Are you a socialist?

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

I used to think that Franklin D. Roosevelt was the ultimate liberal, I was wrong. There is a new liberal in town who appears to be willing to rewrite the history books and the very foundations of our economic system. Perhaps you agree with this philosophy, but I think it is important to be sure you understand exactly what that means.

Let’s talk Social Security. Oh wait; let’s first talk about pandering to seniors first and the social engineering that goes with it. Here is a statement of what Obama will do from the Obama website, “Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less Than $50,000: Obama will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns.”

So if you are a senior (I assume that is age 65), you cannot afford to pay taxes, but if you are 45 and earn less than $50,000 you can, or if you are a single parent and earn less than $50,000 you pay taxes, but your mother on Social Security (with perhaps a few hundred thousand net worth) does not pay. A married couple earning $49,000 in 2008 pays $6,548 in income tax by the way, so it appears that we are not only taking from the rich, but the middle class as well.

When FDR put in Social Security he made it quite clear that it was not welfare, but a base upon which people could build their own security, a base, not the sole source of income, a system funded by the people who would benefit. :-3

Now Obama wants to change that in dramatic ways. He proposes that people with incomes of $250,000 or more pay Social Security taxes on that income in addition to the regular tax on the first $102,000 of income (in 2008) as does everyone else. It’s unfair that middle class people pay Social Security taxes on all of their income and high earners do not, he says.

Unfair? Unfair? :-3 Has anyone told Obama that the Social Security benefit is based only on the taxable wages? For example, a person earning no more than $40,000 will receive a monthly benefit of $1,142 at age 66 in 2009, that is 34.2% of their earnings. If you earn $102,000 the benefit is $2010 or 23.6% of earnings and for those who earn $200,000 the benefit is $2255 (the maximum possible in 2009) or 13.5% of earnings. Only the people who earn $102,000 or more pay the maximum tax and they also get to pay the Medicare tax on 100% of their earnings with no limit.

As you earn more, you earn more in terms of a Social Security benefit; that works (and hey, while you are doing that you can get married to a different person every ten years and each of them will all get a part of your Social Security as well- what a deal!).

Obama sees his plan as a way of “extending the life of Social Security.” Did he stop to figure that only 3% of all workers make more than $250,000 a year?

But the real point is, do we want a society that is more and more socialistic, and less of each indiducal benefiting from his or her own efforts and more of benefiting from someone else’s labors? I hope not, but there are many out there who see this populist view as fair, I see it as destroying initiative and self reliance and progress and increasing dependence on government.

Yes, there are people who need help, who must rely on public support and assistance and they must receive it, but do we set our goals so low that we establish policies intended to simply increase this dependency?

How much do you want the government to do for you? How much of what you have do you want someone else to pay for? How much do you want a fair chance to make over $250,000 a year (so you can help those who don’t perhaps)? :rolleyes:

[Galbally]

What's the question? Am I a socialist? No, I am a European, and in American political parlance that means I am a homosexual communist or something. :rolleyes:

I would consider myself reasonably conservative, and also someone who believes in free market economics, as the best means of ordering the economic activity of a society. That said, I don't believe in social Darwinism either, societies shouldn't be organized on the basis of what the "market" wants and nothing else, as the market is a notional idea, and really corresponds to what "private capital" wants. Thats all well and good, but private capital is only accountable to its shareholders, not the polis, or the citizens at large therefore its the government's role to order society for the benefit of all, as its the place where accountability rests, not the free market's.

Thats where Europe and America are essentially different. We expect governance to ensure that people are not exploited by powerful interest groups and maintain the rule of law by which everyone has to live within, while you expect the government to ensure that no one interferes with the business of getting on with business, and its up to people to look after themselves under the minimum rule of law required to do so.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

rjwould;894542 wrote: You are aware of course that none of these things can occur without approval from the congress, right?

Boy, you're a one man Obama attack machine, aren't you?


