Barack Obama and Socialism

[Verigan]

Try saying that when you're actually paying taxes. Mine are already brutal (Hell, I pay more than what this country's founding fathers revolted over), and I'm not even in a high bracket. The only way I will ever pay taxes with a smile is if I am allowed to pick and choose what I pay them for. I'm perfectly fine with paying taxes to support the military and maintain our infrastructure, but as it stands, I'm paying for entitlement programs when I barely earn enough to make ends meet, and that's barring unforeseen problems like repair bills. If I were actually getting something back from all I've been paying, that might make me feel differently about it, but I do not feel that my meager income should be stripped from me and used for things that don't benefit me in any fashion.

 

[Rankao]

I think I can put this in perspective for the Europeans. Lets say that one day the EU just said. You guys are already paying 40-60% taxes right? but generally you are happy with this because you are paying this for your own country and you all share the benfits. Now lets say the EU suddenly said (Our Federal Government is more along the line of a strong EU and it gets stronger by the decade) well we all know you need health care so we are going to tax everyone 10% for extra health care.

Does all of Europe need 10% taxes for their Health care? No, because some countries can do much better with 2% then others can do with 8%. The overall fact is no one needs 10% spent on health care. Your Individual country would be much smarter to handle health care then the EU.

Lets remember some things. the USA is slightly smaller then Canada but with roughly 10 times the population. But slightly bigger then China with roughly 1/4th of the population. There is a very specific reason why we have states in the country. They can take care of their population because they are able to understand their needs. Previously the government understood that, but as time goes on we start giving power to the Federal Government, and start saying the state doesn't do good enough. I prefer the Federal government just to handle my economics while the federal government handle my civil rights and protects me when the state does something Illegal.

I mean how would you feel UK if you were paying for Frances Health care? or vis versa? If my state decided it was going to initiate Health care then I wouldn't feel as against it as I would my Country. Why? because my state understands my needs better then Oboma, McCain or Bush.

Well what if my state is corrupt? Well there are two solutions because the state is much closer for me. I am very much able to change things then I would on a federal level.If all else fails then the federal government needs to jump in and at my request and a angry mob help us (Civil Rights Movement)

Synopsis of the Problem:
Not most Americans don't realize this because, as Americans we have been conditioned in the last few years to only look at the Federal Level to be important. This allows us to ignore whats going on at our local level, and blame our Federal government.

Edit:
Somehow traditionally the Republicans wanted to give more power to the Federal, while Democrats wanted to keep power at the state, somehow in the last century or so this has changed (along with Republicans being Conservative and Democrats being Liberal.)

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Americans keep forgetting the consequences of having their revolution start out as a tax revolt. (Which got hijacked by some eggheads and political fringies... given all that, it's remarkable America didn't crash and burn like so many others. You guys got really lucky there, and you should thank your lucky stars.) Some fairly radical ideas about taxation got embedded into the political fabric as a result.

Americans have no understanding of what "high taxes" means. High taxes means paying $12/gal for gas at the pumps instead of $4, and 50-60% instead 35% (less deductions) on a tax return form.

Seriously, the rest of the world is tired of hearing Americans wail about their tax rates. You ain't seen nothin'... though if you keep piling up monster deficits much longer, you might in the not-terribly distant future.

-- Steve

 

[CoyotesGrin]

I think a lot of people miss the point of the health care debate. They don't like public health care because they don't want to have to pay for the uninsured, but they already do.

If an unisured man walks into an ER missing an arm the doctors do not let him bleed to death on the floor. They are both legally and morally obligated to treat him.

Where does that money come from? Depending on where it happens the government will cover some or most of the cost, in which case the taxpayers are paying for it. The hospital eats the rest of the cost which forces them to increase the cost of care to insured patients to compensate, and in turn forces insurance companies to increase the price of insurance...and the taxpayers pay anyways.

No, the only difference between 'socialized medicine' and 'free-market medicine' is who signs the checks, a government bureaucrat with a bad comb-over or a corporate bureaucrat with a bad comb-over.

Personally I'm about as thrilled with entrusting my life to a HMO as I would be if Blackwater International were providing police and fire services for my town.

That being said there are many, many alternatives that no one talks about because new ideas scare people. My favorite thus far is to repeal the tax-breaks business get for insuring their workers and giving it instead to private taxpayers in the form of a subsidy so they can afford private insurance. This would help the unisured somewhat (not as much as public healthcare admittedly), benefit legions of working people who don't qualify for insurance at their place of employment and destroy the ball and chain that keeps many people trapped in soul crushing dead-end jobs.

McCain's plan is similar to this, but he's too afraid of upsetting his base to go all the way with it, leaving his plan both more expensive and less effective.

 

[Xaryn Mar]

There are more than two political parties in the US. It just so happens that most of them are so oppressed by the big two and all of the special rules that they have in their favor that you never hear about them.

True. But since they are more or less unknown, probably also in the states as well, they do not have any real influence as you said, which is a sad thing. There are likely some very good (and some very bad) ideas in those small parties that might help the Country (and as I have read above) the individual states as well.

