Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota?

page: 8
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Most people point out the failures of socialism, blatantly ignoring anything that would remotely be construed as a positive mark.

I blame the American perception of socialism on conservative pundits and Fox News. Just another bogeyman for the fright wing to fear.




posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjfry
reply to post by Cabin
 


This is exactly why everyone in the US should think about, why the word social is transformed into "socialist" or "communist" in some corners of the media, or why somebody has a "socialist" agenda?


Because it threatens the lush paychecks of some very powerful and wealthy people. Why else?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by mbkennel


You don't understand it. In the Communist manifesto, the central bank is the only bank. That's what it means by "exclusive monopoly".

The USA, and every other mixed capitalist country, have a central bank whose clients are the government and other banks and serve their needs.
edit on 1-4-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


And the Federal Reserve doesn't have exclusive monopoly?.


No, not in the sense of Communism or Marxism. By exclusive monopoly, meaning the only bank, and the only bank making loans to people or businesses.


It doesn't print the dollar that they created?... They weren't the one who through other "progressive democrat presidents" even banned the gold and silver standard so that people would use the economy created by the Feds?


The President and Congress made those choices, not the Federal Reserve.



The Feds is a central bank.


Yes. And its purpose and functions are entirely different from that envisioned by the socialists described, and saying the Fed is "socialist" is false even though it is governmental.

The Fed is not a profit oriented private-sector bank, and it is not a socialist development bank, it is something different from the two.

Its governing body has representatives both from private sector and appointed by government, but the government appointees have more actual power. It has a role which is fulfilled by no other banks or institutions. It takes indirect direction from Congress and the President but not specific direction. It has legal regulatory power over many other private sector banks. It has monetary powers not possessed by other banks. It does not have an explicit profit-making agenda, and its profits, if any, are turned over to the U.S. Treasury. It is the bank holding the funds of the U.S. Treasury department.

edit on 2-4-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-4-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-4-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-4-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Okay, it is pointless to argue with you on this matter. Although I am 100% sure crime rates are not lowered down. I know people on very high local police positions and the fact is that crime rates are lower and nothing has something to do with political correctness.

That is enough of this topic.

Although I see you do not get the concept of Europe still. Every country in Europe is different. There is no unified law or anything like that. EU can set some unifying standards to hold, although they can not change the local law. That is done by separate parliamats in every country, who make the laws. You can never say in Europe, because every country is different and their no unison, like in States. EU government is not European government and so on.

Why are you avoiding the main topics I referred to before? Nordic Financial Model, which should be a role model for every other country and US Corporatism - power of corporations in USA.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Ironically, those folks benefit from bailouts and government subsidies.

You can say that socialism is ok as long as it only benefits those who already have money. Bunch of grubbers.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd

You don't even understand what the term 'progressive' or 'tax' mean in this context. You hear the word 'progressive' and react like a three year old that doesn't like peas because someone told him something bad about them. No understanding, no experience, no sense at all just reaction to a word. Not a concept, a word.
.
And making the words bigger, doesn't make it true either - just shriller.


I know exactly what it means. Progressive taxes develop gradually, in stages. What this means is as time goes on more and more taxes are added and raised. What we really need instead of a heavy progressive tax is a flat tax, which is what should exist in the U.S., except that people like you allowed for these heavy progressive taxes to be implemented and are asking for more"... Talk about being masochists...

You see, leftwingers, such as yourself, are not smart enough to understand that you are being taken for every penny they can take from you, and they do it with the implementation of more, and more taxes, that is a "heavy progressive tax"... As it is, for the year 2010 the U.S. Federal Tax code has 71,684 pages in length.

BTW nice try at belittling me, and a big fail, over a concept that obviously you are the one ignorant about. it's just hilarious.

edit on 3-4-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
Most people point out the failures of socialism, blatantly ignoring anything that would remotely be construed as a positive mark.

I blame the American perception of socialism on conservative pundits and Fox News. Just another bogeyman for the fright wing to fear.


Oh yeah sure... I am sure it has nothing to do with millions of people having lived, and experienced socialism and or communism and not wanting anything to do with it anymore... Unless you were one of the kids of a higher ranking socialist/communist... Those people would have loved to live under such a system again... Meanwhile the rest of the people in the socialist/communist nation would be suffering and starving.

