| 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: |
| To the people here who live under socialism...; and think it is good or great.... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 27 2008, 11:57 PM (1,468 Views) | |
| Dwayne | Oct 28 2008, 12:49 PM Post #46 |
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 12:51 PM Post #47 |
|
Time to put something here
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 01:32 PM Post #48 |
|
Admiral
|
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.
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 | Oct 28 2008, 01:53 PM Post #49 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Join the club
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Oct 28 2008, 02:26 PM Post #50 |
|
Admiral
|
Correct. But perceived opinions are irrelevant. Obama's ACTUAL intended policies are the only thing that's relevant. 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 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. 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 | Oct 28 2008, 02:32 PM Post #51 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 03:24 PM Post #52 |
|
Time to put something here
|
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.
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.
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 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 | Oct 28 2008, 05:09 PM Post #53 |
|
Admiral
|
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. 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". 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. 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 | Oct 28 2008, 05:20 PM Post #54 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 05:22 PM Post #55 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 05:45 PM Post #56 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
How much is your private insurance costing you per year. Just to put the total cost on a proper comparison. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Oct 28 2008, 05:49 PM Post #57 |
|
Time to put something here
|
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
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.
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.
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 | Oct 28 2008, 05:56 PM Post #58 |
|
Time to put something here
|
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 | Oct 28 2008, 06:00 PM Post #59 |
![]()
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 | Oct 28 2008, 06:01 PM Post #60 |
|
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 | ^ |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


) to respond to my points rather than sliding into another tangent with you.


2:12 PM Jul 11