Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Justify it any way you please but Socialism will always = idiocy. And, the statement 'it will pay for itself', is the perfect indicator of the Left's delusional behavior. Socialism, while seemingly harmless, will always fail because those taking, never know when to stop. Those giving, do not have unlimited resources. There's a cost for everything and taking ones wealth, just because you believe they are wealthy, will always be wrong and unsustainable.
+1. "Socialism" is a dirty word for those to whom "selfishness" is a virtue. The Radicalized Repugnant Party simply won't let universal healthcare coverage happen because they believe that what's theirs is theirs--- and what belongs to the rest of us is theirs, too. I'm talking about the obscene excesses they've already pocketed. "Riches are the savings of many in the hands of one." (Eugene Debs.) We don't have universal care yet because too many--- the very ones who own and control the government and therefore the laws--- refuse to see the truth of those words.
So Brian since socialism is so bad I take it that you don't use any public roads, bridges or airports. You must also then have no intention of ever using or depending on our military, county or state run hospitals, social security benefits, Medicare or Medicaid, the VA system if you are a veteran, any municipal water or sewer systems, first responder services, police or fire department services, any public transportation services (i.e. bus, rail etc.), public schools or libraries, any rural electric systems if you're a rural resident or power from hydroelectric dams and that you refrain from visiting all national parks along with any city or state parks as well. Is that correct?
Socialistic, all of it. Yet none of it seems very radical, much less scary.
It's not a matter of socialism or capitalism. I'm pretty sure most of us around here believe capitalism to be the best economic model to date. There are a couple of issues however. First, there can be excesses that need to be controlled. Second, there are basic human needs required to make the game fair.
The first of these can be largely addressed by insuring competition. And in the case of the second, universal health care and education help to insure there is competition.
The very rich are not the enemy per se. However, some use their wealth to eliminate competition via lobbying and that's wrong because it overly concentrates the wealth and that has always led to revolutions and other bad stuff.
A wealth penalty tax is a terrible idea. Just make them, and the corporations pay their fair share which they are not doing now. Check the incidence of taxation, and it's been the same for decades, and you'll find that the very bottom and very top pay zero and everyone in between pays about the same. The graph looks like an upside down pie plate.
Tax all forms of income at 15% with an individual exemption of $25,000. In this way a family of four would start paying 15% when they surpassed $100K. Corporations pay 15% with no deductions. You could do the same for income in access of $5M - no deductions, just 15% 'pay at the window'.
Take energy for example. Eliminate ALL government taxations issues, credits, et al, and make them simply pay 15% . . . and compete. I aver that solar and wind would be much cheaper than coal, natural gas, oil and uranium. All the exploration, development, extraction, capture, refining, delivery costs would cancel and you'd find that the bottom line is that the sun and wind do not cost anything for the raw materials and the others do.
Tax all forms of income at 15% with an individual exemption of $25,000. In this way a family of four would start paying 15% when they surpassed $100K. Corporations pay 15% with no deductions. You could do the same for income in access of $5M - no deductions, just 15% 'pay at the window'.
For the hard "working" families this may work, but what about the baby (factories) ? FWIW, Derf
Hell, I'd eliminate all the deductions for everyone. Not sure how politically viable that is . . . I have no problem with a $25K exemption per person but that's not was your talking about. I have always been in favor or ADC for a parent with kids and bad times. The problem with the current system, is there is no incentive to get off assistance. Indeed, as you point out, women can have more kids at so much a head. I would eliminate this by not allowing addition kids once a parent had started to receive assistance. You started with 2 kids. Fine, we'll pay for 2 but no more. You can have as many as you like but we're not paying.
As I stated elsewhere, I'm confident that everyone on this board is a capitalist. However, if you want capitalism to work, you must have competition. That means that you must have universal health coverage and education. In that way, everyone can compete in the market. The face that these two industries will need to be government driven doesn't mean that we're dropping the capitalistic economic model.
@rono, I used to believe Americans were steadfast Capitalist. With the rise of those on the far left, I'm not so sure anymore. Universal Health coverage, if run by the Government would never work since cost controls, innovation, etc would never happen. Also, those on the Left wouldn't stop there.
Yes. Maybe it bears repeating. "What Americans who support “socialism” actually want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy: A market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation."
