It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do you support socialism with government or without government?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Totally agree with not taxing income.

Don't agree with forcing someone to pay taxes against their will.




posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Totally agree with not taxing income.

Don't agree with forcing someone to pay taxes against their will.


If all taxes are done through donations, how do you expect to have roads or a military? For that matter, how do you expect to have a skilled and healthy work force? Taxes are necessary for having a self sufficient nation that's capable of defending itself.
edit on 12-4-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I disagree.

If done on a large enough scale it can definitely work.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

You have no chance to avoid them if you aren't taxing income, and only taxing commerce and imports.

Unless you are saying you won't pay for your purchase at the point of sale?



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   


Worker owned cooperatives could force convential corporations from outsourcing services/goods because they will produce higher quality goods and create jobs. They will force the outsourcing corporations to compete with higher quality domestic product.
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I can accept that, but how many companies would accept doing this? I worked for an employee owned company back in the 80's. Workers bought into company stock, but they were never part of the company decision making. In fact the company's logo was labeled as "an employee owned company." The owner's son made poor decisions and eventually the company was bought out by a smaller company that manufactured related equipment. So in the end, the workers were still screwed.



Private healthcare can drive the prices down because of competition. Government issued healthcare would increase the prices because of guaranteed income from the tax player and little to no competition.


The U.S. no longer has competition. Monopolies were declared illegal, yet now we have an oligarchy system. Larger companies are buying out smaller companies. For example, just take a look at paid TV which everyone can relate to. They pull you in with low contract prices and than once the contract is over the prices skyrocket and are in-line with all competing cable and satellite prices. There's no big savings from one company to the next. Companies are creating bogus charges, just to rape the consumer. The same goes for wireless cell phone service. Remember when Ma Bell was broken-up? The cost of land line phone service skyrocketed. The same goes for Airlines, banks etc...

Have you ever ordered a product online? If you don't read the fine print, a company can automatically keep sending you products on a monthly basis and get away with making charges to your credit card. It's up to the consumer to call or email the company to cancel this ongoing service. When did consumers lose control of giving companies the authorization to charge their credit cards? Companies across this country are taking advantage of consumers and creating scams to bilk money out of consumers. It simply comes down to corporate GREED!



Why not have a private social security retirement fund operated by small businesses that is not apart of government and is subject to market competition


I can agree with that. It would prevent slimy politicians thinking they have a right to use the public's saved money for their own use. However, there would have to be some kind of oversight and accountability to make sure private companies don't scam the public. It happens all the time with investors.



Welfare can be operated by competing small business with the aid of public charities without the need for government.Probably for a lot less with less abuse and more oversight


Oversight is key. I don't have a problem with some of these socialized programs being run by private businesses, but they would have to be held accountable for every penny and not be driven by profit. The problem with private companies is most donations go toward outrageous CEO salaries and much of the money doesn't reach the people who need it. Salaries and operating expenses should be capped to keep greed from rearing it's ugly head. I don't know how competing companies would keep the focus on citizen's needs rather than profit.



Actual socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production. Government enforces this and that is what I don't agree with.Capitalism is anyone with capital can own the means of production with Government protecting the right to own it.Government is not necessary to protect private property.Guns are.Private security is a good idea.


The problem is, we don't have true capitalism and it's being driven by Greed. We're losing manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico because of this. Companies simply no longer appreciate their workers and see them as being expendable just to increase their investor's returns. Corporations are also unfairly influencing our government representatives. In the end, the citizen's lose.



Private healthcare can offer better services for cheaper and higher quality.


I disagree, they're doing a terrible job now! How do you put a profit on people's health? Prescription and medical care costs in the U.S. is much higher than other industrialized nations. If I recall, CNN had a documentary on Taiwan's healthcare system. A reporter in the United States had a medical problem and compared his treatment and costs of both systems. It was outrageous how much money he saved in Taiwan's system. They were as technically equipped and professional as the U.S. system. He was impressed on how quick his services were rendered. If you can find that documentary somewhere online, it's definitely worth a look!

It's strange, but it always seems like most of these interesting and enlightening documentaries are always shown in the early morning hours. (Thanks to my insomnia, I get to see them, lol).



I agree to disagree. I don't believe in government robbing people for social programs. Why not have people donate to a social services fund? Why not have a optional social services tax on people's water/rent/waste disposal bill to the local municipality?


I can also agree to disagree. I just don't think the answers are that simple. I think Capitalism has developed to a point where it has overwhelming influence on our government, the consumer and the citizens of the United States. Government is no longer for and by the people because of it's influence on our representatives.

