Are you hoping for American Socialism to fail?

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I am.

Everytime the market drops, I am glad. They should be punished for this crap.

Back to free capitalism.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The Obama administration will last 8 years. If he leaves with the economy in fairly good shape (whether or not it's thru no fault of his own), then maybe another 8 years of a progrssive liberal agenda- which includes a definitive shift towards socialism.

Up or down, we may need to learn to live with it.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Which is why I hope it fails. Ughh...government involved in every aspect of our lives, no incentives to get ahead in life....just redistribution of wealth.

 

[Денг Гордон]

What's so bad about socialism, as long as they don't get carried away with taxing? If they keep it at the Clinton level tax rates, I don't see it being as a problem.

 

[Denny Crane]

What's so bad about socialism, as long as they don't get carried away with taxing? If they keep it at the Clinton level tax rates, I don't see it being as a problem.

When you want to see a doctor and it's like the DMV, you may change your tune. It's really bad when they tell you where to go to get groceries and all they have is corn or potatoes.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

What's so bad about socialism, as long as they don't get carried away with taxing? If they keep it at the Clinton level tax rates, I don't see it being as a problem.

I just don't agree with redistribution of wealth, government controlling our lives and a cascading taxation system.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I just don't agree with redistribution of wealth, government controlling our lives and a cascading taxation system.

I agree. There have been lengthy studies completed relating taxation & social spending and the direct effect on that and the rise & decline of countries. According to the studies, we're way over the top with too much taxation & social spending. And I would agree that our country is clearly on the decline.

 

[Tortimer]

I'm hoping for it to fail and I have no doubt that it will fail big time. It hasn't worked any place else. That is the only good thing about Obama winning over McCain. McCain isn't really my cup of tea and only his foreign policy is anything I like about him. I could see it possibly looking like Obama's socialism is working but it will not be good by the time he leaves in 8 years. IMO this will be the last of the Democrat presidents for a while after the 8 years of Obama.

 

[Minstrel]

Back to free capitalism.

There hasn't been "free capitalism" in the US for at least the last century-plus. And there isn't a democracy in the world that is pure capitalism.

So, socialism won't fail, because it's proven to be a central desire for every democracy, at least in the modern era. As for specific socialistic policies, it's very much a case-by-case basis. I don't wish for pure socialism anymore than I wish for pure capitalism.

 

[mook]

Socialism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism....meh. I'm for whatever solution results in the highest degree of happiness for a society. It's funny how we spend so much time worrying about GDP, taxes, job numbers, etc., and so little time thinking about what makes Americans actually happy, and what policies are likely to make them more happy.

If our newly socialized banking system fails, will it really lead to greater happiness? Maybe among a few smug free marketers, but for the rest of us the complete collapse of our financial institutions would be a disaster. I find it really hard to understand how anyone can hope for a massive depression just to make a point about Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Seems pretty petty.

 

[Denny Crane]

Socialism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism....meh. I'm for whatever solution results in the highest degree of happiness for a society. It's funny how we spend so much time worrying about GDP, taxes, job numbers, etc., and so little time thinking about what makes Americans actually happy, and what policies are likely to make them more happy.

If our newly socialized banking system fails, will it really lead to greater happiness? Maybe among a few smug free marketers, but for the rest of us the complete collapse of our financial institutions would be a disaster. I find it really hard to understand how anyone can hope for a massive depression just to make a point about Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Seems pretty petty.

We're probably very far along the road to complete collapse of our financial institutions and government. The amount of liabilities the govt. has taken on was over $50T before the financial bailout, and we have yet to see the full force of the baby boomers retiring and that effect on govt.'s ability to pay for Social Security and Medicare benefits.

When all is said and done, we may not be one 50 state nation and FDR's societal engineering will be marked as the beginning of the end.

 

[¹²³]

Feels Like Socialism … But I Like It: Trump

While the global plan to recapitalize banks will probably be bad for his business, driving prices higher at a time when he has the cash to buy, it is necessary and smart, real estate developer Donald Trump said Tuesday.

