• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tentative agreement reached on tax cuts

How was this a strawman then?

Patria Antiqua said "I see socialism as a more useful way to advance a nation to first world status."

"Given the choice between living in a stone age society, and living in a modern society, I choose modernity."

I ask for an example.

Perhaps the better argument would have been:

Market economies have allowed most countries to modernize and become first world nations. There are negatives to market economies such as inequality. Socialism can help this.

Right. A country becomes 1st world through market modernizations and then once it has achieved technological stagnation it becomes time for revolutionary activity.
 
I'll play along for a minute.
Do the lazy workers get as much as those who work harder?

From each according to their ability-to each according to their need

the lazy ones tend to be the neediest!
 
you confuse what is and what should be--a government should be treated the same as any other service provider. YOu should get what you pay for and not have to pay for the services others get unless it can be proven they have already done something for you.

can you tell me why one group of people should have to pay for the services others use-others who are not veterans or disabled firefighters etc. ie people who have done nothing for those charged with paying for them

And outside of the Mental World of Turtle, where would I go to see the real world model of this?
 
well when faced with the undeniable fact that there is going to be a ruling class it might as well be based on a natural order and free market rather than the artificial ordering that a government appealing to the lowest denominator does.

And faced with that reality, the best thing to do is to do your damndest to be a ruler rather than a peasant

peasant: How do you know he is king

other peasant: Because he's not down here covered in sh it!!

omg monty python yesss
 
I'll play along for a minute.
Do the lazy workers get as much as those who work harder?
I don't see why that is necessarily so. As I said, the democratic nature of the working enviroment can ensure that pay reflects labor contributed.

I don't trust state authority ever. You don't trust the many because you think of the many as needing to be intellectually capable to understand the logic of the far-left, dialectical materialism, exploitation, domination etc. They don't need to understand on an intellectual basis what you are arguing, just be motivated by material conditions to move to a socialist state. And, as you note, 'the many' denotes barbarism and violence; mob rule etc, but Marx argues this disappears when capital is abolished because there is no basis for material conflict anymore.
Yes, but if you see things as they are now, surely material conditions would move people to socialism? Even if they were, how could we be so sure that greed would not cause them to revert to some form of atavistic capitalism? Even now, the first amendment is what protects the freedom for those with unpopular views to speak. If people were not taught to worship it, do you think that people would respect the right of people to advocate socialism now?

Yes, the state is just as susceptible to abusive behavior as the many, but the state is also the only thing that can uphold that thin veneer of civilization. We could wait thousands of years for people to see the truth of socialism, but there is action that needs to be taken now.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why that is necessarily so. As I said, the democratic nature of the working enviroment can ensure that pay reflects labor contributed.


Yes, but if you see things as they are now, surely material conditions would move people to socialism? Even if they were, how could we be so sure that greed would not cause them to revert to some form of atavistic capitalism? Even now, the first amendment is what protects the freedom for those with unpopular views to speak. If people were not talk to worship it, do you think that people would respect the right of people to advocate socialism now?

Yes, the state is just as susceptible to abusive behavior as the many, but the state is also the only thing that can uphold that thin veneer of civilization. We could wait thousands of years for people to see the truth of socialism, but there is action that needs to be taken now.

Well you and your bolsheviks go on then! lol

Nah but in seriousness. You have to understand that the dangers of socialist revolution ALWAYS lie in the vanguard/proletariat dictatorship which ushers in radical reforms. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot would all see themselves as state socialist but the atrocities they committed were horrid. They are just as bad as any bourgeois leader like Hitler, Mussolini etc but they actually have more power because they have a popular mandate. This is especially true with Mao. He organized the peasantry to win against Shang Ki Shek and then abused power like the best of em.
 
The American people demonstrated on that day that they are deeply, deeply mislead, and very deluded about where the real tyranny comes from in this country. The despots in this country aren't in the White House (at least, not directly). They are the fatcat CEOs and hedge fund managers.

We need a government to protect us from the CEO's, because there's no one to protect us from the government.
 
You're probably a serf, too.

It actually doesn't change all that much, as far as I can tell. Nobody has ever bothered to substantiate this idea that anyone who works hard enough will the new CEO of Walmart.

It doesn't matter if the slave can become the master, slavery is still unjustified.

Slavery is an extremely inaccurate term for what you are saying.

