• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.[W:954]

There's these things called 'roads' - you may have heard of them (heck, you might even have one in front of your house!) - and though some of the contractors rip off the taxpayer, it's REAL hard to keep and maintain a first-world infrastructure without keeping those roads in good working order at taxpayer expense. And let's not forget the nationwide regulation of those roads so you don't have wildly varying laws and regulation and signage between the states. And then there's air traffic control - y'know, it's sorta important to get the airlines to play nice with each other so they don't crash into each other. And let's not forget those people who record and assess your property...and protect your rights to your property (at least until eminent domain comes into play).

There's something called 'schools', too. You might not like them, Sam I am, but the better-educated the populace as a whole is (instead of restricting education to only those who can pay for it), the better off the nation is as a whole i.e. it's a heck of a lot easier to train someone even with an eighth-grade reading level than to train someone who can't read at all.

And you're an Old Guy - are you on Medicare? If you don't like it, you can always go out and pay for insurance out-of-pocket...and lucky for you, you can't be denied, thanks to this little something called 'Obamacare'. But if we got rid of Obamacare and Medicare, you and all your friends of a certain age can go out there and try to buy health insurance out-of-pocket, assuming, that is, that you can find an insurance company that would cover an Old Guy like you.

Of course there's organizations that are there to help you in your hour of need - like police, firefighters, courts, social services, and yes, even FEMA. Speaking of which, it's SO interesting how the same conservative lawmakers who were wanting to deny federal aid to the victims of Superstorm Sandy wanted federal aid to help out West, Texas when it got blown partially off the map.

And you're conservative, which means you probably love the military and think we don't spend enough on them - and they are certainly important to maintaining our way of life, since without them, the security of the oil that we import would be endangered.

I mean, c'mon, AOG, you can gripe about that evilbadsocialist guv'mint all you want...but you need it, as long as you live in America. Unless you want to run away to the Alaskan wilderness and go Galt...and see how long that lasts....

the government shouldn't be involved with any of that

US National debt: 16,940,690,852,125.42
 
the government shouldn't be involved with any of that

US National debt: 16,940,690,852,125.42

Well, guess what - this is America, and that's the way it IS. 'Should' or 'shouldn't be' makes no difference at all. But again, if you want to go find a wilderness somewhere and go Galt and see how it works out for you, go right on ahead.
 
yeah and? Running the country into bankruptcy IS the progressive thing to do?

Um, 'scuse you, but what's important is NOT the total debt itself, but the debt-to-GDP which - in historical terms - isn't nearly so bad as it was during and immediately after WWII:

FederalDebt1940to2012.svg.png

And HOW did we fix all that debt after WWII? What were our top marginal tax rates in the 1950's? 90%.

Why, oh, why can't y'all see that we've been down this road before, that we were much worse off than now...but we were able to fix it. Why can't y'all allow yourselves to even consider fixing the economy in the same way we did then? We KNOW higher taxes worked then when things were much worse than now - but the conservative adherence to dogma is so strong that you can't allow yourselves to see it.
 
Um, 'scuse you, but what's important is NOT the total debt itself, but the debt-to-GDP which - in historical terms - isn't nearly so bad as it was during and immediately after WWII:

View attachment 67153691

And HOW did we fix all that debt after WWII? What were our top marginal tax rates in the 1950's? 90%.

Why, oh, why can't y'all see that we've been down this road before, that we were much worse off than now...but we were able to fix it. Why can't y'all allow yourselves to even consider fixing the economy in the same way we did then? We KNOW higher taxes worked then when things were much worse than now - but the conservative adherence to dogma is so strong that you can't allow yourselves to see it.

And apparently you're blind, yourself, in thinking that the ONLY factor was the level of taxation. Slash the federal government back to what it was in 1960 (you know, when that 90% marginal rate was in effect) and you'll solve the problem, too. But, "y'all" don't look none too amenable to that.
 
it isn't even funny that you believe that crap, just sad
wanna fix it? Stop spending so frackin' much money
stop being a bloody socialist
stop taking from the makers to give to the freeloading worthless takers

quit being a commie

2el5xuf.jpg
 
And apparently you're blind, yourself, in thinking that the ONLY factor was the level of taxation. Slash the federal government back to what it was in 1960 (you know, when that 90% marginal rate was in effect) and you'll solve the problem, too. But, "y'all" don't look none too amenable to that.

You'd be right if we were only looking at dollar amounts...BUT raw dollar amounts aren't what is important. What IS important is how the spending compares to the GDP...and the federal spending as a percentage of GDP did NOT skyrocket since the 1950's.

us_fed_spending_20c.png

Try again, friend.
 
