Who ever said anything was for free ? Well ! All that money from those TAX CUTS had to come from somewhere and it is at the expense of your infrastructure .

Report: U-S roads, bridges, systems crumbling

WASHINGTON (AP) - The American way of life is taking a hit from a crumbling infrastructure.

A report being released today by the American Society of Civil Engineers gives it a rating of "D," down from a "D-plus" two years ago.

Infrastructure includes things like roads, bridges, water systems, the power grid and public parks.

Today's report card says Americans are spending more time stuck in traffic and less time at home with their families.

The study says it would take more than one and a-half trillion dollars over the next five years to fix things.

The engineer's report gives America's drinking water system a "D-minus" and figures it would cost eleven billion dollars a year to bring it up to speed.
http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=FFC6AF81-55DD-42A6-BAF9-0F94DC9D7773

That is where those TAX CUTS for the filthy rich have taken America straight too the 3rd world .

^^the one good thing about bush's election^^

.....I just can't figure out why so many folks are willing to die to come to this "crumbling" nation........if only we didn't have to spend all this money to keep people OUT! Must be something in other nations' water.........:confused:

I'm curious ....should the FEDERAL government pay for fixing state and county roads and bridges? Isn't that the role of state and county taxes? And water supply systems? I think that also comes under state and county authority. So what does FEDERAL taxes have to do with all of it??

The "power grid"? Isn't that private industry? And if so, what the hell is the federal government sticking their noses into it for? Are we leaning THAT heavily towards socialism these days????

And what, pray tell, does the FEDERAL government have to do with how many hours people spend on the road versus time with families?? Is being stuck in rush-hour traffic somehow the responsibility of the FEDERAL government.

Socialism? I think that's what this post is all about ...not taxes or tax cuts. It seems that you just want more and more socialism in this country. And I hope that doesn't happen in my lifetime.

Baron Max

.....I just can't figure out why so many folks are willing to die to come to this "crumbling" nation........if only we didn't have to spend all this money to keep people OUT! Must be something in other nations' water.........:confused:
Immigrants from the Third World that is , not from economically advanced nations of Westrn Europe and Japan .

Socialism? I think that's what this post is all about ...not taxes or tax cuts. It seems that you just want more and more socialism in this country. And I hope that doesn't happen in my lifetime.
Under a socialist system you would not pay any taxes that ought to appeal to you .

I'm curious ....should the FEDERAL government pay for fixing state and county roads and bridges? Isn't that the role of state and county taxes? And water supply systems? I think that also comes under state and county authority. So what does FEDERAL taxes have to do with all of it??Federal taxes fix only the Interstate System. The IS was mandated under Eisenhower to permit rapid transportation of ICBMs around the country in the fifties so the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wouldn't dare attack Australia. Responsibility for maintenance went along with that.

State highways are the responsibility of the states, county roads of the counties, and city streets of the cities.
The "power grid"? Isn't that private industry? And if so, what the hell is the federal government sticking their noses into it for? Are we leaning THAT heavily towards socialism these days????Remember when a grid breakdown propagated through stations in Quebec? There's a national interest there. People are going to pay anyway, through user fees and rates and through local, state and Federal taxes. Because it's so big, and made up of so many different private grids, it's in the best interest to provide national standards and co-ordination.
Socialism? I think that's what this post is all about ...not taxes or tax cuts. It seems that you just want more and more socialism in this country. And I hope that doesn't happen in my lifetime.You're right. There's a time, place and occasion for Federal involvement. But they don't need to wipe our noses for us. Brian thinks the People's Democratic Republic of Australia should hold the hankie for all Aussies - at least he claims to be Australian.

Under a socialist system you would not pay any taxes that ought to appeal to you .There goes English grammar again. Please translate that, Brian. Does it mean:
Under a socialist system you would not pay any taxes. That ought to appeal to you .If so, where would the expense to pay for your dream of free medical care, education, food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc., come from? Oh yes, and someone to hold the hankie! :D

There goes English grammar again. Please translate that, Brian. Does it mean:
Under a socialist system you would not pay any taxes. That ought to appeal to you .
Fuck............

If so, where would the expense to pay for your dream of free medical care, education, food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc., come from? Oh yes, and someone to hold the hankie! :D
Simple all infrastructural industries such as the Post Office , Electricity , Telecommunications , Road an Rail etc would be nationalized and revenue from these industries would fund free health care and education and affordable housing . Like what we in Australia used too have in the 1950's to the 1970s .

Who ever said anything was for free ? Well ! All that money from those TAX CUTS had to come from somewhere and it is at the expense of your infrastructure .

That is where those TAX CUTS for the filthy rich have taken America straight too the 3rd world .
Tryt to explain that to the average ignorant American..... :rolleyes:

This is why democracy doesn't work, people cannot make decissions if they don't have a clue about the consequences of those decisions. Most people are completely economically illeterate. For instance, minimum wage is often thought to be something positive, while it actually increases unemployment.

Like what we in Australia used too have in the 1950's to the 1970s .

If that system was so great, why'd ya' get rid of it?

Baron Max

...people cannot make decissions if they don't have a clue about the consequences of those decisions.

Oh, sure they can! Lots of us "average, ignorant Americans" do it every single day, day in, day out. Of course we can make decisions.

And just so you know, America is NOT a democracy ...it's a representative democracy. I.e., we make "average, ignorant" decisions and elect politicians to make all those big, important, world-shattering decisions for us. In that way we can complain and bitch and moan and pretend that we had nothing to do with the results of those decisions! :)

Baron Max

Well, don't forget you have a whole lot of direct democracy going on as well....
Not to mention that electing Bush is as ignorant as approving a bill for shaving the heads of all immigrants..... :rolleyes:

Well, don't forget you have a whole lot of direct democracy going on as well....

Well, yes, but not for us "average, ignorant" Americans ....if I read you meaning correctly, of course.


Not to mention that electing Bush is as ignorant as approving a bill for shaving the heads of all immigrants.

Well, that's your judgement, isn't it? Isn't it obvious to you that the majority of American voters saw things a bit differently to your judgement? So who's "right"?

Baron Max

If that system was so great, why'd ya' get rid of it?

Baron Max
We never had any choice in 1983 the Hawke Labour goverment came to power and instituted these freemarket reforms . Australians were told this was the best way and like sheep they followed . Same as Reagan in 1981 and Tatcher in 1979 compare creditor nation America 1960 with debt ridden America 2005 its as easy as that .

Tryt to explain that to the average ignorant American..... :rolleyes:
Dont you worry we in Australia have our fair share of the more than gullible .

This is why democracy doesn't work, people cannot make decissions if they don't have a clue about the consequences of those decisions.
Its actually a plutocracy we live in , a true democracy the political parties would be accountable to the people insted under this plutocratic set up its the privately run central banks which they answer too .

