Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
To the people here who live under socialism...; and think it is good or great....
Topic Started: Oct 27 2008, 11:57 PM (1,468 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ If you answer the question, I should be able to direct you to the point I'm making.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
STC
Oct 28 2008, 12:41 PM
Dandandat
Oct 28 2008, 12:33 PM
STC
Oct 28 2008, 12:08 PM
Reply to Dan,

Because Dwayne's implicit line of argument is that Obama is a Socialist and that others i.e. Republicans, are not.

If that isn't the line of argument, then why make an issue about Obama being a Socialist? Why even mention it, unless one thought it was a trait unique to him?

My own view is that Obama does have some policies that would fit Socialism. So does McCain. It could be perhaps be argued that Obama is more Socialist than McCain, but this is not the same as saying that Obama is Socialist and therefore implying that his views are highly deviant from the norms.
So when you say unique; you aren't talking about Obama vs 'the rest of the world' but Obama vs McCain (or other prominent Republicans who would profess they are not Socialists).

That could be one interpretation Dan but, really, to get to the point, I'm just challenging Dwayne's implication that Obama is a Socialist/deviant from political norms/extreme etc. I don't want or intend to get hung up on individual words and semantics - I'd like Dwayne (if he wants to of course :) ) to respond to my points rather than sliding into another tangent with you.
You see that is where I think you would need to go to really answer you question. When you introduced the qualification that Obama must be unique or else the chargers are erroneous you are placing undue bourdon on Dwayne when he responds. "If" Obama is a socialist he most certainly would not be unique, there would be other socialists in the world to make him common among them, and since, as I said earlier, no one person is very clearly defined by dictionary definitions, it is likely that a Socialist will share some commonalty with non socialists. The idea that a socialist is only a socialist when he is unique is not a fair starting point to the discussion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:48 AM
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 07:41 AM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:21 AM
Unfornutately, one persistent misstatement all of you seem to be making in describing your medical system is this...

"I can get the medical treatment I need totally free of charge"

"Hospital is free"

It is never free, you're just paying for it on the front end, through your tax system.
This is incorrect as for me personally it is totally free. However the point is it is free of charge not free of cost. That means that the cost to an individual is not related to how much they need to use the system or the costs to the system but only to their tax bill.
So, are you saying you produce no income at all? Are you incapable of producing income?

If you are incapable of producing an income, then would it surprise you to know that 100% of your medical needs would be covered in the United States?
I do produce an income but in the UK everyone has something called the personal allowance which means the first £6035 you earn is free from income tax. That means I dont pay that much tax and when you take into account the tax credits I get it means I do indeed pay no tax whatsoever.

8247
 
Basically, I want to know this:

If your gross income is $100,000 a year, how much could you expect to pay in taxes in a year, total.

In the UK, based on current exchange rates, you would pay $25,333 in Income Tax and $6348 in National Insurance. So of $100,000 earned you would keep $68,319, with total deductions of $31,618.

I would be interested to know what the deductions would be like under the US system.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
whitestar
Oct 28 2008, 12:45 PM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 12:38 PM
^^^ Yes, what is the point?
Ok, I had built a certain respect for you Dwayne, all gone now.
Join the club ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Oct 28 2008, 12:26 PM
Ones perceived opinions as to Obama's intended policies are not a matter of fact, but are matters of opinion .
Correct. But perceived opinions are irrelevant. Obama's ACTUAL intended policies are the only thing that's relevant.

Quote:
 
Also as we all know a politicians intended polices as laid out during an election are rarely the same shape, size, and scope of what acutely transpires after the election is complete. Which makes it prudent for the elector it to know something of their elected officials besides champion promises. This information is also subjective.

So you black and white (is or is not) approach to this issue is very incorrect.
You don't need to see what a person actually does to know whether they are a Socialist. Otherwise, it would be impossible for anyone to be a Socialist without first enacting their ideas. His stated ideas are enough to evaluate upon. Now, once he gets in office, if his actions differ greatly than his stated ideas, that evaluation could change. But you can't say Obama is a Socialist now based upon some guess about what you think he's going to do contrary to his current statements. That wouldn't establish him as a Socialist. All it would establish is a prediction - which could just as easily be completely wrong as it could be right.

