"Fair Share"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Riot, I can accept those definitions for the end-state of imposed socialism.

But it follows that policies that move us in that direction can be called "socialistic". Think "slippery slope"...

You mean like government control of women's uteruses?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

You mean like government control of women's uteruses?

Yeah, I know Roe v. Wade sucks, but one Supreme Court crisis at a time, OK?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Yeah, I know Roe v. Wade sucks, but one Supreme Court crisis at a time, OK?

Not talking about Roe vs. Wade. Talking about government forced vaginal ultrasounds against a woman and her doctor's will, with the woman responsible for payment.

Seriously: what truly "socialistic" (oh, I used quotes! ) systems do we have in this democratic republic form of government?

The military. Wait, no, we also contract out alot of that to private people.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not talking about Roe vs. Wade. Talking about government forced vaginal ultrasounds against a woman and her doctor's will, with the woman responsible for payment.

Seriously: what truly "socialistic" (oh, I used quotes! ) systems do we have in this democratic republic form of government?

The military. Wait, no, we also contract out alot of that to private people.

You left out if the baby would have any objection... that cannot be known.

The confiscation of wealth from someone who earned it for the purpose of giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is socialistic, and un-American.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The confiscation of wealth from someone who earned it for the purpose of giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is socialistic, and un-American.

Actually, no, it's not. It's called "taxation", it's enshrined in our government as the 16th Amendment of our Constitution, and we as a country do that for our mutual benefit as a society.

And we use that benefit, as a society, to purchase things for our better good. Like "civilization".

So, you have to decide, Joey:

First, are you for or against taxation? Because in this country, we pay taxes. So if you want to live here, you follow our tax code. If you don't want to pay any taxes, try Darfur. Or Somalia.

Secondly, if you don't like the tax code, or the amounts some people pay, you petition your government (another enshrined right) to change it.

Third: none of that is "socialism". It's "constitutional democracy with a representative government elected by the citizens".

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Actually, no, it's not. It's called "taxation", it's enshrined in our government as the 16th Amendment of our Constitution, and we as a country do that for our mutual benefit as a society.

And we use that benefit, as a society, to purchase things for our better good. Like "civilization".

So, you have to decide, Joey:

First, are you for or against taxation? Because in this country, we pay taxes. So if you want to live here, you follow our tax code. If you don't want to pay any taxes, try Darfur. Or Somalia.

Secondly, if you don't like the tax code, or the amounts some people pay, you petition your government (another enshrined right) to change it.

Third: none of that is "socialism". It's "constitutional democracy with a representative government elected by the citizens".

Taxation is a legitimate mechanism for getting funds for essential service that are an expense for everyone. Not just an expense for some of the people - the ones who don't get the money.

Like most rational people, I am for the minimization of taxation - which of course corresponds to the maximization of my own discretion over my own money. This also results in the maximization of my personal freedom.

Petitioning your government when 49.5% of the people don't pay any income tax is pointless. This is not a democracy - never was. It is a constitutionally federated republic. "Mob rule" doesn't work out too well. Why should the recipient have as much say as the provider in an election? Of course he or she will vote to keep the checks coming, the math, budget, and impending implosion of the dollar be damned. So votes by the soon to be minority of income earners are meaningless.

It is socialism - clearly. And, since we didn't start out in a socialist country, it is part of a divide and conquer strategy to get us as far socialist as possible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Taxation is a legitimate mechanism for getting funds for essential service that are an expense for everyone. Not just an expense for some of the people - the ones who don't get the money.

Like most rational people, I am for the minimization of taxation - which of course corresponds to the maximization of my own discretion over my own money. This also results in the maximization of my personal freedom.

Petitioning your government when 49.5% of the people don't pay any income tax is pointless. This is not a democracy - never was. It is a constitutionally federated republic. "Mob rule" doesn't work out too well. Why should the recipient have as much say as the provider in an election? Of course he or she will vote to keep the checks coming, the math, budget, and impending implosion of the dollar be damned. So votes by the soon to be minority of income earners are meaningless.

It is socialism - clearly. And, since we didn't start out in a socialist country, it is part of a divide and conquer strategy to get us as far socialist as possible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.

and on top of not paying a cent, the earned income tax 'credit' is a huge expenditure, which gives money to those who don't pay. it's not a refund or rebate. that's why tax credits are so much better than deductions-they're dollar for dollar. some of us pay and pay, others don't pay and receive on top of it. now that's ridiculous. one of the reasons for my latest signature. the fed is a caricature of its former self.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Taxation is a legitimate mechanism for getting funds for essential service that are an expense for everyone. Not just an expense for some of the people - the ones who don't get the money.

What use, specifically, are you referencing?

Petitioning your government when 49.5% of the people don't pay any income tax is pointless.

Most of the people that don't pay any income tax are deemed way too poor by our society to have to pay federal income tax (although they all pay state and local taxes).

Many others who pay no tax are rich corporations and individuals that use current legal exemptions.

Yes, the tax code could be redone to eliminate exemptions.

Why should the recipient have as much say as the provider in an election? Of course he or she will vote to keep the checks coming, the math, budget, and impending implosion of the dollar be damned. So votes by the soon to be minority of income earners are meaningless.

Ah - you don't believe that all Americans are created equal. You are clearly in favor of, and defining, a plutocracy.

It is socialism - clearly.

No. We do not have "socialism". That's absurd. The government doesn't own your means of production, nor does it take your production. That's simply false. It's a dog whistle.

We also are fighting the private corporate ownership of government, the plutocracy of the "haves" over the "have nots", that you clearly desire.

You are doing exactly what the wealthy desire: you are complaining that "the poor", or "welfare queens" (note to jms, that is not a direct quote) have ruined this country. Wrong. Our country is owned by the wealthy, and we are barely hanging on to any semblance of "representative democracy" left in the face of massive attempts to profitize and privatize what's left of our earned benefits programs by the Republican Party (the Ryan budget, which throws this country into massive new trillions of deficit while removing all social safety nets and privatizing for profit all our earned benefits programs)