Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/18/10 07:39 AM, Ravariel wrote:

You're ignoring the fact that people who make less than about $15k/year don't pay federal taxes at all, while those who make a lot of money pay a lot in taxes. Also, just because each state spends about as much as they tax does not mean that all of the residents of that state are equally benefited by those tax dollars. Social programs to help the needy are a major expense, as are schools and health care, the poorer people being the largest users of those programs.

Yeah, because it's such a horrible thing when the rich don't get to buy a yacht but the poor can afford food. Such a horrible idea, let's abolish all taxes to correct this great injustice!

---

At 5/18/10 07:39 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/18/10 07:26 AM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 5/18/10 12:12 AM, Musician wrote:

At 5/17/10 09:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: 100% wrong. It's not wealth-redistribution. It's public investment that enables people to prosper economically.

Alright, so minus the spin what's the difference? I mean look at what actually happens here. Taxes are collected from society through progressive tax brackets, then redistributed equally in the form of services. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me.

No, taxes are mostly spent on the people they come from.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/sh ow/22685.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/sh ow/266.html

You're ignoring the fact that people who make less than about $15k/year don't pay federal taxes at all, while those who make a lot of money pay a lot in taxes. Also, just because each state spends about as much as they tax does not mean that all of the residents of that state are equally benefited by those tax dollars. Social programs to help the needy are a major expense, as are schools and health care, the poorer people being the largest users of those programs.

That's why wealthier neighborhoods receive more benefits than poorer ones, I grew up in one of the richest towns and the state, the roads and parks are well maintained and there's one of the best public schools in the state. Wheras I could drive 20 miles south into poorer neighborhoods where they have shitty roads and failing schools.

While a lot of money is spent on the poor, look at how your states taxes where spent, wealthier areas probably spend more.

---

At 5/18/10 09:46 AM, Gorgonof wrote: While a lot of money is spent on the poor, look at how your states taxes where spent, wealthier areas probably spend more.

Because infrastructure like roads and schools tend to be paid for mostly through local taxes. But even in rich communities, you can't deny that the poorer members of the community are benefiting more from government services than the wealthy are.

---

Slightly extreme, but understandable. Obama has shown a lot of sympathy for communists, and has courted Cuba and China heavily. He clearly does not believe that the government should take property from people and share it up, though, so he's not one. That's the core of communism. Belief that you should take property from the money managers, like managers and lawyers and give it to the money makers, like workers.

---

How can Obama be a "revolutionary Marxist", if no revolution ever took place? It's a shame that people actually listen to assholes like Beck.

---

hoooooo boy, here we go

First of all, consider the possibility that what Beck was talking about was cultural Marxism, not economic Marxism. Cultural Marxism is popular in the US these days, and which party supports all of the cultural Marxist positions listed in those articles? Not the Republicans!

At 5/16/10 06:51 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: If we could ensure that the people going into office weren't greedy SOB's like most people are, Marxism might actually work.

And if people could fly, we wouldn't need airplanes. It doesn't matter how well something would work if not for some facet of human nature; human nature is the way it is, and it can't really be changed.

At 5/16/10 11:28 PM, adrshepard wrote: Public libraries and roads are not "moral" or "just." They have an important function that advances society as a whole.

And is advancing society as a whole not moral or just, according to the moral frameworks that modern liberalism is built from? Advancing society as a whole vs. letting people do their own advancement is most definitely a moral judgement, and anyone who thinks it isn't should go read Atlas Shrugged.

You can't say the same thing for amnesty, which legalizes millions of poor, uneducated aliens, not because they would help our society prosper, but because it's the "moral thing to do."

If by "moral thing to do" you mean "best way the Democrats have to ensure landslide victories from now until the collapse of American civilization"...

At 5/17/10 11:16 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Or like me you could use a knife, which is better for close quarters urban environments where if you miss the robber you could shoot up your neighbor's house.

Good luck with that knife when the robber has a gun.

