Capitalism and Socialism - Free Chat, Mobile Dating Forums

Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Capitalism and Socialism

FeelYoung

Sun 02/10/19 07:43 PM

I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2019

I_love_bluegrass

Sun 02/10/19 08:15 PM

If you want to get irate over something, why don't you get irate about *corporate* welfare/ taxbreaks..??
Cost us far more as a country that *any* social program..

http://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/

http://www.listenmoneymatters.com/corporate-welfare/

msharmony

Mon 02/11/19 07:53 AM

Do I dare ask if anyone can actually explain, to their understanding, in any detail, what the 'GREEN NEW DEAL' is other than a simplified soundbyte?

do they know the actual policy, policies, and where a person can read them to decide whether they are actually good or bad policy?

Also, why sometimes do people so against 'socialism' use what they seem to view as socialism (assistance programs) as their excuse to want the WALL?

Just seems strange that those who dont want programs to help US citizens begrudge the potential for illegal immigrants to get assistance on the basis of how much less there is for those citizens they basically think should be left to sink or swim anyway?

Edited by msharmony on Mon 02/11/19 08:04 AM

I_love_bluegrass

Mon 02/11/19 08:27 AM

Edited by I_love_bluegrass on Mon 02/11/19 08:29 AM

The Wrong Alice

Mon 02/11/19 12:26 PM

Err ? Engines don't need to run on fossil fuels. We don't need to chop down the amazon, so obese people can eat more McDonalds. And if we didn't do this, and didn't sell arms, then we might not need a military to keep a monopoly on such things.. Just an idea, you know

Break down walls

Edited by The Wrong Alice on Mon 02/11/19 12:29 PM

Toodygirl5

Mon 02/11/19 01:28 PM

Socialism is what this Country is headed for, with all the opposition against our President .

[/quot

Our country makes progress in some areas and needs progress in others, just like it has since its founding.

Doing Great since. Obama got out !

FeelYoung

Mon 02/11/19 05:20 PM

from the conservative Western Journal in Arizona:

Now New York is showing, yet again, that a progressive income tax system that really is about redistributing wealth and punishing the rich will eventually implode. The rich will simply move themselves, their assets, and their capital elsewhere.

Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo announced that New York state’s income tax revenue had taken a nosedive after he introduced his new budget plan a month ago, according to the New York Post. The hit taken by the state is a whopping $2.3 billion.
*******
The middle class is always caught in the Middle - therefore our name. The poor will suck the life out of the freebies the government gives out...the rich will move to greener pastures, and those of us in the middle pay the price. I DO NOT WANT SOCIALISM.

msharmony

Mon 02/11/19 05:23 PM

we dont have socialism. Never will.

socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

what we have is a CONSTITUTIONAL tax system

16th amendment

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

There is nothing I know of produced,distributed, or exchanged in AMerica that is owned by all citizens or taxpayers. We couldnt have 'classes' or people or certain people being able to look down on others as 'losers' based on financial achievement and assumed effort tied to it, if we were anything close to 'socialist'. We would all be in the same boat and owning/having the same thing, except the greedy elites, which will exist in EVERY system.

Edited by msharmony on Mon 02/11/19 05:31 PM

FeelYoung

Mon 02/11/19 05:32 PM

not yet. But if the left takes over the Senate or the presidency, we WILL have socialism. People need to become aware of that long before making up their mind who to vote for.
***Socialism is an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. The government determines what type of work you will do. People who agree with this type of system are called socialists.

Toodygirl5

Mon 02/11/19 05:39 PM

If the Left has it's way in government this will be a Socialst County.
Hopefully they NEVER get their way!

They got their leaders pushing for Socialism.

How dumb is that!!

Edited by Toodygirl5 on Mon 02/11/19 05:40 PM

msharmony

Mon 02/11/19 05:43 PM

First, as a registered democrats, I know democrats have had control of Senate MANY times in US history and STILL ... no socialism.

Second, we have nowhere near a culture of government or citizens that would have any type of sense of their own value if they could not look down on others, thus nowhere near a culture where things are owned by 'society as a whole'. Private industry and capitalism are religions in American culture, whatever side of the 'fence' one is on.

Third. There is not now, regardless of what party has held senate, any indication that government will or wants to determine what type of work individuals do. There is still plenty of choice, from those jobs 'losers' have, to the one 'successful' have.

If people who agree with that are socialists, than socialists are about as much a threat in America as tasmanian devils.

FeelYoung

Mon 02/11/19 06:35 PM

What would the Green New Deal do for people?
The proposal lays out numerous “crises”, including declining life expectancy for many Americans, as well as wage stagnation and income inequality.

The Green New Deal calls for:

*a guaranteed job with fair pay, family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security
*universal high-quality healthcare
*free higher education
*access to affordable, safe and adequate housing
*stronger labor, workplace health and safety, anti-discrimination, and wage and hour standards
*the clean-up of hazardous waste sites
*access to clean water and air, health and affordable food, and nature
****
The goals of the document include a “10-year national mobilization” to:
*build resiliency against climate change-related disasters
*upgrade infrastructure
*meet power demand with “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”
*expand energy efficiency and access to power
*work with farmers to cut emissions
*overhaul the transportation sector with electric vehicles, public transportation and high-speed rail
*remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by bolstering forests

This is from The Guardian . AOC has NO ideas put forward of how to pay for all of this. Once again, a socialist with ideas, but no plan how to implement it. Look at the list and consider WHAT IS THE COST....both in money and businesses lost (particularly the small businessman is in trouble).

msharmony

Mon 02/11/19 06:54 PM

AOC is but one politician. Thank you for the information, they all seem like positive goals to me. I suspect business loss will be the status quo that will come with technology and AI regardless of the Green Deal or any other.

oldkid46

Tue 02/12/19 08:14 AM

Congress with support from POTUS has the ability to establish whatever level of taxation they agree on and the spending that goes with those taxes. If they increase tax revenue and use those funds for increased social programs and income redistribution, what do we call it if not a form of socialism?

We can talk all we want about the formal definition of socialism and who owns and controls the means of production. When you set regulation and taxes, at some level it is the same as owning and controlling the means of production. To the people who pay those taxes and follow those regulations only to watch their tax money not being spent for the good of the country but the welfare of others, it is socialism!!

I_love_bluegrass

Tue 02/12/19 08:53 AM

Again..If you want to get irate over something, why don't you get irate about *corporate* welfare/ taxbreaks..??
Cost us far more as a country that *any* social program..

AND doesn't do the average citizen any good.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/high-on-the-hog-the-top-8-corporate-welfare-recipients.html/

http://www.listenmoneymatters.com/corporate-welfare/

FeelYoung

Tue 02/12/19 09:01 AM

a huge crowd at Trumps rally last night. 6500 in the building, another 3500 outside watching on teletrons. O'Rourke had several hundred in a protest march. Time is running out for the Democrats to "put out" with border wall money or the country will get shut down again.
***BUILD THAT WALL***

oldkid46

Tue 02/12/19 09:22 AM

It sounds like you think that corporations and businesses should pay a certain amount of taxes. Congress and POTUS establish the tax rates and deductions. When they reduce taxes or give deductions (tax breaks) to corporations or business resulting in taxes less than you think that is appropriate, you think that is a problem. Would you feel the same way if Congress and POTUS did the opposite and raised their taxes? Why do I think you would think that was great? You do realize that you and I, as consumers, are the ones who will pay those increased taxes?

msharmony

Tue 02/12/19 09:24 AM

quite the stretch in my opinion, a good use of fear tactics mostly, word association where semantics are impactful.

msharmony

Tue 02/12/19 09:31 AM

I dont think it is quite that symmetrical, being that there is no history suggesting that the tax breaks reduce consumer prices either. Seems like the same argument against higher wages, the poor consumer. The money makers must make MORE money in order for consumers not to have to spend so much. But if the profit of business was truly symmetrical with the wages, why wouldnt the cost of living be increasing so much FASTER than the wages?

Business will cut down as many people as possible from consumer to worker, to make MORE profit. and whether they can blame it on a call for better wages or for them to be taxed more makes no difference, IMHO. they will stick it to the consumer for the sake of profit with lower taxes OR higher taxes and with lower or higher wages. because that is their bottom line main concern. Consumers arent somehow saving themselves by how much businesses are taxed.

oldkid46

Tue 02/12/19 10:28 AM

There are a couple of things you may be missing in your analysis. Two of the things that hold down increased prices for the consumer (cost of living) is increased productivity and transferring some of the labor to the consumer. Do you pump your own fuel? How about receive your bank statement electronically? How about self check outs? Placing an order for something by digital kiosk? All transference of labor from the worker to the consumer.

A company buys several new machines to do the work formally done by employees. They then hire one technician at a higher wage to manage those machines and lay off a number of workers who use to do the work the machine does now. Reduces company labor costs thus increasing profit and holding down prices.

Companies generally are about maximizing profits to an extent. Eventually those profit margins get large enough where some other company says I can do that, sell the same product for less, and still make what I consider a good profit. That is competition and the result is limits on profit margin. One only has to look at the internet and the result it has made on local stores and the price they can charge. Amazon is a perfect example of that!

Community > Politics, Current News & Events