"We were headed for Great Depression No. 2," Trump told "Squawk Box."

As a free-market capitalist, Trump admitted feeling uncomfortable at the "artificial" injection of cash into banks, but said it was a much better idea than the original plan just to buy up distressed assets.

"It's almost socialistic, but I like it, really like it," he said.

Link

 

[hasoos]

I just don't agree with redistribution of wealth, government controlling our lives and a cascading taxation system.

There are different levels of "socialism". Do you think that all people should not be entitled to health care? We are one of the one of the only countries that is considered modern, that everyone doesn't have good health care.

Secondly in the europeans countries that I have visited, there is not a redistribution of wealth. There is a lot more government control, and a lot higher tax rate though. So I agree with you on those principles. But I have not observed in any redistribution of wealth. I met very wealthy individuals in europe, and all were citizens of so called "socialist" countries.

 

[blazerboy30]

My biggest fear with all of this socialist talk and warning is the feeling that once we make steps in that direction, there is no going back.

Once socialized healthcare is implemented, it WILL NOT be taken away. So, if it starts to fail and become inefficient, the only remedy will be to throw more money at it.

This bank socialization will not be reversed. And, as it gets worse, we keep throwing more money at it.

Socializing 401(k) plans (if this actually went through) would NOT be eliminated. And, once again, the solution becomes throwing more money at the problem.
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/REG/310139971

We seem to refuse to really bring accountability into the schools/teaching system, so when improvements are needed, the talk turns to more funding instead of something creative, or incentive systems.


Tax hikes / reductions are not permanent, as we have seen, so the tax issues are less scary to me. I wish we could put more effort into finding solutions for issues (education, healthcare, etc) that are creative, and aimed more at capitalism instead of trying to fix them with more money coming from the highest earners, and an equalization of the wealth.

 

[Entity]

When all is said and done, we may not be one 50 state nation and FDR's societal engineering will be marked as the beginning of the end.

Hah, I wonder which military I'd belong to. The Western States of America? Cascadia? Oregon? Maybe I'd be out of a job.

 

[Minstrel]

Hah, I wonder which military I'd belong to. The Western States of America? Cascadia? Oregon? Maybe I'd be out of a job.

Pacific Coast League FTW. California, Oregon and Washington. Maybe Hawaii, too.

 

[Entity]

Pacific Coast League FTW. California, Oregon and Washington. Maybe Hawaii, too. Alaska likely wouldn't want to be a part and that's perfectly fine by me.

I wouldn't want to be staring at Russia either.

Hawaii would definitely be a nation unto itself given any opportunity. Besides, they're Laker fans. Then again, so are many Californians. Gimme the Bay Area northward. British Columbia can join us too.

 

[hasoos]

From what I understand of the current legislation is that the shares we are buying of banks now, the government is going to sell in the future. When that is, is anyones guess.

Now that I think about it though, there have been several government programs in the past that really, already border on being socialist. Those being:

1. The US Postal Service.
2. Bonneville Power Administration.
3. The TVA project.

They have been around for a long time, with lots of rumors years ago, of being turned into "Government corporations", but it never happened. I believe many folks thought that eventually the USPS would be phased out in favor of private carriers. BPA and TVA most folks figured would have been put out of business by energy corporations. When push comes to shove, they are still here because people whine when their prices go up, or law makers protected them from being torn down.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

There are different levels of "socialism". Do you think that all people should not be entitled to health care? We are one of the one of the only countries that is considered modern, that everyone doesn't have good health care.

Secondly in the europeans countries that I have visited, there is not a redistribution of wealth. There is a lot more government control, and a lot higher tax rate though. So I agree with you on those principles. But I have not observed in any redistribution of wealth. I met very wealthy individuals in europe, and all were citizens of so called "socialist" countries.

Did you see Obama's video regarding redistribution of wealth? Anytime you have a cascading taxation system, I consider that a redistribution of wealth since you are penalizing success and rewarding mediocrity.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=308875581782856

Barack Obama admitted to a Toledo plumber that he would raise his taxes to "spread the wealth around."

