New class of posters

[Johnny C]

So Fletch, you support the selling off of parks to developers?

Within 25 years there would be NO parks, only huge estates owned by the very wealthy that the common citizen would never be able to set foot on.

Myself, I like touring the parks occasionally.

 

[bigus_D]

Myself, I like touring the parks occasionally.

SOCIALIST! SOCIALIST! SOCIALIST!

FLOG HIM, ONE AND ALL!!!

 

[Fletch]

So Fletch, you support the selling off of parks to developers?

Absolutely not. I support selling off the parks. I do not support predetermining which class of people will be allowed to purchase them.

Within 25 years there would be NO parks, only huge estates owned by the very wealthy that the common citizen would never be able to set foot on.

Prove it.

Myself, I like touring the parks occasionally.

As do I, but that's neither here nor there. Government has no business owning this land.

 

[jsgolfman]

^What he said

 

[eatsnopaste]

My question is how can any amount of Socialism be even slightly good for the system as some claim it to be?

SE, ever know anyone who used food stamps, WIC program..all socialist programs. (kicking myself for stepping in)

 

[Fletch]

SE, ever know anyone who used food stamps, WIC program..all socialist programs.

All programs that churches and charities would be handling if they were doing their jobs and voters were doing theirs.

 

[dross]

All programs that churches and charities would be handling if they were doing their jobs and voters were doing theirs.

Yes, exactly.

Charitable giving and social program taxes have a proven inverse relationship.

There is a moral point to be made, as well. Do you want my money for single mothers? Disabled people? The mentally ill? Fine. Persuade me. Educate me. Talk me into it. Because you see, regardless of their great need, my property is still mine. If you wish to part my property from me, there is only one righteous way to do it. ASK me for it. When you take it from me at gunpoint to give to someone else, that's thuggery, it's not charity.

 

[eatsnopaste]

So Fletch, you support the selling off of parks to developers?

Within 25 years there would be NO parks, only huge estates owned by the very wealthy that the common citizen would never be able to set foot on.

Myself, I like touring the parks occasionally.

Maybe an enterprising governor or two would look to the future and LEASE a park to oh, maybe a foreign country who has already destroyed their air with pollution and land with acid rain and strip mining...naw, couldn't happen.

 

[Fletch]

There is a moral point to be made, as well. Do you want my money for single mothers? Disabled people? The mentally ill? Fine. Persuade me. Educate me. Talk me into it. Because you see, regardless of their great need, my property is still mine. If you wish to part my property from me, there is only one righteous way to do it. ASK me for it. When you take it from me at gunpoint to give to someone else, that's thuggery, it's not charity.

Right Freakin' ON.

 

[SavageEagle]

What? It's a federal mandate on employer's to pay.

It may be a federal mandate, but until the stimulus, tax payer money did not pay the unemployed. That's not the case now, but it used to be. If the Congress doesn't extend it when they come back from break, it will revert back to the old system. Hopefully anyway.

 

[dross]

It may be a federal mandate, but until the stimulus, tax payer money did not pay the unemployed. That's not the case now, but it used to be. If the Congress doesn't extend it when they come back from break, it will revert back to the old system. Hopefully anyway.

You are incorrect. There have been several times in the past when the fed has stepped in and extended unemployment out of taxpayer money.

I didn't mention it earlier, but you are also incorrect about it being private. Unemployment insurance has been offered by quasi-state insurance companies for a long time, backed up by the Feds.

 

[SavageEagle]

I didn't mention it earlier, but you are also incorrect about it being private. Unemployment insurance has been offered by quasi-state insurance companies for a long time, backed up by the Feds.

I'm not calling you a liar by any means, but could you show me some proof of this?

I do recall other times it's been extended by the Feds, but that's not the norm.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Medicare, medicade and social security folks will ALWAYS vote for the poly-tician that will promise to keep or expand their benefits.

At this point I believe that we are fighting a losing battle, because most of the citizens (subjects) are sheeple and have drank the "free stuff" cool-aid, and they dont realize it isnt really free...or they simply dont care.

Watch the broad stokes, would ya? You're getting paint all over me and I don't need any extra color.

I'm a disabled vet, have private insurance but also have Medicare and collect part of my disability from Social Security. I don't vote for whomever will give me the most "gim'me's" in life. I vote for the person that represents me best.

 

[dross]

I'm not calling you a liar by any means, but could you show me some proof of this?

I do recall other times it's been extended by the Feds, but that's not the norm.

This from Wikipedia (particularly relevant points are in bold red):

United States
Unemployment compensation is money received by an unemployed worker from the United States or a state. In the United States, this compensation is classified as a type of social welfare benefit. According to the Internal Revenue Code, these types of benefits are to be included in a taxpayer’s gross income.[16]
[edit] Federal-State joint programs

Wisconsin originated the idea of unemployment insurance (UI) in the U.S. in 1932.[17] In the United States, there are 50 state unemployment insurance programs plus one each in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Through the Social Security Act of 1935, the Federal Government of the United States effectively encouraged the individual states into adopting unemployment insurance plans.
Unemployment insurance is a federal-state program jointly financed through federal and state employer payroll taxes (federal and state UI taxes)[18]. Generally, employers must pay both state and federal unemployment taxes if:
(1) they pay wages to employees totaling $1500 or more in any quarter of a calendar year; or,[18](2) they had at least one employee during any day of a week during 20 weeks in a calendar year, regardless of whether the weeks were consecutive. However, some state laws differ from the federal law.[18]To facilitate this program, the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), which authorizes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect an annual federal employer tax used to fund state workforce agencies. FUTA covers the costs of administering the Unemployment Insurance and Job Service programs in all states. In addition, FUTA pays one-half of the cost of extended unemployment benefits (during periods of high unemployment) and provides for a fund from which states may borrow, if necessary, to pay benefits. As originally established, the states paid the federal government.[18]
The FUTA tax rate was originally three percent of taxable wages collected from employers who employed at least four employees,[19] and employers could deduct up to 90 percent of the amount due if they paid taxes to a state to support a system of unemployment insurance which met Federal standards,[17] but the rules have changed as follows. The FUTA tax rate is now 6.2 percent of taxable wages of employees who meet both the above and following criteria,[18] and the taxable wage base is the first $7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year[18]. Employers who pay the state unemployment tax on a timely basis receive an offset credit of up to 5.4 percent regardless of the rate of tax they pay their state. Therefore, the net FUTA tax rate is generally 0.8 percent (6.2 percent - 5.4 percent), for a maximum FUTA tax of $56.00 per employee, per year (.008 X $7,000 = $56.00). State law determines individual state unemployment insurance tax rates.[18] In the United States, unemployment insurance tax rates use experience rating.[20]
Within the above constraints, the individual states and territories raise their own contributions and run their own programs. The federal government sets broad guidelines for coverage and eligibility, but states vary in how they determine benefits and eligibility.
Federal rules are drawn by the United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. For most states, the maximum period for receiving benefits is 26 weeks. There is an extended benefit program (authorized through the Social Security Acts) that may be triggered by state economic conditions. Congress has often passed temporary programs to extend benefits during economic recessions. This was done with the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program in 2002-2003, which has since expired [7], and is currently (2008-2010) in force through the Extended Unemployment Compensation 2008 legislation [8].
The federal government lends money to the states for unemployment insurance when the states run short of funds. In general, this can happen when the unemployment rate is high. The need for loans can be exacerbated when a state cuts taxes and increases benefits. All loans must be repaid with interest.
Congressional actions to massively increase penalties for states incurring large debts for unemployment benefits led to state fiscal crises in the 1980s.[citation needed]
Because it is a joint federal/state program run by the states, taxing business for the benefit of labor, the politics of unemployment insurance are very complex.

 

[SavageEagle]

Man that makes my head hurt.

I see what you mean now. Pretty complicated stuff.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Man that makes my head hurt.

I see what you mean now. Pretty complicated stuff.

Try being a small business owner and having to deal with it. It was yet another headache to having employees.

 

[Johnny C]

My thanks to all vets, and those still serving, and my apologies to those who my broad paint strokes covered who should be left unpainted. Us raving maniacs tend to lump folks together when we are raving

Still, I dont have much faith in the sheeple that make up the lions share of our population.

 

[Whosyer]

Yes, exactly.

Charitable giving and social program taxes have a proven inverse relationship.

There is a moral point to be made, as well. Do you want my money for single mothers? Disabled people? The mentally ill? Fine. Persuade me. Educate me. Talk me into it. Because you see, regardless of their great need, my property is still mine. If you wish to part my property from me, there is only one righteous way to do it. ASK me for it. When you take it from me at gunpoint to give to someone else, that's thuggery, it's not charity.

 

[rhino]

. . . I think the issue is whether socialism is the boogeyman that some folks are making it out to be. There's a concerted effort to demonize socialism by turning the word and implications into something that has a similar connotation as does fascism. A LOT of people are using it as a perjorative who strike me as not really even having a grade school understanding of what it is, let alone a more sophisticated view of political theory.

It doesn't have to be complicated.

Socialism is inherently evil. Socialism is dehumanizing because it places the whims and apparent welfare of a collective over the genuine rights of individuals. That's evil and it's anti-American, regardless of whether it has an ugly face like Communism or Fascism, or a happy face like "Hope and Change." The underbelly is the same. Using "socialism" in the pejorative is entire appropriate for anyone who espouses American ideals, whereas it may not be so for someone who embraces socialism as an inherently good thing. I fall in the former group.

Some level of socialism may be necessary in a social construct with the size and complexity of our country, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing or that it should be embraced. It should be viewed as something we can only tolerate when there are no viable alternatives. As an example, there are people, through no fault of their own, who cannot care for themselves. Using tools of a government, even though the US Constitution does not allow for it, to help them is acceptable to me. I demand, however, that it be a last resort and only for cases where no other options exist. Private individuals and institutions can and would do a much better job in this area if it were possible to do so, but our current system places too much burden via taxes on too many people businesses.

I feel the same way about democracy. Democracy is inherently flawed and evil because it inevitably leads to a dictatorship of a majority. Unfortunately viable alternatives are limited, so democracy in the context of a Consitutionally limited republic is the least damaging to the humanity, dignity, and rights of the individual.

Yes, my opinions are based on presumption of the primacy of the individual and individual liberty. That's why America exists, or least why it started and why it should exist. The further we get from that ideal, the worse it will be for all in the long run.

 

[rhino]

IMO, it's all in the form of socialism. Any socialism based on violence and coercion (ie, government-funded) is a detriment. Socialism based on voluntary contribution, on the other hand, is generally a good thing. There are instances in which it is not, but on the whole it's positive.

I would call that charity rather than socialism, but that's just me. Charity is a virtue.

Helping someone else voluntarily is a good thing. That's increasingly difficult to do as the level of socialism (coerced) increases, because the more you're taxed, the less you are able to help yourself or anyone else of your own volition.