CSNbbs

(01-06-2016 03:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote: [ -> ]

LOL Big Time! Good one.

(01-06-2016 05:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2016 03:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote: [ -> ]

LOL Big Time! Good one.

That one came from an Allan West tweet I think. Don't know if it's of his making or he saw it elsewhere.

(01-06-2016 05:07 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2016 03:23 PM)200yrs2late Wrote: [ -> ]

LOL Big Time! Good one.

Idiocy personified.

(12-22-2015 02:28 PM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ]

I Lol'ed

(12-22-2015 04:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-27-2015 07:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

Brilliant.

(12-30-2015 06:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2015 04:27 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]

This is what happens when morons confuse anything in the public commons for "socialism"

Exactly. Last time I checked...I paid for that stuff and would be glad to pay for it privately without the fcking government being involved. Min Power evidently is clueless as to what Socialism is.

(11-27-2015 12:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

I hope he saves a good turd to fertilize it.

(12-01-2015 11:26 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]

Wow...That is awesome. Im going to remember this. "Why do we not feed the bears?" Im going to ask my Liberal friends that question over and over.

An oldie but a goodie ..............

(01-08-2016 06:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2015 06:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2015 04:27 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]

This is what happens when morons confuse anything in the public commons for "socialism"

Exactly. Last time I checked...I paid for that stuff and would be glad to pay for it privately without the fcking government being involved. Min Power evidently is clueless as to what Socialism is.

You paid for it? How is that any different from other socialist programs? Do you think nobody pays for those?

"Socialism" is a word that has been used differently over the course of the last couple centuries. Marx thought it was common control of the means of production. (Under that definition, Bernie isn't a socialist). In Europe, socialist parties are softer and governments simply have very strong redistributive systems to cover everyone for health care, education, old age pensions etc, but they don't necessarily own the hospitals, colleges, factories etc. That's what you find in Scandinavia and what Bernie is proposing. Or if you ask Republicans, they think anything Obama does is by definition socialism. Under their sometimes ridiculously broad definition (eg, Obamacare and a mandate to buy private health insurance = socialism), almost anything can be socialism.

(01-11-2016 10:12 AM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]In Europe, socialist parties are softer and governments simply have very strong redistributive systems to cover everyone for health care, education, old age pensions etc, but they don't necessarily own the hospitals, colleges, factories etc. That's what you find in Scandinavia and what Bernie is proposing.

No. Not true. That's one huge misconception.

Europe does have large and comprehensive social welfare programs. But, and this is a huge but, the emphasis is on providing a safety net, and not redistribution on a massive scale. The taxation systems to support this social spending are very regressive compared to US systems. Corporations are taxed at substantially lower rates, and the "rich" are generally taxed at roughly the same or lower rates. Tax rates for the middle class are substantially higher, plus every European social democracy gets something approaching 30% of its total tax revenues from highly regressive (by our standards) consumption taxes. And, on the other side, the social benefits are available to everyone, not just the poor. They are not "means tested" (the republican contribution to the "welfare trap"). What those governments do is to provide a bundle of basic services to every citizen, and every citizen pays for it. They are basically taxing the middle class more in exchange for providing more benefits to the middle class, and because the middle class is so large, that combination enables them to offer better deals to both "rich" and "poor" that we do. It's quite amazing that Europe simultaneously offers both a better deal to the poor and a better deal to "rich" investors than we do.

OK, I know, I know, you're going to respond by saying that the "rich" and corporations pay effective tax rates that are lower than our statutory rates. Of course they do. They didn't get rich by being stupid. They choose to earn more of their income overseas, and have it taxed in those European tax systems, rather than have it taxed here. That's why there is such a huge issue with US companies stashing cash overseas.

There's a big difference between social democracies and socialism, and the major issue is redistribution. In that regard, Bernie and Obama and Hillary (and you) are all clearly on the side of socialism.

I'm actually fine with a lot of social democrat ideas. I'm not fine with socialist redistribution. I would favor

1) Placing a floor under incomes in the form of a negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund plus French Bismarck health care, which would mean that no individual is more than a minimum wage job (at the current minimum wage) away from being above the poverty line,
2) Spreading wealth in the form of a privatized component of social security that would invest in things like infrastructure improvement and green energy, and
3) Paying for it all with some combination of flat taxes, consumption taxes, and Pigovian taxes.

That approach makes the truly poor better off, eliminates the "welfare trap" that shackles the poor who seek upward mobility, removes a huge barrier to investment and growth, and greatly reduces income and wealth inequality, all in one fell swoop.

I'm angry at democrats for lying and perpetuating this misconception. I'm even more angry at republicans for not pointing out the misconception, not setting the record straight, and not making this an issue.

