This is the definition of socialism: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3 ... =firefox-a
As with anything, taking data from multiple independant sources is a good research practice. I already told you what I have against it. It is a practice that would be carried out by a government that is corrupt in certain ways and will be handled some greedy politicians. I see no evidence that some of my money that I work hard to earn will go to ungrateful leeches who are accustomed to the government providing for them. Why do you ask me to repeat this?

If you want to see more, try Google. I found some interesting articles containing some sourced info and quotes I never knew about before.
http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2 ... alism.html
http://freeagencyrules.blogspot.com/200 ... alism.html
Some reding between the lines, but funny to read

And some random unsourced babblings:
http://www.gongol.com/opinion/2005/what ... socialism/
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/03/28/ ... socialism/
http://beta.morons.org/tally-ho/article ... B748AEF639

If this thread doesn't contain enough debat for you, try this one:
http://ask.metafilter.com/104246/So-WHA ... lism-again

Looking back, maybe it's wrong to discredit articles that don't cite sources. If I do that, the there will be nothing to read, since almost every article I've seen on this subject boils down to "I think is good/bad becasue..."

It funny because America is already a socialism.

The government is been corrupted. But that'll be over soon.

I don't see Obama as a socialism.Just because Obama Cares for the people
doesn't means it's bad. Thats my opinion.

Alright explain the real pictures of him ive seen in the local papers of him in a Turbin, and one of the long white robes that people of that religion commonly wear.

I cant seem to find it on the web, but if i can find it in the paper I can scan it. Im not saying it was a bad thing that he WAS a Muslim, I could care less right now what religion he chooses, You seem to make it sound like a bad thing he was... Just another ignorant Obama fanatic that actually believes the man is not socialist, Taking money and redistributing it IS Socialist.

I think im gonna have to see what the next 4 years bring in order to see if he actualy makes things change or not, odds are its only gonna get worse, this country is sooooo far down the tubes that the government has lowered the prices on gas because they realized people could not afford 60 dollars for half a tank and it was breaking people. Now its down to almost under 2 dollars in the last MONTH... They realized that if they kept making us pay so much it was gonna kill the country... Unfortunately it already has. We are a sinking ship that's up to the poop deck in water ( came up with that one myself)

Also that thing with wallstreet, that bailout was a HUGE mistake, that never should of happened, the only thing they did was give money to the money grabbing exects who were supposed to use that money to bail out their companies. Whats worse is... that money we used to do it was borrowed from China!

America is proof that a capitalist nation with the whole free enterprise deal does not work. The only way any nation survives is if it has Truthful, trustworthy, loyal leaders. This has killed nations such as Rome, The Nazis ( that was a good thing), the Soviet union and so on, Money, as long as they can pad their pockets with it, politicians will be corrupt. Obama had the most expensive campaign in the history of American presidents... most of it came from corporations that realized he might win, and threw so much cash at him that he could run the flashiest campaign and win. Now they are gonna want a return, and that return is more money, tax breaks, bailouts etc. all the stuff that Obama says he's not gonna let happen is gonna happen.

They also said that Obama brought out millions of new voters, Not true he got around the same ammount of votes that Bush got back when he got elected, plus a few thousand, while Mccain got a lot less. IN other words... republicans just didnt vote.. they stayed home, or voted for Obama instead. There wasnt much of an increase at all.

In other words Ladies and Gents (By the looks of the forum... Mostly Gents) America... Is boned.

So funny to see people rant here while I already know what will happen :3

You're not going to like it

This is why I try to keep away from politics, there's just so much debating...

Funny, that is exactly the mindset of the people that believe in the end of the world.

And you think McCain is better???

Like I said....Obama was visiting Kenya..that explains that picture. It is the garb of a tribal elder in Kenya.
Turbines doesn't have to be regions it's just a headgear that protects them from sand and wind.


http://www.nypost.com/seven/02292008/ne ... _99817.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/n ... rbans.html

Lets just end this and see what will happen for the next 4 years.

I'm just curious...what state do you live in?

If we go by the rep/dem status alone, McCain would be much worse in the money/greed area than Obama.

That's why rep/dem are not the only parties, but the other parties are neglected in the election process.

I think both choices were terrible, but we had to have one so I voted for the lesser of the 2 evils.

I live in a Democrat state. Michigan, it always goes to the Dems.

Anyway I dont want to talk about It anymore.

Shoulda wrote myself anf voted on behalf of the Runestorm party.