Most people are completely economically illeterate.
Ronald Reagan was also on a speaking trip to Japan the audience of media were orderd not ask any questions on economics . Yet reading some of the clowns on this forum who back Reaganism they argue he was an economic genius .

For instance, minimum wage is often thought to be something positive, while it actually increases unemployment.
Or how the goverment juggles and distorts the true unemployment figures .

While everyone is sort of correct, even the original report that started this thread, The USA is still close to front runner in most respects. We and most of the world are practicing brinkmanship, so disaster may occur soon. We should not be surprised that people are anxious to come to the USA from third world contries, but not from contries about as good as the USA in most respects.
While Socialism produces short term advantages for the poor, incompetent, disabled, unethical etc, it produces evolution in reverse for most humans. In my opinion most of the so called progress has been in spite of Socialism and (USA type) Liberal ideas.
Support Libertarian = liberty = freedom = lots less government = abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. Make government function on much less money. We can safely elect 70% Libertarian candidates with almost no down side for reasonably competent and honorable humans in my opinion. I conceed that we need to shift from big to village and neighborhood and limit the wealth and power of the obscenely rich. The medium rich are causing few problems and they are likely essential to society Neil

Well, yes, but not for us "average, ignorant" Americans ....if I read you meaning correctly, of course.
You don't get this, eh?
Direct democracy means that you vote directly on a new law. In some states in the US, you can actually come up with a completely stupid law, and if you have enough signatures, you pass it. That is what I was talking about.


Well, that's your judgement, isn't it? Isn't it obvious to you that the majority of American voters saw things a bit differently to your judgement? So who's "right"?
Oh.... the good olde ad populum fallacy....... :rolleyes:

Its actually a plutocracy we live in , a true democracy the political parties would be accountable to the people insted under this plutocratic set up its the privately run central banks which they answer too.
Yes, that's quite true. The media makes it worse. Well, here, CanWest owns most of the media, and everything is obviously distorted to suit to the Liberal's point of view. Yuck... The price of sovereignty is very high.....

Nice to see a class analyst around..... ;)


Ronald Reagan was also on a speaking trip to Japan the audience of media were orderd not ask any questions on economics . Yet reading some of the clowns on this forum who back Reaganism they argue he was an economic genius.
Hehehe...
Well.... economy is something tricky... There are a lot of variables that you always need to take into consideration, not to mention that you often need to compare everything in order to make sense of the information and try to find the true causes of a certain problem.

I think we need a more straightforward model of economics........ :eek:


Or how the goverment juggles and distorts the true unemployment figures .
Yes, indeed. I'm doing a research for political science class and it is just a pain.... In the Liberal's website, the unemployment was 6.1%, but the opposing party said that it actually is 8.5%. That is, not considering underemployment and those who gave up on finding work.

It's a pain to find reliable information. In one had we have those rich clowns controlling the media, and on the other hand we also have conspiracy theorists and people that are just not good enough at analizing the whole picture. It's hard........!

While everyone is sort of correct, even the original report that started this thread, The USA is still close to front runner in most respects. We and most of the world are practicing brinkmanship, so disaster may occur soon. We should not be surprised that people are anxious to come to the USA from third world contries, but not from contries about as good as the USA in most respects.
While Socialism produces short term advantages for the poor, incompetent, disabled, unethical etc, it produces evolution in reverse for most humans. In my opinion most of the so called progress has been in spite of Socialism and (USA type) Liberal ideas.
Support Libertarian = liberty = freedom = lots less government = abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. Make government function on much less money. We can safely elect 70% Libertarian candidates with almost no down side for reasonably competent and honorable humans in my opinion. I conceed that we need to shift from big to village and neighborhood and limit the wealth and power of the obscenely rich. The medium rich are causing few problems and they are likely essential to society Neil
A smaller government would be helpfull, but the issue is more complex than this. Would you like a profit-driven educational institution teaching your kids?

I conceed that we need to shift from big to village and neighborhood and limit the wealth and power of the obscenely rich. The medium rich are causing few problems and they are likely essential to society Neil
One of my most admired Americans Huey Long in the 1930's put forward such an economic platform . Huey Long would of been President in 1936 , he was predictably assasinated by a lone nut .

Brian, if you really look into Huey Long's political philosophy (if it can be called that), you'll find that he was more fascist (that's a form of socialism) and racist than anything else. His "chicken in every pot" meant quite literally that everybody got a stewing hen in the iron kettle over a wood fire while he and his select friends got their prime cut steaks from the kitchen on china plates.

It's tragic that anyone is assassinated for political reasons, but Long was no icon to look up to. His concept of "government" was power to the highest bidder.

fascist (that's a form of socialism)
No facism is the last resort of capitalism to save itself from democratic economic liberation through the empowerment of the people . This happened in Italy in 1926 and Germany in 1933 with the advent of Nazism done by industrialists of those respective nations to stave off a socialist goverment , likewise their counterparts in South America in the 1970's . Huey Long was neither a facist nor a racist but an economic realist who saw that capitalism is the enemy of equality and freedom .


" When fascism comes to America , it will be wrapped in an American flag ."

Huey Long
http://www.people.carleton.edu/~rdobrow/quotes.html

The HOMELAND SECURITY BILL and the PATRIOT ACT is the start of facism in America and as that other fine US president who interfered with the capitalist sysyem said .

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Abraham Lincolnhttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin143183.html

Who ever said anything was for free ? Well ! All that money from those TAX CUTS had to come from somewhere and it is at the expense of your infrastructure .


That is where those TAX CUTS for the filthy rich have taken America straight too the 3rd world .And if federal money was what paid for roads, bridges, water systems, and power grids, you might have a point...

And if federal money was what paid for roads, bridges, water systems, and power grids, you might have a point...
while obviously local money is the mainstay of local inf.,
http://www.google.com/search?q=federal+fund+road+project&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
suggests that there are alot of cases where federal funding plays a big part, too.

Hi truth seeker: Education provided by huge corporations,would have many adgendas, most not good for us. Many small, independent organizations providing education typically is far better than Government schools, and the best and the worst jobs of educating (or most anything else) are easy to spot. With rare exceptions; big is bad. Diversity is usually good. Neil

That's obvious. That was my point. But I'm surprised you turned it around.
Yes, I guess we could have small independent organizations dealing with it. But you have to be careful with the costs. And they would also try to profit, which is not great if that means less for students.

It is not unusual for small corporations to produce better results at lower cost to the users than government bueuracracies. Even giant corporations sometimes perform well but typically manipolate other corporations government agencies and even the customers such as the additives alegedly that CocoCola and tobacco companies use to increase addiction to their product. Mostly cost of products and services from small Companies are higher when burdened with unnecessary government requirements, and mischief by big corporations. Neil

That is where those TAX CUTS for the filthy rich have taken America straight too the 3rd world .