Quote:
 
Further more; people in general can rarely be defined by a ridged set of ideals set forth in a dictionary definition; in most cases their is no such thing as a person who "is or isn't a Socialist". In most cases people hold ideals that run up and down the spectrum; and it is the strength of those ideals and where those ideals are most concentrated that place someone in a category such as Socialist. In other words, not all Socialists are alike and not all Socialists agree with every tenant of the Socialistic system or agree 100% with each other. Same would go for any other group.
I agree. It's a matter of degree. One Socialist ideal out of 100 does not make a person a Socialist. But 99 out of 100 would. At some point there is a transition between what's appropriate to call someone a Socialist and what's not enough. And there's a gray area in between too. So, in order to call Obama a Socialist, Obama would have to be well enough into the Socialism end of the spectrum for the label to fit. It's quite clear that he's not. But what's also clear is the McCain campaign has been distorting Obama's ideas to make them sound more Socialistic than they are.

Quote:
 
The idea that a person like Obama is or is not a socialist is a sloppy way to construe a thought; the thought would more effectively be posed "Does Obama hold Socialistic ideals, what are they, how will they effect his presidency, and can I live with those effects"
I agree but I would add "how much of his total approach to governing consists of Socialist ideals". However, those questions aren't what's being asked by people labeling Obama a Socialist. In fact, for some, merely spreading the wealth around (and that without even a clear definition of what that means) is enough.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
STC
Oct 28 2008, 11:48 AM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 11:35 AM
ImpulseEngine
Oct 28 2008, 11:28 AM
I honestly don't know why Socialism is being discussed at all in the context of this Presidential election except as a desperate right-wing fear mongering talking point.
:rotfl:

Um, because obama is a socialist... That's the point of Ayers. That's the point of Joe the Plumber. And that's also the point of the radio interview obama gave in 20001 that was made public just yesterday.
Obama is a Socialist?

OK, here are a couple of definitions of Socialism.

From Dictionary.com

Quote:
 
so·cial·ism (sô'shə-lĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


Quote:
 
social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.


Part of the definition from Encyclopedia Brittanica - you can see the extended entry using the link below.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=socialism%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia

So, I have the following questions.

a. What, in the above definitions, fits with Obama being a Socialist?
b. If you can find affirmative answers to a. , to what extent does his fitting those definitions of Socialism make him different or unique from other leading political figures in the U.S. e.g. John McCain?

If you're going to call Obama a Socialist and imply that is unique to him, you're going to have to show how he fits the definition and then show that he is unique in fitting that definition, otherwise your assertions lack substance and will be, as has already been said, seen as scare-mongering and dare I say, smear tactics.
Is your premise that I should, based on some list of bullet points that define socialism, list off each character trait obama fits that defines him a socialist?

I don't know what you really want, so I'll just give you the things I see...

1. Associations: Jeremiah Wright & Bill Ayers
Wright preached Black Liberation Theology at Obama's church, which is a Marxist retelling of the Christian theology. Obama went to that church for 20 years and he absolutely, positively DID claim Wright as his spiritual advisor and friend. He has since claimed that the relationship was really nothing at all, and he barely remembers any of the sermons. How convenient.

As for Ayers', his past with the Weather Underground is well known. Ayers understood and agreed, that to carry out his plans to it logical conclusions, would require an occupation of the United States by Russia and other communist powers. And he also accepted the notion that 10 of millions of Americans would need to be liquidated due to their inability to give up capitalism and adopt socialism.

Since Bill Ayers admitted his guilt, but got away with it due to an illegal police procedure, he had an image make over and invested the majority of his time focused on the one place Marxist's always declared as the most important place in securing their Marxist revolution --- the education of the youth.