I also think more power needs to be given to the people over congress and it decision making. Such as voting for Term Limits, Campaign Finance Reform, setting salaries and benefits, removing lobbyists, and holding them accountable for spending and balancing the budget. The party system has done nothing but divide this country.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Aazadan

I disagree.

If done on a large enough scale it can definitely work.


Considering charities are never given enough money, I doubt it. The US gave $358 billion in 2015. In order to fund the government at a mere half of what we currently are (which also includes maintaining a near trillion dollar deficit) people would need to give 5x as much as they do now, and that's just to government. Other charities needs would rise significantly without any government subsidies. Also consider that most charitable giving is currently motivated by getting tax credit for doing so.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Here is a question I have for you (and not because I have an answer, but more because im interested in other perspectives): is a government responsible for promoting its economy? Not supporting it....just promoting it? If so, then we can agree on a whole slew of other things, like if the government should regulate banking to keep the haves from rigging the system and screwing the have nots through outright theft. Or that the president can't use inside knowledge to make trades that benefit his finances.

If you don't think so, then can I then assume that you also don't support the issuing of currency, be it gold supported, fiat, or anything else, and prefer barter? Not that there is anything wrong with that. But it does seem to be the logical opposite of not believing government should promote its nations economy (and solidify its currencies value).

But a positive benefit of taxing commerce is that the government then is incentivized to promote the economy for the benefit of the people who make those transactions. Banks aren't big purchasers. Everyone else is.



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Also, the US was founded on fiat currency.

Hog wash… Only congress shall have the power to coin money…. read that coin. One ounce denominations of gold, sliver nickel and copper.

Money as in intrinsic tangible precious metal. These coins today are near priceless. Paper is well, worthless paper.

Founding Fathers and Money
edit on 12-4-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Hog wash… Only congress shall have the power to coin money…. read that coin. One ounce denominations of gold, sliver nickel and copper.

Money as in intrinsic tangible precious metal. These coins today are near priceless. Paper is well, worthless paper.

Fouding Fathers and Money


I mentioned the colonies (which had great monetary systems for the most part, even though they were fiat) and the Articles of Confederation. The Articles are why the particular passage from the Constitution that you mention is in there. Problem is, limiting the money supply to the availability of a particular commodity also limits economic growth.

Also, there is nothing contradictory between fractional reserve banking and having a gold backed dollar. FRB is basically just exchanging bank credit while backing it with a small amount of actual value. A completely legal practice, and not one the founders were looking to prevent.
edit on 12-4-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Don't even go there.

From that link:


It is important to note that there are two different kinds of paper currency which are not "money" but circulate as such: the first is debt money, which can be redeemed in silver or gold on demand, and the other is fiat (paper) money, which is designated as legal tender but cannot be redeemed for anything. Currently, our "Currency" is fiat money, something so abhorrent to our Founding Father's that they didn't even discuss it as an option.


Emphasis added



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

From your article, which is a ridiculous source to begin with.


The Founders did allow, however, private banks to act as depositories for the United States and to collect taxes. People were issued redeemable bank notes which circulated as currency. Unfortunately, Alexander Hamilton realized his error in promoting this type of banking too late, and by the end of the Civil War there were thousands of banks issuing thousands of different kinds of bank notes.


What type of notes exactly do you think they were issuing? They were redeemable for gold but they were still using FRB, not every note could be redeemed.

Also, on your point about using precious metals earlier, even that is open to devaluation. Using gold/silver coins, the idea is that as a safeguard on monetary value the metal can never be worth less than it's melt value. However, nothing prevents the government from debasing the currency. For example, if you need to devalue your currency in order to "print" more, you simply change the coins out from 100% gold to a 50% gold alloy and you've instantly doubled the money supply.

It's actually a good idea for your currency value to be worth much less than a precious commodity, otherwise someone can for example purchase a whole bunch of silver, take it to a US mint, and have coins created that are worth more than the raw value of the materials which results in free money being created. For what it's worth, the US Mint used to do this.
edit on 12-4-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That bit you quoted from the link is exactly why paper currency was considered ridiculous to the founding Fathers. You must be a banker, or just a minion of their paradigm.

edit on 12-4-2016 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aazadan

That bit you quoted from the link is exactly why paper currency was considered ridiculous to the founding Fathers. You must be a banker, or just a minion of their paradigm.


