If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2017, 10:20 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 09:51 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 09:02 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  We do not live in democracies. We all live in oligarchies and they generally all forcibly have us pay taxes at higher levels than the rich enjoy.

Regards
DL

You seem to conflate a few things.

The fact that we pay taxes is part of the contract to keep a country up that we share (with our countrymen). If one wants to enjoy the benefits of a community he has to contribute to it in one way or the other, money is one such way. Concription into the armed forces or alternative civilian service is another. We arent forced to pay taxes, but by voting for people who dont lower them we tacitly agree to their policies. By voting fo rpeople/politicians who are "bought" by lobbyists we tacitly agree. There is no need for them to create oligarchies. Their votes dont count more than yours, they can however use their money to buy influence. In order for them to be able to buy influence, there also have to be people who are susceptible (i am avoiding the word "corrupt" here) to this. That is one of the major problems, selfish accumulation of wealth and power has still to high a value for too many people.

We do not live in oligarchies, we are having free elections. I see no indications of them being rigged. What we do not have is free choice of the candidates and policies. Thats where the oligarchy part comes in. Small groups of influential people are taking control to become even more influential. Politicians try to be part of this group or at least benefit from their powers in order to boost their own powers. People, aka. voters, are, on a regular basis, voting against their won interests, because they have been propagandized to do so.

I think it was George Carlin who said we dont have a real choice in terms of what candy we want from the store. We just can choose the colour of the candy thats already presented to us, and we comply by regularly chosing and tacitly agreeing. I think the trump campaign targeted this problem, and many people reacted based on what i just explained. Too bad it was (and many people saw this and didnt vote for him, but not enough although it was a majority) a complete con job set up by those who already have fooled the american people in the past. Shame on you if you fool me once...

Carlin is a good thinker, we agree on this, yet you ignore much of what he says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY

As to our vote being equal to the rich. Look again for the first time.

http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data...b014efbf27

The present rich may not have created our oligarchies, but they are certainly not giving up the position their fathers created for the present batch of oligarchs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu6...gest-vrecs

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

The Brits point to our oligarchy while ignoring that their country is also run by oligarchs.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 10:21 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 09:13 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 08:12 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I know plenty of decent Christians -- have some in my family.

If they plan on ridding Jesus as their scapegoat into heaven, instead of renouncing substitutionary atonement and the notion of Jesus dying for their sins, then they are not moral Christians.

When they do the right thing and renounce that horrid and immoral form of so called justice, then they will be more Gnostic Christian than Christian and then we might be able to say they are good Christians.

Regards
DL

I get your point that scapegoating is immoral. You seem to think they walk around worrying about being "good Christians". Who cares? They're decent people, your proclamations notwithstanding.

They're more concerned with being good people, and that is what makes them decent.

Let us hope you expend as much energy in that regard as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
31-10-2017, 10:26 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 09:51 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  We arent forced to pay taxes,

Good luck with that.

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BikerDude's post
31-10-2017, 10:32 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 10:21 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 09:13 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  If they plan on ridding Jesus as their scapegoat into heaven, instead of renouncing substitutionary atonement and the notion of Jesus dying for their sins, then they are not moral Christians.

When they do the right thing and renounce that horrid and immoral form of so called justice, then they will be more Gnostic Christian than Christian and then we might be able to say they are good Christians.

Regards
DL

I get your point that scapegoating is immoral. You seem to think they walk around worrying about being "good Christians". Who cares? They're decent people, your proclamations notwithstanding.

They're more concerned with being good people, and that is what makes them decent.

Let us hope you expend as much energy in that regard as well.

True that some Christians are good, but that good is negated every time they put a dime in the collection plate of a religion that promotes the substitutionary punishment ideology that Christianity promotes.

There were good S S troops in Hitler's camp as well but there was no way for us to know they were good when they were all flying the same flag just as all Christians except Gnostic Christians fly the same cross.

The same all inclusive label can be put to Islam as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drJCC2XXMBo

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 10:35 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 10:26 AM)BikerDude Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 09:51 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  We arent forced to pay taxes,

Good luck with that.

Please dont try to quote me out of context. That was pretty disingenuous.
If you have a suggestion for a society based on paying no tax at all, you are free to present it.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
31-10-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 10:35 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 10:26 AM)BikerDude Wrote:  Good luck with that.

Please dont try to quote me out of context. That was pretty disingenuous.
If you have a suggestion for a society based on paying no tax at all, you are free to present it.

Few taxpayers resent paying their fair share.

VATs and sales taxes force the lower wage earners to pay more as a % of their earnings for taxes while the rich get to pay less of a % of their earnings for the same product.

That is why they are seen as regressive taxation and unfair.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 11:09 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 08:47 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 05:15 AM)Szuchow Wrote:   Socialism in Marxist theory is transitional stage between capitalism¬†and¬†communism distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Caring for people is hardly if at all implied by this definition.

As for second Rome dying it depends. Wealth disparity and incarceration rates would speak in favor of it I imagine. Other statistics may be not so dire.

Communism has a flat socio economic demographic pyramid with few tears.

Our demography's are supposed to look more like a standard pyramid.

The U.S. demography, as well as that of most countries, now look more like a top and that is why they are so unstable and shaky.

Only redistribution of wealth can stabilized those economies which is the most profitable way to have things.

Look at the ugliness of what we have now.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-amer...ing-fact-2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Regards
DL

Communism never existed so it couldn't have had socio economic pyramid of any kind.

Also demography has nothing to do with what I wrote.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 11:47 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 11:09 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 08:47 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  Communism has a flat socio economic demographic pyramid with few tears.

Our demography's are supposed to look more like a standard pyramid.

The U.S. demography, as well as that of most countries, now look more like a top and that is why they are so unstable and shaky.

Only redistribution of wealth can stabilized those economies which is the most profitable way to have things.

Look at the ugliness of what we have now.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-amer...ing-fact-2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Regards
DL

Communism never existed so it couldn't have had socio economic pyramid of any kind.

Also demography has nothing to do with what I wrote.

It does exist to those in them, but if you think communism never existed, I can partially agree because we all live in oligarchy's where money rules. Not the taxpayers, as would be the case in a democracy.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 07:34 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(30-10-2017 07:39 PM)BryanS Wrote:  ...The good thing about the US is we are so damned self critical that we are able to correct for mistakes when we must.

Like not electing an intelligent, principled, upstanding, humanitarian president? Sadcryface
T.rump didn't get the majority of votes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2017, 11:51 AM
RE: If socialism is caring for people, should the U.S. Of A. not get more socialist?
(31-10-2017 11:47 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
(31-10-2017 11:09 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Communism never existed so it couldn't have had socio economic pyramid of any kind.

Also demography has nothing to do with what I wrote.

It does exist to those in them, but if you think communism never existed, I can partially agree because we all live in oligarchy's where money rules. Not the taxpayers, as would be the case in a democracy.

Regards
DL

You even know what communism was supposed to be? Words about jumping from realm of necessity to one of freedom or ending alienation ring some bells?

Communism - as every other utopia - never was.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: