Topics
IAC Prime Member
|
| | | |
never never band
|
10/25/2008 3:48:50 PM
---- Updated 10/25/2008 9:46:17 PM
Democratic Socialism (for squirly and others)
Socialist policies mean that the State administers what are called "the commons"
we already have the state administering Roads, Education,the post, police and fire departments..
that all seems quite reasonable to me.
now, why shouldn't health care fall under the commons?
you know our original corporate charter in this country called for a corporation to be disbanded by the state and it's assets re assigned if it became to large or grew to the point where it threatened undue power. That idea has been thrown aside now and Corporations actually have all the civil rights of persons now, Indeed they actually have far more rights than persons in that they have far greater access to the judiciary and the the legislative branch than persons could ever hope for.
The idea of re distribution of wealth and state administration of the commons in civil society is the cornerstone of Civics and Civil Democracy.
remember ..WHO OWNES THE STATE?
WE DO!!
That means any state administered industry is owned by the people and operates solely for our benefit!
I think we should nationalize our oil and gas industry and water. Thentire domestic energy industry, shit the whole energy industry!!
Socialism is what brought about workers rights and fair pay and the 40 hour work week and minimum wage and got 12 year olds out of the mining industry.
Socialism is not a bad word..
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM is what makes civil society CIVIL.
more on this later, I've gotta go into town for a while.
Frater P.
|
|
never never band
|
10/25/2008 8:55:08 PM
sorry to run off without really finishing this..
anyway, the idea that "socialist" ideas are un-American is utter nonsense.
Now some will say that bailing out wal street and the lenders is socialism..
the problem really though is that IT'S NOT!!!!
if it were the state would get voting shares in these interests and since the state belongs to the people that would mean WE would have in interest!
That would be a GOOD thing
as it is it's not Socialism...IT'S CHARITY!!.
which is crazy, it's like baling out overcapitalizing Airlines and such with no consideration held by the state. If we really handled these situations in a democratic socialist manner the state would take partial ownership and use voting shares as oversight and perhaps a little congressional oversight as well.
As for the Commons, the great civic engineering projects of our society, these are Socialist ideas! from the eerie canal to the roads to the public school system.
fire departments, police and search and rescue...these are America!
Brillient civic creations administered by the state for the benefit of ALL citizens!!
This is our greatest heritage, what the hell else is there?
Wal Street?
I know that not all of these commons perform as we would like but Privatizing ANY of them is a dangerous and truly Un-American idea.
I see this happening everywhere and it worries me so much, Since the days of Reagan the stated mission has been to shrink government and eventually destroy it..or "drown it in the bathtub" to use a famous quote.
If you enjoy a paid vacation or healthcare or a living wage, if you went to public school instead of working in a textile mill or a coal mine as a child you need to thank a SOCIALIST. Labor rebellions and Labor organizers, peoples rebellion against tyranny and people banding together to demand fair treatment and working towards egalitarian society....this is DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM at work.
we cant let the Capitalist, Privatizingt radical right continue to murder our language.
Liberal is not a cuss word
Socialist is not a cuss word.
we're not talking Soviet Russia here, we're talking about AMERICA and the greatest civic engineering project in human history.
The corporate classes and the True Ownership, land rich classes have ALWAYS tried to exploit the working class.
This country is one long incidence of Class Struggle and anyone who denies this either Lying, cant read, Wont read or is merely embracing the creeping cultural amnesia that is trying to erase the true history of working people in America.
---}-@
Frater P.
|
|
LyinDan
|
10/25/2008 8:59:21 PM
Hear, hear!
|
|
Batina
|
10/25/2008 9:06:48 PM
You make a really valid point, and i'm not afraid as you arn't to use the "S" word in a capitalistic society. I think that a socialized basic structure with the opportunity to capitalize beyond it is the idea.
nice blog,
peace
Batina
|
|
srm
|
10/25/2008 9:48:26 PM
Don't worry, Frater. American politics dictates the demonization of anything that is threatening to the perpetuation of 'the norm'.
|
|
The Man With No Band
|
10/25/2008 9:52:10 PM
Very well said Frater P. !!!!!
|
|
srm
|
10/25/2008 9:53:47 PM
Y'know... Christ was a communist (note the small letter "c").
|
|
ericsteffensen
|
10/26/2008 7:36:16 AM
Inflation is likely coming in a big way, but not because of Obama's tax plan. You can thank the spend and borrow policies of the last eight years, along with unprecedented overstimulation from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury for that.
|
|
ericsteffensen
|
10/26/2008 7:59:18 AM
Most of the people who receive a tax cut under Obama's plan are likely to spend it. As a result, many companies will see increased sales and increased profits.
|
|
SqurlyMurly
|
10/26/2008 8:41:37 AM
There is quite a difference in the things you cite: roads, schools police, : these are infrastructure necessities. I have no problem with taxes providing for that.
