A lesson on why socialism never works

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

"Most of the rich..." referring to who, precisely?

Do you propose a standard by which wealth is subject to a determination of the worth/merit of an individual?

Do you think you are worth more or less than you earn, Rat?

To whom do these decisions fall?

Elected officials whose primary compulsion is to be re-elected?

The "rich" (to whom you ascribe such greed), who may just decide you should pay a higher rate than they do?

You generally decry the greed of American capitalism; what do you think of the potential for punitive/repressive taxation authored by whomever is charged with dictating the tax code?

The relative worth of a soldier or nurse compared with a CEO is not best parsed in monetary terms...if a CEO (by dint of his intellectual capacity and creativity) employs even a mere double-handful of people who in turn support their families, is his societal contribution not on a par with a nurse or a soldier?

If not, explain this, please.

Also:

Please define "excessive"?

---

That's not what I said.

I don't believe most of the Rich have earned their money, agreed. I even gave examples of poorly paid people that I believe are worth more than them.

I didn't say those that have earned it should be more favourably taxed. A Tax system should be open and transparent; above all it should be simple.

If not, then you get the situation we have today whereby the Rich and Corporations take advantage of loopholes to avoid the Tax they should be paying. This increases the burden on everyone else.

There are examples of people in this country earning very substantial sums and paying less Tax than those on very modest incomes. Any system that allows this is morally bankrupt, as are the people that do it.

I also declared that the threshold where one should pay any Tax from an Inheritance should be much higher than it is at present. I do not believe that you should not be able to look after your family after you've gone.

However, as I've said, there is a limit.

At the moment I'd put that at 7 figures: Say everything over £1,000,000 should be taxed as income to those individuals that inherited.

You will notice that those that have substantially above this would still be able to reduce the Tax burdon by spreading the money around his familly.

I also do not believe that people should be forced to sell their Homes (as an example) to pay Tax. I have no problem with this Tax being deferred if it is tied up in assets, or indeed that the Government becomes a temporary non-voting shareholder if there is a Company involved, until that debt is paid.

---

Oh.

Stunning to hear these types of things occur over there, where socialism (the "cure") has held sway all these years.

What do you suppose that means.

Btw-

Just as an exercise, try to construct a reasonable-sounding paragraph or so, designed to justify or validate the idea of confiscatory taxation of estates/inheritances.

Every time I've tried it, it hasn't worked at all; it comes out sounding as if government interests (which are not uniformly sound) always trump those of the individual.

Just for larks, how about a system whereby the government stipulates an amount to be ceded, and the party in question is allowed to designate the charities/causes to be enriched?

Just casting about, you see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

By the paragraph, then:

Quote:

---

What the author is doing assuming is that money is, and should be, rewarded proportionally to how you perform (like a grade ought to be), which isn't really happening in any system I know of.

---

It shouldn't be?

It isn't?

It "happens" all over the place, all the time, here in the U.S.

---

Happens all the time?

Some people work hard all their lives, and end up with nothing.

Some don't lift a finger, and inherit billions.

"all the time" is not quantifiable, and even if it were, it doesn't happen every time, which is the point. No current system is fair.

Quote:

---

Our media makes sure you hear naught about it, though, preferring to present the errants as if they are the norm, which they most definitely are not.

---

I'd argue that most people who are considered wealthy, with regards to monetary means, in the US, and in most of western society at that, have way more than they'll ever need, and most likely way more than they are worth.

It's not just what's in the media either, it's what I actually see in real life.

If some of the people I've had the distinct displeasure of working with got paid after what they accomplish, they'd be paid in negative sums, but they aren't. Meanwhile, the women doing the salaries in some places I've been consulting at work harder than I, but make considerably less.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, does away with that kind of thing, after a fashion, and just states that everyone should have equal means to live, also eliminating social classes and such. Basically it does away with the idea of money as a reward.

---

How do communism and socialism "do away with that kind of thing"?

---

It doesn't reward people with money.

Communism in its purest form removes money as a reward, and ensures that everyone has enough to live, and more or less the same to live with.