 

[hippieshopper]

Honestly I hope you guys don't expect me to read your essays, I don't care that much. America is pretty much screwed no matter what you talk about, everything in it will always be flawed regardless of who runs it and there will always be someone around to hate us.

 

[TomNook]

Americans keep forgetting the consequences of having their revolution start out as a tax revolt. (Which got hijacked by some eggheads and political fringies... given all that, it's remarkable America didn't crash and burn like so many others. You guys got really lucky there, and you should thank your lucky stars.) Some fairly radical ideas about taxation got embedded into the political fabric as a result.

Americans have no understanding of what "high taxes" means. High taxes means paying $12/gal for gas at the pumps instead of $4, and 50-60% instead 35% (less deductions) on a tax return form.

Seriously, the rest of the world is tired of hearing Americans wail about their tax rates. You ain't seen nothin'... though if you keep piling up monster deficits much longer, you might in the not-terribly distant future.

-- Steve

Its because we want our government to serve us, not the other way around.

 

[Shivari]

I'm not going to read through this thread, because I already know what everyone said on both sides. I'll just say a couple of things...

1. Neither socialism nor capitalism is all-around better than the other, I think that somewhere in the middle is the way to go.

2. Obama isn't uber socialist, I have no idea where people get that. Also for being "the most liberal person in the Senate" he isn't very liberal at all.

I support Obama by the way.

 

[WickedSkin]

--This is just so you can check out what socialism might do to you--

I'm from Sweden (part of Scandinavia: Norway, Denmark, Iceland). We have a huge tax load on out heads (2nd highest in the world next to Denmark) but we still flourish, well do well for ourselves. Our richest pay 46% and our low incomes pay 33% (it's more complicated then that, but in general). We have socialized healthcare and all. That all works accept one thing, people who never worked a day in their lives can actually earn as much as someone who just got his first job. THAT IS HORRIBLE!

We still have very wealthy people here and a lot of people do whatever they can to get wealthy. Some of the richest people in the world is from our favourite part of the world (our cold, dark nations). We have a VERY low crime-rates as a result of this... safety.

Though our countries are mostly of capitalist views as of recently we still manage to give our people free healthcare. Sure I love my fellow countrymen and they have all the right in the world to good healthcare. However, when people who doesn't work can make as much as me who worked hard for several years now is crazy! I've worked every single day since I finished school, no vacations, I've been home sic 5 days during my entire career! Now get this:
A friend of mine is just sat at his sofa living on my money! I think that is terribly wrong. I don't want him to die, but at least he shouldn't live by the exact same conditions as me. I worked hard for this and he didn't! That's where socialism failed! We soon realized that. We used to be socialistic until recently. Now we turned capitalist but with CHEAP healthcare (not free but very cheap) good public schools, firemen, police force and all that.

Now here is my favourite part, my friend now is beginning to get even lesser, and lesser of what I get. He started looking for a job!

So, we are like the US but with one thing added, cheap healthcare that anyone can afford. Well then we have the social security problem... But it's getting better slowly.

The good thing about that is that it DOES lower crime rate significantly (social security like ours, Canadian, England and so forth). However, it's a fork in the eye for people that work hard. I'll stay capitalist throughout my life.

There are many other things I'd like to say but I fear this post would become waaaay to long.

PS. Finland is also counted as a Scandinavian country here and there for old time sake.

PS2. We have freedom of speech and all that. So no censoring around here. Another brilliant thing is: We can never ever censor a video game from anything because it's considered culture/art here Take that Jack Thompson! This was nothing against you yanks, just Jack Thompson. Keep fighting him!

Keep the government as scared as possible, if not, the people will be scared of the government. When someone says he loves the government, he has given up his freedom.

The government is nothing but a necessary evil, They should serve you with protection from other governments trying to invade your nation, see to it that the man who did you harm gets his punishment without you killing him or harming him, see to it that the new born baby survive his first years.

If they fail to do that, either make them or they should grant you TOTAL freedom. You should pay NO taxes and you should have the freedom to do what ever you desire or need to.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Its because we want our government to serve us, not the other way around.

But it doesn't, and that's the problem. Keeping government "small enough to drown in a bathtub" by limiting its tax revenues is not only not happening (despite neo-conservative presence for 8 years) but the lack of taxation is simply leading to massive deficit financing instead of limiting government power.

Ur doin' it rong.

-- Steve

 

[OuroborosChoked]

I know I'm late to this discussion... I just wanted to ask this one thing:

How is it taxation itself isn't considered a socialist program?

If we're defining socialism as a government-organized redistribution of wealth... isn't that basically what taxes are? Saying that one candidate is "socialist" because he has a tax plan that's fair to 90% of the population is silly.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Its because we want our government to serve us, not the other way around.

But it doesn't, and that's the problem. Keeping government "small enough to drown in a bathtub" is not only not happening (despite neo-conservative presence for 8 years) but the lack of taxation is simply leading to massive deficit financing instead of limiting government power.

Ur doin' it rong.

-- Steve

Technically, the government under Bush has grown even more than it did under Clinton.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Actually, from 1954 to 1963, the top marginal income tax rate in America was 92%

Funny how that period is the span of years most Conservatives would call the Golden Age of America, isn't it?