As far as economic mobility goes, it is very high in the US. According to Greg Mankiw in Principles of Economics:

"In a typical 10 year period, about one in four families falls below the poverty line for at least one year. Yet fewer than 3% of families are poor for 8 or more years...If a father earn 20 percent above his generations average income, his son will most likely earn 8% above his generations average income. There is only a small correlation between the income of a grandfather and the income of a grandson...only one in five millionaires inherited their fortunes."
 
Slavery is an extremely inaccurate term for what you are saying.

As far as economic mobility goes, it is very high in the US. According to Greg Mankiw in Principles of Economics:

"In a typical 10 year period, about one in four families falls below the poverty line for at least one year. Yet fewer than 3% of families are poor for 8 or more years...If a father earn 20 percent above his generations average income, his son will most likely earn 8% above his generations average income. There is only a small correlation between the income of a grandfather and the income of a grandson...only one in five millionaires inherited their fortunes."

You need to read up on the type of logic he espouses..Wage slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Well you and your bolsheviks go on then! lol

Nah but in seriousness. You have to understand that the dangers of socialist revolution ALWAYS lie in the vanguard/proletariat dictatorship which ushers in radical reforms. Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot would all see themselves as state socialist but the atrocities they committed were horrid. They are just as bad as any bourgeois leader like Hitler, Mussolini etc but they actually have more power because they have a popular mandate. This is especially true with Mao. He organized the peasantry to win against Shang Ki Shek and then abused power like the best of em.
I completely agree with you. It's a real, serious, and even likely danger that the vanguard party will simply usher in a new kind of tyranny that only subjagates those it pretends to free.

In all honesty, I have no idea how to get around it. The only solution I can think of is to put my trust in hoi polloi, but I see that as akin as allowing children to run free in a factory, or allowing bulls to run free in a China shop.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
I completely agree with you. It's a real, serious, and even likely danger that the vanguard party will simply usher in a new kind of tyranny that only subjagates those it pretends to free.

In all honesty, I have no idea how to get around it. The only solution I can think of is to put my trust in hoi polloi, but I see that as akin as allowing children to run free in a factory, or allowing bulls to run free in a China shop.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'm not sure what you mean. You don't trust a society without a state and a market?
 
Slavery is an extremely inaccurate term for what you are saying.

As far as economic mobility goes, it is very high in the US. According to Greg Mankiw in Principles of Economics:

"In a typical 10 year period, about one in four families falls below the poverty line for at least one year. Yet fewer than 3% of families are poor for 8 or more years...If a father earn 20 percent above his generations average income, his son will most likely earn 8% above his generations average income. There is only a small correlation between the income of a grandfather and the income of a grandson...only one in five millionaires inherited their fortunes."
The ability to move from fieldhand to house-slave is no ability I'm interested in.
 
You need to read up on the type of logic he espouses..Wage slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that is a poor analogy, if we are discussing things seriously. If you just want to tell me about how you hate work, whatever, but if you are actually serious I disagree.

From your link:

"Since slavery was abolished, human earning power is forbidden by law to be capitalized. A man is not even free to sell himself; he must rent himself at a wage." - Paul Samuelson
 
I'm not sure what you mean. You don't trust a society without a state and a market?
Absolutely not.

Anyhow, on that note, I have a class to attend. If you send me a PM I'd love to get around to it ASAP.
 
And that is a poor analogy, if we are discussing things seriously. If you just want to tell me about how you hate work, whatever, but if you are actually serious I disagree.

From your link:

"Since slavery was abolished, human earning power is forbidden by law to be capitalized. A man is not even free to sell himself; he must rent himself at a wage." - Paul Samuelson

No but seriously you need to understand Marxist concepts of what wage-slavery is. You are estranged and alienated from your labor. It is not human to you. You are a cog in a machine. You make money to buy clothes and sometimes a house instead of chattel slavery which provides all of that for you. You are exploited, owned, dominated. You are inhuman under a capitalist system.
 
But we should talk about obama now i think enough of all of this theoretical and philosophical criticisms of material conditions :p <3
 
No but seriously you need to understand Marxist concepts of what wage-slavery is. You are estranged and alienated from your labor. It is not human to you. You are a cog in a machine. You make money to buy clothes and sometimes a house instead of chattel slavery which provides all of that for you. You are exploited, owned, dominated. You are inhuman under a capitalist system.