(In theory it does, in reality that hasn't really had the chance to happen yet. Mainly, I'd say, because some people are still locked in the notion that they need to have more than others, and some of those people always find the way to the top.)

Socialism, as I see it, keeps people from dropping too low or rising too high, but it's less strict.

The social democracy I'm in just tries to keep people from dropping too low.

Quote:

---

How do communism and socialism "state" everyone should have "equal means to live", i.e., if my neighbor has a Volvo S80, and I have the S40, My government can be expected to address this iniquity, and forthwith, too.

---

Bugger the model and make of your car. The point is that the intent is to make sure that there's neither poverty, nor extreme wealth. No one's children has to go hungry, and no one sits on more cash than they and their entire family can spend in their entire lifetime.

Quote:

---

Social classes and such are "eliminated"?

Do communism and socialism "eliminate" personal judgement as well?

You're talking about a, well...you couldn't call it a society, rightly - after all, you're talking about cloning, but by means of legislature and judiciary, rather than scientific means.

---

No, I don't, but thanks for trying.

Saying that you ought not have lots more stuff than your neighbors won't strip you of your individuality.

Nor does saying that making money shouldn't be the way you distinguish yourself.

Quote:

---

Kinda scary-sounding, if you ask me...I mean, gee whiz, Snee, you and I aren't equal - may be more appropriate to say we are not...congruent.

Nor, I think, would you want us to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

This is not the same as saying there should be no distinction between those who do a greater service to society, and those who do not. <10% of the population aren't allowed to sit on >90% of the wealth, whether they actually did anything to earn it, at that, though.

---

You speak as if there were a pile of something, designated "WEALTH", upon which a small group of people have set up shop for the express purpose of poking others off it.

One more time:

Wealth is not finite.

Wealth is not zero-sum proposition.

One can make a pile of one's own to sit on, as can one's neighbors and relatives.

---

Ever heard of inflation? Pump more currency into the equation, and it'll only end up being worth less per unit.

Means, by which I mean food, materials for homes, ground to build them on, fuel for your car, and so forth, ARE limited. And will continue to be so. The more limited, the more valuable.

Until the stuff is available in an unlimited supply, you'll still have more of what there is, if you have more to spend to begin with. Everyone can't have what, say, Bill Gates has. Because there's not enough on the entire planet to go around.

I'd wager that a lot of people, if not most, would have a higher standard of living, if things were distributed more evenly, though.

Which brings us right back to the silly example as featured by yon made up texan nutter: Grades are purely an intellectual construct, and an ultimately arbitrary one at that. Money is similar, but not the same.

There's no upper limit to what you can own, money-wise, but there's almost certainly an upper limit to what you need, or can use. There's an upper limit to how good marks you can get, on the other hand.

I'll agree with you in part when it comes to equality. We aren't created equal. And it'd be pretty boring if we had to be. I'd not mind if the total sum of our wordly possessions were equal in terms of value, though. And I'm saying that without knowing which of us currently has more.

Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.

Do this for me, Snee:

Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.

Planes, trains, automobiles, computers, stoves, cell-phones, magnetic-resonance-imaging, banks, washers & dryers, the shingles on your roof and whatever-else your house is made of, the concrete or asphalt under your feet/wheels...

All of these things are the result of the people endeavoring to be rich and make money, not people consumed by an all-encompassing altruism.

Government can confiscate and legislate, but that is all.

Governments aspiring to creativity are merely profligate...again, historically-speaking.

Besides which, to whatever extent you would claim your own government to have successfully experimented with socialism, one does not just jerk the economic "engine of the world" (to whatever diminishing extent we may still claim that to be the case) off it's tracks and send it in another direction.

I wish I had more time to respond, but I am off to personally replace an employee who is sick.

BTW-

Do I owe him for the shift he's missing, or does the government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.

---

NASA- specifically, the Apollo program which resulted in 1969's Moon landing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.

---

"Government ineptitude" has become such a cornerstone of your posting that one could easily conclude that you are not actually a conservative, rather a full-blown anarchist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

NASA- specifically, the Apollo program which resulted in 1969's Moon landing.

---

I'll grant that one - tel me about all the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

"Government ineptitude" has become such a cornerstone of your posting that one could easily conclude that you are not actually a conservative, rather a full-blown anarchist.