I am not a banker or a supporter of many of their current practices. In fact, I'll go one step further. I try extremely hard in my life to not hate anyone, and recognize everyone as another human being, and look at them as doing what they believe to be right, trying to understand their motivations. ISIS, Child Molesters, Rapists, Killer Cops, and all the rest I don't dehumanize. The one group where I struggle to do that is with bankers. Due to many of their current policies which I don't support it is very hard for me to even see them as people, there is a lot of animosity there, it is easily the group I dislike most on the planet. That doesn't mean that all banking is bad though, and it doesn't mean a backed currency is necessarily a good thing.

When you get right down to it, all currency is fiat. Even the commodities we typically back a currency with have value only because we say they do. Gold has very little actual value, oil is one invention away from crashing in price, and so on. Fiat currency is the only way to handle proper economic growth. Any commodity that doesn't increase in global stores at a rate equal to the increase in population isn't equipped to maintain value. Take gold for example, it's production has remained relatively steady over centuries but the population has grown exponentially, this results in there being less to go around which creates massive deflation.

With deflation comes a huge incentive to not spend money, and the economy slows to a crawl alongside an increase in the value of the debts you're now racking up. Being on a gold standard today would have been an utter disaster, the dollar would be worth a little more in theory but there are several wars we would never be able to pay off alongside some other spending.

Can you imagine if debts were more expensive? We have a $1.2 trillion student loan bubble. If we had deflation due to remaining on the gold standard since the 70's, that bubble would be the equivalent of $12 trillion in todays dollars to pay off. It simply wouldn't ever happen.
edit on 12-4-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

RE: student loans....at some point We The People have to ask the question: is the college graduate the only one benefitting from the degree earned?

The whole notion of student loans bothers me. Mostly because learning institutions have become for profit centers constantly chasing the next loan/bond election with ever increasing tuitions and fees. And instead of doing something to address the massive drain (1.2 trillion, as you mention), they just shovel more money at it. By, in essence, agreeing to give people enough rope to hang themselves.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

RE: student loans....at some point We The People have to ask the question: is the college graduate the only one benefitting from the degree earned?

The whole notion of student loans bothers me. Mostly because learning institutions have become for profit centers constantly chasing the next loan/bond election with ever increasing tuitions and fees. And instead of doing something to address the massive drain (1.2 trillion, as you mention), they just shovel more money at it. By, in essence, agreeing to give people enough rope to hang themselves.


There's a lot wrong with the education system. I've been in it long enough to see the problems, and hopefully articulate enough to express them (when I'm more awake). Right now my current program for another Bachelors is 168 credit hours when they've been "standardized" to 120. My Associates were 84, 78, and 82 for programs that are supposed to take 60. My other Bachelors was 134.

Not only are costs per credit hour increasing, but credits to graduate are going up as well, and I'm still not quite sure how. I've spoken to several instructors and they've always stressed out quite a bit over how to cut hours from their courses. I see them go down on program evaluations all the time, but the totals still rise. It doesn't help matters that the less expensive the school, the more willing they seem to be to give you more total credits. In the end it causes a program to cost the same where ever you go.

Personally, I don't take loans I use grants (Pell Grants and a couple others) and pay the rest out of pocket.

My feeling on college funding is that a more educated work force will benefit the nation in the years to come, and the economic growth they create will more than pay for the cost of education. There's no reason to put it on the individual when it's society that benefits. My other feeling is that college needs the feds to step in and regulate a bit more. There is way too much bureaucracy in the system and the concept of transferring credits is abysmal, in some states you can't even do it. This needs to be standardized.

Then there's the teachers. There are very few college professors I legitimately have a problem with, but there are some. To use one of my current professors as an example, he's tenured and brags about having the lowest pass rate in the school. Usually only about 20% of students pass any given one of his classes, and you have to take several with him to graduate. This one instructor single handedly turns 4.0 students into 2.0 students, ends scholarships for everyone else, and runs what would be half of the graduating class for that year out of the program, every year (to say nothing of what he removes from prior years). I do not like instructors who make it their mission to just screw students GPA's and financial aid up which of course.... pushes them to loans.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Maybe if those at the top paid their share of taxes instead of hiding it offshore the tax burden on those in the middle would be less. Unfortunately the super rich in this country are more interested in giving our middle class jobs to Mexico and the far east. We've lost 20 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. But hey we have to place the blame on someone. Why not those scum sucking bottom feeders on welfare?



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


When you get right down to it, all currency is fiat.

Precious metals aren't "current" , they are forever.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
2, Let me ask you that same question. In our current political system, why should socialists have to collectively pay for the programs we don't care about? I sure as heck don't want my taxpayer dollars going towards profiling minorities, a bloated criminal justice system, no-bid defense contracts, more military interventions, propping up the nuclear energy industry, subsidizing Wall Street, etc. And I sure don't care about most of the crap I've heard the Republican Party advocate for either.

