cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Senior Contributor

Re: I don't think there is anything good about communism


@dairy mom wrote:

Maybe what every body thinks would be good is really Marxism.  I've not studied it or even read Marx's book but my understanding is that communism is a morph off of Marxism kind of like Lutherans or The Church of England morphed from the Catholic Church.


That is probably a lot of the trouble with this debate, everyone has a different definition of communism.

Isn't Marxism a version of communism which was/is more militant than pure communism?

 

Russia operated under a Marx/Lenin version of communism.

 

My thoughts/definition of communism  are that it is like the Hutterites with communal living and everyone sharing things including contributing according to their ability.

There always has to be a leader(s) but in pure communism the leaders would get little if anything more than the lowest member.

Indeed in pure communism there would be no higher and lower individuals I guess.

Veteran Advisor

Question for Shifty

Woody WIlson borrowed $30 billion to fight Kaiser Bill, how much of that has been repaid in the 100 years since then, despite ever rising income tax rates?

 

The idea that raising tax rates is going to lead to smaller deficits  and debt repayment is asinine. ASININE!

 

I am convinced that 58% of the current population of the USA is not capable of self government. Personally, I would like to keep republican democracy going for a long time, and if needs to be in a smaller geographical area, so be it.

 

The liberals should get their own area and their own government. They can drown in their own excrement.

Senior Contributor

Re: Did you miss don's post?

I agree that pure capitalism needs to be regulated, so that no one person or small group of people can rule the land.

However, I think that regulated capitalism is better than communism, because with capitalism, you have (or at least should have) a separate group enforcing the rules, as those who are at the top of the ladder, so they aren't as self-interested and easy to corrupt (although it does happen)
With communism, you have the same group of people making the rules, collecting the resources, and allocating the resources.   Far easier to get an entrenched ruling class.   However, one could argue that there is an entrenched ruing class under capitalism, but at least it seems to take longer for them to take over.

Senior Advisor

Re: Answer for mr steele

If we reverted back to the Clinton tax rates, we just might get closer to a balanced budget. Remember Clinton had the budget in balance with surpluses project for several years out.

 

However that brilliant mind of GW Bush proclaimed that a budget surplus indicated that the people were over taxed and that cutting taxes would produce more revenues and more job creation. Thus his tax policy has been in effect for  over a decade and the debt number reflects that.

 

The philosphy that starving the government is good for the government is ludicrous. 

Senior Contributor

Re: Answer for mr steele


@kraft-t wrote:

If we reverted back to the Clinton tax rates, we just might get closer to a balanced budget. Remember Clinton had the budget in balance with surpluses project for several years out.

 

However that brilliant mind of GW Bush proclaimed that a budget surplus indicated that the people were over taxed and that cutting taxes would produce more revenues and more job creation. Thus his tax policy has been in effect for  over a decade and the debt number reflects that.

 

The philosphy that starving the government is good for the government is ludicrous. 


Amazing similar to Canada.

The Liberals under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin had surplus budgets for several years paying down some of our debt.

We the people elected the Conservatives under Stephen Harper and we have had record high deficits after he reduced the HST value added tax by 2%.

 

No need to starve the government all you have to do is have it eat less and leave a little on the plate to make up for past indulgence.

Senior Contributor

Re: Congratulations to the liberals

dairy mom wrote:
Maybe what every body thinks would be good is really Marxism. I've not studied it or even read Marx's book but my understanding is that communism is a morph off of Marxism kind of like Lutherans or The Church of England morphed from the Catholic Church.

Not to put too finer point on it dairy mum but your grammar is out of control. The use of the words "off of" is wrong. Just use "off" if you want to project yourself as intelligent. That is the English language.
Senior Contributor

Re: Answer for mr steele

Too bad that when the Bush cuts sunset time was up, they were renewed.

Just think, Obama had the opportunity, to bring the budget closer to balance by simply doing nothing.   All he had to do, was NOT sign the re-newal, but he did.

Makes me think that there was political pressure somewhere, from both parties, not to let taxes go up.

Senior Advisor

Re: Answer for mr steele

Yes severe political pressure. Congress demanded the tax cut extention in exchange for extending unemployment compensation during the recent depression. Thousands of people laid off or fired would have been without compensation when few if any were hiring.

 

Of course your implication would be that someone handed Obama a wad of cash! It couldn't be possible that he would do it as ahumane act. Of course not. It would have to be some seedy cash exchange indicating that Obama was for sale.

 

THAT SIR IS WHY I QUESTION YOUR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. Remember You got a tad too much husker blood in you or too much husker propaganda.

Senior Contributor

Re: Answer for mr steele


@kraft-t wrote:

Yes severe political pressure. Congress demanded the tax cut extention in exchange for extending unemployment compensation during the recent depression. Thousands of people laid off or fired would have been without compensation when few if any were hiring.

 

So, can we agree, that OBAMA renewed the tax cuts, from political pressure, from both sides of the aisle?
Now, I ask you, if that political pressure came from both sides (which I think it had to, as the GOP didn't have enough votes to ever dream of getting the tax cut renewal on their own), how can the blame, be solely on Bush and the GOP?   Didn't it have to be bi-partisan?

 

Of course your implication would be that someone handed Obama a wad of cash! It couldn't be possible that he would do it as ahumane act. Of course not. It would have to be some seedy cash exchange indicating that Obama was for sale.

 

I don't know in what context I ever implied that someone handed Obama a bunch of cash, to extend the tax cuts.  

Can you give me an example, of anything I ever wrote, that made such an implication? 

 

THAT SIR IS WHY I QUESTION YOUR POLITICAL AFFILIATION.

 

You are questioning my political affiliation, because of innuendoes that I never made?
Isn't that kind of thin?

 

Remember You got a tad too much husker blood in you or too much husker propaganda.

 

Don't forget, the 'Husker' State, has ZERO debt, and runs no deficit.   In fact, we are carrying a cash surplus right now in the State Treasury, and the Gov and legislature is debating over letting it accumulate a bit, for a rainy day, or to start cutting taxes and fees here and there.
I might also add, that the State of Nebraska is the only State in the union, that has fully funded retirement accounst for the State workers.   There is no future contributions needed, to pay the benefits for all current retired State workers.   No other State can say that.   If having Husker blood is what is required to achieve such accomplishments, I take that as one of the highest compliments that you could give me.

(PS, there are no party platforms allowed in the Nebraska State Legislature, you are a 'Representative'.   I think the elimination of political parties is one of the reasons we are as fiscally responsible as we are)