You come in my house with a gun, I have a machete by my bedside and we'll see if I actually need a gun to protect myself.

Short-range weapon against long-range weapon? Yeah, that'll work out well for you. Heh.

At 5/17/10 02:48 PM, Musician wrote: Yes. If the factory makes $300,000 a year, and that's divided among 15 workers according to labour contributed (which is decided democratically), then each worker is going to recieve somewhere around $20,000 each. If the factory only makes $150,000 next year, each worker only recieves roughly $10,000 each. Every member of the collective has a vested interest in increasing their overall productivity, because every member shares the risks and rewards of their company.

And the fun thing about capitalism (some schools of it, at least) is that, if that system works better than the conventional one, companies using it will out-compete companies not using it, so it will be implemented that way.

This doesn't work all that well in other schools of capitalism, but the ones that go on about how great and wonderful monopolies and massive business leviathans are have enough problems that I don't think they're worth serious consideration. But I'm a libertarian localist (at least, that's what I'm calling myself this week; I'm not all that good with labels), so I guess I'm biased. Big business can be, and often is, anti-capitalism.

At 5/17/10 09:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: Yeah, pretty much (though I can't imagine a conservative community organizer; believing that poor people for the most part have only themselves to blame doesn't help charity work much).

Which is, of course, why conservatives give more to charity than liberals, and why liberals advocate principles such as multiculturalism, which reduce the amount of trust people have in each other, and therefore reduce the amount of charity work people are willing to do.

The outstanding majority of them have made stupid decisions that have cost them, and many keep making them even now (smoking habit, poor work ethic, having children despite low income). So it's not like they deserve it out of sympathy, unless it's the sympathy you would have for an abused or wounded animal.

Abused animals usually don't abuse themselves, though.

The society-wide benefits of police, water, and education are too obvious to delve into. You should see the difference between those types of programs and additional health services.

There is no difference on some level, though. They both assume that the welfare of the society should be promoted at the cost of the welfare of the individual.

At 5/18/10 12:36 PM, Ytaker wrote: Slightly extreme, but understandable. Obama has shown a lot of sympathy for communists, and has courted Cuba and China heavily. He clearly does not believe that the government should take property from people and share it up, though, so he's not one.

You sure about that?

---

At 5/18/10 04:52 PM, LordZeebmork wrote:

And if people could fly, we wouldn't need airplanes. It doesn't matter how well something would work if not for some facet of human nature; human nature is the way it is, and it can't really be changed.

I concur, which is why I don't support Marxism. I do, however, believe that it shouldn't be an insult, since the ideals, however incorrect, aren't evil in and of themselves. I've heard far more misguided things that got much better reputations.

At 5/17/10 11:16 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Or like me you could use a knife, which is better for close quarters urban environments where if you miss the robber you could shoot up your neighbor's house.

Good luck with that knife when the robber has a gun.

If we take up the guns as we should, it'll be much less likely for him to have one.

You come in my house with a gun, I have a machete by my bedside and we'll see if I actually need a gun to protect myself.

Short-range weapon against long-range weapon? Yeah, that'll work out well for you. Heh.

Actually, it'll work rather well in a close range environment. The closer you get with that gun, the more the advantage shifts to me. A sharp instrument or tazer is better in such close quarters. For short to mid-short range, a stun gun or can of mace will work over the short distances of a hallway or alleyway much more safely than a traditional gun would.

---

At 5/18/10 07:20 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: If we take up the guns as we should, it'll be much less likely for him to have one.

If we ban guns, nobody will have guns. If we ban marijuana, nobody will have marijuana. If we ban porn for people under 18, nobody under 18 will have porn.

Actually, it'll work rather well in a close range environment. The closer you get with that gun, the more the advantage shifts to me. A sharp instrument or tazer is better in such close quarters. For short to mid-short range, a stun gun or can of mace will work over the short distances of a hallway or alleyway much more safely than a traditional gun would.