Since we also know that Ayers hasn't apologized for his terrorism at all. In fact, he wished he could have done more. Even now, Ayers wished he could have reached his ultimate goal of creating his socialist utopia. Based on that I find questionable what he might want to teach American kids, and I'd really like the media to dig into exactly what kind of education initiatives Ayers and Obama worked on. I want to know what the agenda was and what did they achieve? Very basic stuff, but if Obama was going along with a bunch of Marxist-socialist crapola with Ayers, I wanna know about it. The fact is, many say it is: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-bill-ayersobama-idea-of-education I'd just like to see CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS look into it.

2. Opinions: his words reveal him
The only real way to distinguish the socialist democrats from the capitalist ones is in examining their words. We have the comments that Obama made to Joe the Plumber, but outside of those comments, just what other things has he said? Here's this from 2001: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

By his own words, this man believed whole heartedly in the concepts of socialism... primarily, the concepts of income redistribution.

3. Politics: what are his policies?
In a political sense from an American perspective, not all socialists are democrats and not all democrats are socialists, but where socialism and American politics coincide, it's almost always on the side of democrats. And it is absolutely a matter of degrees. Jim Webb is far less socialistic than Hillary Clinton.

And just to address your McCain argument... You can argue that McCain may have some policies that are arguably socialistic, but we're coming back to degrees, so since I dislike all socialism, I ultimately will back the less of the two evils. Obama has voted to disarm the people of his how state. He has absolutely voted to raise taxes on people earning far less than $250,000 per year.



So, in total, when I put everything together, I see this man a very devisive figure who will attempt to fundamentally change American economic and political landscape. Most people are simply too ignorant to realize what that means and its consequences.
Edited by Dwayne, Oct 29 2008, 01:03 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
IE
 
Correct. But perceived opinions are irrelevant. Obama's ACTUAL intended policies are the only thing that's relevant.


Since Obama is not president and has made no ACTUAL policies we can not know what his ACTUAL policies are. All we know is intended policies as related to us by Obama during a campaign. And how we perceive those tellings are what form our opinions about them. It is all perception and as you can see from the campaign there are multiple ways to interpret what either candidate is telling us.

If in some way you know exactly what Obama will do when he becomes president I would ask that you let me borrow your crystal ball.

Quote:
 
You don't need to see what a person actually does to know whether they are a Socialist. Otherwise, it would be impossible for anyone to be a Socialist without first enacting their ideas. His stated ideas are enough to evaluate upon. Now, once he gets in office, if his actions differ greatly than his stated ideas, that evaluation could change. But you can't say Obama is a Socialist now based upon some guess about what you think he's going to do contrary to his current statements. That wouldn't establish him as a Socialist. All it would establish is a prediction - which could just as easily be completely wrong as it could be right.


I didn’t say you needed to see what a person actually does once they are president to know whether they are a Socialist. I said, as is evident by every past election in the history of the US, you can not take campaign promises at face value as they are not always (most likely not) the actual actions that will be taken once the candidate becomes president. Yes you must make a prediction as to what you think the likely actions would be before you cast your vote; in an ideal world that would be an informed prediction starting with the candidates proposed polices then including past behavior, voting records, speeches, associations, and ect.

Quote:
 

I agree. It's a matter of degree. One Socialist ideal out of 100 does not make a person a Socialist. But 99 out of 100 would. At some point there is a transition between what's appropriate to call someone a Socialist and what's not enough. And there's a gray area in between too. So, in order to call Obama a Socialist, Obama would have to be well enough into the Socialism end of the spectrum for the label to fit. It's quite clear that he's not. But what's also clear is the McCain campaign has been distorting Obama's ideas to make them sound more Socialistic than they are.


Why is t quite clear that Obama is not passed at point? It doesn’t seem clear to me, perhaps if you explained why Obama is not passed the point worthy of calling him a Socialist I would more clearly see why you make the claim that the McCain campaign has distorted Obama's ideas.