---

A bit of a leap, that.

Tell me why you believe so heartily in socialism.

Or do you.

You asked for one example and I provided one.
Now I'm supposed to spend the next "X" weeks writing all the others?

Re: "a bit of a leap"...
Why don't you provide some examples of what you would consider proper government powers and examples of same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

You asked for one example and I provided one.
Now I'm supposed to spend the next "X" weeks writing all the others?

Re: "a bit of a leap"...
Why don't you provide some examples of what you would consider proper government powers and examples of same.

---

Your PM box is full, brother.

As to proper government powers, start and end with defending our borders, which used to be kind of a staple concern, I believe, and is currently not even on Washington's radar.

Make a few laws, a tad bit of regulatory oversight...work the job part-time, go home and make room for the next guy.

It's just that simple.

PM box now empty.

I assume that in this pastoral eden you describe you'll be riding to work- wait, will you even have to work?- on a unicorn.
Sounds great.

Also sounds completely unrealistic, but you can't have everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

As to proper government powers, start and end with defending our borders, which used to be kind of a staple concern, I believe, and is currently not even on Washington's radar.

Make a few laws, a tad bit of regulatory oversight...work the job part-time, go home and make room for the next guy.

---

I don't agree.

I would agree with "Defending our Nation" or "Defending our Society". Would even have had a little sympathy for "Defending our Culture".

Borders are only one part of a Country, and frankly they are probably not the most important. The Citizens are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Nothing you posted explains how the trade-off of government ineptitude for individual creativity ends up as a plus.

Do this for me, Snee:

Recount for me the greatest-ever example of a successfully-run government business, or government invention; please reserve for yourself the entire history of the known universe to draw from.

Planes, trains, automobiles, computers, stoves, cell-phones, magnetic-resonance-imaging, banks, washers & dryers, the shingles on your roof and whatever-else your house is made of, the concrete or asphalt under your feet/wheels...

All of these things are the result of the people endeavoring to be rich and make money, not people consumed by an all-encompassing altruism.

---

First of all, let's examine some of what you are on about there:

Let's see. Airplanes - we have them, in the shape they are today, because of war, that's what pushed their development. Wars are generally run by governments. For that matter a lot of our technology looks like it does today because of wars. I'm pretty sure it's also affected cell-phones.

Concrete/asphalt - The romans invented concrete, pretty hard to say why they did it, tbh. Taxes paid for a lot of the applications, anyhow. Then and today.

Asphalt? Well, I don't know who invented it, but I do know who plans and builds the public roads over here. That would be the government.

Secondly, as for innovations, the thing is that basically all the medical (and other) research that comes out of our universities, is sponsored in part or in full by our government.

Furthermore they provided our powerlines, most of our railroads, and sponsored cheap housing. They run most of our hospitals, our schools, and the aforementioned universities. They provide us with power, in part. They subsidize medication, and medical treatments. And so on, and so forth.

And for that matter, this entire country is their business, and it's running relatively well.

Quote:

---

Government can confiscate and legislate, but that is all.

Governments aspiring to creativity are merely profligate...again, historically-speaking.

Besides which, to whatever extent you would claim your own government to have successfully experimented with socialism, one does not just jerk the economic "engine of the world" (to whatever diminishing extent we may still claim that to be the case) off it's tracks and send it in another direction.

---

I don't really think you see the point. As long as we need money, and it's available as a reward, ie: if you do something good, you may be rewarded with more money, that will drive somedevelopment, as people need to eat, and most of us don't want to worry about where our next meal is coming from.

If society is restructured, so that everyone has things enough to live well, that doesn't mean there can't be rewards, even if money ceases to be a concern.

Just look at all the people who want to be famous, in one way or another. People will always find ways to motivate themselves.

This has probably already been posted. But you say that socialism NEVER works... well that's wrong.

Cause in theory, in a society where everyone is honest, it would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thatsgreat

This has probably already been posted. But you say that socialism NEVER works... well that's wrong.

Cause in theory, in a society where everyone is honest, it would work.

---

Socialism often works. Communism doesn't.