Give me a little credit and it's not Obama per se it's the concepts and the dramatic move left that scares the heck out of me. Even the democratic Congress is all left of center. I don't want the far right either, but government solutions to everything is not good.

[gmc]

posted by galbally

What's the question? Am I a socialist? No, I am a European, and in American political parlance that means I am a homosexual communist or something.


You should worry-try having skirt with no underwear as your national dress:yh_rotfl .

I do wish the yanks would stop confusing liberalism with socialism. I think they would find things easier to discuss if they understood the difference and stopped using the words as an insult.

[yaaarrrgg]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;894536 wrote: But the real point is, do we want a society that is more and more socialistic, and less of each indiducal benefiting from his or her own efforts and more of benefiting from someone else’s labors? I hope not, but there are many out there who see this populist view as fair, I see it as destroying initiative and self reliance and progress and increasing dependence on government.


I'm not sure it's that clear cut... the society we enjoy was created by those seniors. Even if the monetary transactions have long since passed, the societal debt is still there, all muddled together. After 80 years or so, who's owed what is pretty much impossible to say.

I wouldn't sleep easy to think that these people are thrown to the curb once they outlive their usefulness. I don't care if there is a privatized or a governmental solution, but the sad fact is, there is little or no private interest in helping seniors, because the private sector values people by their ability to generate money.

[gmc]

posted by quinn's commentary

But the real point is, do we want a society that is more and more socialistic, and less of each indiducal benefiting from his or her own efforts and more of benefiting from someone else’s labors? I hope not, but there are many out there who see this populist view as fair, I see it as destroying initiative and self reliance and progress and increasing dependence on government.


It's a debate america needs top have. Speaking as a non american It's fascinating watching it develop. What we see as social justice you see as destroying initiative and self reliance. It's an on going debate that we will probably never stop having. There's no panacea available available you're going to have to work out a peculiarly american solution to these questions. a new ism of your own making.

[FUBAR]

It is a bit sad how Americans regard socialism as evil. Taking care of the less fortunate is how we as a species evolved, not letting the weak or young die kept us going. Just because you have been lucky in life doesn't mean you let others less lucky fade away, a slip in investments could put you both in the same box. All you had that is different is a better paying job, what did you invent or build that makes you more deserving than anybody else? Being able to save more isn't that special.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

yaaarrrgg;894821 wrote: I'm not sure it's that clear cut... the society we enjoy was created by those seniors. Even if the monetary transactions have long since passed, the societal debt is still there, all muddled together. After 80 years or so, who's owed what is pretty much impossible to say.

I wouldn't sleep easy to think that these people are thrown to the curb once they outlive their usefulness. I don't care if there is a privatized or a governmental solution, but the sad fact is, there is little or no private interest in helping seniors, because the private sector values people by their ability to generate money.


So you see a person age 65 earning $49,000 a year differently than a family of three and 35 years old earning $49,000 a year?

It seems to me that the young family needs more help and that the 65 year old had a lifetime to make their goals. With a shrinking younger population how long can we affrord to assume that just because you are a senior (like me I dare say) that you deserve more than young people of equal economic status? :-5

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Hey folks!

Nobody is saying that society, any society should not take care of those truly needy. The fact is that there are people who need societies help and there always will be. The sad fact also is that America does not do that too well as the homeless on the streets of our large cities will attest, or the sad condition of some nursing homes or the fact that our Congress has no trouble simply cutting the reimbursement for healthcare for those on a public program (and that's how we save money in health care).

What we are talking about is government taking a larger and larger role in the everyday lives of people who should be able to take responsiblity for their own affairs. We are talking about a shift in society that says weatlh redistribution is good, that profit is bad, that we need to be protected from competition, that private innovation should be subverted to public regulation.

What we are talking about is government not encouraging achievement, but saying don't worry, we will bail you out. The more people become dependent on government the less incentive there is to be self reliant, the more people are taxed to give to others, the more they will be less inclined to achieve more. It is simple human nature.