Good at dodging bullets, are you?

---

At 5/18/10 04:52 PM, LordZeebmork wrote:

At 5/18/10 12:36 PM, Ytaker wrote: Slightly extreme, but understandable. Obama has shown a lot of sympathy for communists, and has courted Cuba and China heavily. He clearly does not believe that the government should take property from people and share it up, though, so he's not one.

You sure about that?

He wants an extremely progressive taxation system that takes lots of money from rich people and uses it for the good of approved professionals and poor people.

He has expressed no desire to take the accumulated capital of people (homes, life insurance, money made, and such) and redistribute that for poor people and approved professionals.

Well, except with death taxes. Anyway, communism advocates taking everyone's property and redistributing it to the approved professionals and poor people. It also advocates forcing people to not emigrate, marry, have religions, and to combine schools with factories. The idea is that the ever so evil industrialists are abusing resources, and so the beneficial and awesome rich people who formed the communist theories can take control of everything and use it to better people. Obama advocates a lighter touch, even if he has the same sorta goals at times.

Communism killed over a hundred million people, deliberately. Progressive ideology doesn't deliberately advocate deliberate murder of people, and accepts reluctantly the existence of a free market. Big differences.

---

At 5/18/10 11:52 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: If we ban guns, nobody will have guns. If we ban marijuana, nobody will have marijuana. If we ban porn for people under 18, nobody under 18 will have porn.

Pot and porn are easy to manufacture with little to no equipment and a little instruction from someone else who's done it. Guns require expensive equipment to produce and an intricate knowledge of the inner workings of such. When we bust a porn site for not having an effective system for blocking minors, or a dude with a green thumb in his basement, six more spring up. When we knock out the few people with the time and money to manufacture any reasonable number of guns, they aren't so easily replaced.

Good at dodging bullets, are you?

Good at semi-witty responses that don't mean anything, are you?
In close quarters environments such as homes, you're not likely to be more than a few steps outside of arms reach, especially in the kinds of small homes and apartments where break ins are more likely because of placement in 'bad neighborhoods'. Your response time with that gun has to be faster than the time it takes me to cross that distance. The closer that distance is, the more easily I can get to you before you pull the trigger. And by the way, you still haven't mentioned a reply against Tazers, you know, those guns that fire electrified probes at a distance? I've got just as good a chance of dodging as you do.

---

At 5/19/10 08:54 AM, Ytaker wrote: Well, except with death taxes.

The estate tax is hugely important, and anyone who isn't pandering to the richest .1% of the country should support it.

Communism killed over a hundred million people, deliberately. Progressive ideology doesn't deliberately advocate deliberate murder of people, and accepts reluctantly the existence of a free market. Big differences.

Don't fall into this McCarthyist logical trap. Communism didn't kill over a hundred million people. Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and their ilk killed the people under the guise of communism. Nothing about communism results in the death of others. In fact, pure communism should keep more people from dying.

Just because the system is misused, doesn't mean the system is wrong.

---

It's funny because that's not Marxism.

It's also funny that most of these politics don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Leaders was a Stalinism ideal.

---

At 5/19/10 08:54 AM, Ytaker wrote: He wants an extremely progressive taxation system that takes lots of money from rich people and uses it for the good of approved professionals and poor people.

He has expressed no desire to take the accumulated capital of people (homes, life insurance, money made, and such) and redistribute that for poor people and approved professionals.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. We know he hung around with a lot of Marxists, including Bill Ayers, and if you believe John C. Drew, he was a Marxist.

Besides, how do you think he defined "redistribution of wealth"? He says he wishes the Supreme Court would do that; has the Supreme Court had any problem with high taxes?

Anyway, communism advocates taking everyone's property and redistributing it to the approved professionals and poor people. It also advocates forcing people to not emigrate, marry, have religions, and to combine schools with factories. The idea is that the ever so evil industrialists are abusing resources, and so the beneficial and awesome rich people who formed the communist theories can take control of everything and use it to better people.