Well, I don't think Obama has done anything yet. wait and see. by the time he's inaugrated he'll probally screw the U.S. up some way or another.

Gun Rights FTW!!

He is currently choosing people for his administration. The experts will be able to predict from his choices how the next 4 years will be, I imagine.

I'm not going to be too pessimistic. After Bush's 8 years in the white house even lawyers wouldn't have low enough values to give Americans another ride on that bandwagon.

Oh, and it would be a good idea to buy guns and ammo while you still can, hehe.

True.

I think he has his speaker already, and John Kerry (Bush's running partner in 2004) Wants to be with Obama. so I presume.

Dunno what to think of Kerry, I followed the last elections even less than I did this time around. :-/

I don't remember.

>_<

John Kerry ran as a Democrat last election, didn't he?

These may have already been addressed, so sorry if I'm repeating stuff here:


It was just a photo-op, with him trying out local traditions. I mean, if you take
this picture as proof than Obama's a Muslim, then Bush and Putin are Chinese.


Oh don't try to pull this on us. The only ones suggesting that being a Muslim is a bad thing are those trying to claim that he is. There are many people who would refuse to vote for him if indeed he was a Muslim (oh noes terr'rists). Claiming that he is a Muslim is an obvious boogaboo scare tactic to drive away those people and cast doubts and fears about him being a terrorist-sympathizer or whatever.



Taxes are, by their very definition, a redistribution of wealth. Government takes money from you, and spends it on services that you don't necessarily use. The only thing we're arguing here is that since the rich hold a vast majority of the wealth in this nation, they should carry a similar majority of the tax burden.



I don't believe US government has any direct control over gas prices. Gas prices dropped simply because demand dropped, as people don't drive as much during the fall as they do during the summer. It has nothing to do with government intervention.



I'm fairly sure that the bailout bill had provisions that specifically prohibited so-called "golden parachutes" for the execs that ran the banking institutions into the ground. Also, where did you hear that we borrowed the money from China?



Are you saying that Obama is not truthful, trustworthy, and loyal to his country? And where is your proof that free enterprise doesn't work? It's worked pretty well for us for the last 200+ years.



Have you been paying any attention to this election? One of the most notable aspects of Obama's campaign machine is its unprecedented use of small campaign donations ($250 or less), mostly from the internet. And whenever the campaign finds that someone has donated illegally to them, they return it.



What does this even mean?



While it's true that Republican turnout was depressed and McCain did receive fewer votes than Bush or Kerry got, Obama received about 3 million (according to Wikipedia) more votes than Bush did in '04.



Mmmm, sounds like someone here could use a little Hope. Not too much, just a little will do.


This whole SOCIALIST! scare is completely groundless. While America already has some socialist policies (The postal system, roads, police, fire stations, the military, the massive government bailout of financial institutions that Bush and both major candidates supported, etc.), there is no reason to believe that an Obama administration will start to nationalize all aspects of industry and production. The free market works (for the most part) and Obama recognizes that.


EDIT: Also, there's no reason to lock a thread just because it's controversial. As long as folks keep it civil and keep the flames down to a minimum, everything should be fine.

I personally would love to see an RS forum dedicated to debating stuff like this.

PM me details on that and I can see if it goes some where.

By the way, for the post lock, forget it. I can't honestly know why I did it, but fortunately Bjossi was there to fix my mistake.

I would like a politics(maybe science too) discussion forum too.

This forum works just fine for those topics, we aren't even close to be active enough for theme-specific chit-chat forums to work out.

Oh, now you've definitely convinced me with your very detailed proof. I just can't argue with "That's my opinion", which surely came from other people telling you something. So, what convinced you? You're trying to convince us, but please share what convinced you.

I'd also like to share my thoughts on government intervention with a person's wealth. So, how does a politician care for the people? I would argue that for politicians who are trying to get you to vote for him/her instead of someone else, almost every promis made to your face is matched with a knife in your back. Specifically, your argument shows that Obama is trying to care for the poor people, but is actually harming them. let me explain why I say this.

