Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism?

Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism?

+6
TEOTWAWKI
Floridatexan
Sal
Markle
Hospital Bob
Wordslinger
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 6]

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:But this conversation is getting so surreal.

Because you yourself just strengthened my argument and you don't even realize it, bds.

Because,  yes you're correct,  apart from that Trump position,  the divide is "raise taxes" (democrat/liberal/progressive argument) VS
"cut taxes" (the republican/conservative argument).



No, it isn't.  The divide is "Assess our current situation and then push for policies that improve that situation" versus "Tax cuts"

I don't know how else to explain this any simpler.  

Politician A:  "Hmm.  Let's see.  We have $17+ trillion in debt and we're running a perennial deficit.  This trend appears to have began precisely when we cut taxes in 2001, 2002, and 2003.   Given that, I think it may be a good idea to return tax rates to their pre-tax-cut levels"

Politician B:  "TAX CUTS!!!"


The default for "Politician A" isn't "TAX INCREASES!!!".  Instead, it is "assess the current situation and tailor policy to that situation."

In an alternate universe:

Politician A: "Hmm.  Let's see.  We have very little debt and we're running a perennial surplus.  I think we can safely cut taxes at this time without and fiscal detriment."

Politician B: "TAX CUTS!!!"


I feel I need to state this yet again.  One side gives you the same solution every time, just as a broken clock will.  The other side gives you a solution tailored to the current environment and meant to address our needs.

Can you imagine any scenario in which PkrBum, Markle, ObamaSucks, or TEO would ever advocate for increased taxes or increased regulation?   Because I can give you scenarios in which I would push for tax cuts and scenarios in which I would push for tax increases;  scenarios in which I would push for war and scenarios in which I would push for diplomacy.  One more time for Bob, the policy idea that I will push for is the policy idea that is better suited for our current environment.  The policy ideas that PkrBum, Markle, ObamaSucks, and TEO push for are tax cuts.  That is the beginning and end of their analysis.  The external environment is completely and utterly of no consequence to their chosen policy...which - one more time, just like a broken clock - is always the same and is always tax cuts.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Salinsky wrote:It might be helpful to review what we've learned from Bob in this thread ...

On one end of the political spectrum, you have posters who look at policy that could be construed as having "socialistic" aspects, and they respond, "SOCIALIST! ... FASCIST!! ... HITLER!!! ... BENGAHZI!!!!".

The other end of the political spectrum looks at the merits or lack thereof of the policy that could be construed as having "socialistic" aspects, so that means they don't ♥ capitalism enough.

And, Trump said some things with his mouth hole about taxation also too, so that destroys the whole dichotomy anyway.

Bob wins.

Did I cover it all, Bob?

No actually it doesn't.

My position would be:   "roughly half the country prefers government solutions to our problems and the other half prefers private solutions to our problems,  but very few of us find a need for both".

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

And that would be the same reply I would give to bds last post.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:

My position would be:   "roughly half the country prefers government solutions to our problems WHEN APPROPRIATE and the other half prefers private solutions to our problems ONLY AND ALWAYS,  ".

It's amazing that this is so hard for you to understand.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote: I can give you scenarios in which I would push for tax cuts

I'm listening. Are you going to keep me in suspense on this or what. lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

We don't have all day. Is it that hard for you? lol

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Bob wrote:We don't have all day.  Is it that hard for you?  lol

Bob stop taunting the millennial he will hold his breath and stomp his feet if you keep it up.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

How bout your tag team partners, sal, tex and wordslinger.
If the cat's got your tongue, maybe they'll tell us about these tax cuts they want to see happen. lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Bob wrote:We don't have all day.  Is it that hard for you?  lol

Bob stop taunting the millennial he will hold his breath and stomp his feet if you keep it up.

Nah,  more likely he'll tell me how he has to keep saying all his "truth" over and over because I'm too stupid to get it. And his "truth" will sound like something out of a college textbook like always.  lol

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Bob wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:
Bob wrote:We don't have all day.  Is it that hard for you?  lol

Bob stop taunting the millennial he will hold his breath and stomp his feet if you keep it up.

Nah,  more likely he'll tell me how he has to keep saying all his "truth" over and over because I'm too stupid to get it.  And his "truth" will sound like something out of a college textbook like always.   lol

I am glad you noticed that also...he so much wants to be like his daddy seaoat but he just isn't as full of chit yet...memorizing crap is hard for the younger generation they figure they can just cut and paste their opinions after they google for them .....

Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism? - Page 4 ?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftoniandgary.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2Fchildren-1

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote: I can give you scenarios in which I would push for tax cuts

I'm listening.  Are you going to keep me in suspense on this or what.  lol



Not sure if you have actually been reading my posts or not but I already gave you two:


boards of FL wrote:Politician A: "Hmm.  Let's see.  We have very little debt and we're running a perennial surplus.  I think we can safely cut taxes at this time without and fiscal detriment."

boards of FL wrote:For example, the republican economic plan is tax cuts and will always be tax cuts.  It doesn't matter if we're in recession, booming economy, exploding deficits, or exploding surplus, the remedy is always tax cuts.   With that said, there are times when tax cuts are a reasonable policy offering.  If we're running a perennial surplus and debt is low, a tax cut is perfectly reasonable.   If there is some economic disturbance that requires a swift response, a tax cut could be easily justified as a valid policy option.  What isn't easily justified is claiming that tax cuts are a miracle policy that should always be pushed for, regardless of our current economic or fiscal climate.