So do we also get to opt out of the policies we disagree with? Or is this a one way street?


I'll start off by saying that none of us get to opt out of paying for anything that the government deems an appropriate program to fund from taxpayer dollars, so we're all in the same boat. I'm a (small "L") libertarian, and I would argue that about 75% of what the federal government does is something that it really shouldn't--that's not to say that states and counties and cities can't tackle those things if they want, but I think that at a federal level and with the framework of government defined by the Constitution, our federal government has gone in the exact opposite direction of how it was designed. It was meant to be as small a government as possible and to let the states handle almost everything that directly affected U.S. citizens. We're pretty much the exact opposite at this point.

So, I feel your pain about not wanting to pay for things that you don't like--I really do--but herein lies the problem with "opting out:"

- the government NEEDS the tax dollars in order to run the programs, so if many people opt out of things (and many people would if it meant keeping more of their own money), there would be a shortfall of necessary money to run the gov't programs, and

- the government would, if using history as an example, eventually make things so onerous on the individual or private companies that are competing with the gov't programs that they would be forced out of the market, or design the programs in such a way that private industry couldn't stay afloat without gov't handouts, making them beholden to the demands of the gov't and creating a pseudo-gov't-controlled entity that is not really free to do what it wants as a private entity, and

- the government can make, on the surface, at least, their product or service appear much cheaper than a similar privately created product or service, keeping the hidden cost off of the price tag and duping an ignorant public into thinking that gov't products/services are a better deal, forgetting the upfront cost that is the massive amount of tax dollars needed to run a massive federal government. This would price out the private competition, who can't just raise taxes to compensate for lower price-tag numbers.

Those are just three things that come to mind off the top of my head as to why government control of goods/services and the ability to "opt out" as tax payers are faulty foundations for economic viability.

The PPACA is a prime example of what government interference in what should be (in my opinion, and if you read the Constitution and what it allows the federal gov't to do/control) a completely private industry, yet when it was signed into law in 2010 and then as the years have passed, more and more of the health-insurance co-ops created mandated by this legislation are breaking down and shutting their doors due to financial troubles--all brought upon by the mandates of what MUST be allowed in insurance coverage.

The federal government caused this. They caused a 7.5% average increase in health insurance premiums when the promise was that they would decrease relatively dramatically. This happens nearly all. of. the. time. when government starts trying to control something. So, not only are our out-of-pocket costs increasing, but so is the amount of tax dollars needed for the government to administer the PPACA. It's a double whammy.

And it's a great example as to why socialist-style government programs do not work, and they especially won't work if people have the option to opt out--hell, you even get penalized if you choose not to get health insurance, and the program is still failing compared to its promises and its design (predictably failing, if you ask anyone who understands basic math and paid attention from the start).

That is how government works--it's undeniable. Nothing costs as "low" as promised, nothing is ever funded as promised, and it all ends up falling on to the backs of taxpayers and their wallets.

I'm sorry, but there's nothing about a socialist-type system that you can tell me that will make me believe that it will work any better than our crony-capitalist, semi-socialist system that we are limping along on now. Even though things are relatively bad now, a true socialist system--even if mostly automated (which takes away a lot of tax-paying jobs, btw)--would make things worse.

But I'm sure we disagree ideologically, and that's okay.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons


Worker owned cooperatives could force convential corporations from outsourcing services/goods because they will produce higher quality goods and create jobs. They will force the outsourcing corporations to compete with higher quality domestic product.
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I can accept that, but how many companies would accept doing this? I worked for an employee owned company back in the 80's. Workers bought into company stock, but they were never part of the company decision making. In fact the company's logo was labeled as "an employee owned company." The owner's son made poor decisions and eventually the company was bought out by a smaller company that manufactured related equipment. So in the end, the workers were still screwed.

What owners?



Private healthcare can drive the prices down because of competition. Government issued healthcare would increase the prices because of guaranteed income from the tax player and little to no competition.


The U.S. no longer has competition. Monopolies were declared illegal, yet now we have an oligarchy system. Larger companies are buying out smaller companies. For example, just take a look at paid TV which everyone can relate to. They pull you in with low contract prices and than once the contract is over the prices skyrocket and are in-line with all competing cable and satellite prices. There's no big savings from one company to the next. Companies are creating bogus charges, just to rape the consumer. The same goes for wireless cell phone service. Remember when Ma Bell was broken-up? The cost of land line phone service skyrocketed. The same goes for Airlines, banks etc...

