling you to leave because you can stay if you want. But if it's so much better there, then why not go?
Replies like this make you a very unknowledgable fellow... have a nice life
If it is agreed that they have a standard of living that is higher than ours in many, many respects, then why is it that hundreds of thousands of people enter the US illegally instead of Denmark?
"Survival is a part of human condition, greed and wealth are learned behaviors"
Do you have any way to prove this statement? Please, provide me that evidence.
Government is the cohort of big business, correct? So how is relying on government to do anything a solution?
If people are progressing, why don't we progress away from government in total?