Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before 1935, and the socialist revolution, limited taxation was the rule, not the exception. Before 1900, most of the infrastructure was privately owned and operated, for profit. (EX: Toll roads, railroads, canals, ferries, bridges).
The 20th century became the "Socialist" century, with the government taking over utilities and infrastructure, step by step.
Before 1910, the (federal) tax rate per capita was under 1%, in contrast with 2009, where the (federal) tax rate per capita is over 20%.
The question we should consider:
Who benefits most?
The worker who spends 1/5 of his life working for the benefit of another?
Or the taker, who benefits from the worker?
And how much infrastructure was present at that time? Interstate roads? Airports? The size of our standing military? Bridges? What about laws and regulations that needed to be enforced? Child labor laws, OSHA, vehicle inspection and safety standards, FCC regulations and bandwidth assignments, etc?
What worked then will not work now.
BTW, the country was just as "socialized" prior to the dates you mention as well.
Centralized banks and federally printed/struck currency. The Erie, and other canal systems. Imigration laws....
For the purposes of a tax debate, one simply cannot equate today with an era when automobiles were not in widespread use, and even the telephone was a luxery.
Also, many people seem to forget the core meaning of the term "Socialized". Social. As in Social programs.
Those people instead fixate on what has been fed to them by right-wing talking heads in the media, some imagined and inaccurate automatic association with the USSR in the GOP's never ending fear tactis.
And how much infrastructure was present at that time? Interstate roads? Airports? The size of our standing military? Bridges? What about laws and regulations that needed to be enforced? Child labor laws, OSHA, vehicle inspection and safety standards, FCC regulations and bandwidth assignments, etc?
What worked then will not work now.
[] By 1910, we had the most railroad track mileage; mainline, interurban, and streetcar... and then it declined.
But the point is that private sector will always provide a service for less than the public sector.
Quote:
BTW, the country was just as "socialized" prior to the dates you mention as well.
No facts in evidence to support that. Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property ownership (absolute ownership). National socialism did not appear until 1935 (FICA / Socialist InSecurity Act).
Quote:
Centralized banks and federally printed/struck currency. The Erie, and other canal systems. Imigration laws....
Usury is not socialism.
Public ownership of public property is not socialism... until everything is construed to be public property.
Currency is not evidence of socialism.
Quote:
For the purposes of a tax debate, one simply cannot equate today with an era when automobiles were not in widespread use, and even the telephone was a luxery.
Also, many people seem to forget the core meaning of the term "Socialized". Social. As in Social programs.
And those social programs are unconstitutional, if they weren't 100% voluntary. You did know that there is no law compelling participation in SocSec... right?
Quote:
Those people instead fixate on what has been fed to them by right-wing talking heads in the media, some imagined and inaccurate automatic association with the USSR in the GOP's never ending fear tactis.
From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
If you doubt that you live in a Socialist Paradise, stop paying your socialist taxes and watch how fast the government takes your property, your liberty and worse, your life.
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
Duly enrolled and enumerated socialists have surrendered their birthright to absolutely own houses, lands and chattels. They and their property are pledged as collateral on the public debt (see: contribution, as in FICA).
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.
By 1910, we had the most railroad track mileage; mainline, interurban, and streetcar... and then it declined.
But the point is that private sector will always provide a service for less than the public sector.
Certainly they will, with heavy regulations in place. Remove those regulations and we witness the banking free-for-all feeding frenzy of the Bush43 years, or the stealdiy increasing cost of health care since HMO's were permitted.
Corperations are also not going to provide services that do not make them money. Non-toll roads? Newp. Parks and Libraries? Only if they gate and charge. Police? Fire? Only if they can charge people up the wazzoo like SOME ambulance services I know. If a ride in one of their rigs can cost almost a thousand dollars (which I am STILL paying off), how much do you think having a full fire crew show up at your house would run? Charging by hose-foot used perhaps? By how many men are utilized? How much would a ladder cost you, one you don't get to keep? Maybe $20 a gallon of water pumped? Oh Gods! What if they went interior instead of surround-and-drown? Gasp!
There are simply some vital services, and public services, that a corperation just won't touch, or are too vital to trust to corperate profit. Corperation are there to make money, which is good and proper. They are not there to provide services without profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
No facts in evidence to support that. Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property ownership (absolute ownership). National socialism did not appear until 1935 (FICA / Socialist InSecurity Act).
Again, in a Nation that is purely socialist, you are STILL correct. However, not even Russia was a pure socialist country. All Nations that have ANY forms of public service contain a percentage of socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Usury is not socialism.
Public ownership of public property is not socialism... until everything is construed to be public property.
Currency is not evidence of socialism.
And therin lies your misundertanding. Socialism is not an either-or propesition. Communism is. You are confusing the two terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
And those social programs are unconstitutional, if they weren't 100% voluntary. You did know that there is no law compelling participation in SocSec... right?
SSi is not unconstitutional, sorry. It was enacted using Constitutional methods in Congress. And I'm no younster fresh out of high school, thank you. I am well aware of how SSi works, having dealt with the system, as well as how much of a pain it is to opt out, if one were foolish enough to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
Thank you for substantiating my point. Communism vs. Socialism. The two terms are not interchangable. You believe socialism to be an either - or propesition, and you consider that socialism, in itself, is some great evil. Sorry to inform you, but the Soviet Union is dead, and socialism isn't the Big Scary thing anymore. Read the section from websters I bolded above. A perfect definition of every public service ever provided by our g'ment throughout it's existance, from schools to central banks and g'ment struck money, standing armed forced, dozens of early Acts providing "Indians" with subsideis and support, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
If you doubt that you live in a Socialist Paradise, stop paying your socialist taxes and watch how fast the government takes your property, your liberty and worse, your life.
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
Duly enrolled and enumerated socialists have surrendered their birthright to absolutely own houses, lands and chattels. They and their property are pledged as collateral on the public debt (see: contribution, as in FICA).
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America.
And there is your other main mistake, ASSUMING something that just isn't there. I am no "commie socialist bastard". I'm not even liberal.
I am a rational, thinking man who isn't scared of the dark, or whatever the GOP and right-wing talking head media tell me to be scared of, the "Monster in the Closet of the Moment".
I do not support such liberal policies as National Health Care that would increase the PERCENTAGE of socialism in this Nation either.
And I also fully understand the difference between Communism and Socialism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