This redistribution of wealth idea does sound very good. Take money from rich people who don't deserve all the money they have and give it to the poor people. Sounds good, right? But who are these "rich people"? There are certain rich individuals and I would not be one to say the economic system is not very flawed, causing them to be unduly rich in light of their meager work load, but wouldn't this idea also lead to taxing businesses? In fact, didn't Obama imply that he would take from businesses? Surely, Microsoft could afford to lose a few million per year to some lazy, poor, and/or neglected people. Perhaps some people have been unwillingly victimized by the chaotic forces of life, just like everyone else, but to a greater degree. Ok, sounds mostly good. However, what does a business do when it is forced to spend more money? What happened to the price of computer components when ICs (Integrated Circuits) became dirt cheap? Price dropped. What happened when the price of oil shot up? A whole lot of things depending on oil became more expensive. So, would it not be safe to think that if the government forced businesses to pay more money, then those businesses would naturally increase prices on the producs/services they sell? Who pays money for the products and services? Why, the common person, right? Wait, isn't the common person not-so-rich and, therefore, receiving money that the government took from these businesses? Wouldn't they be paying back about how much they would get from the businesses that were taxed for their benefit? Well, maybe the common poor person who now must pay extra for everything would get enough money from the government to offset that. Surely, the cost of paying (rich) people to handle the money redistribution would not take more of that money for the poor people than is fair. There must be no doubt that 300 million Americans can trust a few hundred people to decide who does not need so much money and who deserves more money than they have.

I'm not advocating that there are not certain applications of socialism that are bad. For example, with how often the average person travels accross a state or country, it would be a mess to hammer out who owes how much for roads and such, so we say that everyone pays a certain percent of their paychecks to build/maintain such things. However, telling certain people that they do not deserve the money they earned and that other people deserve money they did not earn does not sound right on any level, even when you consider the comparatively few cases of people who try hard, but still can't get anywhere. Letting a characteristic of a person (i.e. wealth) affect how you treat them does not sound morally right or "fair". Why, that would be classified as discrimination, would it not?

Here's an interesting viewpoint of centralized economy, which was written over 18 years ago, long before "social America" became a catch phrase.

This has nothing to do with who "deserves" their money and who does not. All this shit has to get paid for somehow, and it makes far more sense if we charge the ones who can actually pay for it. The rich benefit from public works as much as, if not more, than the lower or middle classes. You're not going to get much sympathy for me if you cant afford that new yacht or European luxury car due to Obama's tax hikes. And then there's the payroll tax, which hits the lower classes harder than the uppers.

Obama's tax plan would only raise the income tax (salary and wages and such) and capital gains taxes (stocks, invesntments, etc.) on individuals making over $200,000 a year, or $250,000 for families.

As for businesses, a vast majority of small businesses (something like 99%) would not see a tax increase under Obama's plan. As for the big corps, while the corporate tax rate is the 2nd highest in the world (something like 35%), the tax system is so riddled with loopholes that with some creative accounting, the US has effectively one of the lowest. Obama's plan is to close these loopholes, while lowering the actual rate. He also has this thing where businesses get a tax credit for creating new full-time jobs. It's not as bad as you claim it would be.


What is that article even rambling about? Nobody is arguing for government control of the means of production. Pure capitalism is just as bad as pure communism. The proper solution would be somewhere in the middle, and as they say, the devil is in the details.

Kaboodles for the win!

Kaboodles, not that I doubt you, but do you have sources for your data, like how small a small business it, where that 99% came from, and such? Is that 99% of small businesses not effected explicitly stated somewhere, or is it one of the 87.9% of the statistics made up on the spot?

I do believe that deserves answering.

Kaboodles - 1
Tyster - 1

The Small Business Association seems to determine "smallness" either by # of employees or "annual receipts in millions of dollars" (I'm assuming this means revenue). These numbers can vary greatly depending on what industry the business is affiliated with.

Employee number can vary from 50 for "heating oil dealers" to 1500 for Aircraft Manufacturing, "pipeline oil transfer" or telecomm companies, though the most common figure listed is 500. "Receipts" can vary from $750k for farming and in $175 million for banking institutions.

Sources:
SBA Size Standards
Title 13 of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 121.201


As for your second point, 99% is a figure Barack likes to throw around. It'll probably vary depending on what numbers you look at and how you calculate things. This guy seems to have covered it nicely.

Summary: A vast majority of small businesses are sole proprietorships which are basically taxed according to the owner's personal income (profits from business). That is usually lower than $200k ($250k for families), so no tax increase. And hell, if they do go over, they could easily just invest the money back into the business.

Personally, I would love to be earning $400k and getting hit with a tax increase than earning $50k and getting a tax credit.

You're keeping track? LOL. What's the prize for the winner?

An internet cookie.

Hopefully not the kind of cookie that can mess up a computer.

Oi, just in case you didn't notice, I addressed your question about 4 minutes before your comment about score.