Communes sometimes work, however I think you'll find that the ones that do have quite a high turnover of members outside the core.

They aren't often "Real" communes either, as the members usually have some form of income from the outside to enable it to carry on.

Not that I intend to add anything substantial to this argument.. But remembered a quote by Winston Churchill :

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Had to write an essay on the quote above..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saroman

Not that I intend to add anything substantial to this argument.. But remembered a quote by Winston Churchill :

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Had to write an essay on the quote above..

---

Hmmm.

A reasonable shot at a blessing, vs. bleak and monotonous misery.

Just think:

Sir Winnie, referring to misery as a virtue - nevermind why.

I think he was onto something...

Anyway, seems a simple enough choice.

Well...

Personally I'm not for the extremes in any one ideology, be it communism or hyper-capitalism. Both ideologies show marked flaws...

A touch of socialism never hurt anyone, on the contrary. It creates more buying power from the 'poor' which again stimulate the economy. It also help strengthen the trust among the people in society which again leads to more easy going money flow AKA stimulation of economy. IIRC there were a nobel price winning economist, a few years ago, accounting 10 percent (more or less) of a country's GDP to level of trust among the people in society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Well...

Personally I'm not for the extremes in any one ideology, be it communism or hyper-capitalism. Both ideologies show marked flaws...

A touch of socialism never hurt anyone, on the contrary. It creates more buying power from the 'poor' which again stimulate the economy. It also help strengthen the trust among the people in society which again leads to more easy going money flow AKA stimulation of economy. IIRC there were a nobel price winning economist, a few years ago, accounting 10 percent (more or less) of a country's GDP to level of trust among the people in society.

---

A touch of socialism, you say.

If paving the way for the poor via increased purchasing power is to be a priority for liberals, why do they wallow in Walmart-hate?

Just curious.

How do you account for

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Well...

Personally I'm not for the extremes in any one ideology, be it communism or hyper-capitalism. Both ideologies show marked flaws...

A touch of socialism never hurt anyone, on the contrary. It creates more buying power from the 'poor' which again stimulate the economy. It also help strengthen the trust among the people in society which again leads to more easy going money flow AKA stimulation of economy. IIRC there were a nobel price winning economist, a few years ago, accounting 10 percent (more or less) of a country's GDP to level of trust among the people in society.

---

A touch of socialism, you say.

If paving the way for the poor via increased purchasing power is to be a priority for liberals, why do they wallow in Walmart-hate?

Just curious.

How do you account for

---

You're stuck on labels again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

A touch of socialism, you say.

If paving the way for the poor via increased purchasing power is to be a priority for liberals, why do they wallow in Walmart-hate?

Just curious.

How do you account for

---

You're stuck on labels again.

---

No, I'm stuck on words.

It's much better than grunting, you see.

Human nature is the acknowledged problem with all isms, which point I have made many, many (many) times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Human nature is the acknowledged problem with all isms, which point I have made many, many (many) times.

---

Somebody has to suffer for any politically based 'ism to succeed.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Human nature is the acknowledged problem with all isms, which point I have made many, many (many) times.

---

Somebody has to suffer for any politically based 'ism to succeed.:rolleyes:

---

Please define "succeed", Bob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Somebody has to suffer for any politically based 'ism to succeed.:rolleyes:

---

Please define "succeed", Bob.

---

A budgie with no teeth.

Sorry, could not resist.:)

What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Please define "succeed", Bob.

---

A budgie with no teeth.

Sorry, could not resist.:)

What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.

---

Not quite.

In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.

What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.

It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.

They are wrong.

One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.

There is room on the hill for everybody.

Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

A budgie with no teeth.

Sorry, could not resist.:)

What I meant was that in order to win there has to be a loser. Everybody can't be successful. Everybody in any political system is not born on a level playing field. There are many rich people who never need to work in their lives. They are as much leeches of society as Monarchs and the plain lazy at the bottom of the heap.

---

Not quite.

In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.

What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.

It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.

They are wrong.

One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.

There is room on the hill for everybody.

Fact.