(01-11-2016 10:12 AM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-08-2016 06:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2015 06:43 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-30-2015 04:27 PM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]

This is what happens when morons confuse anything in the public commons for "socialism"

Exactly. Last time I checked...I paid for that stuff and would be glad to pay for it privately without the fcking government being involved. Min Power evidently is clueless as to what Socialism is.

You paid for it? How is that any different from other socialist programs? Do you think nobody pays for those?

"Socialism" is a word that has been used differently over the course of the last couple centuries. Marx thought it was common control of the means of production. (Under that definition, Bernie isn't a socialist). In Europe, socialist parties are softer and governments simply have very strong redistributive systems to cover everyone for health care, education, old age pensions etc, but they don't necessarily own the hospitals, colleges, factories etc. That's what you find in Scandinavia and what Bernie is proposing. Or if you ask Republicans, they think anything Obama does is by definition socialism. Under their sometimes ridiculously broad definition (eg, Obamacare and a mandate to buy private health insurance = socialism), almost anything can be socialism.

You're right. Obama care is way closer to Fascist economics than Socialist. Then again the two systems are different sides of the same big government coin.

fascist economies saw the government use their influence over investment. They don't just regulate and they don't "own" but they tell you to a huge degree who can own and how. Fascist economies are based on private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

You can own a health insurance company but you have to meet all of Obamacare's mandates and in return the government will force the citizens to buy your products.

(01-11-2016 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-11-2016 10:12 AM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]In Europe, socialist parties are softer and governments simply have very strong redistributive systems to cover everyone for health care, education, old age pensions etc, but they don't necessarily own the hospitals, colleges, factories etc. That's what you find in Scandinavia and what Bernie is proposing.

No. Not true. That's one huge misconception.

Europe does have large and comprehensive social welfare programs. But, and this is a huge but, the emphasis is on providing a safety net, and not redistribution on a massive scale. The taxation systems to support this social spending are very regressive compared to US systems. Corporations are taxed at substantially lower rates, and the "rich" are generally taxed at roughly the same or lower rates. Tax rates for the middle class are substantially higher, plus every European social democracy gets something approaching 30% of its total tax revenues from highly regressive (by our standards) consumption taxes. And, on the other side, the social benefits are available to everyone, not just the poor. They are not "means tested" (the republican contribution to the "welfare trap"). What those governments do is to provide a bundle of basic services to every citizen, and every citizen pays for it. They are basically taxing the middle class more in exchange for providing more benefits to the middle class, and because the middle class is so large, that combination enables them to offer better deals to both "rich" and "poor" that we do. It's quite amazing that Europe simultaneously offers both a better deal to the poor and a better deal to "rich" investors than we do.

OK, I know, I know, you're going to respond by saying that the "rich" and corporations pay effective tax rates that are lower than our statutory rates. Of course they do. They didn't get rich by being stupid. They choose to earn more of their income overseas, and have it taxed in those European tax systems, rather than have it taxed here. That's why there is such a huge issue with US companies stashing cash overseas.

There's a big difference between social democracies and socialism, and the major issue is redistribution. In that regard, Bernie and Obama and Hillary (and you) are all clearly on the side of socialism.

I'm actually fine with a lot of social democrat ideas. I'm not fine with socialist redistribution. I would favor

1) Placing a floor under incomes in the form of a negative income tax or Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund plus French Bismarck health care, which would mean that no individual is more than a minimum wage job (at the current minimum wage) away from being above the poverty line,
2) Spreading wealth in the form of a privatized component of social security that would invest in things like infrastructure improvement and green energy, and
3) Paying for it all with some combination of flat taxes, consumption taxes, and Pigovian taxes.

That approach makes the truly poor better off, eliminates the "welfare trap" that shackles the poor who seek upward mobility, removes a huge barrier to investment and growth, and greatly reduces income and wealth inequality, all in one fell swoop.

I'm angry at democrats for lying and perpetuating this misconception. I'm even more angry at republicans for not pointing out the misconception, not setting the record straight, and not making this an issue.

I'm gonna have to go look all this stuff up. I might agree.

Owl is somewhat correct. Scandinavian countries have less progressive tax systems, but they also have less income and wealth inequality to start with. So yes we would have a larger degree of redistribution than they do. I certainly don't want a sales or VAT because it's regressive. But we will be taxing more than the rich. Bernie's 3 month paid family and medical leave proposal would cost $1.63 per week in payroll taxes for example. I think it's certainly worth it.

What Scandinavian countries have also is a much higher top bracket income tax rate and I'd like to see us hike ours, and reject the notion that we'll see massive capital and people flight as a result. Businesses are avoiding taxes by not repatriating their overseas profits because our laws allow them to do that. To change that we change the code. We change the code by electing politicians who aren't in their pockets.