I did not form my opinion about socialism and communism from watching "Fox news" or listening to "conservative pundits", and unlike you I didn't learn to love the disease that is both socialism and communism through books made up of lies by socialist/communist professors trying to sell the socialist/communist utopia to the gullible, and inexperienced among you. I learned by living and experiencing, what you have not, under a socialist/communist dictatorship.

edit on 3-4-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Don't you ever get tired of regurgitating that Fox-trash?

Also, if no one pays taxes, where does the revenue to run a town or city come from?



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


I know exactly what it means. Progressive taxes develop gradually, in stages. What this means is as time goes on more and more taxes are added and raised. The opposite to a heavy progressive tax is a flat tax, which is what should exist in the U.S., except that people like you allowed for these heavy progressive taxes to be implemented and are asking for more"... Talk about being masochists...

You see, leftwingers, such as yourself, are not smart enough to understand that you are being taken for every penny they can take from you, and they do it with the implementation of more, and more taxes, that is a "heavy progressive tax"... As it is, for the year 2010 the U.S. Federal Tax code has 71,684 pages in length.

BTW nice try at belittling me, and a big fail, over a concept that obviously you are the one ignorant about. it's just hilarious.



Progressive tax is not what you are saying. You do not know the meaning of it...

Progressive tax is tax which depends on the income you earn. The higher your income, the higher % you have to pay as income tax... e.g..People who earn more than 1 million a year, pay 30% as income tax, while people who earn less than 100k a year pay 10% as income tax (>1m=30%, 500k-1m=25%, 250k-500k=20%, 150-250k=15%,



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Get off of your high horse first.

You already got called out on not knowing the meaning of a progressive tax.

The girl in your avatar doesn't know what socialism is.

I see a common trend...
edit on 3-4-2013 by VaterOrlaag because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabin
Progressive tax is not what you are saying. You do not know the meaning of it...

Progressive tax is tax which depends on the income you earn. The higher your income, the higher % you have to pay as income tax... e.g..People who earn more than 1 million a year, pay 30% as income tax, while people who earn less than 100k a year pay 10% as income tax (>1m=30%, 500k-1m=25%, 250k-500k=20%, 150-250k=15%,



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag

Get off of your high horse first.

You already got called out on not knowing the meaning of a progressive tax.

The girl in your avatar doesn't know what socialism is.

I see a common trend...
edit on 3-4-2013 by VaterOrlaag because: (no reason given)


How about you stop going around in circles and attempt to make an intelligent argument?... Claiming that I don't understand socialism without proof is not an intelligent argument. In fact, I even gave direct evidence from socialist and even communist websites backing what I posted earlier...

Big fail "VaterOrlaag" big fail...

edit on 3-4-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dutchowl
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


>>> The big banks own both parties, the federal reserve owns the country. An independant bank wouldn't be bound to the parties so its apolitical.


It's not apolitical at all - it's more omni-political though that's inaccurate as well.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
www.huffingtonpost.com...

The biggest leak in offshore banking and financing, revealing a gigantic system of tax avasion and black market transaction around the globe.

If this doesn't stop the average guy will never come out of dept.
Why doesn't the USA just park a carrier in sight of these islands and slowly count to ten, to get their money back?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You are all over the map in your chosen position on socialism

Socialist nations have no private property, or they have private property, but land and all means of production are public property, Or there is no pure economic systems, Or some countries are becoming socialist.

Basically, you change you view on socialism depending on which version supports your current position.

Making it up as you go.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Again, this is just pure made up nonsense.

Since the sixties the US has become less and less progressive while sinking deeper in debt.

The conservative fight tooth fang and nail to get big tax cuts for the super rich, while bumping up the tax rates for the middle class at every opportunity.

Liberal elites are always willing to go along in order to get special privileges for their special groups, while turning their backs on mainstream Americans.

What we need is a true liberal politician who will raise taxes on the super rich, lower taxes on the middle class, cut immigration to the bone, end special group privileges, and put the corrupt bankers in check.

We need to dump the fed reserve system, and de-couple from the world currency. The US should have its own domestic currency, set up like N Dakota, a non-profit credit union.