---

When everybody is on the hill how do you measure success? You are becoming parochial here. The world is a big place, are you suggesting that in the worlds biggest democracy(India) it is possible for everyone to get on the hill? From what I have seen Indians are hard working and striving for success. They will work from morning till night to be successful in this country. Why cant they do it in their own country? I am not being racist here. I just don't think everyone can succeed. We will have to agree to differ.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Not quite.

In the capitalist ideal, anyone who chooses to elevate themselves actually can.

What is often overlooked is the effort required to do so, which fact indicates the level of (to borrow your word) laziness is quite a bit more pervasive; some of us would argue this is due to the nanny-state.

It is not easy, and many think the effort isn't worth it.

They are wrong.

One of the fallacies of "other-than-capitalism" is the 'zero-sum' argument... there is no mathematical one-for-one correlation between winners and losers.

There is room on the hill for everybody.

Fact.

---

When everybody is on the hill how do you measure success? You are becoming parochial here. The world is a big place, are you suggesting that in the worlds biggest democracy(India) it is possible for everyone to get on the hill? From what I have seen Indians are hard working and striving for success. They will work from morning till night to be successful in this country. Why cant they do it in their own country? I am not being racist here. I just don't think everyone can succeed. We will have to agree to differ.:)

---

Ah, you've made my point, Bob.

There will always be a bottom.

There will always be a top.

Redistribution of wealth is social and cultural poison.

My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.

I prefer a work ethic to the other.

The government hasn't the ability to differentiate between those who deserve their wealth and those who do not; neither has it in the past several decades proven it has the ability to determine who properly deserves it's ill-gotten largesse.

The liberal impetus (such as it is) has always been to "close the wealth gap".

After 55 years or so of trying, no progress can be claimed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.

---

Then you think that Inheritance Tax should be 100%?

I think boabs point on rich leeches was the playboy kids that have done absolutely nothing to get where they are except take the money off Daddy, who worked so hard he didn't have the time to teach the kids their Social Values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

My point is, in any case, that whomever chooses to expend effort on his/her own behalf does not do so in vain.

---

Then you think that Inheritance Tax should be 100%?

I think boabs point on rich leeches was the playboy kids that have done absolutely nothing to get where they are except take the money off Daddy, who worked so hard he didn't have the time to teach the kids their Social Values.

---

Go easy RF. You have read me correctly but has Kev?:)

Well, then - where to start...

No Bob, you are correct: not everyone can be successful, but what constitutes success?

Food in your stomach?

A roof over your head?

A snazzy car?

Some people are lucky to have the first two - we have stupid people, lazy people, handicapped people...some need help, I guess, but how much help?

Inflate them financially until they are...what?

What is enough?

As to why Asian Indians can't make a go of it in India, ask them, because I have no idea.

I would rather tell you why, when they come to the United States, they are much more often than not successful...which fact tells you we in the US must be doing something right.

Right?

Rat-

It is plain you reserve judgment on the rich, but again, as I've pointed out to Bob - wealth is not a zero-sum game, and penalizing the (lazy, idle) rich for having money is naught but purely punitive, and doesn't help the poor at all, no matter how good it makes you feel.

I was just saying what I thought Boab meant.

I have nothing against someone getting rich, if its done through hard work and ethically (ie They done do it via Bank Robberies etc etc)

I dont have a problem with people leaving a substantial inheritance for their Children.

I do have a problem with families hording Billions for generations.

Why should a family be "Idle Rich" now; when the family made their fortune in, as an example, The Slave Industry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

I was just saying what I thought Boab meant.

I have nothing against someone getting rich, if its done through hard work and ethically (ie They done do it via Bank Robberies etc etc)

I dont have a problem with people leaving a substantial inheritance for their Children.

I do have a problem with families hording Billions for generations.

Why should a family be "Idle Rich" now; when the family made their fortune in, as an example, The Slave Industry?

---

Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".

It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.

Anyhoo...

How do you propose to qualify the idle rich for your morally-justified (read government-sanctioned) fleecing?

How many tabloid appearances would be required, for instance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".

It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.

---

Oh, poor Kev....the "Woe is me, the poor beleaguered conservative" card hits the felt.
Really, when was the last time you had to actively defend yourself against hostile blacks regarding your "complicity"?