Charities - I have no problem with. I only wish I were in a position to be a donor instead of a donee. : )
My problem is taking from someone who works his ass off to give the asshole down the street, who doesn't care to work for what he wants, their hard-earned cash.
My doctor falls in the $250,000 range. Gee, I wonder what will happen when his taxes are raised, or my grocery store's taxes are raised. I have no insurance. Lost my job, (which by the way, did not provide health insurance anyway), so I worked just to pay the premiums each month - $500. I had to drop it. Hubby, of course, is a Vietnam Vet, so he has healthcare with the VA. But, back to the subject.
Oh yea, I'll pay more and more and more; and our household income barely helps us to hang to what we've worked for all our lives. But if you're so generous & charitable, Mr. Never Nver, please feel free to spread your wealth my way. Buy a couple of thousand downloads from my site, mark it up to "spreading the wealth". You'll be helping me pay off my student loan. And then I can sit home and do whatever during my free time.
"Money talks, bullshit walks". Its easy to talk when you're not directly affected...yet.
National healthcare is a joke. You think HMO's are bad? Just wait.
|
|
Kevin White
|
10/26/2008 8:59:59 AM
---- Updated 10/26/2008 9:25:37 AM
As much as I hate taxes, I believe that in regards to the public welfare ... there is nothing more at it's core than its health.
The problem underlying the current system of health is who, under a private system, is willing to pay for it.
It's fundamentally a system paid for by those who need it most, yet rejected by those who deem themselves at little risk ...
And the result: everybody uses it and not everybody pays for it.
Why is there Medicare and Medicaid? Because in the private sector, old people couldn't afford/support the cost of their care in their risk group (excessive expensive claims making by the elderly) ... and poor people just can't afford squat.
So the private industry doesn't offer a market for either. BOTH sectors absolutely need it, yet cannot be served by private companies ... for free market principles kill it ... no profit could be made ... the cost of policies excessively, expensively prohibitive ... beyond the ability of average households to afford.
More people need to pay into the system ... every man, woman, and child for their whole life should contribute something to it ... sick, healthy ... whatever ... EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONTRIBUTE.
The only entity capable of forced contribution is: Yes, the government.
That said ... to control costs, private enterprise should be also employed.
Government should set standard for a public base policy, collect the premium, and allow the public/individuals to choose their own private carrier to administrate the public base policy.
Below/above the public base, private insurers can offer policies to individuals/groups who wish to purchase "the niceties" ... like pre_ion care, annual physicals and well care visits.
The hybrid solution satisfies all sides ...
|
|
never never band
|
10/26/2008 9:34:03 AM
---- Updated 10/26/2008 9:37:18 AM
Squrly, Squrly.....
c'mon...
so...you think Paulson "earned" the 700 mil he made at goldman?
hmm, and the average CEO who now makes 400 times what his Average worker does?
You think that the wealthiest are "earning" their money?
I think you and I must have a very different defininition of the word "Earn"
heh..listen the people making $250,000 wont be paying any more than they were back in the 90s.
this is about putting the tax structure back to the way it was before Bush destroyed it.
it's also about closing loopholes so the the very richest who manage to pay NO taxes will pay their fair share. Do you know that if the top 5% in america paid their taxes social security would be flush!! Even Warron Buffet is disgusted because as he says his Secretary pays more than he does!!!! He paid 17% on his 46 million salary last year while his secretary who made $60,000 paid 30%!!!!!!
"spreading the wealth" is just a phrase, you aren't making any sense and I think it's because you really dont understand the current tax code nor Baracks proposed tax code..you just got scared because Sarah says Barack is a commie.
On top oif that It's Clear you have no idea what socialism means which is why your USSR topic made me edgy....
when I say the trillion dollar bailout is "charity" you and Larree begin to talk about nonsense. I'm being ironic when I say when I say "charity"...get it?
The point is republicans are squeeky and shrill about "socialism" but they don't know what the hell they're talking about...
I HATE this bailout, that's the point I'm making and I think that giving a trillion dollars in Charity to the wealthiest institutions with no consideration demanded for the citizen is sick..
Then you say I'll hate Nationalized health care?
what?
your'e just talking in slogans again!!!
you know, the republicans have this clever way of using snarl words and emotionally charged language to trick working people into voting against their best interest....
So they gain tons of votes from the Proletariat by scaring them about Abortion and Socialism and Terrorists, and then they give tax breaks and loopholes to the wealthiest Americans while the working man goes to war...