What kind of communism are you thinking of? That's not Marxism, at least. Although that sort of thing is generally how it's turned out every time so far that it's been tried.

Obama advocates a lighter touch, even if he has the same sorta goals at times.

Does the methodology matter, as long as the goals are the same? If someone who advocates for redistribution of wealth is in office, it doesn't matter all that much whether he thinks it's going to come about through revolution, infiltration of the government, or whatever else; he's still probably going to try to redistribute wealth. Unless, of course, he has to worry about reelection.

Progressive ideology doesn't deliberately advocate deliberate murder of people

Maybe Obama's version of it doesn't, but Obama isn't every progressive. You should see some of the bastards at the last college I went to. A lot of them took progressivism as a religion and went extremist on everyone. I got death threats from the fuckers.

and accepts reluctantly the existence of a free market.

No, it definitely does not accept the existence of a free market. It accepts the existence of a market, but it tries to regulate the hell out of it.

At 5/19/10 09:22 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Pot and porn are easy to manufacture with little to no equipment and a little instruction from someone else who's done it. Guns require expensive equipment to produce and an intricate knowledge of the inner workings of such.

Are guns going to be banned globally, then? It's not that hard to smuggle things into this country, after all; just ask the people bringing drugs (or even people) over from Mexico. Guns aren't drugs, but it probably wouldn't be that hard for someone to sneak some guns in.

In close quarters environments such as homes, you're not likely to be more than a few steps outside of arms reach, especially in the kinds of small homes and apartments where break ins are more likely because of placement in 'bad neighborhoods'. Your response time with that gun has to be faster than the time it takes me to cross that distance. The closer that distance is, the more easily I can get to you before you pull the trigger.

Still takes a hell of a lot less time to pull the trigger than it does to get across the room.

And by the way, you still haven't mentioned a reply against Tazers, you know, those guns that fire electrified probes at a distance? I've got just as good a chance of dodging as you do.

Are they reliable enough? And, apparently, the cartridges available to people outside law enforcement only work reliably at distances of up to 15 feet. Anything over that and you'll probably wish you had a gun.

---

Camarohusky"The estate tax is hugely important, and anyone who isn't pandering to the richest .1% of the country should support it."

It's probably one of the most inefficient taxes in existence. It's extremely easy to avoid. You just put money into life insurance, and other tax evasion things, and don't save it in places that can be taxed. As such, rich people don't bear most of the costs. I've seen this with lots of friends. Their grandparents use lots of arcane ways to get the money to go to them untaxed rather to the government in taxes.

Joel Slemrod and Wojciech Kopczuk did a study in 2000, and found that it massively decreased the accumulation of taxable wealth.

A 1992 study by economists Henry J. Aaron and Alicia H. Munnell found that for every dollar of tax, one dollar was spent in avoidance. It's not even certain that the estate tax actually generates more tax than it takes away from people. It's always been a small source of revenue (around 1%) and that's because it's exceeding easy to evade. When people evade taxes, that takes the money away from investers, who can use it.

Also, quite a few family businesses are destroyed by the estate tax. There's been some legislation to try and prevent this, but it's far from complete.

Ytaker Communism killed over a hundred million people, deliberately. Progressive ideology doesn't deliberately advocate deliberate murder of people, and accepts reluctantly the existence of a free market. Big differences.

You "Don't fall into this McCarthyist logical trap. Communism didn't kill over a hundred million people. Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and their ilk killed the people under the guise of communism. Nothing about communism results in the death of others. In fact, pure communism should keep more people from dying."

The logical trap that, people who are soviet agents, agents of Stalin and that guy with the weird name that followed him, that they should be caught? His illogic was in intensity, not in goal.

Communist principles that result in people dying, from marx- "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." You mean, taking the possessions of millions of people isn't going to result in people dying when they fight back?

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work."

