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.

 

The only people who want Socialism are people who don't produce

page: 24
24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Gryphon66

It tells us that we're not spending excessively on our military when you consider practical matters like the size of our economy, the size of our population, or our geographical footprint.

Pretty simple.


I don't think it does tell us that. There are multiple factors in each of those measures that don't lend themselves to linear comparison. At best, you can say that these indicators show us a) per capita - how we compare with other nations on a person-by-person basis or b) that international growth is beginning to grind to a halt.

You'd probably see a similar distribution if you compared spending on infrastructure to per capita or by GDP.

Or healthcare spending ... or any area you arbitrarily want to consider.

It shows us that Singapore and Algeria are probably spending too much for what they're getting though, I'll give you that.




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's funny. What are you doing on the most social Enterprise the world has ever known. When you unplug I'll believe that.



Saving a fortune on postage stamps.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You may not think it does, but it does. Sure it's more complicated than strictly looking at a chart, but unless you study it for years pretty much any explanation is gonna be oversimplified. It's still a lot more sensible comparison than just saying "hey the country with the highest GDP spends the most on the military, they must be overspending!" If you wanna talk arbitrary, that's an arbitrary way of looking at it that was chosen at some point by someone who was trying to make the case we spend too much, and specifically chose it for that effect rather than the usual and more practical ways to compare countries budgets that I described. Then it's been parroted by people who agree with that idea, without really putting any critical thought into whether that's really the most meaningful way to compare military budgets.

It's like comparing my weekly food budget to Trump's. Of course he's gonna spend more, but looking at the raw dollars we're spending is a dishonest and misleading comparison. If I'm spending 10% of my budget on food and he's only spending 4%, he's actually spending more frugally than I am. I know you understand this concept.
edit on 30 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3




That's funny. What are you doing on the most social Enterprise the world has ever known. When you unplug I'll believe that.


It's actually the most anti-social enterprise the world has ever known. You're literally staring at a screen.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
That's because one of your fundamental beliefs is that anyone who doesn't agree with your politics is probably less-motivated or less successful than you.

Not true at all. I recognize that there are people who prioritize ideals and personal ideologies above monetary gain and personal rights. This results in some folks being OK with paying more in taxes, subsidizing others, and entering into systems in which they don't financially benefit because it builds more support for their prioritized causes. My causes are almost universally my family, whatever is best for them, I champion... which almost always boils down to freedoms and maximum retention of earnings.


If the "hand-holding" went away? The "artificial barriers and penalties for success"? Wow that's some great empty rhetoric there; I'd love to hear your plan for competing in the 2017 marketplace with 1792 ideals.

Or, are you talking about the 1950s when the highest income tax rate was 91%?


This country taxed the hell out of imports until World War 2. After the war, the country started hacking away at these tariffs... it made sense in the short view because the US was the only major nation with their infrastructure left undevestated by the war, so the nation saw elimination of import tariffs as a chance to negotiate elimination of export tariffs for doing business overseas. Once Asia began to develop industrial production, that policy bit us in the ass. When I talk artificial barriers, I mean internally on a national level. I am not, in any way, a fan of global free trade. I am a nationalist, tried and true.

The 91% tax rate in the 50s was smoke an mirrors. The effective rates were significantly lower and the average marginal rate was only 25%. www.aei.org... The main difference then versus now is that in the 1950s, they did not have all of the various kickback subsidies, refunds, and payouts they have today for the lower 47% of earners. If you made $100 in 1950, you paid taxes on it, period. Now, if you make less than $12,500, as an individual, you'll actually receive a nice check from the IRS which will increase the funds in your bank account.

I'd happily see America revisit the 50's economy. Everyone had skin in the game and everyone was far more active in watching how and where their earnings went once the feds stole from them.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Gryphon66

You may not think it does, but it does. Sure it's more complicated than strictly looking at a chart, but unless you study it for years pretty much any explanation is gonna be oversimplified. It's still a lot more sensible comparison than just saying "hey the country with the highest GDP spends the most on the military, they must be overspending!" If you wanna talk arbitrary, that's an arbitrary way of looking at it that someone who was trying to make the case we spend too much specifically chose for that effect, rather than the usual and more practical ways to compare countries budgets that I described.

It's like comparing my weekly food budget to Trump's. Of course he's gonna spend more, but looking at the raw dollars we're spending is a dishonest and misleading comparison. If I'm spending 10% of my budget on food and he's only spending 4%, he's actually spending more within his means. I know you understand this concept.


It does ... because you think it does? Any oversimplified explanation is going to seem oversimplied?

It's a sensible comparison? What per capita? What it doesn't account for is wide differences in population density.

For example, US 3.797 million sq miles. China 3.705 million sq miles. US Population 323 million China Population 1.379 billion.

