Cry of the Sheeple

[Mr Spinkles]

To fervent partisans who would deny their own socialistic tendencies it might appear that way.
But I'm shoot'n for the opposite of "misleading" by carefully explaining when & why is use these definitions.
I want to help them understand themselves, what they do, & the long term consequences.
No need to thank me....I live to serve.

You haven't done any of those things. You've just tossed the socialism rhetoric around while avoiding specifics.

 

[Alceste]

It's more like the definition of Pacifism, actually.
Yes, I get that. You're saying that, looking at policy as a whole, "socialism" means increasing tax revenue, while "capitalism" means decreasing it. I don't think that's a sensible use of those words. Even under "capitalism" tax revenue exists, we have to decide on some numbers and those numbers can go up and down a bit. There is no sense, apart from rhetoric, in interpreting such policy changes as exchanging one metaphorical speaker system for another. It's more like keeping the same system but adjusting one of the knobs.

I agree with you. Since when is an action taken to balance a government's budget a purely "socialist" exercise? That's ridiculous. Running deficits? Take in a bit more and spend a bit less. Running surpluses? Take in a bit less and spend a bit more. That's how it works. Only a fanatic believes we must ALWAYS reduce taxes, whatever the fiscal situation, or else we're courting socialism. Also, only a fanatic believes that reducing taxes is ALWAYS conservative and raising them is ALWAYS progressive.

 

[Revoltingest]

You haven't done any of those things. You've just tossed the socialism rhetoric around while avoiding specifics.

Well, don't get all huffy. When I begin a conversation, I don't necessarily launch into all the details I might eventually cover.
(Ain't I tedious enuf without doing that too?) Generalities are best for starters....then I'll see where it leads. You haven't
been specific either, but you don't see me complaining about it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, yeah, that obviously makes sense and I wasn't disputing that. But what doesn't make sense to me is LHPers supporting christian fundamentalists who want to impose their religious morality and limit personal freedoms.

Unfortunately in America that is the position many informed voters fall into, which is either either candidate having some of what you want, and one of them having more of what you don't want, and how you prioritize issues. IMO neither candidate was a good option for LHP voters, as neither one really put much forth into what personal freedoms and choices, that "e" word that is so crucial to breaking from the chains of society was hardly mentioned, and many of us are smart enough to know Obama was playing politics by flopping yet again on gay marriage and just so happening to very conveniently come out in full support of it in an election year. I may even look through my old posts because I am pretty sure I called him coming out in support during the election year.
But what are you to do when one candidate has clearly vocalized he doesn't like you for a number or reasons, and the other only extends a helping hand because others are looking. I am grateful for some of the things Obama got done during his first term, and not just myself but my parents and friends alike who were able to avoid losing their homes and jobs. But at the same time I want to spit on him for coming out in support of gay marriage during an election year. But it's better than Mittens who wanted to amend the Constitution to define marriage as one man, one woman.
I read a couple of times that some Hispanic voters are getting fed up with the Democrats appealing to them just to get their vote and then kicking them under the bus. The GLBT community should probably do the same, and demand support that extends beyond the campaign season. But then again, what other options are there? The party that has their hatred of you written in their platforms, or the party that only acknowledges your existence when it's convenient for them?

 

[kiwimac]

The results of the 2012 election can be summed up in one sentence which I call the "Cry of the Sheeple":

"I ask not what I can do for my country, I ask what my countries government can do for me?!"

Xeper.
/Adramelek\
The Eternal Libertarian

I do believe this can be classified as heiferdust. People voted for obama because Romney / Ryan was unthinkable for most. It has nothing to do with a supposed desire to have bread and circuses.

 

[Father Heathen]

People voted for obama because Romney / Ryan was unthinkable for most.

Exactly.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I agree with you. Since when is an action taken to balance a government's budget a purely "socialist" exercise? That's ridiculous. Running deficits? Take in a bit more and spend a bit less. Running surpluses? Take in a bit less and spend a bit more. That's how it works. Only a fanatic believes we must ALWAYS reduce taxes, whatever the fiscal situation, or else we're courting socialism. Also, only a fanatic believes that reducing taxes is ALWAYS conservative and raising them is ALWAYS progressive.

This.....:clap

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, don't get all huffy. When I begin a conversation, I don't necessarily launch into all the details I might eventually cover.
(Ain't I tedious enuf without doing that too?) Generalities are best for starters....then I'll see where it leads. You haven't
been specific either, but you don't see me complaining about it.

I've been quite specific:

He's a socialist because ... ? Because he will raise the capital gains tax on top earners from 15% to 23%? Is that really a dividing line between capitalism and socialism or is that just tweaking things a bit? Again I remind you that under Reagan the capital gains tax was around 29%. What a socialist!

 

[Revoltingest]

I've been quite specific:

Given that socialism is defined as government ownership of the means of production, to achieve an economic system which operates as socialism,
but without actual claim of ownership, government would have to control businesses with some of the power we normally associate with ownership
(eg, wage levels, labor relations, relocation, regulating cooperation, limiting associations, product specification, product warranty, pricing).
Taxation (to take income) & regulation (which exercise management functions) point in this direction. To simply list some taxes & rates fails to
address one of your alternatives is more socialistic than the other. Thus, I find this rather unspecific.

 

[Alceste]

Given that socialism is defined as government ownership of the means of production, to achieve an economic system which operates as socialism,
but without actual claim of ownership, government would have to control businesses with some of the power we normally associate with ownership
(eg, wage levels, labor relations, relocation, regulating cooperation, limiting associations, product specification, product warranty, pricing).
Taxation (to take income) & regulation (which exercise management functions) point in this direction. To simply list some taxes & rates fails to
address one of your alternatives is more socialistic than the other. Thus, I find this rather unspecific.