The only thing that every American is entitled to is opportunity (and a helping hand when truly needed-many times on a temporary basis).

I am more worried about the fact that the high school graduation rate in the U.S. is only 70% on average and that in some of our larger cities it is only 30-40% than having a senior earning $50,000 not paying taxes.

I was talking to a friend recently who was complaining about what executives made, he said he was a communist at heart and he felt that every American should make the same. Oh really, I said knowing that he made far more than the national average. Well, I hope he is happy lowering his annual income to the national average of $48,000. Yikes, all we have to do is make it to 65 and on average nobody will pay income tax. :wah:

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

yaaarrrgg;894821 wrote: I'm not sure it's that clear cut... the society we enjoy was created by those seniors. Even if the monetary transactions have long since passed, the societal debt is still there, all muddled together. After 80 years or so, who's owed what is pretty much impossible to say.

I wouldn't sleep easy to think that these people are thrown to the curb once they outlive their usefulness. I don't care if there is a privatized or a governmental solution, but the sad fact is, there is little or no private interest in helping seniors, because the private sector values people by their ability to generate money.


Who said anything about throwing them to the curb, why do you assume that seniors are poor? So, we should have a society that takes from the young who may be struggling to raise a family, buy a home and gives it to people who had a lifetime to prepare for their future, to accumulate wealth? Young people are already burdened with 7.45% of what they earn to pay for the health care and social security for seniors.

I am 65 and society has no debt to me, why should anyone expect a debt from society. The society we enjoy was created by seniors, perhaps, but while doing that they accumulated their share of that society, just as today's workers benefit from the advancements of our time.

[yaaarrrgg]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;895444 wrote: Who said anything about throwing them to the curb, why do you assume that seniors are poor? So, we should have a society that takes from the young who may be struggling to raise a family, buy a home and gives it to people who had a lifetime to prepare for their future, to accumulate wealth? Young people are already burdened with 7.45% of what they earn to pay for the health care and social security for seniors.

I am 65 and society has no debt to me, why should anyone expect a debt from society. The society we enjoy was created by seniors, perhaps, but while doing that they accumulated their share of that society, just as today's workers benefit from the advancements of our time.


Of course not all seniors are poor ... I'm thinking more of someone like my grandmother, who's over 90 and still has a house. She used to work, to get a little extra money, but now she can't even do that. I doubt the government is really making that much money off this group of people anyway. Maybe if they cut the budget (have a few less half-trillion dollar wars) I doubt they'd even notice the difference. I don't know, maybe the numbers need to be adjusted, but at some age, and at some income level, it's silly to tax beyond that and not just push people out of their houses.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

rjwould;894745 wrote: Its difficult to give you more credit than I already have, not because you're not smart, you are very smart, but you see in terms of black and white, but thats just the conservative in you.


I have to agree that I do see things somewhat as black or white, right or wrong. I think it is better to start there and work your way to shades of gray when necessary than to start with a rainbow and never get anywhere in the end. And, in fact most things are a lot simpler than we tend to make them.

I recently has a conversation with my CEO and told him that whenever he asks a question it results in 20 people spending half a day in a conference room trying to find all the answers and then prepare a fifty page presentation with the answer.

He said, but you don't do that. No, I just prefer to answer the question myself.

At the same time I firmly believe that virtually all of ones life is determined by the decisions they make along the way [drop out of high school, smoke, don't go to college, spend more than you have, marry the wrong person, get divorced, drink too much, don't read a book regularly, have a baby when you shouldn't, hang out in places that can get you in trouble and on and on and on].

Think about it, how much of your life is not affected by what has been or is in your control? There are a few things, but not too many.

[Accountable]

"Social Security" has ruined our social security. We used to depend on each other. Now everybody keeps scrabbling for the gov't tit, complaining that we need more nipples.