So if we compare the US and China by area we get one comparison, by population, a vastly different one.

So it matters what the comparison numbers mean IN PERSPECTIVE TO OTHER NATIONS ... which as I showed in my example (based on what you wanted to look at) there is zero relevance to military might or power or influence in comparing spending per capita or by GDP.

And the "hey the country with the highest GDP spends the most on the military, they must be overspending!" is pure strawman. You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it.

You don't want to compare spending one-to-one because it shows our relationships with the other military powers in the world?

What does the fact that we are spending four times as much as China mean? We're defending approximately the same national space but spending four times as much (in 2015 at least). They're defending more than a billion more people than us for 1/4 of what we're spending. How does that make sense???

One of the things the analysis by raw spending does show is that we're apparently either very inefficient compared to China OR WE'RE POLICING THE WHOLE WORLD while they're minding their own business (for the most part).

No, it's not like comparing your food budget to Trumps. Raw dollars your spending is a false comparison? How so?

He eats better (richer) than you do by factors (more than likely) of hundreds if not thousands. That tells us a lot of things.

Probably obvious given the likely differences between the two of you, but still.

My claim was simple, to use your terms ... Trump spends more than you, me and the next six ATS members COMBINED.

Remember, here's the claim you took exception to ...



I would hazard a guess that all of us who are American and are posting here have been born and grown up in a US that has been structured around many of the basic aspects being complained about here ... income taxes, social safety nets, public education, national infrastructure, not to mention a ridiculous militarization that puts us (at least expense wise) ahead of the next what ... 6 countries in the world combined?


So, notice, my comments are that our experience in 2017 would be VERY DIFFERENT if we were not (and had not been) spending what we have spent on our military. We spend the most, and we are by most measures, the most powerful.

If we were not the most powerful ... if we were a collection of 50 states all pursuing their own military budgets ... or carping about contributing to the national militia ... the United States would be NOTHING like it is today.

That was the claim.
edit on 30-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: six to four times.

edit on 30-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: More corrections



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=22620593]LesMisanthrope[/pos

Well then anything you have to say is irrelevant because you are just a screen.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Many of your posts give a different impression, but I will take your word as fact. For the record, I think almost everyone regardless of politics cares the most about their family.

I can accept that you are a nationalist tried and true. And I won't bicker over the post WW2 economic decisions both good and bad.

However, AS a nationalist, it seems to me that you would favor a strong-central government over a distributed one. Why is Idaho going to care about Florida? Why would Delaware care about Hawaii?

A loose federal structure would put us right back in the same boat as the Articles ... unable to mount a defense against our enemies.

As a nationalist, that, if nothing else, seems inconsistent in your overall outlook.

You're arguing that the 2017 economy is different than the 1950 economy. No contest.

Everyone had skin in the game in the 50s? Sure, and that skin was a major determinant of opportunity.

I know we're not going to see eye-to-eye on that score.... or perhaps many others.

I'll sum by saying this. No one likes paying taxes. I wince every month. But if my choice is paying those taxes or living a third world standard of living, I'll pay. Simplistic, but core.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That was a really wide circle you just spun around to get back where we started. Dollar for dollar comparisons make no sense. I know that's a solid old talking point you're going to be reluctant to let go of, but if you open your mind to new information occasionally you can learn some things.

Great example, looking at China. You're completely ignoring of course that they've been expanding their military budget every year, with no sign of changing that policy, as their GDP and GDP per capita grows. This actually demonstrates exactly my point. As they have more money to use, they spend more on their military.

You could make the same point with social programs. I mean, we spend way more on those than they do. Should we pat them on the back for the great job they're doing taking care of those billion people for less than we spend? That ignores a whole lot of other information that renders it a completely useless statement, but it's still technically correct and sound smart to uninformed people.

As I said, of course it's more complicated than looking at a chart. But the original point remains. You're welcome.
edit on 30 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
It's one thing to pay out your hard earned cash to just have someone else get it for free, but you people and your "socialism" nonsense...

I suppose you should just use those roads for free and not pay for that education and just take a great big # right in everyone's reservoir just because you produce something huh?.

Heads up...You probably don't produce squat either, compared to a farmer or someone who works at a factory building trucks and the like.

Yeah, you greedy little conservatards think you should just be able to do anything you want regardless of how much damage you do to others, don't pay your fair share and so on.

Yeah, another heads up...We all have to pay if we want to live in this society, and unless you go to another country and somehow find nobody demanding some of you # to be there, here is pretty much all you got.

Just be frickin quiet.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



State ownership of the economy, for one, precludes that an individual cannot own his own means of production.

First learn the difference between socialism and communism then come back with your silly argument.
Socialism - is an economic system in which the government owns some or all of the factors of production.
Communism - is an economic system in which the government owns all the factors of production and there is little to no political freedom
Individuals do own their own system of production in some kinds of socialism.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3




Well then anything you have to say is irrelevant because you are just a screen.