Listen I watch all of yours and Larree's propaganda stuff and I read what you say, I read it carefully, I dont just skim it. I watched SPs video about the FED. I've watched every damn you tube VID about ACORN and the Born Alive act in Chicago and Joe the Goddam Plumber thats been posted here...
do me favor and now you read something I'll suggest.
http://www.amazon.com/Twentieth-Century-Peoples-History/dp/0060951982
You know, this is not a 2 valued argument we're having in society right now.
....there isn't a simple Right/Wrong...Left/Right....Scoialism/Capitalism way to address this stuff because the real world is a vast gray area , every individual choice needs moral consideration and the Generalities of Political philosophy always come at the expense of the particulars.
That's why I trust a community organizer to be president, because people who work in their communities like that get it, they know what real every day people are facing. Now imagine how cool it would be if a civic minded community organizer went on to Harvard and got a law degree!!! Edited the Harvard Law Review!! And then instead of pulling the easy 7 or 8 figures that such an education could supply, he decided to go back into the Community business!
That'd be pretty cool!
no?
Look Barack isn't going to be perfect, but he will be the best president of any of our lifetimes....
He's Certainly not a socialist..
I know because I AM A SOCIALIST!!!
And us Socialists have secret ways of recognizing each other..
;)
-}-@
frater P.
|
|
SqurlyMurly
|
10/26/2008 10:10:58 AM
---- Updated 10/26/2008 10:14:06 AM
again, someone trying to put words in my mouth. we're talking about the $250,000 sector. right? that is going to aggravate an already open wound.
the fatcat CEO's already slit our throats. they're sitting back watching the red flow. "....noting that former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson ... of charges that he collected more then $7 million in home loans at special, below-average rates.Johnson headed Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, leaving with a $21 million payout.
Even after he left, Fannie continued to pay him an annual fee of at least $300,000 a year for consulting services and a $71,000 monthly pension, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
That's why I will vote for MCain. He said he would go after them, and he named names!
If you read any of my other comments, you would have seen that it is precisely the millionaire CEO's I have problems with. As a matter of fact, even before all the Fannie Mae happenings. My insurance premiums were ridiculous, and why? Because, as I discovered sometime afterwards, he wanted an 8 or 9 million dollar severance package! Can you imagine? That's why I feel that a flat tax would be more fair. And the government should monitor all the monies leaving this country under legal loopholes; raise taxes on imports from countries that place high tariffs on our goods. $250,000 AIN'T jacksquat these days. I wish I had it, but I can't begrudge the doctors and lawyers what they've studied and worked their asses off for.
I have a friend who inherited his family farm. We watched him go from year to year, sometimes having a really solid harvest and other times, it was so hard for him, his wife and 5 kids to make ends meet. He hung onto it for 30 years, struggling all the way. But as it turned out, it paid off for him. An investor wanted to build expensive houses so he sold the farm for quite a large sum (substantially more than $250,00). So its okay to spread his good fortune after all these years?!
Come on. Really. hey, and I'm still waiting for your charitable gift to me I am your favorite charity, aren't I? : )
I will follow your link. I think I've read part of this before, or something like it. Interesting.
|
|
Kevin White
|
10/26/2008 10:17:48 AM
Back when, it was robber barons ... and they acted on behalf of themselves and their king.
Now they call them Chief Executives, and they act on behalf of themselves.
But ... please ... all socialists:
PM me, and I'll give you instructions on where to send your paychecks. Trust me, I'll spend it wisely.
:^D
K-
|
|
.jpg)
Holo Lukaloa
|
10/26/2008 11:37:54 AM
McCain isn't going after anybody, they all have lobbyists in his campaign. He is a corrupt compromising fraud.
|
|
ericsteffensen
|
10/26/2008 12:40:24 PM
Economies naturally go through periods of expansion and through periods of retraction. Especially considering that the tech bubble of the late 90s had people running up the price of stocks that were completely unjustified by their valuations, its difficult to pin a slowing economy on Clinton's policies.
However, its true that some of the current economic mess caused by the bursting housing bubble started with policies during the Clinton years and even before that (thank you Alan Greenspan), but at least when Clinton left office, the federal government was running budget surpluses.