Those who cry the wolf of "socialism! SOCIALISM!!!" are great with slogans... problem solving, not so much.
@BrianW: I don't see any political office holder on the "far left" anywhere in the USA. There are many who are bit left of center. Many Democrats are to the right of Republican president Eisenhower. "Far Left" is Stalin and Castro, and —God help us — Mao. There is no politician or statesman I have seen who wants anything remotely like that in America. "Far Right" is Hitler and Mussolini. Mussolini is especially apt for some advisors to Trump. Things have swung so far right that what is on the left now would be called The Middle or Center in normal times.
@Ben: For some people, anything that will cost them a dime is Far-Left Socialism. Much easier to chant "You can't solve this problem by throwing money at it" than actually trying to do anything... especially if, god help us... a TAX might be involved.
@hank: " do suspect occasionally there may be a few (non-capitalist) Russian bots around here - present company included of course." If the shoe fits, wear it !
"What Americans who support “socialism” actually want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy: A market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation."
Those who cry the wolf of "socialism! SOCIALISM!!!" are great with slogans... problem solving, not so much. " I'm a capitalist only to the extent that in the USA, there are maybe 9 of us socialists, total. Give me a parliamentary form of gov't, any day. Socialism is simply more just, more equitable. Rono is correct: equality of opportunity is essential. And the plutocrats have the rest of us by the balls, so there is no equality of opportunity. Plain and simple. Now, what about insuring equality of outcomes? THAT is a bad idea.
I wouldn't call it 'common sense'. Its more of a common left delusion. Those on the Left and Right require a budget. They shouldn't be able to spend us into oblivion just to buy votes. And by 'they' I mean all of them.
What we should be doing is privatizing SSN and removing it from the control of the Government. We should teach financial literacy in school. We should create a safety net for those who truly can't work. All is done within a budget to keep greedy Politicians from spending us into oblivion.
Interest are aligned. When you don't pay for obligations, you introduce leverage and since this is an investment site, we all know what happens to those who use leverage.
Politicians don't get re-elected by making empty promises if people don't need handouts. It is much like Big Pharma; why cure people when you can have sick cows for life needing your patented molecules?
Government being equal to Big Pharma, in some cases, in their level of greed cannot be entrusted to control the medical care of its citizens.
Imagine Big Pharma and the Government having complete control of your life. In some ways, they already do since the FDA seems to be a willing co-conspirator.
Many of the issues we're arguing about, health care, immigration, etc., aren't that difficult to resolve.
Forgot one: we should embrace more naturopathic medicine to compete with the illogical medical care we're currently embracing. I'm wondering how much money that would save?
@BW, since you seriously believe that SS privatization and naturopathy would work, that healthcare isn't so difficult to resolve, and that a large part of the problem is corporate self-interest and greed, I think you should run for public office.
I believe many bright-eyed and bushy tailed politicians have gone to Washington wanting to change things, just to be faced with the fact that, in its current form, it can't be changed. And, this is why I believe term limits are necessary. If they aren't trying to make a career in politics, it is more likely they will work for us, instead of just working to be re-elected.
Term limits? You mean that our elected representatives should not be responsive to the electorate once voted into office? Don’t need to run for re-election. Can promise us a gold-plated bridge when running and than deliver a rickety raft instead? Once in office these “representatives” will do what’s “best” for us - instead of what we want them to do? Sounds like a warped view of democracy to me.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” - Winston Churchill
Comments
"Socialism" is a dirty word for those to whom "selfishness" is a virtue. The Radicalized Repugnant Party simply won't let universal healthcare coverage happen because they believe that what's theirs is theirs--- and what belongs to the rest of us is theirs, too. I'm talking about the obscene excesses they've already pocketed. "Riches are the savings of many in the hands of one." (Eugene Debs.) We don't have universal care yet because too many--- the very ones who own and control the government and therefore the laws--- refuse to see the truth of those words.
Woody Guthrie:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4a/31/89/4a3189752ca2a4613102f5b062eeff08.jpg
rtfa
Socialistic, all of it. Yet none of it seems very radical, much less scary.
It's not a matter of socialism or capitalism. I'm pretty sure most of us around here believe capitalism to be the best economic model to date. There are a couple of issues however. First, there can be excesses that need to be controlled. Second, there are basic human needs required to make the game fair.