The watch the fed reserve currency become worthless, along with all those offshore bank accounts. The. The US can pay off its debts on pennies on the dollar.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
...
Basically, you change you view on socialism depending on which version supports your current position.

Making it up as you go.



I did no such thing, you are the one trying to twist what I have been writing simply because YOU have no real argument at all.

First of all, the nations I was saying are not socialist are WESTERN NATIONS some of you CLAIM are socialist... And yes they are TURNING socialist...

Leftwingers such as yourself LOVE, just LOVE to twist what is being said, and proclaim everything that is good in the world "is socialist"...

If you are not smart enough to keep up with the argument then you probably shouldn't participate at all in the discussion...

edit on 5-4-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

What you don't understand is that I was trying to explain the fact that progressive taxes continuously change, and add more taxes. Yes, there are levels of income taxes, but what these levels have shown, despite the claim that it helps the poor, is that the middle class is being destroyed with these progressive taxes.


You still do not understand what is progressive tax. Any tax is either flat or progressive. Taxes do not add taxes. If new tax is made, it is either progressive or flat, it is that simple. If a tax is changed, it does not immediately mean it is progressive. Any flat tax can be changed, e.g. sales tax from 17% to 18%. That is flat tax, as it is the same for everybody.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
For example, a small business owner, who is part of a family of 4, who has a restaurant that makes let's say $150,000 a year doesn't keep those $150,000 U.S.D. That business owner has to pay his employees, has to pay for part of their healthcare/dental/vision. That business owner must have the paperwork up to date, must have up to date permits(which he pays for). He has to pay the lease for the restaurant, the gas, electricity, maintenance, etc, etc, etc. At the end this business owner might have made for himself and his family maybe $40,000-$50,000, but because of the heavy progressive tax, this businessman will be taxed on his gross income, the $150,000 and not his net income $40,000-$50,000, so he will have to pay more taxes than another family that has no business of their own, but they also earn $40,000-$50,000 U.S.D.

You can not compare juridical person to natural person. Juridical person has to pay taxes based on business laws and every country has different ways how businesses are taxed. I agree that a business owner has more respnsilities and often the business laws are not fair and they are taxed based on gross income, although it has nothing to do with progressive and flat taxes.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
As it is these days there are many Americans going through similar situations in which they have to pay excessive taxes thanks to the heavy progressive tax you seem to love so much. Many of these Americans are paying their debts paycheck to paycheck, and many have lost their houses, and properties.

Not only that, but the leftwinger government wants to implement MORE taxes, such as a carbon tax, a mileage tax, a pet tax, etc, etc...

These new added taxes are part of a heavy progressive tax, which at the end makes Americans poorer and the elites richer thanks to your precious heavy progressive tax....

Again progressive tax is used in extremely wrong context. The fact that new taxes are added has nothing to with being "progressive". Any new tax can also be flat tax. For example, the pet tax you explained is a flat tax - 2,3% for everybody. Progressive tax system simply means that the higher your income or the higher the cost of an product, the higher tax you have to pay on it. Flat tax is same for everybody, progressive tax is different based on some base amount (salary, price etc)


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
But hey, you go ahead and keep cheering your precious heavy progressive taxation...


Let us bring you an example of progressive tax.

In flat tax situation everybody have the same income tax - 20%.

In progressive tax situation, people who earn under 50k a year, have to pay 10% tax, people from 50k to 100k have to pay 15% tax and people who earn more than 100k a year have to pay 20 %for tax and people who earn more than 250k have to pay 30% as tax and over 1m has to pay 50% for tax.

Now let us take 5 person : incomes 40k, 75k, 150k, 500k and 2m.

