Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Dogger Wrote:You do realize that even private institutions are subsidized by the government. These subsidizes by definition are a redistribution of wealth. Agreed????????
No.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:06 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Niner,
That was a well thought out rebuttal. Now take your definition. Once the govt. taxes you and redistributes this wealth this would be a from of socialism. Once our government collects the tax it's theirs. Your income tax due every April is the governments money that it redistributes. What I am advocating clearly is defined it Webster's first definition. I wonder if anyone's state constitution mentons a socialistic society. I'll look up Ohio's.
I also like how you point out that socialism as a means to communism. I don't think we have to worry about that anytime soon.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:19 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
Dogger Wrote:Niner,
That was a well thought out rebuttal. Now take your definition. Once the govt. taxes you and redistributes this wealth this would be a from of socialism. Once our government collects the tax it's theirs. Your income tax due every April is the governments money that it redistributes. What I am advocating clearly is defined it Webster's first definition. I wonder if anyone's state constitution mentons a socialistic society. I'll look up Ohio's.
I also like how you point out that socialism as a means to communism. I don't think we have to worry about that anytime soon.
Let's be honest here, the money government collects isn't theirs. It is supposed to pay for the operation of the government and any excess given back to the people. Most states have balanced-budget laws meaning they have to have the budget balanced by the end of the fiscal year.
As far as subsidies for businesses, I disagree with them as well.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:23 PM |
|
Lethemeul
Fancy Pants
Posts: 3,591
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 66
I Root For: Pirates!
Location: Boogie all the time
|
Dogger Wrote:Now take your definition. Once the govt. taxes you and redistributes this wealth this would be a from of socialism. Once our government collects the tax it's theirs. Your income tax due every April is the governments money that it redistributes. What I am advocating clearly is defined it Webster's first definition.
Dogger, do you even read the posts? Look closely, I'll even take out the most irrelevant words:
...governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Where in there do you see taxation? Where in there do you see the funding of interstate highway systems? Where in there do you see subsidies?
If the US gov't controlled Disney, GM, Kelloggs, Magnavox, Chyrsler, Proter & Gamble, etc, then we would be a socialist nation. The gov't doesn't own them. They regulate, not own.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:28 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Reb,
You have the right to disagree with certain parts of our govt. but that doesn't mean they do not exist. Our education system would have to be a socialistic institution also. Guys..... get over it..... we live in a socialistic society. The only part of the Ohio constitution that I could find that deals with socialism is defined in Sect. 19.
Private property shall ever be held inviolate but subservi-
ent to the public welfare. When taken in time of war or
other public exigency, imperatively requiring its immediate
seizure or for the purpose of making or repairing roads,
which shall be open to the public, without charge, a compen-
sation shall be made to the owner, in money: and in all
other cases, where private property shall be taken for pub-
lic use, a compensation therefor shall first be made in
money, or first secured by a deposit of money; and such
compensation shall be assessed by a jury, without deduction
for benefits to any property of the owner.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:30 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Quote:Once the govt. taxes you and redistributes this wealth this would be a from of socialism.
Wrong. You are still ignoring what socialism is. Government DOES NOT OWN the means of production that provide those wages from which taxes are collected. I get my pay check from Bank of America. The government does not own Bank of America. The government doesn't pay my salary. The taxes that come from my check are not based on wages generated by a government owned form of production.
Quote:Once our government collects the tax it's theirs.
Wrong again. We live in a representative republic. As you said in another post, we're a government of the people and by the people. The money is still ours even after the government collects it.
Quote:Your income tax due every April is the governments money that it redistributes.
No, it isn't. It's still my money. I have no problem paying taxes. I pay my taxes because there is a price for living in a free society. Article 8 of the constitution says that Quote:Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
Some of the things that money should go to is
Quote:To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
I have no problem with my tax dollars going to provide for those things outlined in the Constitution. That is not socialism because, again, the government doesn't own the means from which my tax dollars come.
Quote:What I am advocating clearly is defined it Webster's first definition.
Yes, it is. I've not disputed that. But what you're advocating is not what this nation is.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:31 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Let you conviently input "and" instead of "or" in your definition.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:33 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Not that this matters. Just a point to ponder. I just went down to my school's govt. teacher. This man bleeds red, if you know what I mean. I point blanked asked him do we live in a socialistic society? He pondered for a second and stated, "we definetly have tendencies of socialism, don't you agree". Call any college professor. I gaurantee you he will say the very fabric of our nation is tied into socialism. Guys TVA, powerlines out West, the Hoover Dam, any public works are based in the redistribution of wealth.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:42 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Dogger Wrote:"we definetly have tendencies of socialism, don't you agree".
Tendencies do not equal socialism. You're grasping at straws now Dogger.
Government does not own private business in this country. Therefore we cannot be socialists. End of discussion.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:47 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Niner,
So we have socialistic institions that are subsidized by our government of representation. But our government at it's core is not socialistic. It doesn't redistribute wealth??? Distribution of "goods" can not be considered money in your eyes?
I do realize that private enterprises are not owned. But if you agree that there are many forms of socialism the United States of America would have to have a place on that scale.
|
|
01-14-2005 01:58 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Socialistic is an adjective based on the term socialism. We've established that the US is not a socialistic nation because it doesn't fit the defintion.
Quote:I do realize that private enterprises are not owned.
Then you have no choice but to realize we're not a socialist nation. That is a central principle to socialism. Without it, you can't have socialism.
We contribute our taxes to sustain the republic.
We elect our leaders to spend OUR money effectively
We vote them out of office if they don't do so.
This is a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. That means we have a say in where our money goes and how it's spent. Socialist countries do not have that.
We're going around in circles here.