The big problem with running huge deficits right now is that with the first wave of baby boomers are turning 65 in 2010, and will start cashing in on government programs like Medicare and Social Security, which will eventually bankrupt the trust funds for those programs. In fact, the Medicare Trust fund is projected to go bankrupt in 2017. If the national debt at that point is still high as a percentage of GDP, Congress is going to be left with some extremely tough choices, either having to drastically cut benefits, raise taxes, or print more money, since borrowing will not continue to be an option. If Obama's tax plan has any negative effect on the economy (which I doubt), it's going to be miniscule compared to the massive problems caused in this scenario.
|
|
SqurlyMurly
|
10/26/2008 1:05:03 PM
Holo...and Obama's not?!
|
|
Blowing Some Sunshine Up Your Ass
|
10/28/2008 7:55:44 AM
To Squrly: Holo doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Look at the rest of the comments on this thread alone. They're filled with thoughtful commentary from different perspectives. I don't agree with Never Never's total de_scription of the perks of socialism, but at least he has thought things through and from his perspective has given good reasons for why he thinks as he does. Then Holo fumbles in with his typical unfounded, ungrounded, unthoughtout, magical wand of a one liner and people are supposed to take him seriously? Pffft. He's a troll.
And I am with you all the way on socialized medicine. People think medicine is expensive now? Wait till it's "free".
|
|
Frostynugz
|
10/28/2008 8:14:33 AM
---- Updated 10/28/2008 8:28:40 AM
Squirly said:
"That's why I will vote for MCain. He said he would go after them, and he named names!"
Well if McCain said it, then it must be true... Seriously, what you said there is absurd. McCain will not go after his fraternity brothers. He's precisely where he is and has voted as he has all these years to directly benefit these ultra-wealthy types. It's naive what you said there. And I'm not coming from a partisan position here, and I'm not even making a judgment against McCain for serving the wealthy-elite, but that kind of talk really shows a blind faith in a governance style that has overwhelmingly proven itself to directly benefit the people you think he'd "go after". The irony and contradiction in your words is glaring. We all need to be smarter than this.
To say that you'd vote for someone because they "said" something is just not smart. You have to look at the man's historical patterns as well as the people that will likely surround a candidate when they become prez. McCain's likely team looks very much like what we've seen for a while now. Don't expect that he'd do much different. Some people like where we've come over the past 8 years. I don't personally know any of these people, but I've read that they exist.
Some define insanity as: ."..repeating the same behavior and expecting different results."
And don't think for a second that I'm a liberal or a Democrat. I'm actually more of a conservative who's witnessed the "republican party" destroy pretty much everything that lay at the heart of conservative ideology. The GOP of today has destroyed itself. It's like having that troubled teenage kid who gets in a lot of trouble for being a screw up. At some point you actually want them to spend a few nights in jail to hopefully reflect and get their shit together. I hope the current GOP goes down in glorious flames, lets the Dem's give it a shot, and all the while regroup, rebuild with true ideals and principles, and come back strong and fresh and help shrink government, restore the constitution, stop serving the war machines and the oil thugs, and have a fucking leg to stand on. That's the party I may get behind someday. But for now, the GOP and it's Fox News and its Rush Limbaugh and its Sean Hannity and its Matt Drudge and all the nasty race baiting and despicable behavior needs to collapse and die. These folks are the destroyers of real conservative ideals. Bill Buckley is turning in his grave, but at least his son Chris has the wits and balls to separate himself from this muck and try to re-define things. Colin Powell also has eloquently described things in this arena.
Frostynugz
|
|
Kevin White
|
10/28/2008 8:28:37 AM
---- Updated 10/28/2008 9:06:36 AM
Regarding Republican tax policy:
I've said it before ... there is a curious irony behind their supporters.
For they spout rhetoric in one direction to get elected, then absolutely screw the people who believe that's what they'll do.
They wholesale support business and industry. Business and industry wholesale step on the middle class.
Yet, because they SAY they're all about the middle class, and because they SAY they're conservative ... they drum up support from the very people who are most ill impacted from the actual policy direction.
It's weird, the denial.
For instance: they SAY they're all about fiscal responsibility.
YET ...
Well, just look at the record of the last administration.
How anybody can support that fiscal policy is beyond me. And it ain't gonna change one iota no matter WHAT CAMPAIGN RHETORIC gets spouted. It's a bigger issue than just the campaign.
I'm a fiscal conservative. They're most definitely not.
Vote for them if you will ... but don't be deluded ... their tax policies will help only the folks that control the means ... they don't care about the middle class. They never have.
Best,
Kev-
|
|
Frostynugz
|
10/28/2008 9:19:15 AM
Thanks Kev,
well put.
Frostynugz
|
|
SqurlyMurly
|
10/28/2008 9:25:42 AM
---- Updated 10/28/2008 1:02:56 PM
"To say that you'd vote for someone because they "said" something is just not smart. You have to look at the man's historical patterns as well as the people that will likely surround a candidate when they become prez."
My point exactly! Thank you!!
|
|
| |
�2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |
|