In flat tax situation a person who earns

Salary - left after taxes - tax paid
40k-32k -8k as tax (20%)
75k - 60k - 15k as tax (20%)
150k - 120k - 30k as tax (20%)
500k - 400k - 100k as tax (20%)
2m - 1,6m - 400k as tax (20%)

In progressive tax system:
Income - Income left after tax - tax - comparison with flat tax

40k - 36k - 4k as tax (10%) - 4k less paid for taxes than in flat tax system
75k -75k - 11,25 as tax (15%) - 3,75k less paid for taxes than in flat tax system
150k - 120k - 30k as tax (20%) - same amound paid for taxes as before
500k - 350k - 150k as tax (30%) - 50k more paid for taxes than in flat tax system
2m - 1,2 m - 800k as tax (40%) - 400k more paid for taxes than in flat tax system

As you can see progressive taxes are overally better for the lower class, as they keep more money on the expense of the rich people, middle ones pay exactly the same amount as before.. Although the people with very high incomes have to pay more taxes. In France for example the super-rich (over 1m year) have to pay 75% of their income as taxes and thanks to such system people with low income have much lower taxes on them.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Again, this is just pure made up nonsense.

Since the sixties the US has become less and less progressive while sinking deeper in debt.
...


Are you kidding me?... The United States of America has been slowly turned into a "progressive/leftwinger" country... You keep wanting to ignore, or even dismiss the fact that LEFTWINGERS have been the ones making the worst changes in this country, and yes there have been some RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who helped in the transition, but if we look back at the big changes done to this nation it was most of it done by the hands of LEFTWINGERS.

From Woodrow Wilson, a "Progressive Democrat", with a Democrat Congress implementing the Federal Reserve, and the IRS with it's "Progressive Taxes" in 1913, alongside implementing regulations to regulate all businesses, and more so small and medium businesses.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, another "Progressive Democrat", who served for 3 terms, and who built the "New Deal Coalition", making the Democrat Party the majority party, from it cam the Wagner Act, which established the Unions legally. Government regulatory agencies, and programs were formed, like the Security and Exchanged Commission which has been REGULATING Wall Street since it's inception. Roosevelt also signed into law the Glass-Steagall Act, which was repealed by another "Progressive Democrat" in 1999 known as Bill Clinton... The Federal Trade Commission, which was established in 1914 by Woodrow Wilson, was given even MORE "REGULATORY POWERS" under Roosevelt...

And since then similar "Progressive"

The "Progressives" caused most of the problems this nation has been dealing since at least 1913, and they were the ones who of course "came out with the solutions".

The Federal Reserve was supposedly given power, among other things so that there would not be any Depression, or other economic crisis, yet the opposite is what happened. Many Republican Senators, and others even from other nations, at the time warned that the people in power of the Federal Reserve were international bankers who did not care for the Republic of the United States, owed/owe no allegiance to the Republic, and that the creation of the Federal Reserve would make it possible for these international bankers to create financial crisis for their benefit...

The "progressives" created the problems so they would be given more, and more power to "solve the problems they created"...

Woodrow Wilson enacted "Prohibition" because "supposedly" the majority of "Progressives" at the time claimed this era would "destroy the political power of local bosses", but in fact it caused the worse era of crime this nation has ever seen... Then of course Roosevelt, the other "Progressive Democrat" came to the rescue and repealed "prohibition", but he signed the Cullen–Harrison Act which legalized any form of alcohol for consumption with a maximum of 3.2% alcohol content by weight...

Roosevelt also signed into law Executive Order 6102, which banned most American citizens from owning gold, a few exceptions included jewelers and a few others, and most Americans had to sell their gold to the "State"...

Since then until now the political process in the United States has become corrupt, and yes unfortunately even many Republicans in power have fallen to this corruption, but these same people go against the principles of what being a Republican is.

Many "Progressive" programs, and laws have been passed since 1913, and today we have Obama, another so called "Progressive Democrat" who signed into law Obamacare, and other UnConstitutional bills which are now law.

But you want to claim the United States has become less, and less "progressive"?... Are you out of your mind?...



Originally posted by poet1b
...
The conservative fight tooth fang and nail to get big tax cuts for the super rich, while bumping up the tax rates for the middle class at every opportunity.
...


First of all, many, if not most of the people you call conservatives are/were neo-cons, and as neo-cons they had been lifelong Democrats and progressives who changed parties to infest the Republican party with the "progressive propaganda".

Second of all, many among the "super rich" include "progressives" and other leftwingers including Ted Turner, George Soros, and among others actors, and actresses, from Hollywood, and singers as well as entire bands who use their fame to promote their leftwing political agenda...



edit on 5-4-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join