He then proceeds to complain that rich people are idle, and that is why we should overthrow them. Those who still do work normally do so for a sense of power or to stay rich. If you abolition private property, people will be lazy, as communism soon found out. If the farmers are lazy, because you take all their food- mass starvation. People die in the millions.

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

As they should. I love watching documentaries about serial killers, criminals. One point that they mention a lot- all of them have atrocious relationships with their families, were unloved. And his solution is to put them into the unloving hands of the state? Is it any wonder why generations of people were traumatized?

"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

Such harsh behaviour to those who disent. Harsher than confisication of all property. And a lot of people dissent, because they like owning things.

"Just because the system is misused, doesn't mean the system is wrong."

Marx was a racist fool who never tested the realities of his theories. They messed up. Big surprise.

At 5/20/10 02:45 AM, LordZeebmork wrote:

I wouldn't be so sure about that. We know he hung around with a lot of Marxists, including Bill Ayers, and if you believe John C. Drew, he was a Marxist.

Yes, sympathy, but he's not as radical.

Besides, how do you think he defined "redistribution of wealth"? He says he wishes the Supreme Court would do that; has the Supreme Court had any problem with high taxes?

As he said, at a certain point (unless you're a politician, or a liberal film maker, or an approved business) you've made enough money. He doesn't try to enforce that much though.

What kind of communism are you thinking of? That's not Marxism, at least. Although that sort of thing is generally how it's turned out every time so far that it's been tried.

It is pretty much marxism.

Does the methodology matter, as long as the goals are the same? If someone who advocates for redistribution of wealth is in office, it doesn't matter all that much whether he thinks it's going to come about through revolution, infiltration of the government, or whatever else; he's still probably going to try to redistribute wealth. Unless, of course, he has to worry about reelection.

Revolution involves force- that's the key difference. He doesn't want to force it.

Maybe Obama's version of it doesn't, but Obama isn't every progressive. You should see some of the bastards at the last college I went to. A lot of them took progressivism as a religion and went extremist on everyone. I got death threats from the fuckers.

It's college. Left wing radicals have lots of fun ideas. It's the place for it.

No, it definitely does not accept the existence of a free market. It accepts the existence of a market, but it tries to regulate the hell out of it.

Yeah, extreme reluctance. He has done a lot of regulation. Communism isn't so much into regulation as destruction. It's more fascism that advocates regulation, if you want to compare it to some extreme ideology.

At 5/19/10 09:22 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Pot and porn are easy to manufacture with little to no equipment and a little instruction from someone else who's done it. Guns require expensive equipment to produce and an intricate knowledge of the inner workings of such.

Since when? It's just a metal rod with an explosive at the back. Anyone with a decent knowledge of metallurgy could make an excellent one. To jury rig one, you need a barrel, a breech block, a firing pin, a trigger, and a bullet. The breech block is tricky, but otherwise, it's pretty easy. People manage meth labs. They could certainly manage gun labs. It's pointless, since they're smuggled in en masse, but they could easily do it.

In close quarters environments such as homes, you're not likely to be more than a few steps outside of arms reach, especially in the kinds of small homes and apartments where break ins are more likely because of placement in 'bad neighborhoods'. Your response time with that gun has to be faster than the time it takes me to cross that distance. The closer that distance is, the more easily I can get to you before you pull the trigger.

You're gonna charge a person with a shotgun? You're assuming criminals are mentally retarded. Criminals like easy hits. They'd just run, and try the next house. If they attack armed people, they'll lose 50% of the time.

---

At 5/20/10 10:10 AM, Ytaker wrote: It's probably one of the most inefficient taxes in existence. It's extremely easy to avoid. You just put money into life insurance, and other tax evasion things, and don't save it in places that can be taxed. As such, rich people don't bear most of the costs. I've seen this with lots of friends. Their grandparents use lots of arcane ways to get the money to go to them untaxed rather to the government in taxes.

Joel Slemrod and Wojciech Kopczuk did a study in 2000, and found that it massively decreased the accumulation of taxable wealth.

A 1992 study by economists Henry J. Aaron and Alicia H. Munnell found that for every dollar of tax, one dollar was spent in avoidance. It's not even certain that the estate tax actually generates more tax than it takes away from people. It's always been a small source of revenue (around 1%) and that's because it's exceeding easy to evade. When people evade taxes, that takes the money away from investers, who can use it.

1% is not small, especially seeing how few people it actually affects. It only affects people with an inheritable value of 1 million or more. That counts a very small percentage of the population. This tax hits those who can most afford it for the benefit of the entire community.

Also, quite a few family businesses are destroyed by the estate tax. There's been some legislation to try and prevent this, but it's far from complete.

Again, this is an illinformed statement. The person's value must be above $1million. Seeing as most small businesses and most family business rarely come close to that value, they won't get hurt. On top of that, this tax only hurts stupid business owners. I do not feel sorry penalizing a $1.5million business that was not aware enough to structure itself in such a manner as to protect against this type of tax. As easy change away from an inheritable sole propietorship would be a smart way to get around this.

Ytaker Communism killed over a hundred million people, deliberately. Progressive ideology doesn't deliberately advocate deliberate murder of people, and accepts reluctantly the existence of a free market. Big differences.

Progressives accept that not all freedoms are free. Such in the way a person does not have an absolute right to free speech, and a person's Miranda rights are not absolute, progressives believe that a business' right to do what it will should be restricted when it strongly conflicts with the policies of the people. A good example: Progressives are mad at BP for making a crappy under maintained oil rig. Now look what happened, we have an oily mess of a gulf.

You "Don't fall into this McCarthyist logical trap. Communism didn't kill over a hundred million people. Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and their ilk killed the people under the guise of communism. Nothing about communism results in the death of others. In fact, pure communism should keep more people from dying."

The logical trap that, people who are soviet agents, agents of Stalin and that guy with the weird name that followed him, that they should be caught? His illogic was in intensity, not in goal.

Sorry, wrong labeling, but the point still exists. The deaths in the communist bloc countries in the 20th Century were nto a result of the countries beign communist. They were a result of megalomaniac despots being in control of billions of defenseless citizens, ala Saddam in Iraq.

Communist principles that result in people dying, from marx- "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." You mean, taking the possessions of millions of people isn't going to result in people dying when they fight back?

Our 5th Amendment allows the government to take private property. There have been some small protests, but the vast majority of us accepted the fact that we were being hugely benefitted by the public property and moved on with our lives. The goal is to take private proerty and return it to the people in an equitable and equal manner, thus giving those who may have died of starvation food to eat, and those who may have died from untreated illness hospitals to go to. We do the same thing here and our society is much much better off for it.

I agree that communism does not work as a system, but I really don't like it when people go after it without understanding it and why it does not work.

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work."

He then proceeds to complain that rich people are idle, and that is why we should overthrow them. Those who still do work normally do so for a sense of power or to stay rich. If you abolition private property, people will be lazy, as communism soon found out. If the farmers are lazy, because you take all their food- mass starvation. People die in the millions.

China and Russia are examples of the opposite. The people didn't become lazy in either of these countries as a result of the abolishment of private property. They worked just as hard. The reason tens of millions of people died of famine in 1950's CHina was because of the depostic control Mao had over his cadre. They were so afraid of not making him happy that they inflated their output numbers by upwards of 200%. The country then acted upon these numbers and that resulted in mass starvation.

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

As they should. I love watching documentaries about serial killers, criminals. One point that they mention a lot- all of them have atrocious relationships with their families, were unloved. And his solution is to put them into the unloving hands of the state? Is it any wonder why generations of people were traumatized?

This idea is actually quite old. The purpose of this is to destroy factions and personal ties, so that the people can become 'family' with their community and the state.
The criminal aspect is a red herring. Those people usually came as a result of abuse, not loose familial relationships. Under the Marxist system the community would be the family, so the relationships would still exist, just not in the dividing format inherent in the nuclear family.