And that slide into 3rd World is gaining velocity ..............


The dysfunctional society: US billionaires on the rise—roads, bridges in decay

Two recent reports cast light on the impact of growing social inequality in the US. The first, the annual inventory of the very rich compiled this month by the business magazine Forbes, tracks the wealth of the world’s billionaires, and their increasing numbers in the US. The second is the “report card” issued by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) on the state of the infrastructure in the United States.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/forb-m22.shtml

See what the TAX CUTS for the FILTHY RICH has accomplished economic impoverishment of the people .

The application of the current tax revenue is wrong. Tying almost anything to wages is asking for trouble. Our tax problem ,(I would disagree that they went to the evil filthy rich as you have put it. I am no way rich...but I do not have a hatred for the rich as you seem to have,) comes from being taxed on all imcomes. Where is the incentive to make more? Like it or not, the United States is a capitalist economy with a very destructive regulatory supply and demand ideology.

If you were to free incomes of the taxation and place that tax upon the products and services we buy everyday, you would see the productivity of this country expand exponentially.

I know I haven't thrown out big numbers and web sites with pretty charts, but it doesn't take much to realize that taxation on everything you bring in is binding and drives prices up and wages down.

"One of my most admired Americans Huey Long in the 1930's put forward such an economic platform . Huey Long would of been President in 1936 , he was predictably assasinated by a lone nut."

"No facism is the last resort of capitalism to save itself from democratic economic liberation through the empowerment of the people."

Stop it, I'm getting coffee all over my keyboard.

axiomaf79,


If you were to free incomes of the taxation and place that tax upon the products and services we buy everyday, you would see the productivity of this country expand exponentially.

The fact is that there is only one type of fair tax: income tax. A universal sales tax, as you're suggesting, is unfair because you would be taxing everyone, even the people that can't afford it. Where's the morality in forcing a person to pay taxes who can't even afford to live with the money he/she makes?

To me, the perfect tax system would be a single flate-rate income tax with a large personal exemption equal to the annual cost of necessities for the individual (or family).

The interstate highway system is paid for by the federal fuel tax aka gasoline tax. The funds are kept in an account separate from the general fund where income taxes are deposited.

Marv wrote, "fascist (that's a form of socialism)"
Brian wrote, "facism is the last resort of capitalism to save itself from democratic economic liberation through the empowerment of the people"

You were both right.


Taxes, I resent the time it takes to fill out the forms to pay the taxes more than I resent paying the money. How much money we should all pay is a political decision. If my neighbors are conned into thinking that we need to spend our money on something stupid like a useless war then that's my tough luck because that's democracy and democracy is as good as it gets. The stupid American tax forms have no friends. Nobody including the congress that created them believes that they are good. So why can't we do better?


Taxes should:
1. Not require a lot of time or financial resources for preparation, compliance, and collection.
2. Not encourage behavior that is economically unhealthy for the nation and should encourage behavior that is economically healthy for the nation.
3. Offset the natural tendency of the wealthy to become wealthier and the poor to become poorer and the middle class to become smaller. The poor often find themself in situations where they must buy at a high price and sell at a low price.
4. Be taken in a way that makes it difficult to cheat on your taxes and does not turn cheating on taxes into a massive criminal enterprise. You could rely entirely on a sales tax but then wouldn't blackmarkets spring up to avoid paying the sales tax?

Any regressive form of tax like a sales tax could be made progressive by the government giving some amount of money to everyone. If the government gave everybody fourty dollars a day then:
1. Nobody would give to panhandlers and nobody would go hungry.
2. Modern day Vincent Van Goghs would have the ability to make art and we could close down our arts beurocracy.
3. We could close down the social security and welfare beurocracies.
4. People could say take this job and shove it or go on strike without as much fear.
5. We could end have smaller disaster relief programs.
6. Census would cost almost nothing even if done every year rather than every ten years if complying with the Census was a condition for recieveing the fourty dollars.
7. The working poor would not be so poor.

The question is how lazy are people and would giving everybody fourt dollars make people who could work work less? I think people like to work and contribute to society, just not under degrading or extremely boring conditions. I don't think lazyness would be a problem. I don't want to ecourage the poor to have big families so I would only give about ten a day for children to their parents.

Property taxes are the least time consuming form of taxation and you can not cheat on property taxes. If we were to try to get most of our revenue from taxing land we would have to make some sort of exception for the farmers and lumber industry.

Taxing energy like oil and coal and electricity at much higher rates makes sense but we would have to be careful not to push people to burning wood or trash in wood stoves because that behavior is highly polluting.

Under a socialist system you would not pay any taxes that ought to appeal to you .

lol
under a socialist system, 97% of your paycheck would be deducted as tax

re: the original post, i think under Bush's capitalism the infrustructure is supposed to be maintained privately, not by government using tax dollars.

re: the original post, i think under Bush's capitalism the infrustructure is supposed to be maintained privately, not by government using tax dollars.

Government spending has never been greater than it is under Bush's not so capitalist capitalism. You don't see the full impact in your taxes because the extreme borrowing is paying for much of the spending. Enjoy the klepto capitalism corporate welfare state now because you and your children will be paying for it the rest of your lives.

lol
under a socialist system, 97% of your paycheck would be deducted as tax

how very untrue.

yeah, just look at sweden!
ursula

lol
under a socialist system, 97% of your paycheck would be deducted as tax
There is no tax under a socialist system as every industry is owned by the people . Under a proper socialist system everything from education , housing to healthcare would be free and universal .

Under a proper socialist system everything from education , housing to healthcare would be free and universal .

Hmm, sounds good! How 'bout booze n' drugs n' whores n' condoms n' Viagra n' ....well, a whole bunch of those good, good things? Are they all free and available to anyone who wants them ....for free? How nice.

Baron Max

Sure , if the socialist economy wants such vice for free , this can easily be accomadated as the people control the wealth any system the public want is easily accessible . Under the current parasitical capitalist system we pay through the nose for such items literally . Under a socialist system all services are attainable for free , its possible , that is the beauty of Socialism .

Sure, if the socialist economy wants such vice for free, ...

But if the "socialist economy" does NOT want to provide booze and drugs and such, then you couldn't get it? And just who is this group of people that would control our wants and desires? ...the ruling class? ...the governing authority? ...the majority of citizens? Who??

And what if they don't want to provide beef? Pork? We don't get it?

What else won't we get if "they" don't want us to have it????

Baron Max

But if the "socialist economy" does NOT want to provide booze and drugs and such, then you couldn't get it?
You asked me a question on socialist procurement and I gave you an answer .

And just who is this group of people that would control our wants and desires? ...the ruling class? ...the governing authority? ...the majority of citizens? Who??
The people elect by popular determination administrators who are regulated by a social compact .

And what if they don't want to provide beef? Pork? We don't get it?
Why would a democratic Socialist Goverment not want to provide such commodities ?