Some questionable comments coming from Obama's mouth himself makes the issue not clear to me of late; so I don’t understand your claim that these are distortions from the McCain camp, unless of course you are implying McCain forced Obama to make these statements under duress.

Quote:
 

I agree but I would add "how much of his total approach to governing consists of Socialist ideals". However, those questions aren't what's being asked by people labeling Obama a Socialist. In fact, for some, merely spreading the wealth around (and that without even a clear definition of what that means) is enough.


I agree, there will always be people who want to see the worst in others, and when they do, they usually find it.

However just because these people exist; does not make what every issue they are harping on off limits to the rest of us.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Oct 28 2008, 03:24 PM
IE
 
Correct. But perceived opinions are irrelevant. Obama's ACTUAL intended policies are the only thing that's relevant.


Since Obama is not president and has made no ACTUAL policies we can not know what his ACTUAL policies are. All we know is intended policies as related to us by Obama during a campaign. And how we perceive those tellings are what form our opinions about them. It is all perception and as you can see from the campaign there are multiple ways to interpret what either candidate is telling us.

If in some way you know exactly what Obama will do when he becomes president I would ask that you let me borrow your crystal ball.
His actual policies are what he's been telling you he intends to do, which is all one can reasonably judge upon at this point. You are trying to bring in the notion that just because he says one thing doesn't mean he won't actually do another thing. That is true, but also beside the point. You can't say he is or isn't a Socialist based upon "even though he said that, I know he's REALLY going to do this" because that would be labeling based on a prediction. And, as I pointed out before, predictions may or may not come true.

Now you could make the argument that it's impossible to know whether he's a Socialist until you see exactly what he does, but that would just support my conclusion that labeling him a "Socialist" is wrong anyway (at least for now until and unless proven otherwise later). But I also argue that you can label a person a Socialist based only upon their expressed ideas in the absence of actual actions. I mean how would you categorize anyone as a Socialist - just the average Joe types - if such labels were limited to action-based judgments only? Imposing such a limit seems ridiculous. Right now, Obama's expressed ideas are what he is TELLING us they are. And so, for now, until there is anything to the contrary, those ideas as stated by him are what he should be judged upon.


Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You don't need to see what a person actually does to know whether they are a Socialist. Otherwise, it would be impossible for anyone to be a Socialist without first enacting their ideas. His stated ideas are enough to evaluate upon. Now, once he gets in office, if his actions differ greatly than his stated ideas, that evaluation could change. But you can't say Obama is a Socialist now based upon some guess about what you think he's going to do contrary to his current statements. That wouldn't establish him as a Socialist. All it would establish is a prediction - which could just as easily be completely wrong as it could be right.


I didn’t say you needed to see what a person actually does once they are president to know whether they are a Socialist. I said, as is evident by every past election in the history of the US, you can not take campaign promises at face value as they are not always (most likely not) the actual actions that will be taken once the candidate becomes president. Yes you must make a prediction as to what you think the likely actions would be before you cast your vote; in an ideal world that would be an informed prediction starting with the candidates proposed polices then including past behavior, voting records, speeches, associations, and ect.
Yes, you need to predict in order to vote, but that's not what we're discussing. Please stick with the topic. You might even predict in order to establish what you think he "likely is or likely is not" in terms of the Socialist label. However, you cannot use prediction to say he "IS" or "IS NOT" a Socialist. So anyone who right now says "Obama is a Socialist" is simply wrong because the sum total of his stated policies does not even come close to amounting to Socialism. He may have an individual idea here or there that approach Socialism, but those small parts of his overall ideas does not make him "a Socialist".



Quote:
 
Why is t quite clear that Obama is not passed at point? It doesn’t seem clear to me, perhaps if you explained why Obama is not passed the point worthy of calling him a Socialist I would more clearly see why you make the claim that the McCain campaign has distorted Obama's ideas.