You'd be right if we were only looking at dollar amounts...BUT raw dollar amounts aren't what is important. What IS important is how the spending compares to the GDP...and the federal spending as a percentage of GDP did NOT skyrocket since the 1950's.

View attachment 67153695

Try again, friend.

Real dollar amounts are what solve deficits, "friend," not apple/oranges comparisons of GDP percentages.

You can eliminate a deficit by increasing your revenue or cutting spending, or both. The only option you have any interest in is increasing revenue, so you fight tooth and nail any suggestion to the contrary, as dishonestly as you need to.

If you eliminate the spending for things which weren't part of spending in 1960, you will more than balance the budget. That's fact. Does that mean it's what should be done? Not necessarily. But it's certainly an option other than simply raising taxes, which again is the only option you have any interest in considering.
 
Capitalism works until the Government becomes corrupt due to $$$$ from big business.

"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?
 
Capitalism works just fine a corrupt government is a lack of moral fiber of the people?
 
I think we'd have a really good bull session over a few brews :) Zippos sell well, too.

I heartily agree that outside the first-world democracies, bribes are essential - one cannot take offense at the necessity to bribe, because that's just the way it is...and sometimes it's a very good thing, too.

But you obviously understand what I mean - without a strong, well-paid government (which must be overseen by a strong free press), the tax revenue necessary to build and maintain a first-world infrastructure is next to impossible.

I'm sure we'd get along, agreeing to disagree at times. :)

the url i'm posting is a longish youtube, but you probably will learn some things you didn't know, if you invest the time to watch it.

What Ever Happened to the Constitution? | Andrew Napolitano - YouTube
 
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

Apparently the flow of cash isn't cyclical in the slightest.
 
Real dollar amounts are what solve deficits, "friend," not apple/oranges comparisons of GDP percentages.

You can eliminate a deficit by increasing your revenue or cutting spending, or both. The only option you have any interest in is increasing revenue, so you fight tooth and nail any suggestion to the contrary, as dishonestly as you need to.

If you eliminate the spending for things which weren't part of spending in 1960, you will more than balance the budget. That's fact. Does that mean it's what should be done? Not necessarily. But it's certainly an option other than simply raising taxes, which again is the only option you have any interest in considering.

If a poor man owes $1,000,000 dollars, that's REALLY bad. If a mega-millionaire owns $1,000,000 it's not that big a deal. That in a nutshell is why it's disingenuous to concentrate only on the dollar amounts. Any successful businessman will tell you that you need to be able to have a line of credit. Almost all major companies do - it's called "stock".

If you run a business, it's nice not to owe anything, but more often than not you CANNOT grow your business without taking out loans...and likewise, it's VERY hard to grow a nation's economy without taking out loans to do so, and that's why it's not that big a deal if we do have a federal debt - as long as we're growing our economy to keep the debt-to-gdp ratio fairly level - which we have done pretty much since the early 1950's - then that's not that big a problem. If we grow the economy to the point that our tax revenue is greater than our total outgo for a particular year, then we've got a surplus, and if we're wise, we use that to pay down the debt.

BUT just as it is silly for a business to sacrifice its growth just to pay off its debt, it's silly for a nation to sacrifice the growth of its economy just to pay off its debt.
 
"it's VERY hard to grow a nation's economy without taking out loans to do so"
commies are so misguided they actually believe their own crap

Government spending doesn't 'grow the economy' if it did we'd be in the middle of 'the summer of recovery' 5.0
I mean sheesh c'mon crushing public debt isn't good for the economy, if it was we'd all be rich as hell after the
trillions Obammer's blown through
hah and QE 1, 2 & 3? making up 85 billion a month and dumping it in the stock market?
What effect might that have when the spigot gets turned off?
Gee do they really want another 1929 so they can finally do away once and for all with any pretext of a Constitutional Republic?

Naive Americans want to see the Obama regime as incompetent, they must believe this because the alternative is to frightening for them to contemplate.
 
An aquaintance of mine, has the ambition to owe a million dollars when he dies.
I think the government is working from the same philosophy.
 
That's awesome, so when our government 'dies' we'll be off the hook?
so let's spend spend spend like there's no tomorrow!
Just make sure to keep that party goin' till after I'm dead!
 
If a poor man owes $1,000,000 dollars, that's REALLY bad. If a mega-millionaire owns $1,000,000 it's not that big a deal.

more often than not you CANNOT grow your business without taking out loans...
clearly you've no idea that once you reach (unreachable for you) a certain point financially there are different 'rules' No one lends a million bucks to a poor man and do you suppose someone that commands mega-millions (as you say) might have some type of collateral? yes kiddies it is exactly this type of naivete that allows the continued destruction of the middle class in this country. Have fun with that.
 
"Socialism works until you run out of other people's money."