What else won't we get if "they" don't want us to have it????
The only "they" you imply are found in our Capitalist societies and "they" will not provide free health care , free education and free housing because "they" dont want us to have it .

You asked me a question on socialist procurement and I gave you an answer.

Yeah, but I didn't like your answer! :)


The people elect by popular determination administrators who are regulated by a social compact.

So who polices the administrators? And if it's the police, who polices the police? Just because you have laws and rules ain't no sign that they'll be obeyed, is it?


Why would a democratic Socialist Goverment not want to provide such commodities?

Well, maybe the administrators don't like beef or pork or ...whatever. What's to "force" them to provide what the people want?

You keep saying/implying that there are no "bad guys" in a socialist government? That human greed is somehow stripped from the genes of man? And more importantly, that if there is a little rule or law, that socialists will follow it to the letter ..even with no one forcing them to do so. How do you figure that?

If there's any possible way for one human to cheat another human out of his rightful wealth, then they'll do it .....that's a guarantee! and that's in any system of economy or government or clan or tribe or anything else!

Baron Max

Yeah, but I didn't like your answer! :)



So who polices the administrators? And if it's the police, who polices the police? Just because you have laws and rules ain't no sign that they'll be obeyed, is it?



Well, maybe the administrators don't like beef or pork or ...whatever. What's to "force" them to provide what the people want?

You keep saying/implying that there are no "bad guys" in a socialist government? That human greed is somehow stripped from the genes of man? And more importantly, that if there is a little rule or law, that socialists will follow it to the letter ..even with no one forcing them to do so. How do you figure that?

If there's any possible way for one human to cheat another human out of his rightful wealth, then they'll do it .....that's a guarantee! and that's in any system of economy or government or clan or tribe or anything else!

Baron Max
Your just stating obvious , human corruption that is something that is to be expected and is unavoidable . Under a unilateral Socialist system you would have this an all encompassing social constitution such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) . You have a voting system which is multi-party where one individual has one vote in an election of poplar determination where a goverment is decided by a the % cast with no threshold qualification . You have a media that is public opearted and accountable that is a media free of goverment control and free of manipulative corrupt private ownership . Thereby knobbling corruption to a point where it is easily picked up and dealt with .

There is no tax under a socialist system as every industry is owned by the people . Hey, sounds great!
Under a proper socialist system everything from education , housing to healthcare would be free and universal .Ok…so if it’s free and there aren’t any taxes, where does the money to pay the salaries of the teachers, construction workers, and doctors come from?

...human corruption that is something that is to be expected and is unavoidable.

Well, Brian, if it's UNAVOIDABLE, then all of that crap you mentioned later will have not effect, right? I mean, corruption is illegal NOW, for god's sake, and you're just saying that with some silly "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" it's all just gonna' go away???? ....LOL!!

Brian, you're pretty funny when you try so hard NOT to see reality.

Baron Max

Hey, sounds great!Ok…so if it’s free and there aren’t any taxes, where does the money to pay the salaries of the teachers, construction workers, and doctors come from?
Because all industry and services are owned by the people and salaries and wages are apportioned as running costs . And as such all profits are fed back into the community catering its needs . Thereby eliminating eliminating direct taxation which is a necessary device of capitalism .

Well, Brian, if it's UNAVOIDABLE, then all of that crap you mentioned later will have not effect, right? I mean, corruption is illegal NOW, for god's sake, and you're just saying that with some silly "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" it's all just gonna' go away???? ....LOL!!

Brian, you're pretty funny when you try so hard NOT to see reality.

Baron Max

Well you asked me the question

You keep saying/implying that there are no "bad guys" in a socialist government? That human greed is somehow stripped from the genes of man? And more importantly, that if there is a little rule or law, that socialists will follow it to the letter ..even with no one forcing them to do so. How do you figure that?
I just gave you an answer ,
Now here is my question
How is it that a socialist govt could not operate ?
I want an answer so I can see your reasoning .

Hey Brian,
If there are no taxes in a Socialist system, then why does a block of cheese cost $50 in Sweden? Why is gas $5 a gallon??

So its not a tax but a operating profit used to fund Govt programs??

Either way youre paying out of your ass.

If you want to pay higher taxes so the Govt can baby sit you and make all the decisions for you go for it.

Hey Brian,
If there are no taxes in a Socialist system, then why does a block of cheese cost $50 in Sweden? Why is gas $5 a gallon??
Sweden is not a socialist country , its capitalist .

So its not a tax but a operating profit used to fund Govt programs??
Whatever you want to call it .

If you want to pay higher taxes so the Govt can baby sit you and make all the decisions for you go for it.
Explain how when control of the financial , manufacturing and service sectors of the economy is under public control and ownership you can pay tax's ? You only pay tax's under a capitalist system as the financial , manufacturing and service sectors are under private control and ownership and the goverment must raise revenue .

Because all industry and services are owned by the people and salaries and wages are apportioned as running costs.I don’t follow you. You say that the all services (education, for instance) are owned by the people - all right, I could go along with that. But the people who provide these services will have to be paid somehow. That means either the government will have to confiscate people’s money to pay them (taxes) or people who use the services will have to pay for them directly, as paying customers. I don’t see how a service could be free AND not paid for by taxes. Where specifically does the money come from? I don’t really know anything about socialist economics, so I might just be misunderstanding you.
And as such all profits are fed back into the community catering its needs . Thereby eliminating eliminating direct taxation which is a necessary device of capitalism .If the industries are all owned by the government and the government is making a profit by selling me things, that’s essentially a tax. There's no difference between the government directly confiscating 20% of my paycheck vs. charging me 20% more than everything really costs.

I don’t follow you. You say that the all services (education, for instance) are owned by the people - all right, I could go along with that. But the people who provide these services will have to be paid somehow.
Of course they get paid , money just doesnt disappear because there is no capitalist system . Under a socialist system all banking and the control of finance is held by the public .

I don’t see how a service could be free AND not paid for by taxes.
Tax's under a capitalist system exists because the profits of a company , under private ownership goes to the owner . So the capitalist Govt which needs revenue must tax all individuals to meet expences . Under a socialist system the industry being owned by the public all profits go to the communty treasury thereby eliminating income tax . The profits made from these publically industries in turn go into building roads , rail , schools , education , housing , healthcare , military etc .

Where specifically does the money come from? I don’t really know anything about socialist economics, so I might just be misunderstanding you.
Money is just legal tender , if the nation has a functioning economy then there is a common currency , its as simple as that . In capitalist societies the control of money from distribution , circulation to the printing of money is held in private hands . It may come as a surprise to alot is that in the US the Federal Reserve which controls Americas financial system is privately owned and operated . Under a socialist system this function is simply controlled by the public which is adminstered by the goverment which is directly answerable to the public . If you dont think this is possible Abraham Lincoln actually began to print money outside the control of Private interference read about the The History of the Greenback dollar (http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant/greenbackP.pdf) .