"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

Such harsh behaviour to those who disent. Harsher than confisication of all property. And a lot of people dissent, because they like owning things.

"Just because the system is misused, doesn't mean the system is wrong."

Marx was a racist fool who never tested the realities of his theories. They messed up. Big surprise.

These arguments are all wrong. Marxist ideas were noble, but misguided, however the issues you talk about are either the result of despotism labelled as communism, or a complete misunderstanding of his intentions.

The reals problems with Communism is that it stifles the dynamism that drives the modern economy. When there is no reward for hard work, people only work to what they have to. This does not mean laziness and idleness. This means mediocrity. The person who would cure cancer would have little outside incentive to proceed forward, and may just be an average worker. The person who would invent the much needed replacements for oil and rare metals would most likely spend his life as an average mediocre person. Those are the faults of communisn, not famine, idleness, criminals and alike.

---

Forget it, it's obvious you don't listen to reason, I've got better things to do than discuss gun policy with rednecks.

---

At 5/20/10 01:44 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Forget it, it's obvious you don't listen to reason, I've got better things to do than discuss gun policy with rednecks.

Show me solid statistics that gun control effectively reduces crime.

---

At 5/20/10 12:02 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 1% is not small, especially seeing how few people it actually affects. It only affects people with an inheritable value of 1 million or more. That counts a very small percentage of the population. This tax hits those who can most afford it for the benefit of the entire community.

The top 1% have 35% of the wealth. Doesn't that make it clear that something is going majorly, majorly wrong, when the tax is 40-60%, and the take is only 1-2%? It is extremely easy to evade. Tax evasion is wasteful. It's better if money is invested in businesses. The wealthy do not feel it hardest. The community does, in lost investment.

Also, quite a few family businesses are destroyed by the estate tax. There's been some legislation to try and prevent this, but it's far from complete.

Again, this is an illinformed statement. The person's value must be above $1million. Seeing as most small businesses and most family business rarely come close to that value, they won't get hurt. On top of that, this tax only hurts stupid business owners. I do not feel sorry penalizing a $1.5million business that was not aware enough to structure itself in such a manner as to protect against this type of tax. As easy change away from an inheritable sole propietorship would be a smart way to get around this.

It's not that hard to get to that value. Businesses deal in a lot of money, and build up a lot of stock. A small business could easily reach that value, especially a family one. A big business might be worth tens of hundreds of millions, even if they made far less profit.

Stupid small businesses. Small businesses who get a good profit, and try to expand, who are then hit by it. Poor planning to evade tax is a horrible reason to tax someone, especially when it may be an excellent business. Large businesses, which are good at tax evasion, don't have the problem. I see no reason to favour large businesses over small.

Progressives accept that not all freedoms are free. Such in the way a person does not have an absolute right to free speech, and a person's Miranda rights are not absolute, progressives believe that a business' right to do what it will should be restricted when it strongly conflicts with the policies of the people. A good example: Progressives are mad at BP for making a crappy under maintained oil rig. Now look what happened, we have an oily mess of a gulf.

That's why Obama granted that oil rig a waiver for safety checks, got it. He's a hardcore ultraconservative. Progressives have goals, and they need huge amounts of money for that. To do that, they help big businesses crush competition, and tax said businesses heavily.

Sorry, wrong labeling, but the point still exists. The deaths in the communist bloc countries in the 20th Century were nto a result of the countries beign communist. They were a result of megalomaniac despots being in control of billions of defenseless citizens, ala Saddam in Iraq.

As I've showed, their principles directly led to millions of deaths- such as the Ukraine genocide.

Our 5th Amendment allows the government to take private property. There have been some small protests, but the vast majority of us accepted the fact that we were being hugely benefitted by the public property and moved on with our lives. The goal is to take private proerty and return it to the people in an equitable and equal manner, thus giving those who may have died of starvation food to eat, and those who may have died from untreated illness hospitals to go to. We do the same thing here and our society is much much better off for it.