I'm not a screen. But if you pretend you are being social while at the same time interacting with a screen without a single person around, I guess you can believe those sorts of things.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not sure who's correct here. With definitions constantly mutating and being abused by all sides, it is possible that what I'm calling nationalism is closer to the historical description of federalism.

I'm not at all surprised that my positions seem enigmatic at times. I'd vote for Alaska independence in a heartbeat if it ever came up on the ballot. I'd relish the opportunity and would renounce my US citizenship the instant Alaska become sovreign. In my mind, America is too large and too diverse to apply the traditional application of nationalism to her. It would be impossible to apply the same standard of cultural and priority rankings to, say Idaho, as to Florida.

I want a federal government which involves itself in only what the Constitution orders it's involvement in. Defense of rights, facilitation of commerce between the states and other countries, and defense of the nation's interests from enemies, foreign and domestic. That's all. I hesitate to call myself a modern federalist because I'd like to see the federal government's current power obliterated, government shrank down to a shell of what it is now, and most governance return to the states alone... with the feds only involving themselves to ensure rights are not violated.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

It was a wide circle because you prefer to compare apples to orangutans ETA from my perspective.

Dollar for dollar comparisons do make sense. It's not a talking point, it's a fact. Why?

Because it is fairly easy to see that military spending is directly related to military power ... that's context. Not a 100% because nothing is black and white.

What do your comparisons show us IN CONTEXT? Does the US military compare to Algeria or Singapore?

However, it makes sense to you go with it

My claim is that had we not, as a NATION rather than a loose confederation of states, taxed and spent the way we have, we would be living in a far different country.

That's my claim. I addressed your claim out of respect. We disagree.


edit on 30-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, I feel like I'm socializing when I talk ideas with others. And when I can talk to my long distance families on Skype



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not sure who's correct here. With definitions constantly mutating and being abused by all sides, it is possible that what I'm calling nationalism is closer to the historical description of federalism.

I'm not at all surprised that my positions seem enigmatic at times. I'd vote for Alaska independence in a heartbeat if it ever came up on the ballot. I'd relish the opportunity and would renounce my US citizenship the instant Alaska become sovreign. In my mind, America is too large and too diverse to apply the traditional application of nationalism to her. It would be impossible to apply the same standard of cultural and priority rankings to, say Idaho, as to Florida.

I want a federal government which involves itself in only what the Constitution orders it's involvement in. Defense of rights, facilitation of commerce between the states and other countries, and defense of the nation's interests from enemies, foreign and domestic. That's all. I hesitate to call myself a modern federalist because I'd like to see the federal government's current power obliterated, government shrank down to a shell of what it is now, and most governance return to the states alone... with the feds only involving themselves to ensure rights are not violated.


Nationalism, in most cases, means that your greatest love and respect goes to your image of the United States as a nation. You have pride in her people and her way of life. America is better than any other country because (X, Y, Z).

I hear what you're saying about Alaska, but I don't think you'd like the reality of the trade off. That's my opinion though.

Yes, the US was a grand experiment. There are days when I'm ready to throw in the towel too.

Actually, from what you're saying, you're not a Federalist either (Hamilton and his bunch wanted a strong central govenrment).

You'd be a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican. That is, before he got into power ... then he moved toward Federalism (or at least the power of the President).

edit on 30-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, I feel like I'm socializing when I talk ideas with others. And when I can talk to my long distance families on Skype


Out of curiosity, how did a discussion on economic socialism morph into you discussing socialization and communication? These aren't exactly related concepts, despite similar root origins of their names.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3




Yes, I feel like I'm socializing when I talk ideas with others. And when I can talk to my long distance families on Skype


I do too. Unfortunately feelings aren't much when it comes to determining what reality is.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Everything I said is a fact as well. What remains is what's the more sensible way to look at it. Economists, people who are experts in things like this, look at per GDP when they compare such stats between countries. You want to look at it another way because it fits your worldview, not because it is the more effective way of comparing it. We can disagree. I furnished you with new information you don't wanna hear. Perhaps with time, you'll open your mind to it.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I hear what you're saying about Alaska, but I don't think you'd like the reality of the trade off. That's my opinion though.


I'd be fine. We've been working towards total off-grid life for awhile now. (Yeah, I get it... I'm apparently an internet junkie, but here I talk about off grid. I see the internet as a somewhat productive and educational time sink. I grew up in the boonies during the early days of dial up and never had internet until I went to college. Add to that the fact that most of my internet time comes while I'm at work... Meh. I can take it or leave it.)

Worst case scenario of Alaska becoming an independent nation and things economically falling to hell, I just speed up the plan and finish building the remote cabin sooner rather than later.




top topics



 
24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join