If the industries are all owned by the government and the government is making a profit by selling me things, that’s essentially a tax. There's no difference between the government directly confiscating 20% of my paycheck vs. charging me 20% more than everything really costs.
No it is not , you are speaking of a sales tax which is another capitalist govt tax . Manufactured goods under a socialist system would be far cheaper because under a capitalist system middle men keep cranking up the cost . Simply put you as a consumer will pay manufacturers price which as a rule twice the cost of production . Tax's are simply a necessary feature of a capitalist economic system whereby the goverment faced with all money being tied up in private control must raise revenue to fund the public infrastructure . Under a Socialist system tax's cannot exist simply because the economic system is under public control .

I disagree...Socialist and Communist countries are notoriously inefficient after the fisrt decade or two because the initial idealistic generation has handed the reigns to a less idealistic one. Without the ideal there is no reason to keep or even have a work ethic, after all why should you work or work hard if everything is owed to you as a member of society or community? I do agree that there is a huge difference between "the government directly confiscating 20% of my paycheck vs. charging me 20% more than everything really costs." Because even in a socialist or communist government we have the option not to buy...therfore if you are a low consumer you can keep the 20% of income and grow your own food/ drill for your own water/ generate your own electricity...as to the practicality of this, it is all a matter of opinion...of course you could save that money in a capital system as well...leaving us with the high price of goods and services in an inefficient system based upon a horrid work ethic.

The discussion here seems to be based upon a false dicotomy with American Capitalism on one end and True Socialism on the other...The American economy is not a true Capitalism...A true capitalism necessitates zero government interference. The American system is a socialist/capitalism hybrid. The existance of social programs is all of the evidence of this needed.

I noticed someone earlier expounding Libertarianism...that would be a truely free Capitalist economy...one would pay for the use of those services used...EVERYTHING would be privatized...is this good? I guess it depends on whether you believe free competition keeps the cost down for consumers...Personally, I do.

In a socialist economy, there is none of this competition to keep prices down...Example, if I am the local baker, paid by the government to produce bread for my town, what is to keep me from baking a loaf of bread in 2 hours when it hypothetically could only take half of an hour? Honestly, I am just trying to save for a bigger house or perhaps to send my children to a private school in America where teachers do not have the same work ethic as me...therfore getting an education to do more than be a baker...Back to the example, if the bread takes 2 hours to bake then I can charge for 2 hours of work right? Who is the loser? The consumer and eventually the baker as he must purchase other goods from other state run producers. Okay, now if I am a baker in a capitalist system and people have the freedom to choose between mine and several other competing bakeries in the area then not only must my bread be the best tasting, but it better be competatively priced, or I am not going to be successful. Loser: It depends, if the baker is no good at baking then it will be the baker. If he/she is then a mutually advantagous balance will be found between consumer and producer.

I do have one dispute with the other person talking about Libertarianism...No interferance is no interferance...the crap about limiting the rich is total BS. Are you saying that if I take the time to invent a product and put it into production I cannot reap the benefits? Or, if I develop a service that is unequaled or unrivaled then I cannot benefit from it? Total nonsense. Either the government monitors or it does not. What does the amount of my income have to do with it? I still have to pay for the services I am using...Besides, perhaps that is how I got rich, but saving my income instead of being an avid consumer...I should be penalized for this?

- KitNyx

I know the arguement I am going to get from the socialist is that the baker will have some sort of cap, limit, or monitor of fairness to keep his prices down...okay, what happened to no government control. And if I work in a goverment run bakery...oh my god, the beaurocracy that would be involved, imaging the level of paperwork alone makes my head spin...Socialism and Communist is not an escape from government control...it is the ultimate form. No thank you. There was mention of how prosperous America was in its creditor days...it had a nearly free economy...Liaz faire capitalism, it was McCarthyism and the following witchhunts, the Patriot Act of the day, that moved government to increase control and hence regulation...

- KitNyx

See what the TAX CUTS for the FILTHY RICH has accomplished economic impoverishment of the people .

What !!!! OMFG !! Im going to write my congressman right now. Well after I go have a drink and scrath my balls on my deck out back of my small two bedroom home that I own in which I bought for by working my meaningless house painting job in which I only make 40 grand a year doing.
Maybe I'll surf the web a bit first on my fancy new Dell.. or maybe I'll take my little fishing boat out for some fine summer evening fishing first. Maybe I'll take my 7 year old son to the local semi-pro baseball game first. Yeah that would be nice. First thing first though... Ima go scratch my balls out back with a beer. Impoverish me !! I'll tell them bastids!!

The most powerful nation that has ever existed on the face of the Earth - the richest nation that has ever existed on the face of the Earth. Hell.. we got fat poor people who dont have to wait for their surgery to remove those corns on their feet for christ sake. But your right bro, we have our share of socialists here in America also... They're the ones standing in the welfare lines.

impoverishment????? You have no idea what it means to live in poverty. Nor Do I. Get real.

The problem, Oliver, is that it's so easy to sit in our airconditioned homes in front of our computers and type our wishes .........without ever confronting the actual facts and the realities of the world.

But you'll notice that each person here has access to a $$ computer and $$ DSL Internet connections. And THEY are the ones talking about poverty!! ....LOL!

Baron Max

Truthseeker,


Direct democracy means that you vote directly on a new law. In some states in the US, you can actually come up with a completely stupid law, and if you have enough signatures, you pass it. That is what I was talking about.
Ironically, these ignorant Americans have yet to correct you on how some of our state referndums and initiatives work.

Essentially, some states have instituted a way of collecting enough signatures so a certain issue (governor recall, legalizing marijuana, etc.) will b eplaced on the next ballot. After millions of dollars are spent in campaigning, the state votes on it. However, these things rarely pass; maybe 1 in 10.

Besides that, it's only done on a state level, and if it happens to be unconstitutional (interfering with interstate commerce, abridging constitutional rights), it can always be appealed to a higher court– such as the supreme court where the judges are appointed for life.

There are very few positions in the USA that are elected by the people. In fact, there is only one, and that is el presidente. All other positions are elected by minorities of the population.

Hence, we are a representative democracy.

Baron Max,

The problem, Oliver, is that it's so easy to sit in our airconditioned homes in front of our computers and type our wishes .........without ever confronting the actual facts and the realities of the world.

But you'll notice that each person here has access to a $$ computer and $$ DSL Internet connections. And THEY are the ones talking about poverty!! ....LOL!
I can't tell if you're being ironic or not.

Truthseeker,

Ironically, these ignorant Americans have yet to correct you on how some of our state referndums and initiatives work.

Essentially, some states have instituted a way of collecting enough signatures so a certain issue (governor recall, legalizing marijuana, etc.) will b eplaced on the next ballot. After millions of dollars are spent in campaigning, the state votes on it. However, these things rarely pass; maybe 1 in 10.