I did not know that. I knew Eisenhower-era taxes were higher than today's, but not to that extent. Is there a good source I could use to get more details on that? (Also, that has to be including a lot more than just income, sales, and fuel taxes... where'd the extras come from?)

-- Steve

 

[Selraik]

First off, grats to Kurtz for starting an interesting debate in hostile territory. I've read every post and had a good time doing so. There have been observations from many angles and locations.

I am surprised no one has brought up a major reason why socialist big-government ideas are frowned upon in a democracy where government has traditionally been mistrusted. Those rich people and corporations of people making big money and getting big things done know how to make wealth, create jobs, and perform useful services better than politicians ( who know how to shake hands, read speeches, say the things the current audience wants to hear, and smile while making promises they know they'll never keep ). No one wants to have a government run sections of the economy / nation where competition between entities within that section of the economy / nation can offer up a greater supply of options with less cost and better results. And thus keeping the money in the hands of the people who know how to run an economy ( and made the money in the first place ) makes more sense than not.

Obama is socialist the same way Eisenhower was socialist. Oh, how quickly Americans forget to account for all those Interstate Highways built in the '50s with colossal federal subsidies, one of the biggest American government programs ever and one that still distorts your "pure" market economy by artificially driving down the cost of long-haul truck transport and long-distance automobile travel.

I believe we have two different kinds of socialism here. Obama is a traditional redistribute wealth socialist. Tax increases to the rich, tax cuts to the poor. Increase the income tax on the rich and businesses, to offset the taxes to the middle class and poor. Since almost half the population doesn't pay income tax, I guess the tax money offsets sales taxes. I'd note here that payroll taxes are supposed to be a collectivized form of retirement security and medical aid for the needy, so they hardly seem like a tax that needs to be offset from the poor, since the poor will use every cent of the tax they've payed on themselves in theory. Too bad in reality government runs this program, raided the "lock boxes," and spends the payroll taxes on horrible investments, ensuring that future tax increases, program cuts, or loans from China will be necessary to recover the money needed to fund the promises made by government in these areas.

Roads, a military, sanitation, etc., however, are more a function of any and all governments that plan to last longer than a decade, not just socialist governments, and thus can't be called socialists ideas. A government, being a lasting collective of people, would always be socialist from that viewpoint.

there is a flaw in human nature that to my mind goes something like this, it takes a certian kind of person to build a big multibillion doller company, there is a certian level of pride and yes greed that goes with that ability to biuld a company like that. there is nothing really wrong with that kind of a person, lets face it without out industry America would be shit. we owe much of what makes America great to the strength of our economy, but at the same time those kind of people seldom have the calling to use their money and power to help those people that have other prioritys than getting and keeping wealth. they tend to forget that cash ISNT God and a good deed is worth more to a strong society than any ammount of cash locked up in a bank vault someplace.

To frame my second paragraph, I'd like to return to the idea that these people are actually creating wealth, not storing it all in a vault somewhere. Much of the money they make goes back into their businesses or towards investments in other people's businesses, helping everyone associated with those endeavors. Even when their money goes towards selfish ends ( cars, houses, clothes, etc. ), they are spreading the wealth they have made, to the automobile industry, construction firms, clothiers, etc. In the end, capitalists trust successful businessmen to know how to "spread the wealth" more efficiently than politicians.

 

[KSarty]

My opinion is that you deserve exactly what you can afford. There are too many government programs already in place that punish you for working hard and reward you for being a nobody. I am 22 years old and at the end of the year more than 40% of my paycheck is going to either some crack-whore who keeps churning out kids so she can get a bigger welfare check or some overweight slob who can't be bothered to find a job. Why? Because I got off my ass and got a decent job.

 

[Alex_P]

I think I can put this in perspective for the Europeans. Lets say that one day the EU just said. You guys are already paying 40-60% taxes right? but generally you are happy with this because you are paying this for your own country and you all share the benfits. Now lets say the EU suddenly said (Our Federal Government is more along the line of a strong EU and it gets stronger by the decade) well we all know you need health care so we are going to tax everyone 10% for extra health care.

Most Americans definitely don't see it that way, though. We're used to moving around the country. A significant proportion of the population has grown up in more than one state. Many move to a different state when they go to college, get married, or change jobs. People who live near state lines cross borders several times a day with modest a "Welcome to _____" billboard serving as the only indication that they've even done so. Some sense of state identity exists, but it's really not that different from regional identity in any nation.

(Also, would this be a bad time to point out that the "red states" generally take in more money from various subsidies and social welfare programs than they put into them?)

-- Alex

 

[OuroborosChoked]

My opinion is that you deserve exactly what you can afford. There are too many government programs already in place that punish you for working hard and reward you for being a nobody. I am 22 years old and at the end of the year more than 40% of my paycheck is going to either some crack-whore who keeps churning out kids so she can get a bigger welfare check or some overweight slob who can't be bothered to find a job. Why? Because I got off my ass and got a decent job.

Sounds like the crack whore has got you beat, then. Maybe you should consider a career change...