Well, everyone racist at least. I'm opposed to taking the land of black people to give white people parks. Which is what eminent domain does. It certainly does not return land to the people in an equitable and equal manner.

I agree that communism does not work as a system, but I really don't like it when people go after it without understanding it and why it does not work.

I understand it well. That's why I go after it. There's a reason that's the theory that killed millions, and not another one.

China and Russia are examples of the opposite. The people didn't become lazy in either of these countries as a result of the abolishment of private property. They worked just as hard. The reason tens of millions of people died of famine in 1950's CHina was because of the depostic control Mao had over his cadre. They were so afraid of not making him happy that they inflated their output numbers by upwards of 200%. The country then acted upon these numbers and that resulted in mass starvation.

Russia had severe problems at the start. Their economy almost collapsed, until Lenin relaxed the rules of communism, and allowed farmers to sell their crops for profit in the New Economic Policy. Crop yields massively increased, and that is seen as pulling russia out of the problems of the war. Then Stalin pursued collectivisation and ended NEP, because the farmers were selling their goods for higher prices, as industries were selling their goods for a higher price, due to economic expansion. Yields collapsed, people destroyed their farms rather than let Stalin have them (when he sent soldiers to get food for the workers in the cities), and millions starved and died.

This idea is actually quite old. The purpose of this is to destroy factions and personal ties, so that the people can become 'family' with their community and the state.
The criminal aspect is a red herring. Those people usually came as a result of abuse, not loose familial relationships. Under the Marxist system the community would be the family, so the relationships would still exist, just not in the dividing format inherent in the nuclear family.

We have evidence from hundreds of studies that people who live with their parents get better outcomes than those who are adopted, and they better outcomes than those who live in orphanages.

So, Russia loosened divorce laws, gave unwed mothers special benefits, inheritance was abolished, abortion legalized. The result? 7 million orphans. Gangs of youths roaming russia. It was absolutely devasting, especially after the civil war. As such communist officials quickly reversed that, and started promoting the family, by 1922, and gave them progressively larger rights and benefits over the years. Families work, well. I won't even say much of Marx's horrible, repugnant idea.

"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc"

To put factories in schools. They didn't adopt that horrible strategy, thankfully. Communism only succeeds where it avoids adopting communist ideals.

"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

"Just because the system is misused, doesn't mean the system is wrong."

Emigration and rebellion is a right.

These arguments are all wrong. Marxist ideas were noble, but misguided, however the issues you talk about are either the result of despotism labelled as communism, or a complete misunderstanding of his intentions.

Take away lots of land, people stop working? I suspect it's more you're not recognising that a theory doesn't always give the results you want it to. If reality doesn't fit the theory, the theory is wrong, not reality.

The reals problems with Communism is that it stifles the dynamism that drives the modern economy. When there is no reward for hard work, people only work to what they have to. This does not mean laziness and idleness. This means mediocrity. The person who would cure cancer would have little outside incentive to proceed forward, and may just be an average worker. The person who would invent the much needed replacements for oil and rare metals would most likely spend his life as an average mediocre person. Those are the faults of communisn, not famine, idleness, criminals and alike.

Communism gave us mafias, famines, devastated economies. What we see is what it is.

---

Glen Beck needs some serious medication. That guy is such a tool, spewing out such trash every time he opens his big mouth. The problem is not so much him, but the fanatic group of his followers which are basically simpletons living on some backwoods somewhere

---

Glen Beck is an entertainer, not real news.

There is no revolution.
Obama isn't a Socialist, just some of his ideas are socialist, and he isn't the first US president to have socialist ideas.

Socialism is a good system and does work but America wont be a socialist country. Some systems might temporarily be socialist, wouldn't be the first time it has happened in America.

Communism and Socialism are not the same, btw.

Never trust the news, any news. From tv or hear-say. Question everything.