The US is not a socialist country. Period. You wanna believe it is, you go right ahead. The beauty of this country is everyone has the right to be wrong.
|
|
01-14-2005 02:12 PM |
|
JTiger
Grand Master Sexaaayyyy
Posts: 16,068
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 282
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Germantown
|
Dogger Wrote:Not that this matters. Just a point to ponder. I just went down to my school's govt. teacher. This man bleeds red, if you know what I mean. I point blanked asked him do we live in a socialistic society? He pondered for a second and stated, "we definetly have tendencies of socialism, don't you agree". Call any college professor. I gaurantee you he will say the very fabric of our nation is tied into socialism. Guys TVA, powerlines out West, the Hoover Dam, any public works are based in the redistribution of wealth.
I think TVA and USPS do not recieve federal money anymore. They are just "regulated" by the federal government. I'm not sure you can call that socialism. On the other hand, farm subsidies that help control the price of a crop may be in the gray area.
|
|
01-14-2005 02:13 PM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Socialistic is an adjective based on the term socialism. We've established that the US is not a socialistic nation because it doesn't fit the defintion.
Quote:I do realize that private enterprises are not owned.
Then you have no choice but to realize we're not a socialist nation. That is a central principle to socialism. Without it, you can't have socialism.
We contribute our taxes to sustain the republic.
We elect our leaders to spend OUR money effectively
We vote them out of office if they don't do so.
This is a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. That means we have a say in where our money goes and how it's spent. Socialist countries do not have that.
We're going around in circles here.
The US is not a socialist country. Period. You wanna believe it is, you go right ahead. The beauty of this country is everyone has the right to be wrong.
|
|
01-14-2005 02:14 PM |
|
Skipuno
2nd String
Posts: 321
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For: UCF
Location:
|
Getting back to the original post. What you are saying is that by supporting President Bush and his tax cuts, I allowed some poor woman to be raped. So what am I to do? Am I supposed to allow the goverment to take as much of my money as its wants, no questions asked? Am I to allow it to continue to spend like a drunken sailor and never call for reform? Why do you have to scare people to your way of thinking, by saying tax cuts are killing people? Why cant you just state your case for tax increases? Are you really that simple, as to believe that if the goverment had enough money it could stop people from being raped?
|
|
01-17-2005 04:24 PM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Skip,
These tax cuts have ramifications. It's that simple.
|
|
01-17-2005 10:56 PM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Dogger Wrote:Skip,
These tax cuts have ramifications. It's that simple.
You didn't answer his questions.
Quote:Am I supposed to allow the goverment to take as much of my money as its wants, no questions asked?
Quote:Am I to allow it to continue to spend like a drunken sailor and never call for reform?
Quote:Why do you have to scare people to your way of thinking, by saying tax cuts are killing people?
with no proof to support it My addition there.
Quote:Why cant you just state your case for tax increases?
Quote:Are you really that simple, as to believe that if the goverment had enough money it could stop people from being raped?
I'd like to add one more if I may. How much above your regular taxes do you give back to the government Dogger? How often do you forgo your tax refund?
I'm very much interested in your answers to these questions. As it stands right now you are an admitted socialist. I'm just curious why.
|
|
01-18-2005 09:28 AM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Niner,
I thought I answered Skip's question. If funding was available for a thrity dollar test 13 women wouldn't of been raped. FACT!!! Now why that funding was not avaiable is another matter. It could be for a number of reasons. The main one being our government is broke and we are being asked to do more with less.
Now to answer the age old question out of all Republican's playbooks. How much did I give back to my govt. last year. The truth is none. My 1000 dollar refund would do nothing for this country. Now if every citizen gave back a small percentage of their money it would do a great deal. Maybe we could have found some funding for a DNA test.
|
|
01-19-2005 09:57 AM |
|
Rebel
Unregistered
|
Why is this a federal issue?
|
|
01-19-2005 10:06 AM |
|
Ninerfan1
Habitual Line Stepper
Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
|
Quote:If funding was available for a thrity dollar test 13 women wouldn't of been raped. FACT!!! Now why that funding was not avaiable is another matter. It could be for a number of reasons.
I'm glad you finally realize that.
Quote:The main one being our government is broke and we are being asked to do more with less.
I don't call collecting around 2 trillion in taxes every year "broke". The problem isn't influx of money, it's how it's spent.
Quote:Now to answer the age old question out of all Republican's playbooks.
That's a cute assertion but I don't read from a republican play book. I look at your righteous indignation about how we're starving the government and am curious as to what YOU personally do to remedy it.
Quote:How much did I give back to my govt. last year. The truth is none. My 1000 dollar refund would do nothing for this country.
Wrong. It would have paid for around 33 DNA tests for the FBI. One of those 33 could easily have been the one that put this guy behind bars. So I guess you're just as responsible for those 13 women being raped as anyone else.
Quote:Now if every citizen gave back a small percentage of their money it would do a great deal. Maybe we could have found some funding for a DNA test.
1) People are free to give back as much as they'd like to the government. No one is stopping them.
2) We COULD have found some funding for a DNA test if you'd given back your $1000.
Amazing how you are all about people, except you of course, giving back more of their money to the government.
|
|
01-19-2005 10:47 AM |
|
Dogger
Special Teams
Posts: 770
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
Niner,
I don't remember where I read this but I hope you get the point. When William Jefferson Clinton left office we were well on the way of paying off our national debt. Now our debt is like 230,000 dollars per household. I believe the article was in the USA today but not sure. I understand when people feel that their money is mismanged, but the answer is not starving the government of money. The economy was pretty good in the 90's I would just like to see the tax rates as they were then. In this "time of war" even the rich should share some of this burden.
|
|
01-19-2005 11:32 AM |
|