Some questionable comments coming from Obama's mouth himself makes the issue not clear to me of late; so I don’t understand your claim that these are distortions from the McCain camp, unless of course you are implying McCain forced Obama to make these statements under duress.
I can't possibly do that in the narrow space of a messageboard post because it requires listing all of his ideas, discussing whether each one is Socialist or not, analyzing which ideas carry more weight than others, and then establishing where in that continuum between Socialism and non-Socialism he falls. For me, I didn't have to do all that because having learned everything that I have about him, so little of it is anything like Socialism, it's just plain obvious that he's not a Socialist. However, if it isn't obvious to you, then such an analysis would be required.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 

I agree but I would add "how much of his total approach to governing consists of Socialist ideals". However, those questions aren't what's being asked by people labeling Obama a Socialist. In fact, for some, merely spreading the wealth around (and that without even a clear definition of what that means) is enough.


I agree, there will always be people who want to see the worst in others, and when they do, they usually find it.

However just because these people exist; does not make what every issue they are harping on off limits to the rest of us.
I didn't say it does. And we're also not discussing "every issue" - there you go off topic again - we're discussing only this one about Socialism. And you are free to discuss the Socialism topic too - and so am I. So I used my freedom to express my disbelief that people could actually seriously entertain the notion that Obama is a Socialist.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 01:32 PM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:48 AM
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 07:41 AM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:21 AM
Unfornutately, one persistent misstatement all of you seem to be making in describing your medical system is this...

"I can get the medical treatment I need totally free of charge"

"Hospital is free"

It is never free, you're just paying for it on the front end, through your tax system.
This is incorrect as for me personally it is totally free. However the point is it is free of charge not free of cost. That means that the cost to an individual is not related to how much they need to use the system or the costs to the system but only to their tax bill.
So, are you saying you produce no income at all? Are you incapable of producing income?

If you are incapable of producing an income, then would it surprise you to know that 100% of your medical needs would be covered in the United States?
I do produce an income but in the UK everyone has something called the personal allowance which means the first £6035 you earn is free from income tax. That means I dont pay that much tax and when you take into account the tax credits I get it means I do indeed pay no tax whatsoever.

8247
 
Basically, I want to know this:

If your gross income is $100,000 a year, how much could you expect to pay in taxes in a year, total.

In the UK, based on current exchange rates, you would pay $25,333 in Income Tax and $6348 in National Insurance. So of $100,000 earned you would keep $68,319, with total deductions of $31,618.

I would be interested to know what the deductions would be like under the US system.
In the United States you would pay $19,472 in tax, leaving you with $80,528.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/page/0,,id=14806,00.html
Edited by Admiralbill_gomec, Oct 28 2008, 05:21 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ImpulseEngine
Oct 28 2008, 05:09 PM
His actual policies are what he's been telling you he intends to do, which is all one can reasonably judge upon at this point.
That one sentence really sums up your argument I think, but your logic is specious. I can actually look at how he's carried himself in Congress, the Illinios House, and in his various associations... In fact, that IS what I'm looking at when I conclude the man will be bad for America.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 28 2008, 05:20 PM
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 01:32 PM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:48 AM
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 07:41 AM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:21 AM
Unfornutately, one persistent misstatement all of you seem to be making in describing your medical system is this...

"I can get the medical treatment I need totally free of charge"

"Hospital is free"

It is never free, you're just paying for it on the front end, through your tax system.
This is incorrect as for me personally it is totally free. However the point is it is free of charge not free of cost. That means that the cost to an individual is not related to how much they need to use the system or the costs to the system but only to their tax bill.
So, are you saying you produce no income at all? Are you incapable of producing income?

If you are incapable of producing an income, then would it surprise you to know that 100% of your medical needs would be covered in the United States?
I do produce an income but in the UK everyone has something called the personal allowance which means the first £6035 you earn is free from income tax. That means I dont pay that much tax and when you take into account the tax credits I get it means I do indeed pay no tax whatsoever.

8247
 
Basically, I want to know this:

If your gross income is $100,000 a year, how much could you expect to pay in taxes in a year, total.