The first of these can be largely addressed by insuring competition. And in the case of the second, universal health care and education help to insure there is competition.
The very rich are not the enemy per se. However, some use their wealth to eliminate competition via lobbying and that's wrong because it overly concentrates the wealth and that has always led to revolutions and other bad stuff.
A wealth penalty tax is a terrible idea. Just make them, and the corporations pay their fair share which they are not doing now. Check the incidence of taxation, and it's been the same for decades, and you'll find that the very bottom and very top pay zero and everyone in between pays about the same. The graph looks like an upside down pie plate.
Tax all forms of income at 15% with an individual exemption of $25,000. In this way a family of four would start paying 15% when they surpassed $100K. Corporations pay 15% with no deductions. You could do the same for income in access of $5M - no deductions, just 15% 'pay at the window'.
Take energy for example. Eliminate ALL government taxations issues, credits, et al, and make them simply pay 15% . . . and compete. I aver that solar and wind would be much cheaper than coal, natural gas, oil and uranium. All the exploration, development, extraction, capture, refining, delivery costs would cancel and you'd find that the bottom line is that the sun and wind do not cost anything for the raw materials and the others do.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
Tax all forms of income at 15% with an individual exemption of $25,000. In this way a family of four would start paying 15% when they surpassed $100K. Corporations pay 15% with no deductions. You could do the same for income in access of $5M - no deductions, just 15% 'pay at the window'.
For the hard "working" families this may work, but what about the baby (factories) ?
FWIW, Derf
Hell, I'd eliminate all the deductions for everyone. Not sure how politically viable that is . . . I have no problem with a $25K exemption per person but that's not was your talking about. I have always been in favor or ADC for a parent with kids and bad times. The problem with the current system, is there is no incentive to get off assistance. Indeed, as you point out, women can have more kids at so much a head. I would eliminate this by not allowing addition kids once a parent had started to receive assistance. You started with 2 kids. Fine, we'll pay for 2 but no more. You can have as many as you like but we're not paying.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
As I stated elsewhere, I'm confident that everyone on this board is a capitalist. However, if you want capitalism to work, you must have competition. That means that you must have universal health coverage and education. In that way, everyone can compete in the market. The face that these two industries will need to be government driven doesn't mean that we're dropping the capitalistic economic model.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
"What Americans who support “socialism” actually want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy: A market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation."
Those who cry the wolf of "socialism! SOCIALISM!!!" are great with slogans... problem solving, not so much.
I do suspect occasionally there may be a few (non-capitalist) Russian bots around here - present company excluded of course.
Perhaps you’re feeling a little under the weather seeing as how @davidmoran’s Socialism post has received close to 650 views since being launched?
(I plucked that one out of the boneyard one night.)
"What Americans who support “socialism” actually want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy: A market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation."
Those who cry the wolf of "socialism! SOCIALISM!!!" are great with slogans... problem solving, not so much. "
I'm a capitalist only to the extent that in the USA, there are maybe 9 of us socialists, total. Give me a parliamentary form of gov't, any day. Socialism is simply more just, more equitable. Rono is correct: equality of opportunity is essential. And the plutocrats have the rest of us by the balls, so there is no equality of opportunity. Plain and simple. Now, what about insuring equality of outcomes? THAT is a bad idea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/opinion/on-paying-for-a-progressive-agenda.html
The answer is, we shouldn’t."
You and I have different definitions of 'budgeting'.
we should not pay for
'spending that will enhance society’s future productivity.'
tnx
back to your shelter.
I might be interested to hear in anything constructive you have to say --- what we should be doing, etc.
Interest are aligned. When you don't pay for obligations, you introduce leverage and since this is an investment site, we all know what happens to those who use leverage.
Politicians don't get re-elected by making empty promises if people don't need handouts. It is much like Big Pharma; why cure people when you can have sick cows for life needing your patented molecules?
Government being equal to Big Pharma, in some cases, in their level of greed cannot be entrusted to control the medical care of its citizens.
Imagine Big Pharma and the Government having complete control of your life. In some ways, they already do since the FDA seems to be a willing co-conspirator.
Many of the issues we're arguing about, health care, immigration, etc., aren't that difficult to resolve.
But, the cure isn't very profitable.
Derf
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” - Winston Churchill