Taxes aren't socialistic. Or, if they are the word is meaningless, since every authority in the history of recorded civilization has supported its operations through some form of taxation. Taxes don't "go in the direction" of actually nationalizing an industry. They're totally different things.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Given that socialism is defined as government ownership of the means of production, to achieve an economic system which operates as socialism,
but without actual claim of ownership, government would have to control businesses with some of the power we associate with ownership.
Taxation (to take income) & regulation (which exercise management functions) point in this direction. To simply list some taxes & rates fails to
address one of your alternatives is more socialistic than the other. Thus, I find this rather unspecific.

Okay let's look at key specifics of Obama's proposed budget:

- Allow Bush tax cuts on top earners to expire
- Raise capital gains on top earners from 15% to 23%, lower than what it was under Reagan
- Reduce spending on entitlements
- Index Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation to reduce households affected
- Lower estate tax exemption from $5 million to $3 million and keep the rate at 35%, lower than what it was under Bush

Calling this "socialism" is patently silly. It's a variation of the same system we've always had (whether you call it capitalism or socialism).

 

[Revoltingest]

Taxes aren't socialistic. Or, if they are the word is meaningless, since every authority in the history of recorded civilization has supported its operations through some form of taxation. Taxes don't "go in the direction" of actually nationalizing an industry. They're totally different things.

You should read the underlined portion too.

Given that socialism is defined as government ownership of the means of production, to achieve an economic system which operates as socialism,
but without actual claim of ownership, government would have to control businesses with some of the power we normally associate with ownership
(eg, wage levels, labor relations, relocation, regulating cooperation, limiting associations, product specification, product warranty, pricing).
Taxation (to take income) & regulation (which exercise management functions) point in this direction.

Unless you deal with the totality of what I post, you'll miss the point.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay let's look at key specifics of Obama's proposed budget:
- Allow Bush tax cuts on top earners to expire
- Raise capital gains on top earners from 15% to 23%, lower than what it was under Reagan
- Reduce spending on entitlements
- Index Alternative Minimum Tax for inflation to reduce households affected
- Lower estate tax exemption from $5 million to $3 million and keep the rate at 35%, lower than what it was under Bush
Calling this "socialism" is patently silly. It's a variation of the same system we've always had (whether you call it capitalism or socialism).

Of course, I didn't call the items in your minimal list "socialistic". Rather, I refer to a larger governmental agenda which only includes increasing taxes.
(Note that your list doesn't address other things which affect tax collection & actual rates, eg deductions, income classification, bracket creep.)
But certainly, if a prez increases government spending & tax revenue (per citizen & adjusted for inflation), that would point in a socialistic direction.
If he reduces both, then this points away from socialism. Thus, I also consider GW Bush socialistic...no less so than Obama.

Reference:
- I should point out again that in a country which isn't socialist, politicians & policies which steer the country in that direction I would call "socialistic".
Some posters should carefully note that this is not to say that the policies fully implement strictly defined socialism.
- Regarding "ownership of the means of production", the word "ownership" requires some elaboration. Consider how it's used in real estate. To "own"
property is to have what is called a "bundle of rights". Let's say that you have 100 rights to use your property, eg, to farm, to hunt, to build, to mine.
If government takes away 1 right.....let's say the right to build because of zoning....or the right to farm because of wetlands regulation, this reduces
the number of rights in your "bundle", which is effectivelya reduction of ownership. Even though government hasn't taken the property in the conventional
sense of condemnation & taking title, it is nevertheless a taking. Courts have even awarded compensation to owners in cases of a taking of great economic
value. Now, back to the bundle of rights concept....the more rights taken by government, the more this scenario heads in the direction of functional
ownership by government. I emphasize that this is not full ownership...just movement in that direction.

 

[Alceste]

You should read the underlined portion too.

Unless you deal with the totality of what I post, you'll miss the point.

Regulation is not nationalization either. Nationalization is nationalization. The government doesn't let me pump raw sewage onto my neighbour's lawn. That doesn't mean they own my house.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course, I didn't call the items in your minimal list "socialistic". Rather, I refer to a larger governmental agenda which only includes increasing taxes.
(Note that your list doesn't address other things which affect tax collection & actual rates, eg deductions, income classification, bracket creep.)
But certainly, if a prez increases government spending & tax revenue (per citizen & adjusted for inflation), that would point in a socialistic direction.
If he reduces both, then this points away from socialism. Thus, I also consider GW Bush socialistic...no less so than Obama.

Sounds rather convenient.......eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

The government doesn't let me pump raw sewage onto my neighbour's lawn.

Yes, this cogently addresses the issue.

 

[Alceste]

Of course, I didn't call the items in your minimal list "socialistic". Rather, I refer to a larger governmental agenda which only includes increasing taxes.
(Note that your list doesn't address other things which affect tax collection & actual rates, eg deductions, income classification, bracket creep.)
But certainly, if a prez increases government spending & tax revenue (per citizen & adjusted for inflation), that would point in a socialistic direction.
If he reduces both, then this points away from socialism. Thus, I also consider GW Bush socialistic...no less so than Obama.

So, according to you, all civilizations that support their operations through some form of taxation are "socialist"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds rather convenient.......eh?

What do you mean?

 

[Dingbat]

So, according to you, all civilizations that support their operations through some form of taxation are "socialist"?

So everything is socialist thus nothing is socialist. Congrats on making a term mean nothing.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, according to you, all civilizations that support their operations through some form of taxation are "socialist"?

No. You should read carefully read the entire post.