Besides that, it's only done on a state level, and if it happens to be unconstitutional (interfering with interstate commerce, abridging constitutional rights), it can always be appealed to a higher court– such as the supreme court where the judges are appointed for life.

There are very few positions in the USA that are elected by the people. In fact, there is only one, and that is el presidente. All other positions are elected by minorities of the population.

Hence, we are a representative democracy.
Well, than it is really worse than I thought. I'm not surprised about that system....

You see... if people were educated enough, they would be able to do teir own choices. But of course, the ignorance of the population is profitable to the elite....

Still... I thought California was pretty open democratically....

Truthseeker,

Unfortunately, very few people have the time to learn the legal speak to vote on legislature, nor do people have the time to extensively learn the myriad other things involved in politics. In fact, the Governator of Cali has been putting so many pieces of legislature to a public vote that Californians are getting tired of it.

In America, we have better things to do than discuss the finer points of interstate potato commerce. That's why we elect politicians to represent our interests. When they don't represent our interests, we don't reelect them. So regardless of how you, a wannabe Canadian feels about Bush, most Americans felt that Bush would do best representing their interests. Not your interests; their interests.

impoverishment?????
Right so 2 million homelessin America is a lifestyle choice , poverty racked Ghettos are an illusion and Native Americans living on reservations are a eco lifestyle option !

Get real.
You can buy cream for your balls .

Right so 2 million homelessin America is a lifestyle choice , poverty racked Ghettos are an illusion and Native Americans living on reservations are a eco lifestyle option!

You know only what you read in the news, Brian. If the news were to say that everything was fine, what would you do? ...LOL!

Better than 50% of the homeless in America will refuse any aid or assistance ....other than cash and bottles of booze!

You don't know shit about poverty, Brian ...only the silly crap you read or see or hear. Check your sources more closely.

Baron Max

Oh.... the good olde ad populum fallacy....... :rolleyes:

Good call. Sort of.

The results of an election aren't a logical fallacy. They are a validation or a repudiation of a party's history in office, and their promises for the future. But the essential "correctness" of a party's arguments aren't proven by an election.

This means that arguing that an election result trumps a personal opinion is not logically correct, as you've pointed out.

I do not, for the record, believe that the Baron was making this argument. I read it that he was implying that a proven majority of American citizens who bother to vote would disagree with you, and nothing more.

Truthseeker,

Unfortunately, very few people have the time to learn the legal speak to vote on legislature, nor do people have the time to extensively learn the myriad other things involved in politics. In fact, the Governator of Cali has been putting so many pieces of legislature to a public vote that Californians are getting tired of it.
Yes, indeed... I though it was that way...
It's bad tough. Everyone should be involved. It is their money after all....


In America, we have better things to do than discuss the finer points of interstate potato commerce. That's why we elect politicians to represent our interests. When they don't represent our interests, we don't reelect them.
Well... this is a hard subject to untangle tough... Representative democracy is not really that great....


So regardless of how you, a wannabe Canadian feels about Bush, most Americans felt that Bush would do best representing their interests. Not your interests; their interests.
That if he was indeed elected by the people.... :rolleyes:

Good call. Sort of.

The results of an election aren't a logical fallacy. They are a validation or a repudiation of a party's history in office, and their promises for the future. But the essential "correctness" of a party's arguments aren't proven by an election.
No, I didn't say the results of an election is a fallazy- that makes no sense. What I said is that the idea of an election itself is logically flawed. Just because most people think that a certain person is the best person to represent them doesn't mean that that person is indeed the best.


This means that arguing that an election result trumps a personal opinion is not logically correct, as you've pointed out.
That is not what I have pointed out. What I pointed out is that the logic behind the concept of democracy is based on an ad populum fallacy.


I do not, for the record, believe that the Baron was making this argument. I read it that he was implying that a proven majority of American citizens who bother to vote would disagree with you, and nothing more.
If 100 million people out of 101 million people say that pigs can fly that won't make it so, will it?

If 100 million people out of 101 million people say that pigs can fly that won't make it so, will it?
But democracies don't decide that kind of bullshit. A democracy would decide whtehr or not it was worthwhile to spend the money to create a flying pig, or make a law against flying pigs, or search for a flying pig.


Well... this is a hard subject to untangle tough... Representative democracy is not really that great....
Um, well, except that the largest and most powerful empires were all representative democracies, as well as the most free and safe and nice and rich countries in the world.

But democracies don't decide that kind of bullshit. A democracy would decide whtehr or not it was worthwhile to spend the money to create a flying pig, or make a law against flying pigs, or search for a flying pig.
You silly boy!!! :p
You know what I mean!!!
I mean... if a majority say that a certain person is the best for the country, doesn't mean that person is indeed the best for the country....


Um, well, except that the largest and most powerful empires were all representative democracies, as well as the most free and safe and nice and rich countries in the world.
Well... maybe that's the best we can do right now....
If it wasn't for corruption, maybe communism could work... Or maybe a combination- like China...

But of course... we could always create something new....
But it would need to be a combination of psychology and economy. It would have to be quite flexible and all-inclusive...

No, I didn't say the results of an election is a fallazy- that makes no sense. What I said is that the idea of an election itself is logically flawed. Just because most people think that a certain person is the best person to represent them doesn't mean that that person is indeed the best.


That is not what I have pointed out. What I pointed out is that the logic behind the concept of democracy is based on an ad populum fallacy.


If 100 million people out of 101 million people say that pigs can fly that won't make it so, will it?

That kind of sounds reasonable. But I don't believe that logical infallibility is a necessary ingredient in choosing leadership or in political decision-making. Political persuasion and political decision-making fall into the realm of opinion. What happens if there is more than one logically correct choice? How do you choose between them without a logically baseless preference?

Your example of flying pigs is pointless. Pigs can't fly regardless of public opinion. We're talking about the fluid realm of politics here, not the immutable laws of nature.

Truthseeker,


If it wasn't for corruption, maybe communism could work...

And if it weren't for friction, this perpetual motion machine would work....

Graft, greed and corruption are part of government. It's not a seperate entity to be ignored in speculative disccusions or brought up only peripherally when discussing ideals. A government must be built around styming corruption, just as a rocket must be built with gravity in mind.

One of the great things about the way the American government is set up is it's ability to prevent corruption and power hogging by an absolute majority. One of the best ways it does this is through a representative democracy. Every state gets two senators, which means that very small minorities get significant power in legislative decisions.

Allow me to riterate that the only directly elected representative in the USA is the president. The president, albeit a growing branch over the years, is still only 1/3 of the government in the US. You seem to fall into the fallacy that all decisions are made by el presidente. This is entirely untrue. The president's domain, though historically vague, is nevertheless severly limited. Probably one of the most powerful aspects of presidency is the ability to appoint judiciaries.