That marxist concept has no place in reality. This is not Germany in 1848. Employers treat their employees very well in the US.
 
That marxist concept has no place in reality. This is not Germany in 1848. Employers treat their employees very well in the US.

That's not the point. People have much more potential than just working physical grunt labor. Liveable wage? OHSA? 8 hour work day(anarchist imposed)? There's a lot of arguments to be made.

I would argue that employers dont treat employees well at all. Look at labor being moved to India and China for 60 cents an hour and in horrid working conditions. These are American companies...

:p
 
Voice of reason here...

While I disagree with extending the Bush tax cuts, I can understand why the President agreed to extending them. What folks on both sides of the political aisle forget is that although a President my be affiliated with a particular political party, he still has to do what he believes is right for the country. In this case, it meant compromising even in the one core area he didn't want to compromise in - extending tax breaks for the wealthiest wage earners when by not extending them he could have uses that tax revenue to pay down the debt. Conservatives continue to claim Pres. Obama wouldn't do that, but you really don't know that for sure. Based on his actions of late, i.e., establishing the debt commission, I'd have to give him the benefit of the doubt here. However, there are a few things this tax compromise does in his favor:

1. He shows that the GOP was willing to put the concerns of their party politics ahead of the needs of the People. Think about it; Dems were very willing to allow the tax cuts to continue for 98% of Americans while the GOP held out for who? That last 2%. What the Pres. loses in political capital with his fellow politicians on the Hill, he makes up for it be dropping a portion of his ideology and putting the needs of the People first.
2. It's a win-win for all sides: the poor, the middle-class, businesses large and small, the rich, the GOP and in some way the Dems. How? A) the working poor/middle-class get to keep the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, businesses decrease their payroll tax by as much as 2%, wealthy Americans get to keep their tax reduction under the Bush tax cuts plus receive a 15% reduction in the estate tax (down from 50% to 35%).
3. Places emphasis on comsumer demand. The hope is by reducting the tax burden on businesses which will have a net affect on employees, consumers will go out and start making purchases using the added income that will go directly into their paychecks.
4. Dems won't have to fight the GOP on extending unemployment benefits for the next 13-months. The hope here is should the economy show decent signs of improving, the country won't need to allocate these funds for very long.

So, when you really sit back and think about it, the only person who was on the side of the American people was the President. Dems wanted him to tow the party line and not approve taxes for the rich, the GOP held fast to getting the taxes extended for the wealthy, but the only person who looked out for the economy and, by default, the People was the President. He did what a President is suppose to do - set his partisan ideology aside long enough to do what is in the best interest of the country. Now, it's up to Congress to do their part. There is, however, a rub to this...

Post to be continued...
 
"two more years where you dems cannot steal more money from our most productive tax payers.
Obama is the joke"


Taking back what should have rightfully been yours to begin with isn't stealing. There's plenty to say that the "most productive tax payers" (business owners) are stealing from their employees, who really are the ones creating the income/profit.
Kind of like if a pickpocket grabs your wallet, and you chase him down and take back your wallet. Are you, at that point, stealing the wallet from him ? No, because it wasn't rightfully his to begin with. This is also true (partially) with regard to capital/labor.
 
he certainly didn't CAVE willingly

and he did it with such bitterness, halperin (time mag, msnbc) on chris matthews just now said, "no grace, no wisdom, no humor"

dem leadership is on record in favor of TAX HIKES in the midst of a RECESSION

R's (with enough responsible-minded D's to force the prez to CAVE)---don't raise taxes in times like these

R's have econ 101 on our side

dem leadership has a WORSENING economy, despite hundreds of B's of govt proaction

Unemployment at 9.8% - Chicago Sun-Times

we're heading into 2012 with THIS ISSUE at the forefront

who's gonna BELIEVE obama?

conservatives---note the participation in this debate, it tells you all you need know

we have the lifelessly passe posturing of the dead revolutionary left of the 60's

and we have a splinter, less than a fringe, of mainstream american political sentiment

that's all that remains (as of today) to contend with

good job, friends

we have generally demonstrated remarkable unity, discipline and maturity

we must persist with professionalism

for obama to get off the mat he's gonna have to...

but he's incapable, it's just not in his dna, nor his understanding

he's a completely inept and tone deaf politician

party on, paltry prog's
 
Back
Top Bottom