Are there even any blacks at all in your neck o the woods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".

It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.

---

Oh, poor Kev....the "Woe is me, the poor "beleaguered conservative" card hits the felt.
Really, when was the last time you had to actively defend yourself against hostile blacks regarding your "complicity"?

Are there even any blacks at all in your neck o the woods?

---

That's an awfully klutzy-sounding name you've coined - file it alongside your own "right-wing conspiracy" and "right-wing media", all of which qualifies as fictional..anyway, name for me a conservative who is not "beleaguered" by you Alinskyites?

As to your "are there any" query, the answer is yes.

If you don't think that Fox News qualifies as "right wing", you're delusional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

If you don't think that Fox News qualifies as "right wing", you're delusional.

---

And if you don't think ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al, qualify as left-wing, you are delusional.

Is there no un-biased news in America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

If you don't think that Fox News qualifies as "right wing", you're delusional.

---

And if you don't think ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al, qualify as left-wing, you are delusional.

---

Ah, I see.
You get to claim that ABC et al are left biased while simultaneously claiming that Fox is "fair and balanced".
How convenient for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

And if you don't think ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, et al, qualify as left-wing, you are delusional.

---

Ah, I see.
You get to claim that ABC et al are left biased while simultaneously claiming that Fox is "fair and balanced".
How convenient for you.

---

And you get to claim precisely the opposite, no matter that you do so without any acclamation whatsoever...even more convenient.

Congatulations you two, whens the Big Day?

In the meantime, why not get a room? :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

I was just saying what I thought Boab meant.

I have nothing against someone getting rich, if its done through hard work and ethically (ie They done do it via Bank Robberies etc etc)

I dont have a problem with people leaving a substantial inheritance for their Children.

I do have a problem with families hording Billions for generations.

Why should a family be "Idle Rich" now; when the family made their fortune in, as an example, The Slave Industry?

---

Shit...these days it's considered racist if a honkie like me even denies complicity in the "slave question".

It's what is considered to be a "disqualifying" blow in the arena of ideas.

Anyhoo...

How do you propose to qualify the idle rich for your morally-justified (read government-sanctioned) fleecing?

How many tabloid appearances would be required, for instance?

---

I'm pretty sure that I gave my opinions upon Inheritance Tax recently, but I honestly can't be bothered to look up the post..

Suffice to say I think that there should be a substantial amount that is "Tax Free" (Far more than the UK has as a threashold now), to support the family of the Deceased.

The rest should be very heavily taxed, with no loopholes. If they want to leave to avoid paying, let them.. but don't let them back in either (even to visit) until they've paid the Tax.

Generally;

The Rich often pay accountants and end up paying less than office cleaners, and then demand special consideration by local authorities for Policing etc. Frankly, the country would be better off without some of them.

I encourage Michael Caine etc to live in the USA where they can have their "Special" status and pay the Private Sector there for the stuff they want for free here.

I'm all for closing loopholes, etc., but how do you even presume to appropriate money that does not belong to any but he/she who possesses it?

No matter what you think of them personally, I mean?

If the law says you cannot thieve it away from them, you choose government auspices?

By the way, do you propose to mark the houses of the idle rich (I'm thinking Michael Caine, here) with some sort of bobby-not signage?

I mean, ffs - actually, hang on a sec.......













Would you be interested in swapping Mr. Caine for Ms. Streisand?

We'll throw in the Brolin fellow for free...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Ah, I see.
You get to claim that ABC et al are left biased while simultaneously claiming that Fox is "fair and balanced".
How convenient for you.

---

And you get to claim precisely the opposite, no matter that you do so without any acclamation whatsoever...even more convenient.

---

I don't think there's a media organisation in the world that can be said to be completely free of bias.

Having said that, though, CNN is kind of internationally respected as being fairly accurate, which certainly is in clocker's favour. I've no real bearing on the others, and I don't much follow the political bits in your media, including CNN, 'cos it was all sort of stupid since there was so much taking of sides last I bothered.

Some people on the internets seem to think NBC are closest to center, though.

Didn't Fox like label that Mark Foley guy as a democrat? That was kind of really bad, if so.