In fact, the US has a surprisingly robust represtantive democracy. There are literally thousands of special interest groups that get the ears of legislatures; and these are more than the Big Tobacco and Rape the Earth Inc. Groups like MAD and the NAACP and ACLU, as well as numerous environmental organisations all have significant power in legislating stuff, and have had major roles in passing historic and what is now considered American law.

So I contend that representative democracy is the most fair and safe form of government that we as humans have yet to discover. It may be, as humans, the best form of government.

By the way, you can also have representative governments in both communisist and socialist societies.

What is wrong with direct democracy?...oh, and what is this talk about the president being directly elected by the people?...what nonsense. Does anyone know the difference between the "electoral vote" and the "popular vote"?

- KitNyx

What is wrong with direct democracy?...oh, and what is this talk about the president being directly elected by the people?...what nonsense. Does anyone know the difference between the "electoral vote" and the "popular vote"?

- KitNyx
Because a one person one vote election decided by popular determination in an open multi-party , free of private donations , proportionally decided based on percentages of vote without a parlimentary entrance threshold , is the greatest threat to a capitalist society .

Because a one person one vote election decided by popular determination in an open multi-party , free of private donations , proportionally decided based on percentages of vote without a parlimentary entrance threshold , is the greatest threat to a capitalist society .

Okay, why does it have to be free of private funding? Do you really believe that the guy with the slickest PR campaign is a guaranteed lock? Do you have no faith at all in the electorate?

And PR is the biggest piece of shit idea since marxism.

Sorry the first PR is public relations, the second PR is proportional representation.

Okay, why does it have to be free of private funding? Do you really believe that the guy with the slickest PR campaign is a guaranteed lock? Do you have no faith at all in the electorate?


Well, why did the american people vote Bush into power? Because he is the most capable man to lead the country!

wait...

no...

haha..

I couldn't supress my laughter any longer.

Well, why did the american people vote Bush into power?

Well, if you don't know, then you should keep asking yourself that until you arrive at the correct answer.

Baron Max

Well, why did the american people vote Bush into power? Because he is the most capable man to lead the country!

Given the choice between Bush and Kerry, I'd say you're right. If the Democrats could find someone, anyone, that wasn't a coprolalic loon like Dean or a vain, pampered Europhile who takes every side of every argument, they might actually win.

Well, no one that is really capable of being a good president would ever make it through the election, or would they? It doesn't really matter if he is democrat or republican.

A president apparently has to appeal to the masses and put up a good show and front. It doesn't actually seem to matter if he is a puppet or a moron. As long as he looks good and says exactly what his campaign managers say.

Well, if you don't know, then you should keep asking yourself that until you arrive at the correct answer.

Baron Max

Oh, I know why.

As long as he looks good and says exactly what his campaign managers say.
Reading.....well that's another matter... :D

A president apparently has to appeal to the masses....

Hmm, how astute of you! Did you read that somewhere or did it just now come to you out of the blue?

Baron Max

Well, no one that is really capable of being a good president would ever make it through the election, or would they? It doesn't really matter if he is democrat or republican.

A president apparently has to appeal to the masses and put up a good show and front. It doesn't actually seem to matter if he is a puppet or a moron. As long as he looks good and says exactly what his campaign managers say.

That's an interesting theory. Please explain two things:

1) Who's REALLY in charge? (Maybe you should confer with Brian Foley before you answer that.)

2) How do you explain the worldwide success of democracy as opposed to other systems? The world's wealthiest countries (piss off Brunei) are all democracies. The world's most atrocious shitholes are all as far from democracy as an organized system can get.

That kind of sounds reasonable. But I don't believe that logical infallibility is a necessary ingredient in choosing leadership or in political decision-making.
Logical infallibility? Does that even exist?
I don't even think a person can be completely infallible (is that a word?). If you consider a whole nation being infallible, than the odds of logical infallibility are even smaller. Of course, if many people vote, the odds of a majority making a mistake is smaller, which might be the main reason why democracy is not a complete disaster...


Political persuasion and political decision-making fall into the realm of opinion. What happens if there is more than one logically correct choice? How do you choose between them without a logically baseless preference?
Well, there are many reasons why people make choices. People don't always make choices based on logic.


Your example of flying pigs is pointless. Pigs can't fly regardless of public opinion.
That is exactly my point. A bad leader is a bad leader regardless of public opinion.


We're talking about the fluid realm of politics here, not the immutable laws of nature.
That is irrelevant. My example pointed out the fact that truth is not based on public opinion. The truth is the truth regardless of what people think.

1) Who's REALLY in charge? (Maybe you should confer with Brian Foley before you answer that.)

The aliens from planet Zorba. They have infiltrated our security 50 years ago and now they control the world from their underground base in Hollywood.

Governor Schuazenecker is one of them.

2) How do you explain the worldwide success of democracy as opposed to other systems? The world's wealthiest countries (piss off Brunei) are all democracies. The world's most atrocious shitholes are all as far from democracy as an organized system can get.

I wouldn't call western democracies democracies perse. Maybe the term autocracy is better.

And if it weren't for friction, this perpetual motion machine would work....
Well, that's a good point...


Graft, greed and corruption are part of government. It's not a seperate entity to be ignored in speculative disccusions or brought up only peripherally when discussing ideals. A government must be built around styming corruption, just as a rocket must be built with gravity in mind.
Well, but we don't need government, do we?


One of the great things about the way the American government is set up is it's ability to prevent corruption and power hogging by an absolute majority. One of the best ways it does this is through a representative democracy.
Well, but the power is always in the hands of a small elite! Take for instance the moron in power right now. he is only there because his daddy helped him gettting there. "Nepotism" is the magic word...


Every state gets two senators, which means that very small minorities get significant power in legislative decisions.
Are they elected?


Allow me to riterate that the only directly elected representative in the USA is the president. The president, albeit a growing branch over the years, is still only 1/3 of the government in the US.
Well... a third is quite a bit of power. In Canada is much worse. Not only that, we don't even choose them- we only choose the party.
I'm not saying democracy is bad or wrong, I'm saying it is not perfect.


You seem to fall into the fallacy that all decisions are made by el presidente.
No, I don't think that way. I'm just talking about democracy, regardless of what power the president actually has.


This is entirely untrue. The president's domain, though historically vague, is nevertheless severly limited. Probably one of the most powerful aspects of presidency is the ability to appoint judiciaries.
That's quite a bit of power....
Who appoint senators?


In fact, the US has a surprisingly robust represtantive democracy. There are literally thousands of special interest groups that get the ears of legislatures; and these are more than the Big Tobacco and Rape the Earth Inc.
Oh c'mmon! Lobbyists are quite expensive!! An interest group for the people have too have A LOT of members to have some power. Still is very hard because money buys power!!!


Groups like MAD and the NAACP and ACLU, as well as numerous environmental organisations all have significant power in legislating stuff, and have had major roles in passing historic and what is now considered American law.
Interest groups that are not profitable to corporations have limited power and have to work extremely hard to lobby the government!!


So I contend that representative democracy is the most fair and safe form of government that we as humans have yet to discover. It may be, as humans, the best form of government.
Well, I must say it is likely the best we have right now. But I'm sure there might be something better (hehehe.... that sounds funny :p )...


By the way, you can also have representative governments in both communisist and socialist societies.
Of course.

I wouldn't call western democracies democracies perse. Maybe the term autocracy is better.
Plutocracy....

I wouldn't call western democracies democracies perse. Maybe the term autocracy is better.

Do you even know what the word "autocracy" means? Refer back to question 1.

That is because I actually wanted to say 'Oligarchy'.

haha...

look what a PhD did to my brain.

All monkeys have PhDs....

That is because I actually wanted to say 'Oligarchy'.

haha...

look what a PhD did to my brain.

Sorry, I can't help myself -

Women's Studies?
Liberal Arts?
Comparitive Mythologies?

Close..

bananology

The president's domain, though historically vague, is nevertheless severly limited.
Have to agree. For instance, although the president can help enforce the laws and decisions Congress makes, he couldn't make them, like he couldn't declare war on another country......wait a minute.....HEY!!!

A war can be renamed (police action etc.).

Have to agree. For instance, although the president can help enforce the laws and decisions Congress makes, he couldn't make them, like he couldn't declare war on another country......wait a minute.....HEY!!!
Sorry, I don't remember writing that quote. Doesn't mean I didn't, I just don't recognize it.

Forgive my agreed upon ignorance vis the Constitution, but I thought the President could submit bills to Congress for review.

As discussed earlier (perhaps on a different thread, can't be bothered to go back and look right now) neither the President nor Congress "declares war" anymore.

My point is that, yes, in our system of government, the president's power is, hypothetically, limited; however, if a president can break the rules, then his power, in actuality, isn't limited, and that's not Democracy.

As discussed earlier (perhaps on a different thread, can't be bothered to go back and look right now) neither the President nor Congress "declares war" anymore.

You may have come to that conclusion, but that's still the law.

My point is that, yes, in our system of government, the president's power is, hypothetically, limited; however, if a president can break the rules, then his power, in actuality, isn't limited, and that's not Democracy.

The President's ability to get away with breaking the rules is limited by the will of Congress and his party and the electorate to let him do so. In a country that cherishes freedom of the press to the extent of enshrining it in it's constitution, the power of the civil society is considerable in this regard.

I thought we were talking about taxes here, and why we need to pay them. Anyway, giving more money to the government is the same as flushing it down the toilet or giving it to a drunken sailor at a stripbar. The government has plenty of money, it's just wasting most of it. Just down the road from my house the government is spending $14 million dollars to build sound barriers along the highway so that people who bought houses by the highway don't have to hear the highway! All the taxes I pay in my life will probably never equal the amount of money wasted on that little strip of road. Screw taxes.

I thought we were talking about taxes here, and why we need to pay them. Anyway, giving more money to the government is the same as flushing it down the toilet or giving it to a drunken sailor at a stripbar. The government has plenty of money, it's just wasting most of it. Just down the road from my house the government is spending $14 million dollars to build sound barriers along the highway so that people who bought houses by the highway don't have to hear the highway! All the taxes I pay in my life will probably never equal the amount of money wasted on that little strip of road. Screw taxes.

The necessity of that wall depends on your view of noise pollution. If you view it as bunk, then fine, it's a waste of money. Otherwise, what's the difference between your highway and the Love Canal debacle? If the government makes a mess of the environment on property it owns, and it's affecting the quality of life of people who own land beside it, it's the government's responsibility to clean up the mess. You might say that those idiots knew what they were getting into when they bought there. But the acceptance of noise as a form of pollution is fairly new, as is the acceptance that asbestos is carcinogenic.

As much as I favour small government and lower taxes, there are services and infrastructure that need to be provided for the common good, and that necessatates taxes. In this regard, I think your example is particularly inapt.

You might say that those idiots knew what they were getting into when they bought there.
That's exactly what I'd say. Why in the hell should tax dollars go to decrease noise pollution on property that was probably bought at a discount due to the noise pollution. Investigation would probably show some politician bought up a lot of the property being improved at taxpayer expense and will soon sell it making a tidy profit. Again, we're talking $14 million. Spent by a government going deeper in debt every day,

Investigation would probably show some politician bought up a lot of the property ...,

If you really want to have some "fun", check out the land sales all around major cities that are slowly/rapidly expanding. In many/most instances, one prime piece of land will be flipped several times during the process ...and most are city "leaders" or politicians or friends of those two! It's a riot of big names in city, county government and their friends.

But lest y'all forget, it's perfectly legal ...it's call land speculation and any of us can do it if we have the money to do so. Some of you don't like people with money, but that's something different and personal. Most of you think that peope with money should give all that money to the poor or to the underprivileged or somesuch, but that's ...hmmm, what is that?

Baron Max

While I normally just read the posts and do not respond, and I am not really in position to start an ongoing conversation. But Dude, you are so misguided.




There is no tax under a socialist system as every industry is owned by the people . Under a proper socialist system everything from education , housing to healthcare would be free and universal .

While I normally just read the posts and do not respond, and I am not really in position to start an ongoing conversation. But Dude, you are so misguided.
I completely agree. His comment was so off base I felt it didn't even merit a reply.

No, it's quite on base: perfectly relevant to the subject at hand, taxation.

If the government owns everything, there is no taxation, because no one has anything worth taxing. Of course when the government nationalizes all industry, one might consider that 100% taxation. Yeah, that's a great plan. We can all stand in line waiting to receive our pittance from our lord and master. That worked real well in the USSR.

Mad:

You do bring up a good point in a socialist/communistic form of government, which owns everything, there can be nothing to tax.

But if government own everything that would include thought, or another way of looking it would be they determine what you need or don't need. That is a form of mind control, but that is not really my greater point.

The greater point is that if government owns everything. How does it go about achieving anything without workers? What does any worker want in return for their services? If the answers are nothing and financial rewards, then isn't socialism/communism another form of slavery?

Wow have we come full circle or what?

First, we found a country based on the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Admittedly, we do this understanding the great injustice of slavery. We even have a civil war in large part to end that injustice.

Now, as a matter of societal evolution we have some who believe we should return to slavery for the sakes of progress.

I thought the left was progressive not retrogressive?





If the government owns everything, there is no taxation, because no one has anything worth taxing. Of course when the government nationalizes all industry, one might consider that 100% taxation. Yeah, that's a great plan. We can all stand in line waiting to receive our pittance from our lord and master. That worked real well in the USSR.