And regarding Health Care, I believe more reform, not government control nor universal requirements. I favor a system where premiums are lowered, the system is privately run and government regulates, but doesn't control the system. I do not believe forcing everyone to have healthcare is proper or a universal system that is guaranteed by the Government. I would push for reform in providing better coverage and lower premiums, as well as additional "catasrophic" coverage for major, life-threatening situations.

 

[hasoos]

My biggest fear with all of this socialist talk and warning is the feeling that once we make steps in that direction, there is no going back.

Once socialized healthcare is implemented, it WILL NOT be taken away. So, if it starts to fail and become inefficient, the only remedy will be to throw more money at it.

This bank socialization will not be reversed. And, as it gets worse, we keep throwing more money at it.

Socializing 401(k) plans (if this actually went through) would NOT be eliminated. And, once again, the solution becomes throwing more money at the problem.
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081012/REG/310139971

We seem to refuse to really bring accountability into the schools/teaching system, so when improvements are needed, the talk turns to more funding instead of something creative, or incentive systems.


Tax hikes / reductions are not permanent, as we have seen, so the tax issues are less scary to me. I wish we could put more effort into finding solutions for issues (education, healthcare, etc) that are creative, and aimed more at capitalism instead of trying to fix them with more money coming from the highest earners, and an equalization of the wealth.

Yea that is a dilemna. The only thing is, a lot of countries have socialized health care implemented successfully, and models could be built off of those successful prototypes. There are several advantages to such a system.

1.The first being everybody has health care. (huzzah!)
2. The second being that they put a lot more emphasis on preventative care, which is actually shown to be a lot more efficient than waiting for something bad to happen to you and then going to the doctor. (Think of it as getting the oil changed on your car. You do it so your motor doesn't blow up and leave you a big bill.)
3. Doctors no longer have to carry the high level of malpractice insurance, which also raises costs.

There is always a good chance we could F it up, or that the model is only good for a country of a certain size, etc. and that we might outgrow it.

Now on the other side of the coin, we have a Darwinist health care policy here in the USA. The only people who get coverage, are the ones that can afford it. That means only the rich live, while the poor get phased out, the hard way.

The facts are I know more than one person who has had to declare bankruptcy because they could not afford health care.

Secondly, their choice was to get the treatment, and then shaft the hospital that treated them, or die.

And that, is wrong.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Did you see Obama's video regarding redistribution of wealth? Anytime you have a cascading taxation system, I consider that a redistribution of wealth since you are penalizing success and rewarding mediocrity.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=308875581782856

You do realize that we already have a system of redistributing wealth in this country don't you? We've been funneling money "up" out of the middle class and into the upper class for 30+ years. All you have to do is look at the ratio of executive compensation to their average worker in the 1970s and what it's like now to get a sense that we've done nothing but erode the middle class, and consider the fact that wages have been stagnant for nearly as long and the ranks of the lower class have been expanded ... but hey if you want to live in the Gilded Age part deux, more power to you.

As for the cascading tax system, that's really misleading, since it's mainly been built that way as a means of compensating for the fact that we have so many goddamn loopholes in our tax code that allows the richest amongst us to dodge their fair share -- we've talked about this before; I'm all for a flat tax with loopholes closed.

 

[Master Shake]

Yes. Yes I am.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

You do realize that we already have a system of redistributing wealth in this country don't you? We've been funneling money "up" out of the middle class and into the upper class for 30+ years. All you have to do is look at the ratio of executive compensation to their average worker in the 1970s and what it's like now to get a sense that we've done nothing but erode the middle class, and consider the fact that wages have been stagnant for nearly as long and the ranks of the lower class have been expanded ... but hey if you want to live in the Gilded Age part deux, more power to you.

As for the cascading tax system, that's really misleading, since it's mainly been built that way as a means of compensating for the fact that we have so many goddamn loopholes in our tax code that allows the richest amongst us to dodge their fair share -- we've talked about this before; I'm all for a flat tax with loopholes closed.