In the UK, based on current exchange rates, you would pay $25,333 in Income Tax and $6348 in National Insurance. So of $100,000 earned you would keep $68,319, with total deductions of $31,618.

I would be interested to know what the deductions would be like under the US system.
In the United States you would pay $19,472 in tax, leaving you with $80,528.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/page/0,,id=14806,00.html
How much is your private insurance costing you per year. Just to put the total cost on a proper comparison.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
IE
 

His actual policies are what he's been telling you he intends to do, which is all one can reasonably judge upon at this point. You are trying to bring in the notion that just because he says one thing doesn't mean he won't actually do another thing. That is true, but also beside the point. You can't say he is or isn't a Socialist based upon "even though he said that, I know he's REALLY going to do this" because that would be labeling based on a prediction. And, as I pointed out before, predictions may or may not come true.

Now you could make the argument that it's impossible to know whether he's a Socialist until you see exactly what he does, but that would just support my conclusion that labeling him a "Socialist" is wrong anyway (at least for now until and unless proven otherwise later). But I also argue that you can label a person a Socialist based only upon their expressed ideas in the absence of actual actions. I mean how would you categorize anyone as a Socialist - just the average Joe types - if such labels were limited to action-based judgments only? Imposing such a limit seems ridiculous. Right now, Obama's expressed ideas are what he is TELLING us they are. And so, for now, until there is anything to the contrary, those ideas as stated by him are what he should be judged upon.


When I say about a candidate "even though he said that, I know he's REALLY going to do this" it is not born out of fantasies I play out in my head. It comes from an educated analysis of the candidates past behavior and the realties of the situation.

Example a Candidate tells me he is going to give me $100 out of an empty jar in front of him if I vote for him. If I can see that the jar is empty I know he is lying to me. It would be silly of me to take this man at his word and only go by what he has told me at the time he is looking for my vote.

Say a congressmen Candidate for president won his election to congressmen by promising people $100 out of jar full of money he had in front of him; but then once elected did not give out the money he promised. Now as he is running for president he presents the same jar and the same promises. It would be silly of me to take this man at his word and only go by what he has told me at the time he is looking for my vote for president.

Both simply and crude examples; but they prove the point that it would be unwise for the electorate to simply take a candidate on the word he gives them at the time he is looking for their vote. They must educate themselves on a variety of subjects and issues about the candidate only one of which is what he is telling them at the time of the current election. They must then make a prediction on how effective the candidate will be for president based on their own ideals.

To simply go by what the candidate is telling you at the time of an election would be a huge mistake.

Ecuador once elected a man to be their president; a man who as mayor of a substantial city stool all the cities money out of their treasury and ran away to Panama. A few years latter that same man came back to Ecuador, ran for president, won and then stole a portion of the countries money and once again ran a away to Panama. These people mistakenly took this man at his word (in this case that he was a socialist looking to help the pore) when they should have predicted he would try to steel more money.

further

Why must there be an absence of actual actions? The Candidate for president is not someone who just came down from the moon. He would most likely have a set of actions he has taken in his life with which the electorate should use to judge him, not simply the words coming form his campaign.


Right now, Obama's expressed ideas are what he is TELLING us they are pulse what he did as US senator and what he did as state legislator; and what he said in past interviews when he wasn't running for president and the people he associated himself with ... and so on and so no … And so, for now, until there is anything to the contrary, those ideas as stated and demonstrated by him are what he should be judged upon

Quote:
 
Yes, you need to predict in order to vote, but that's not what we're discussing. Please stick with the topic. You might even predict in order to establish what you think he "likely is or likely is not" in terms of the Socialist label. However, you cannot use prediction to say he "IS" or "IS NOT" a Socialist. So anyone who right now says "Obama is a Socialist" is simply wrong because the sum total of his stated policies does not even come close to amounting to Socialism. He may have an individual idea here or there that approach Socialism, but those small parts of his overall ideas does not make him "a Socialist".


You use your opinion that he is a Socialist – gotten by educating your self about his past and president actions and statements – to predict whether his time as president will be used to further socialistic ideals.

You seem to think that time starts today, it does not, Obama and McCain have been operating politically and socially for their entire lives. There is a wealth of information and actions with which to make educated judgments. One does not merely need to take what their selling this election cycle as the end all and be all of their existence.

Quote:
 

I didn't say it does. And we're also not discussing "every issue" - there you go off topic again - we're discussing only this one about Socialism. And you are free to discuss the Socialism topic too - and so am I. So I used my freedom to express my disbelief that people could actually seriously entertain the notion that Obama is a Socialist.


Oh but their you go, you your self say what you think about Obama not being Socialist is a belief and not fact. Others of course will come to a different opinion.


Quote:
 
I can't possibly do that in the narrow space of a messageboard post because it requires listing all of his ideas, discussing whether each one is Socialist or not, analyzing which ideas carry more weight than others, and then establishing where in that continuum between Socialism and non-Socialism he falls. For me, I didn't have to do all that because having learned everything that I have about him, so little of it is anything like Socialism, it's just plain obvious that he's not a Socialist. However, if it isn't obvious to you, then such an analysis would be required.


If you could not possibly take the time to show why Obama is more Semi-Capitalist then Socialist; how do you expect anyone to make the opposite argument and prove their clams that he is more Socialist then Semi-Capitalist?

For me, having learned everything that I have about him, to much of it is like Socialism that I must conclude that right now he falls in that grey area you where discussing. To me this conclusion is plain and obvious and if it is not obvious to you, then an analysis of why he is not in the grey area would be required – which is why I asked for it :).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Oct 28 2008, 05:45 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 28 2008, 05:20 PM
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 01:32 PM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:48 AM
ds9074
Oct 28 2008, 07:41 AM
Dwayne
Oct 28 2008, 07:21 AM
Unfornutately, one persistent misstatement all of you seem to be making in describing your medical system is this...

"I can get the medical treatment I need totally free of charge"

"Hospital is free"

It is never free, you're just paying for it on the front end, through your tax system.
This is incorrect as for me personally it is totally free. However the point is it is free of charge not free of cost. That means that the cost to an individual is not related to how much they need to use the system or the costs to the system but only to their tax bill.
So, are you saying you produce no income at all? Are you incapable of producing income?

If you are incapable of producing an income, then would it surprise you to know that 100% of your medical needs would be covered in the United States?
I do produce an income but in the UK everyone has something called the personal allowance which means the first £6035 you earn is free from income tax. That means I dont pay that much tax and when you take into account the tax credits I get it means I do indeed pay no tax whatsoever.

8247
 
Basically, I want to know this:

If your gross income is $100,000 a year, how much could you expect to pay in taxes in a year, total.

In the UK, based on current exchange rates, you would pay $25,333 in Income Tax and $6348 in National Insurance. So of $100,000 earned you would keep $68,319, with total deductions of $31,618.

I would be interested to know what the deductions would be like under the US system.
In the United States you would pay $19,472 in tax, leaving you with $80,528.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/page/0,,id=14806,00.html
How much is your private insurance costing you per year. Just to put the total cost on a proper comparison.
Did you know my grandfathers municipality doesn’t fund garbage collecting, yet mine does.

Come to think about it, i would imagine that there are a lot of differences between services rendered between areas round the US and the UK that it would be exceedingly difficult to make a proper total cost comparison on taxes paid.

I'm sure it could be done, but it would take a lot of work.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
^^^

I'm sure there are a lot of differences, but as the healthcare expenditure is a major one, it would nonetheless be interesting to factor this in.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dante - I think we should leave municiple services out of this as they are not funded by federal income tax. That includes leaving out the cost of schooling as this is usually funded locally in the US.

I think it is pretty simple to make a comparison if we add the private cost to Americans of services funded federally by other countries and add it to the total tax cost just to see who is really paying more.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus