Who benefits the most from the government? Rich or poor?

TurtleDude said:

no you didn't. You used the term "libertarian" differently than it is generally used in the USA.

Click to expand...

Actually, I pointed out the historical context of the term, which contradicted the statement to which I was responding.

U.S. Socialist. said:

That is pretty much what I meant. I have no use for Stalin style bureaucracy. I used to be what some might call a Trotskyist, but the more I learn about him the more I worry that, while I agree with his criticisms of the USSR, I feel his way could be twisted into a Stalinist type state so I am starting to seriously question the Vanguard. Lately I have read a lot about Council Communism which seems to be a much more democratic an grassroots system.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Trotskyism shares that authoritarian streak. Also, there's Trotsky's conduct; his gleeful participation in crushing The Krondstadt Rebellion, and the Makhnovschina, etc. If you're going the Marxist route, I'd look into Anton Pannekoek, also Karl Korsch, Rosa Luxemburg, Gorter, etc.

Aderleth said:

Actually, I pointed out the historical context of the term, which contradicted the statement to which I was responding.

Click to expand...

a silly semantic argument. Using libertarian as generally accepted in the USA among both popular culture and those trained in political science, to describe a socialist redistribution of income is improper

TurtleDude said:

no you didn't. You used the term "libertarian" differently than it is generally used in the USA.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if that isn't how it's used in the U.S. He pointed out the historical nature of the term and where it originated from. The fact is Left-libertarianism was the first type of libertarianism. You can reject the validity of the philosophy, but you can't reject the historical fact that it exists and it was the original use of the term libertarianism. I don't know why you are fighting this battle, it isn't over philosophy it's just a matter of who coined the term first. It has no bearing on whether the philosophy is correct or not.

NGNM85 said:

Yeah, Trotskyism shares that authoritarian streak. Also, there's Trotsky's conduct; his gleeful participation in crushing The Krondstadt Rebellion, and the Makhnovschina, etc. If you're going the Marxist route, I'd look into Anton Pannekoek, also Karl Korsch, Rosa Luxemburg, Gorter, etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah I've started reading a few of them, I honestly am very uncomfortable with the idea of a Vanguard. It gives too much power in too few hands.

want real proof of who benefits the most from government? ask yourself who on these threads want more government?

TurtleDude said:

a silly semantic argument. Using libertarian as generally accepted in the USA among both popular culture and those trained in political science, to describe a socialist redistribution of income is improper

Click to expand...

Obviously, yes (not the "silly semantic" part, which is beneath you, by the way, and not at all compelling), but this has absolutely nothing to do with the post to which I responded.

This is what you said:

TurtleDude said:

its fun watching socialists pretend that their faux brand of libertarian thought is authentic. it is not. If you support government redistribution of income you are not a libertarian you are a collectivist

Click to expand...

I responded to this by pointing out that there is a notion of libertarianism - one that is several decades older than libertarianism in the modern sense, and one that was specifically addressed in the post to which you were responding - that actually would involve a hybrid notion of communism and anarchism (i.e. would embrace collective notions of property while rejecting the notion that the government should even exist, let alone redistribute anything), and would be wildly distinguishable from from libertarianism in the modern sense.

In short, my argument is not semantic, it's historical.

Aderleth said:

Obviously, yes (not the "silly semantic" part, which is beneath you, by the way, and not at all compelling), but this has absolutely nothing to do with the post to which I responded.

This is what you said:



I responded to this by pointing out that there is a notion of libertarianism - one that is several decades older than libertarianism in the modern sense, and one that was specifically addressed in the post to which you were responding - that actually would involve a hybrid notion of communism and anarchism (i.e. would embrace collective notions of property while rejecting the government even existing, let alone redistributing anything), and would be wildly distinguishable from from libertarianism in the modern sense.

In short, my argument is not semantic, it's historical.

Click to expand...

socialism is contrary to current libertarian thought which is essentially true liberalism

TurtleDude said:

socialism is contrary to current libertarian thought which is essentially true liberalism

Click to expand...

How is it "true" libertarianism if the term was appropriated by people you would consider to be either socialists or collectivists (or some other similar term along those lines)? Saying something like that is just as stupid as someone saying that modern liberalism is "true" liberalism. It doesn't mean anything, and it certainly doesn't contribute to rejecting the existence of a concept that pretty obviously does exist.

Aderleth said:

How is it "true" libertarianism if the term was appropriated by people you would consider to be either socialists or collectivists (or some other similar term along those lines)? Saying something like that is just as stupid as someone saying that modern liberalism is "true" liberalism. It doesn't mean anything, and it certainly doesn't contribute to rejecting the existence of a concept that pretty obviously does exist.

Click to expand...

what do you think the term libertarian means to 98% of those who actually understand political science in the USA. Rand Paul Ed Clark etc or socialist income redistribution?

TurtleDude said:

want real proof of who benefits the most from government? ask yourself who on these threads want more government?

Click to expand...

Those who claim to want to help the poor are the ones who demand more government.

that is a rather damning argument that they think government benefits the rich more since they oppose the rich. If they really thought government benefits the rich more than the poor, these advocates for the poor would want LESS GOVERNMENT

QED

TurtleDude said:

what do you think the term libertarian means to 98% of those who actually understand political science in the USA. Rand Paul Ed Clark etc or socialist income redistribution?

Click to expand...

How is that relevant to the point that I'm making? Especially considering that the post to which I'm responding (i.e. the post that you made) was, itself, a response to a post that explicitly addressed another version of the term libertarian?

To take this another direction, two posts back you asserted the existence of a "true" liberalism (by which I assume you mean classical liberalism). How is that "true" liberalism if 98% of those who use that term don't apply it that way?

TurtleDude said:

want real proof of who benefits the most from government? ask yourself who on these threads want more government?

Click to expand...

LOL! Is that evidence in the "court" of Turtledude??? How about we break down each government service and determine who derives the most benefit. We can start with the military and wars. The military and wars are to protect the nations wealth. The Rich own 80% of the wealth in the country, so their share of costs for the military and wars is 80%

TheDemSocialist said:

"Communists like him have no idea how you reach civil liberties just like libertarian socialist of today have no idea how you manage it"

Click to expand...

That isn't describing a conspiracy theory. Now if you were to say I'm calling them retarded I would have to agree.

Aderleth said:

You're arguing against the underlying value or utility of the political philosophy in question. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which is that the political philosophy does exist, and was the linguistic basis of the term libertarianism. I frankly couldn't care less about whether or not it's a viable system.

Click to expand...

The problem and what I have been getting at is he came up with a new term to just talk about communism to further the idea it protects liberty when it doesn't. That is why I said they are just communists because frankly they are.

Catawba said:

LOL! Is that evidence in the "court" of Turtledude??? How about we break down each government service and determine who derives the most benefit. We can start with the military and wars. The military and wars are to protect the nations wealth.

Click to expand...

The military is to protect the people. Your argument fails.

Henrin said:

The problem and what I have been getting at is he came up with a new term to just talk about communism to further the idea it protects liberty when it doesn't. That is why I said they are just communists because frankly they are.

Click to expand...

First of all, if you're going to argue that it's the case that he came up with the term "Just" to talk about communism to further the idea that it protects liberty, you're going to have to back that up with some actual documentation. If you can't provide such documentation, I'm going to have to assume that you believe that's the case for bull**** ideological reasons. Either way, this would have no bearing on any substantive political-philosophic claims that he might have (and with which I probably don't agree).

Second of all, this still has no bearing on my underlying contention that the concept of anarcho-libertarianism, or social libertarianism, is a real thing, and has a meaning that is wildly distinguishable from the modern term libertarianism.

Henrin said:

The military is to protect the people. Your argument fails.

Click to expand...

Correction, the military used to be to protect the people. If we cut the wasteful spending on it in half, perhaps we can get back to that point.
Especially considering the rich no longer pay their share of the cost.

You want to cut the size of government, cut military spending in half, saving $350 billion dollars a year.

Iraq was of no threat to us, yet the party that represents the rich voted for the war. Let them pay for it. I sure as hell am not!

Catawba said:

LOL! Is that evidence in the "court" of Turtledude??? How about we break down each government service and determine who derives the most benefit. We can start with the military and wars. The military and wars are to protect the nations wealth. The Rich own 80% of the wealth in the country, so their share of costs for the military and wars is 80%

Click to expand...

Since the wealthiest the top 10 percent pay 68 percent of taxes, and the lowest 50% pay little or no income tax at all, and yet all the welfare, it seems to me that most of the benefits go to the poor.

I believe everyone benefits equally from the Military protecting all our Security not the wealth.

But that is my opinion, but it is based on what I have been able to find out about who pays what % of Taxes.

Councilman said:

Since the wealthiest the top 10 percent pay 68 percent of taxes, and the lowest 50% pay little or no income tax at all, and yet all the welfare, it seems to me that most of the benefits go to the poor.

Click to expand...

The top ten percent pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than their percentage of the nations wealth. Thanks to 3 decades of 30 years of trickle down economics, 1 in 7 Americans are poor, millions more on unemployment and seniors barely getting by, there's your 50 %. They are ones you want to pay for your wars to protect the rich's wealth. You got to be ****ing kidding me!

I believe everyone benefits equally from the Military protecting all our Security not the wealth.

Click to expand...

The GOP voted for the optional war in Iraq, let them eliminate their clients tax cuts to pay for it.

But that is my opinion, but it is based on what I have been able to find out about who pays what % of Taxes.

Click to expand...

You need some perspective, look at what taxes used to be when they were progressive, back before 3 decades of failed trickle down economics.

Catawba said:

LOL! Is that evidence in the "court" of Turtledude??? How about we break down each government service and determine who derives the most benefit. We can start with the military and wars. The military and wars are to protect the nations wealth. The Rich own 80% of the wealth in the country, so their share of costs for the military and wars is 80%

Click to expand...

The fact is catawba --you are constantly whining about the rich and demanding they pay more taxes. You constantly whine about the plight of the poor and who their lot is due to the predatory actions of the rich. You also want more government. The only logical conclusion of your position is that you see government as helping the poor and lower middle class and hurting the rich.

Catawba said:

The top ten percent pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than their percentage of the nations wealth. Thanks to 3 decades of 30 years of trickle down economics, 1 in 7 Americans are poor, millions more on unemployment and seniors barely getting by, there's your 50 %. They are ones you want to pay for your wars to protect the rich's wealth. You got to be ****ing kidding me!



The GOP voted for the optional war in Iraq, let them eliminate their clients tax cuts to pay for it.



You need some perspective, look at what taxes used to be when they were progressive, back before 3 decades of failed trickle down economics.

Click to expand...

More lies, the top taxpayers pay a higher share of the federal income burden now than at any time in the last 70 years. True rates are lower but those in the bottom 90% are paying far less income tax as well and this has caused the burden borne by the rich to INCREASE

and since you constantly demand more government spending and more taxes on the rich you obviously believe more government will help everyone but the rich more.


You cannot have it both ways

TurtleDude said:

The fact is catawba --you are constantly whining about the rich and demanding they pay more taxes. You constantly whine about the plight of the poor and who their lot is due to the predatory actions of the rich. You also want more government. The only logical conclusion of your position is that you see government as helping the poor and lower middle class and hurting the rich.

Click to expand...

Still have that reading comprehension problem 'eh "counselor." I just said I want to cut the size of government and reduce our deficit by almost a half trillion a year!!!! And without further suffering of the our seniors and the poor.

TurtleDude said:

More lies, the top taxpayers pay a higher share of the federal income burden now than at any time in the last 70 years. True rates are lower but those in the bottom 90% are paying far less income tax as well and this has caused the burden borne by the rich to INCREASE

and since you constantly demand more government spending and more taxes on the rich you obviously believe more government will help everyone but the rich more.


You cannot have it both ways

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion "counselor". Now let's look at the facts:

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%."

"It is widely believed that taxes are highly progressive and, furthermore, that the top several percent of income earners pay most of the taxes received by the federal government. Both ideas are wrong because they focus on official, rather than "effective" tax rates and ignore payroll taxes, which are mostly paid by those with incomes below $100,000 per year."
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

"So where does this leave us? There’s some degree of uncertainty in making this kind of statement, since a very high-earning American’s tax rate can vary greatly, depending on the kinds of income earned (and what tax rate it’s subjected to) and the kinds of exemptions and deductions claimed on their return.

Even so, when Obama said that "if you're a … wealthy CEO or a … hedge fund manager in America right now, your taxes are … lower than they've been since the 1950s," he's close: Their tax rates are at or near the lows for the years elapsed since then.

The top marginal income tax rates were lower between 1988 and 1992 than they are today, but otherwise, Obama is right. They were higher for the other years. Meanwhile, the rates that are used to tax carried interest for hedge-fund managers have been at historical lows since 2003. And effective tax rates for high-income earners were either at their lowest since 1960 or very close to their lowest (at least according to the most recent data available). On balance, we rate Obama’s statement Mostly True."
PolitiFact | Barack Obama says tax rates are lowest since 1950s for CEOs, hedge fund managers

Catawba said:

Still have that reading comprehension problem 'eh "counselor." I just said I want to cut the size of government and reduce our deficit by almost a half trillion a year!!!! And without further suffering of the our seniors and the poor.

Click to expand...

your own postings cut your argument apart. You bash the rich and demand they pay more taxes and you want more government. Your dear leader obama proved the poor benefit more from the government when he claimed the rich will sacrifice more by paying more taxes while the sacrifice the rest of america will suffer is LESS GOVERNMENT spending

you cannot overcome that admission.