Executive compensation means nothing. At the top, the job is more performance based and is high stress. More so than not, top executives have to go through hundreds of loops, extreme competition and working their way up to the top to reach the pinnacle. The average worker is totally replaceable. Their jobs have little or no realized impact other than to "keep the machine" oiled.

 

[Denny Crane]

You do realize that we already have a system of redistributing wealth in this country don't you? We've been funneling money "up" out of the middle class and into the upper class for 30+ years. All you have to do is look at the ratio of executive compensation to their average worker in the 1970s and what it's like now to get a sense that we've done nothing but erode the middle class, and consider the fact that wages have been stagnant for nearly as long and the ranks of the lower class have been expanded ... but hey if you want to live in the Gilded Age part deux, more power to you.

As for the cascading tax system, that's really misleading, since it's mainly been built that way as a means of compensating for the fact that we have so many goddamn loopholes in our tax code that allows the richest amongst us to dodge their fair share -- we've talked about this before; I'm all for a flat tax with loopholes closed.

In the 1970s, the workers made 95% of the wages in a company and the executives 5%. Today, the workers make 95% of the wages in a company and the executives 5%.

The companies are just bigger.

 

[Dumpy]

Eric, I respect your opinion on the economic issues, and I wouldn't attempt to change your viewpoint. There's a lot to be said for capitalism. It works. Socialism belongs in a fairytale.

That said, I'd like to engage you in a discussion nontheless. It seems as though you are viewing the economic issues as falling either under the "capitalist" umbrella or the "socialist" umbrella. I think you are misclassifying Obama's positions. There is a "grey", or "middle" area that would consist of capitalist principles supported by social programs to help people rise when they need assistance. No one is suggesting socialism. No one is suggesting that we nationalize the banks or anyth--ok, forget that one.

Look, we all recognize that it is a slippery slope. At what point does social programs reach a critical mass and become full-blown socialism? It is obviously a delicate balance, and reasonable minds may differ as to where that balance falls. But I believe that it is a moral issue for the government to step in and give people the tools to succeed, which is different from eliminating incentive to achieve. I also believe in the "bottom-up" economic effect. That is, if the middle and lower classes have more money, they will buy more staples, and some minor luxuries, which in turn will grow our economy, because their spending will trickle up to that small and medium-sized business. I believe--and this is just me--that perhaps businesses will be paying higher taxes--but that is because they will be making more profit than if the tax breaks had not been given to the lower and middle class. Tax breaks to the wealthy really do not have as much of an effect at growing the economy, because the money is not used to buy basic goods; it is more likely to be used to buy pure luxury items like artwork. In short, it is good for the economy for more people to have spending money when they previously didn't have any.

Regardless, you have to consider that not everyone is driven by the opportunity to make more money. For some people, the important thing is psychic benefits of helping people; for others it is discovering new ideas or ways to do things for efficiently. For others, there is a balance between making money and spending time with their families. For some people, the important thing is recognition. So your view that there will no longer be any "incentive" to work hard is off base, in that it assumes that everyone is solely driven by the goal to make money. That's just not true at all. Many people take lower-paying jobs to receive one of these other benefits. These incentives will always exist in our system. The government scientist who works hard because he is driven by wanting to help someone, will still be able to achieve his goals. And, as stated above, while the small businessman may pay a little more tax--not much more, because the higher rates would only apply to the dollars he earns over $250,000 in Obama's plan, not the whole caboodle--he would be making more because there will be more customers.

I believe, as many do, that a national, last-resort health care system is the moral thing to do, and will have the effect of reducing costs to taxpayers and growing the economy, by allowing more people to be productive workers. Everything is connected in some way; you have to look at issues holistically.

Again, I respect your viewpoint that the market should decide winners and losers, and that such a system is the most effecient and effective way to grow the economy. However, please recognize that the addition of some social programs will NOT turn the US system of government into "socialism." There is a big divide.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I find the recent moves unconscionable.

1. First the "stimulus package", which was completely ridiculous in the first place IMO.
2. Bailouts of Fannie/Freddie
3. Bailouts of AIG
4. Bailout program for greedy wall street executives, irresponsible borrowers, and failing banks

Next:

5. Proposed additional stimulus package
6. Additional energy windfall profits tax stimulus package
7. Government renegotiating home loans that were agreed upon
8. Government paying for the principle on home loans for private individuals.

I'm sorry, this far exceeds your standard of "giving people the tools to succeed". And this is just the BEGINNING of this all. IMO, the systems that were defective need to fail if this is going to be true capitalism.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I also believe in the "bottom-up" economic effect. That is, if the middle and lower classes have more money, they will buy more staples, and some minor luxuries, which in turn will grow our economy, because their spending will trickle up to that small and medium-sized business. I believe--and this is just me--that perhaps businesses will be paying higher taxes--but that is because they will be making more profit than if the tax breaks had not been given to the lower and middle class. Tax breaks to the wealthy really do not have as much of an effect at growing the economy, because the money is not used to buy basic goods; it is more likely to be used to buy pure luxury items like artwork. In short, it is good for the economy for more people to have spending money when they previously didn't have any.

This is a redistribution of wealth. Again, it punishes individuals for success, which I find contrary to my personal vision for America. Making money is not the end-all, do-all. However, I feel that it is just unfair that as your income increases, you get to take a SMALLER PERCENTAGE of that money home.

 

[Dumpy]

This is a redistribution of wealth. Again, it punishes individuals for success, which I find contrary to my personal vision for America. Making money is not the end-all, do-all. However, I feel that it is just unfair that as your income increases, you get to take a SMALLER PERCENTAGE of that money home.

well, don't forget that you stop paying the social security component of FICA at some point around $100,000.

But also, we have to pay for our infrastructure in order for our economy to succeed. Not just bridges, roads, and dams, but obviously those things are important and expensive. There is also the police force, the court system, and government agencies such as the FTC and the SEC. Studies have shown that the wealthy and the large corporations use these services a disproportionate amount. Much of our court system is used by settling contractual and other business-related disputes. Our patent and trademark office helps protect intellectual property, and violations are investigated by DOJ's anti-trust division. These services need funds to operate, so yes, I have no issue with the wealthy paying a little more money as a result.

And again, I fail to see how people are being "punished" for success. By increasing the number of consumers through loering the tax rate for the middle and lower class, we allow more people to purchase goods and services, thus growing small businesses.

 

[Real]

The Obama administration will last 8 years. If he leaves with the economy in fairly good shape (whether or not it's thru no fault of his own), then maybe another 8 years of a progrssive liberal agenda- which includes a definitive shift towards socialism.

Up or down, we may need to learn to live with it.

This country hasn't had back to back to back two term (or more in FDR's case) Presidencies since FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower. The last one before that was Jefferson, Madison, Monroe.

That's twice in this country's history. I'm not saying it can't happen again with Clinton, Bush, Obama...but it's rare.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

well, don't forget that you stop paying the social security component of FICA at some point around $100,000.

But also, we have to pay for our infrastructure in order for our economy to succeed. Not just bridges, roads, and dams, but obviously those things are important and expensive. There is also the police force, the court system, and government agencies such as the FTC and the SEC. Studies have shown that the wealthy and the large corporations use these services a disproportionate amount. Much of our court system is used by settling contractual and other business-related disputes. Our patent and trademark office helps protect intellectual property, and violations are investigated by DOJ's anti-trust division. These services need funds to operate, so yes, I have no issue with the wealthy paying a little more money as a result.

And again, I fail to see how people are being "punished" for success. By increasing the number of consumers through loering the tax rate for the middle and lower class, we allow more people to purchase goods and services, thus growing small businesses.

You are punished for success because as you move up the tax bracket, you take home a smaller percentage of your pay. Pretty simple explanation.

And your points about utilization of public funds could easily be refuted with a myriad of counterexamples...the criminal court system, the drain of resources due to crime, social services, etc. All of these are relatively irrelevant to me, what is relevant to me is the unfair taxation system in this country that supposedly calls it a capitalistic.