VAT in the U.S.A.

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Tsuwabaki, would you rather pay more in taxes for government services? Or would you rather pay less taxes so you could afford those services yourself, if and when you need them? For every $1 you pay in government taxes, you will be lucky if you collect 10 cents in benefits, whereas if you had your own money to spend, 100% of it would go toward your health care, retirement, or whatever. If you take it a step further, why collect any money at all for your work? Why not just give every penny you make to the government and collect whatever benefits they can afford to give you. You can be just as much a serf as those who existed in the middle ages.

Short answer: Yes, I would.

Long answer: I believe in socialism. I don't believe it's a dirty word. I don't believe it is unfair to pay more into a system since I make more to help support those that make less. I am not interested in a social safety net because I need it now, but because I may need it in the future. I've spent short amounts of time jobless, in debt, even close to homeless (I had couches I could sleep on at friends' houses). If it had continued for more than the seven or so months I had of this, I would have eventually worn out my welcome, ran out of friends, and still been homeless, jobless, and in debt. I would have had no healthcare. I would have badly needed government assistance.

I was luckier than a lot of folks; at the end of 2007 this came to an end when I finally managed to get a teaching job. I have avoided most of the recession, paid off my debt, and even have a large savings/retirement/investment portfolio. But I strongly believe it was "but by the grace of God, there went I" moment.

It is a moral imperative for me to pay into a system that covers all a nation's citizens and protects them from becoming permanently unproductive. It is in everyone's personal interest to increase the total productivity of our population. The private sector will not do this as profits cannot be realised immediately, nor are individual firms interested in protecting employees of other firms, even if it will increase profitability for all. When the private sector refuses to do what is right, government must play referee.

Socialism is not communism. I am not supporting taking all my money; I want leisure activities, I want to acquire certain entertainment goods. For that reason, I find your argument about "from each what he can do, to each what he needs" spurious and irrelevant. Communism discounts the human need to make choices and to have personal property. Socialism establishes certain public property and benefits for common use, but it does not interfere with other forms of property. Socialism and capitalism can work together.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

Short answer: Yes, I would.

Long answer: I believe in socialism. I don't believe it's a dirty word. I don't believe it is unfair to pay more into a system since I make more to help support those that make less. I am not interested in a social safety net because I need it now, but because I may need it in the future. I've spent short amounts of time jobless, in debt, even close to homeless (I had couches I could sleep on at friends' houses). If it had continued for more than the seven or so months I had of this, I would have eventually worn out my welcome, ran out of friends, and still been homeless, jobless, and in debt. I would have had no healthcare. I would have badly needed government assistance.

I was luckier than a lot of folks; at the end of 2007 this came to an end when I finally managed to get a teaching job. I have avoided most of the recession, paid off my debt, and even have a large savings/retirement/investment portfolio. But I strongly believe it was "but by the grace of God, there went I" moment.

It is a moral imperative for me to pay into a system that covers all a nation's citizens and protects them from becoming permanently unproductive. It is in everyone's personal interest to increase the total productivity of our population. The private sector will not do this as profits cannot be realised immediately, nor are individual firms interested in protecting employees of other firms, even if it will increase profitability for all. When the private sector refuses to do what is right, government must play referee.

Socialism is not communism. I am not supporting taking all my money; I want leisure activities, I want to acquire certain entertainment goods. For that reason, I find your argument about "from each what he can do, to each what he needs" spurious and irrelevant. Communism discounts the human need to make choices and to have personal property. Socialism establishes certain public property and benefits for common use, but it does not interfere with other forms of property. Socialism and capitalism can work together.

Socialism: Do you think it could work in the states?
Is the president and the current administration working toward this?

[Tsuwabuki]

Originally Posted by clintjm

Socialism: Do you think it could work in the states?
Is the president and the current administration working toward this?

Yes, and yes. This is why I vote the way I do.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

Yes, and yes. This is why I vote the way I do.

Which ideologies of socialism do you think the president and most of the administration is: democratic socialism or Marxist-Leninist socialism?

[Tsuwabuki]

I would say the former, but the former encompasses several competing definitions. My description of democratic socialism would fall among those definitions that are compatible with capitalism and do not remove self-determination or personal responsibility. Social safety nets are not hand outs. I am morally opposed to dolist socialism, even if done inside of a primarily democratic or republican form of government.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

I would say the former, but the former encompasses several competing definitions. My description of democratic socialism would fall among those definitions that are compatible with capitalism and do not remove self-determination or personal responsibility. Social safety nets are not hand outs. I am morally opposed to dolist socialism, even if done inside of a primarily democratic or republican form of government.

Yes, democratic socialism is hard to define.

I wonder why doesn't Obama run on this? He is always denying being a socialist this as ridiculous. Many say that anyone that calls him a socialists or holding socialistic ideals are insane haters. Do you think this is why Obama and his politics are not being accepted easily?

I mentioned also in the hope and change thread that "Socialism" isn't evil, it just something that American ideals do not value traditionally.

[Tsuwabuki]

America is traditionally very concerned with a rugged, almost stubborn libertarianism. As if we would rather live out on a self-sufficent homestead than interact as components of a highly populated urban society. Thus, socialism, which appears to in some way, possibly encroach upon this pioneer spirit, becomes a dirty word that cannot be included in political discussions lest a a participant in said discussion completely closes down in reaction to it. If Obama ran on common sense capitalism compatible democratic socialism, all many of his opponents would hear is "socialism" and dialogue would cease.

We are, however, a highly populated urban society. Poverty, unemployment, unfair labor practices, and unsustainable business practices affect the productivity of everyone. National defense, public education, the interstate highway system, the postal service, medical and law enforcement personnel all aid productivity. A society that lifts individuals out of poverty or prevents individuals from falling into poverty due to uncontrolled debt, outrageous expensive healthcare, or unemployment will be a more productive society. More productive members of society, who do have access to increasing levels of discretionary income, create wealth and profitability by making spending choices on leisure goods and activities.

It's a win-win. It is not a threat to personal freedom or personal wealth.

[MMM]

The problem is that the majority of American people do not know what socialism is. Perception is reality, and now days he with the largest bullhorn wins.

Do you think the average American has a positive or negative image of socialism?

Socialism is the new Red Scare. "S" is the new Scarlet Letter. Being associated with socialism is the new beginning to the end of a political career.

But Obama is not a socialist. He isn't even as liberal as much of the left wants him to be. Many of the people who didn't support the recent Health Care Reform bill were against it not because it went too far...but because it didn't go far enough. Did the socialist president propose universal health care? No. Did the socialist president propose a public option (what many on the right call the first step to socialist health care)? No.

The head of the socialist party in America agrees:

Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. - washingtonpost.com

So I think these weighted questions like "What kind of socialist is the president?" can be cast aside with "When did you stop beating your wife?"

[Tsuwabuki]

MMM, this is true. However, I vote democratic and voted for Obama largely because the direction that he is going is closer than the alternatives.

I am far more liberal than the President. I am far more socialist than the President.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Tsuwabuki

MMM, this is true. However, I vote democratic and voted for Obama largely because the direction that he is going is closer than the alternatives.

I am far more liberal than the President. I am far more socialist than the President.

I agree with you Tsuwabuki. So far it has been proven that I am far more liberal than the president, too.

We live now in an era where 9 out of 10 political talk shows are from a conservative perspective, so that is a lot of hours in a day of not only promoting conservative agendas but also distinguishing themselves from each other, so the more outlandish a talk show host is, the more attention he gets. The rhetoric what should have ended at the election now just flows and flows and political election cycle becomes endless.

Intelligent political debate is healthy any time, but now we are accustomed to one-way speech, and with the glut of "news sources" available it is easy for me to get my "news" from people that tell me what I want to hear.

Did FOX News report that in a recent poll they did showing the President and the IRS were considered more favorably than the Tea Party movement?

Fox News' Shocking Results

No, they didn't. That would go against their reporting of how popular the Tea Party movement is. A 24 hour news cycle means a LOT of reporting and a lot of repeating. (How many times did FOX News "report" the Joe Biden f-bomb?)