Is this not right?

...because all other political systems do not require "other people's money" (aka tax) to work?:doh
 
That's awesome, so when our government 'dies' we'll be off the hook?
so let's spend spend spend like there's no tomorrow!
Just make sure to keep that party goin' till after I'm dead!

Book of Prophesies 2012: Baba Vanga prophesied: 44th US president would be black and bring crises

"Baba Vanga prophesied even that the 44th US president would be black and he would be “the last one.” She went on, saying that at the time of his stepping into office, there would be a spectacular economic crisis. Everyone will put their hopes in him to end it, but the opposite will happen; he will bring the country down and conflicts between north and south states will escalate"


Since i don't believe in modern prophesy, could someone be actually TRYING to make THIS prophecy come true?

Secession petitions now filed for all 50 states

Secession petitions now filed for all 50 states


States Stand For Constitutional Sovereignty - United We Stand So That Freedom Will Ring True!

sovereign states?

In the chart below, only new York, vermont, and Connecticutt have rejected sovereignty. All the other 47 states have DECLARED sovereignty or are in process of doing so.
 

Attachments

  • usmap2010.jpg
    usmap2010.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
If a poor man owes $1,000,000 dollars, that's REALLY bad. If a mega-millionaire owns $1,000,000 it's not that big a deal. That in a nutshell is why it's disingenuous to concentrate only on the dollar amounts. Any successful businessman will tell you that you need to be able to have a line of credit. Almost all major companies do - it's called "stock".

If you run a business, it's nice not to owe anything, but more often than not you CANNOT grow your business without taking out loans...and likewise, it's VERY hard to grow a nation's economy without taking out loans to do so, and that's why it's not that big a deal if we do have a federal debt - as long as we're growing our economy to keep the debt-to-gdp ratio fairly level - which we have done pretty much since the early 1950's - then that's not that big a problem. If we grow the economy to the point that our tax revenue is greater than our total outgo for a particular year, then we've got a surplus, and if we're wise, we use that to pay down the debt.

BUT just as it is silly for a business to sacrifice its growth just to pay off its debt, it's silly for a nation to sacrifice the growth of its economy just to pay off its debt.

You're just deflecting with a wall of irrelevant bull****. You eliminate a deficit by spending less than you take in. You can take in more, or you can spend less, or both. Math is math. These gymnastics only continue to prove I'm correct -- the only solution you're interested in at all is raising taxes, and you dishonestly claim it's the only way to do it.
 
So it's okay with you if employers don't give a
damn about the safety of employers? And don't tell me that they do, because when it comes to a choice between money and safety for the workers, the employers will choose money almost every time.

What alternate Universe are you living in ?

On the Job safety has evolved into an almost totalitarian concept.

To the point where safety is over emphasized and over implemented.

How long have you been isolated in your bubble of retirement ? 30 years
 
clearly you've no idea that once you reach (unreachable for you) a certain point financially there are different 'rules' No one lends a million bucks to a poor man and do you suppose someone that commands mega-millions (as you say) might have some type of collateral? yes kiddies it is exactly this type of naivete that allows the continued destruction of the middle class in this country. Have fun with that.

Naivete, you say? It's quite naive to speak of collateral in this case, because lenders don't look at America's collateral - besides, what would they repossess? National parks? In the case of nations, lenders don't look at collateral - they look at revenue, and they look at payment history (the latter of which your boys in the Tea Party would ruin by forcing us into default).

And funny you should mention the destruction of the middle class - because look at how closely the decline of union membership tracks with the decline of the middle class:

unionincome.jpg

The unions helped build a strong middle class. They weren't perfect, but they serve - and continue to serve - a strong purpose, one that has benefited you personally in many, many ways.
 
You're just deflecting with a wall of irrelevant bull****. You eliminate a deficit by spending less than you take in. You can take in more, or you can spend less, or both. Math is math. These gymnastics only continue to prove I'm correct -- the only solution you're interested in at all is raising taxes, and you dishonestly claim it's the only way to do it.

So you say that austerity is the way to national prosperity? Would you like to show me an example of such? Because I can show you lots of examples where austerity did real and lasting harm to economies. Your 'math is math' is too simplistic by half.
 
What alternate Universe are you living in ?

On the Job safety has evolved into an almost totalitarian concept.

To the point where safety is over emphasized and over implemented.

How long have you been isolated in your bubble of retirement ? 30 years

FYI, I'm still working - I run an adult family home (with several employees) and I'm also a Foster parent of a medically-fragile child. I stay pretty doggone busy, thank you very much.

And where would you personally rather work as an employee - in a first-world democracy, or in someplace that doesn't have strictly enforced on-the-job safety rules?
 
Back
Top Bottom