There is no competition because corporations have hijacked the lawmaking. Capitalism would be fine if business interests did not have lobbyists creating pro-corporate laws.

Have you ever ordered a product online? If you don't read the fine print, a company can automatically keep sending you products on a monthly basis and get away with making charges to your credit card. It's up to the consumer to call or email the company to cancel this ongoing service. When did consumers lose control of giving companies the authorization to charge their credit cards? Companies across this country are taking advantage of consumers and creating scams to bilk money out of consumers. It simply comes down to corporate GREED!

People can choose to not buy from them again. A competitor can just not screw over their customers and that adds value to their service. Go ahead screw over your customers you'll just go out of business when everyone goes to the competitor across the street that does not screw over their customers



Why not have a private social security retirement fund operated by small businesses that is not apart of government and is subject to market competition


I can agree with that. It would prevent slimy politicians thinking they have a right to use the public's saved money for their own use. However, there would have to be some kind of oversight and accountability to make sure private companies don't scam the public. It happens all the time with investors.



Welfare can be operated by competing small business with the aid of public charities without the need for government.Probably for a lot less with less abuse and more oversight


Oversight is key. I don't have a problem with some of these socialized programs being run by private businesses, but they would have to be held accountable for every penny and not be driven by profit. The problem with private companies is most donations go toward outrageous CEO salaries and much of the money doesn't reach the people who need it. Salaries and operating expenses should be capped to keep greed from rearing it's ugly head. I don't know how competing companies would keep the focus on citizen's needs rather than profit.

if the companies offer poor services because of CEO/executive salaries what is to stop a competing company with a fraction of the overhead to offer the same services cheaper with better quality/better services.


Actual socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production. Government enforces this and that is what I don't agree with.Capitalism is anyone with capital can own the means of production with Government protecting the right to own it.Government is not necessary to protect private property.Guns are.Private security is a good idea.


The problem is, we don't have true capitalism and it's being driven by Greed.So?...That greed drives innovation and competition. It's not a bad thing. We're losing manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico39% US corporate tax rate,US federal/state regulations,sweat shop labor,no minimum wage,no workers comp,etc etc because of this. Companies simply no longer appreciate their workers and see them as being expendable just to increase their investor's returns. Corporations are also unfairly influencing our government representatives. In the end, the citizen's lose.

Yes business needs to be out of legislation.



Private healthcare can offer better services for cheaper and higher quality.


I disagree, they're doing a terrible job now! How do you put a profit on people's health? Prescription and medical care costs in the U.S. is much higher than other industrialized nations. If I recall, CNN had a documentary on Taiwan's healthcare system. A reporter in the United States had a medical problem and compared his treatment and costs of both systems. It was outrageous how much money he saved in Taiwan's system. They were as technically equipped and professional as the U.S. system. He was impressed on how quick his services were rendered. If you can find that documentary somewhere online, it's definitely worth a look!

Why do you think our medical care costs are high? What would you as a medical care service provider do if the government offered you medicare? Would you charge as much as you can get away with or be nice to the customer and sell the service for a cheap as possible?

It's strange, but it always seems like most of these interesting and enlightening documentaries are always shown in the early morning hours. (Thanks to my insomnia, I get to see them, lol).



I agree to disagree. I don't believe in government robbing people for social programs. Why not have people donate to a social services fund? Why not have a optional social services tax on people's water/rent/waste disposal bill to the local municipality?

I can also agree to disagree. I just don't think the answers are that simple. I think Capitalism has developed to a point where it has overwhelming influence on our government, the consumer and the citizens of the United States. Government is no longer for and by the people because of it's influence on our representatives.

I also think more power needs to be given to the peopleWho decides that? over congress and it decision making. Such as voting for Term Limits,Agree Campaign Finance Reform, setting salaries and benefits, removing lobbyistsAgree, and holding them accountable for spending and balancing the budget. The party system has done nothing but divide this country.

















posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Aazadan


Also, the US was founded on fiat currency.

Hog wash… Only congress shall have the power to coin money…. read that coin. One ounce denominations of gold, sliver nickel and copper.

Money as in intrinsic tangible precious metal. These coins today are near priceless. Paper is well, worthless paper.

Founding Fathers and Money


But then the QE would be impossible.

Would 1:10 fiat to gold coin ratio would be a good start?

Maybe gold+resource+land to fiat would be more realistic.
edit on 13-4-2016 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join