If there is a need to stimulate the economy, and if our fiscal policy is in order, a tax cut is a perfectly reasonable tool to use.  If it can be shown that taxes are excessively high and that simply reducing them would lead to greater economic prosperity, then by all means we should cut taxes.  I'm perfectly OK with that.   We could even look at specific income levels and determine that tax cuts would be beneficial.  If we're seeing a trend of skewed wealth and income redistribution that correlates with an evaporation of the middle class, then perhaps we should cut taxes on lower income brackets to combat that.  

The entire point here is that we should have good reasons for doing things.  Simply repeating the same policy again and again every four years is not a good reason for doing something.  On the other hand, assessing the current environment, determining our current needs, and then scanning the available policy options and coming to the conclusion that a tax cut would be best at the moment...well, that would be a good reason to push for tax cuts.



Last edited by boards of FL on 9/23/2015, 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

TEOTWAWKI wrote:he so much wants to be like his daddy seaoat but he just isn't as full of chit yet.

I take back what I said about the creative writing ability around here. When you and Sal are both on your game, it's a tie. lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob



boards of FL wrote:

If there is a need to stimulate the economy, and if our fiscal policy is in order, a tax cut is a perfectly reasonable tool to use.

I'm trying to apply this philosophy to The Great Stimulus program of 2008.
Because arguably that's a prime example of when economic "stimulus" is needed.
But I don't recall you advocating any tax cuts for that one. Only A LOT more government spending and a lot more government debt.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Bob wrote:How bout your tag team partners,  sal,  tex and wordslinger.
If the cat's got your tongue,  maybe they'll tell us about these tax cuts they want to see happen.  lol

Our current tax system favors the wealthy...no way around that. When Romney pays no tax, or 1/3 the tax that my daughters pay...then, Houston, we have a problem. When Romney can stash cash offshore and have an IRA of $100 million because of tax loopholes, again...a problem. Earnings for the vast majority of people have been stagnant since the Reagan years. Reaganomics, in the words of George H W Bush, is "voodoo economics". That's what he said when he was running; that's not what he actually did in office.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Okay Boards explain to me how poor people can get rich and if you mention Amway you are disqualified......

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Floridatexan wrote:
Bob wrote:How bout your tag team partners,  sal,  tex and wordslinger.
If the cat's got your tongue,  maybe they'll tell us about these tax cuts they want to see happen.  lol

Our current tax system favors the wealthy...no way around that.  When Romney pays no tax, or 1/3 the tax that my daughters pay...then, Houston, we have a problem.  When Romney can stash cash offshore and have an IRA of $100 million because of tax loopholes, again...a problem.  Earnings for the vast majority of people have been stagnant since the Reagan years.  Reaganomics, in the words of George H W Bush, is "voodoo economics".  That's what he said when he was running; that's not what he actually did in office.  

Good points,  all.  
Except I would add that our current economic policy favors both the rich and the poor.  Generally speaking,  the rich get all the tax loophole welfare and the poor just get the welfare.  
The middle class,  or at least what's left of it,  get the shaft.

Except the middle class who are seniors,  we do get the health care welfare.  And thank god for that. Because without it I'd probably be dead and you wouldn't have to hear all the "fence-sitter'ism", the "boththesame'ism"  and all the rest of my toaster IQ bullshit. lol



Last edited by Bob on 9/23/2015, 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

If there is a need to stimulate the economy, and if our fiscal policy is in order, a tax cut is a perfectly reasonable tool to use.

I'm trying to apply this philosophy to The Great Stimulus program of 2008.
Because arguably that's a prime example of when economic "stimulus" is needed.
But I don't recall you advocating any tax cuts for that one.  Only A LOT more government spending and a lot more government debt.


The TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) was in 2008. That consisted of bailing out the banks, Wall Street, and the massive insurance co. run by your Uncle Hank. That was Bush's baby. The stimulus was in 2009, after Obama took office. That was intended to revive the economy. That was Keynesian...but IMHO it was too little, too late, because the Bush administration and their toadies weren't even acknowledging the recession and the housing bubble for more than a year. At the end of Bush's tenure, jobs were hemorrhaging at the rate of about 600,000 per month.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

If there is a need to stimulate the economy, and if our fiscal policy is in order, a tax cut is a perfectly reasonable tool to use.

I'm trying to apply this philosophy to The Great Stimulus program of 2008.
Because arguably that's a prime example of when economic "stimulus" is needed.
But I don't recall you advocating any tax cuts for that one.  Only A LOT more government spending and a lot more government debt.




I didn't push for cuts in income tax rates at the time of the great recession because our fiscal policy was not in order.  Did you not read my entire comment?  Here are the qualifiers of that argument again.  "If there is a need to stimulate the economy, and if our fiscal policy is in order...".  

We had already cut taxes several times years prior and those cuts directly contributed to the ballooning deficits that followed, which left us somewhat crippled in our ability to respond to the great recession.  Further, we were engaged in two wars and had recently passed a medicare prescription drug plan.   Being all of that the case, it didn't seem wise to me at the time to repeat that process again and further cut income tax rates.

With that said, the president and democrats assessed the current situation at the time and passed the stimulus bill, which was a combination of increased spending and....yes...tax cuts or tax credits.  It was a broad bill that included a mix of policies, and most economists credit that policy with preventing a depression.   Also, that bill was the American Recovery and Reinvestment act; and it wasn't passed in 2008 but in 2009.

See the theme there?   Assess the problem and then respond appropriately.  The alternative is to not assess the problem and instead prescribe the same remedy for everything.   I have no idea why this so hard for you to understand.


_________________
I approve this message.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.
John Maynard Keynes

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:
I didn't push for cuts in income tax rates at the time of the great recession because our fiscal policy was not in order.  Did you not read my entire comment?  Here are the qualifiers of that argument again.  "If there is a need to stimulate the economy, and if our fiscal policy is in order...".  

Since our fiscal policy is never going to be "in order" ever again,  unless you view a debt which is now at $17 trillion and still growing being "in order",  then you're never going to advocate a tax cut.

Which brings us to even another way to characterize the current political dialogue.  
There is a divide in the political dialogue.  One side advocates tax cuts and the other tax increases.  Which is not hardly much different than the characterizations "government solutions" vs "private sector solutions" and "socialism" vs "capitalism" which is what this thread was all about to begin with.  
To quote your often used phrase,  "why do I have to keep repeating myself".

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
I didn't push for cuts in income tax rates at the time of the great recession because our fiscal policy was not in order.  Did you not read my entire comment?  Here are the qualifiers of that argument again.  "If there is a need to stimulate the economy, and if our fiscal policy is in order...".  

Since our fiscal policy is never going to be "in order" ever again,  unless you view a debt which is now at $17 trillion and still growing being "in order",  then you're never going to advocate a tax cut.

Which brings us to even another way to characterize the current political dialogue.  
There is a divide in the political dialogue.  One side advocates tax cuts and the other tax increases.  Which is not hardly much different than the characterizations "government solutions" vs "private sector solutions" and "socialism" vs "capitalism" which is what this thread was all about to begin with.  
To quote your often used phrase,  "why do I have to keep repeating myself".



Our fiscal policy was in order in the late 90s and early 00s; but even there I did not support the tax cuts at the time because I didn't believe that they would be temporary, as we were told they would be - and I was correct in that assessment.  The 2001 recession was mild and most would consider that to be a breather after an unprecedented run of economic prosperity.  In truth, I suspect we could have take absolutely no action and would have been just fine.  When tax cuts began to be mentioned, my fear was that once the recession ended - which it was assuredly going to end fairly quickly - republicans would not allow tax rates to return to their prior levels - which were levels that had began to net perennial surpluses.  And, there again, I was right.


_________________
I approve this message.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Okay I see my question will go unanswered as to how the poor can become rich. It probably is beyond the governments ability to change the beggars at the gate into productive citizens. I can imagine it will only get much worse.....In a while the only way for government to compassionately  manage the poor will be in FEMA camps...nestled in the progressive arms....all safe and snug.

Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism? - Page 4 ?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthstreammedia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2Fsheeplebelikefemacamps



Last edited by TEOTWAWKI on 9/23/2015, 4:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:Not surprising, the Progressives here don't even know what Socialism is or how it "works".  Other than the fact that it uses someone else's money, which is all they care about.

Right, we hear you loud and clear:  fuck the middle class, fuck the poor, fuck the workers, fuck the unions, fuck all the non-whites.  America began as a haven for the white rich, by the rich and of the rich and you mean to keep it that way.  We get it .. and that's what truly frightens fascists like you.

I see you have your yellow rose. How cute!

Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism? - Page 4 Desperation_zpsax330ep5

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

When I was practicing capitalism,  at no time ever did I get any economic aid from the government to help me do so and never did I even desire such a thing.  
And if I had incurred the same level of debt our government has incurred,  I would have been out of business period, end of story,  game over.

I never liked debt and I learned how to stay out of it.  
But I fully realize that all the new-fangled economics professors see me as some kind of dinosaur.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I can give you my secret to successful capitalism and avoiding debt and I only need two words to do so:  Low Overhead.  

I guarantee you I'm better at that (low overhead) than Donald Trump,  Bill Gates, Warren Buffet,  Carlos Slim,  Pablo Escobar (once the world's 7th richest person),  the Koch Brothers or George Soros ever thought about being.  lol



Last edited by Bob on 9/23/2015, 4:13 pm; edited 2 times in total

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Which is better for you and your family, socialism or capitalism?

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum