Tax Cuts...... For the Wealthy

[Gregor]

Ahh - more ad hominems rather than rational debate.

And I always love the argument that communism has never been tried. I agree that communism would be a great thing, unless human beings are involved in the system.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

Ahh - more ad hominems rather than rational debate.

Pathetic whining -- dontcha just love it? ignorance tries to pretend to be wounded innocence...

I will give you rational debate when you start by actually presenting rational, factual claims, instead of blatant ignorance.

And I always love the argument that communism has never been tried.

it's simple fact.

I agree that communism would be a great thing, unless human beings are involved in the system.

that may be true, but it in no way renders true your claim that communism had failed.

keep twisting, honey. Your gyrations are amusing.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Gregor
Ahh - more ad hominems rather than rational debate.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Pathetic whining -- dontcha just love it? ignorance tries to pretend to be wounded innocence...

Spin -- dontcha just love it? Someone substituting ad homs for rational debate tries to pretend someone else calling him on it qualifies as "pathetic whining".

 

[Gregor]

Oh, everyone has their blind spots. With the religious folk, it's the inerrancy of the Bible. With others, it's politics.

Victor's just overly credulous on his personal, socioeconomic religion - communism.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

Victor's just overly credulous on his personal, socioeconomic religion - communism.

In case you don't know how to read, moron, I defend capitalism (right here in the adjacent thread, the one about Einstein and socialism). I simply get highly annoyed about ignorant idiots making grandiloquent pronouncements on subjects they know nothing about -- pronouncements like "socialism is totalitarian" or "communism is a failed experiment".

I too think that communism couldn't work with humans being as we are; for that matter, i think socialism, even in its best incarnations, to be impractical as well. However, that doesn't give you licence to spout falsehoods under guise of truth.

if you oppose communism, then the best thing for you to do, is to start by understanding what communism is and isn't. Your knee-jerk reaction to the key word "communism" is as intellectually slovenly as it is appallingly ignorant.

 

[Gregor]

Might I suggest decaffinated coffee? Methinks someone is overcompensating for personal inadequacies.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

Might I suggest decaffinated coffee?

I do not consume any psychoactive substances, including caffeine.

Methinks someone is overcompensating for personal inadequacies.

Methinks someone is too intellectually dishonest to own up to their error. That someone would be you.

 

[Charles Livingston]

Boys Boys Boys, do I have to pull this car over. I havent seen so much name calling and bickering since Victor and Shanek debated about Shanek's libertarianism.

Victor,
Man, I always look foward to and read your posts. You have so much to say, and are clearly very well read, about political and economic topics. I think there is no doubt to me that you are a very intelligent person. I also respect how you dont hide behind a screen name. However, you seem to always end up calling the person you are in diaglogue with some form of 'stupid'. It gets old man. Some of these people may well be very intelligent, some may be smarter than you , some may be not as smart as you, and some the same. Now I am by no means saying that I always agree with you or think that you always get the better of your opponents, but when you do it may be just that they arent as knowledgable in these subjects, or not as well read such that they dont know the lingo. It does not mean they are stupid. Also, I recognize that often they are resorting to the same name calling tactics, I will call them on it, as I do below, just as I will you. Now, that being said, I look foward to your next post on this most interesting thread.

Gregor,
You seem to be resorting to the same tactics of name calling. When Victor disputed your take on communism, why wouldnt you just ask him to clarify, rather than insulting him?

My two cents regarding what these two are arguing (and my limited knowledge of politics):
communism in its true form has never been tried because every time it has been attempted it has been co-opted by an elite class that basically turned it into totalitanarism or whatever. Correct Victor?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Charles Livingston

However, you seem to always end up calling the person you are in diaglogue with some form of 'stupid'.

not always.

Now I am by no means saying that I always agree with you or think that you always get the better of your opponents, but when you do it may be just that they arent as knowledgable in these subjects, or not as well read such that they dont know the lingo.

Ignorance is no sin. Ignorant arrogance is. Gregor is not merely ignorant, he is arrogant about it.

communism in its true form has never been tried because every time it has been attempted it has been co-opted by an elite class that basically turned it into totalitanarism or whatever. Correct Victor?

No. What you say is arguably true for socialism -- one could make a decent case for there never having been a true socialist country, Soviet block being state capitalism instead. Communism is supposed to be the next stage of socioeconomic progress after socialism, according to its 20th-century proponents. It has never been tried because nobody has ever implemented a functional (as opposed to dysfunctional) form of socialism. Even the 'Communist party' in USSR never claimed to have offered communism -- they said that communism was something they were working towards, not something they achieved. the moniker "communist countries" is thus an unfortunate linguistic confusion -- they are 'communist" not because they attained communism as one might suppose, but because they were controlled by the parties that claimed to have been working towards communism.

 

[Charles Livingston]

Charles Livingston

not always.

True, I wasnt very fair by using the term 'always', lets substitute 'sometimes' instead.

Ignorance is no sin. Ignorant arrogance is. Gregor is not merely ignorant, he is arrogant about it.

Are you referring to other threads? I havent seen ignorant arrogance here, just a name-calling response.

No. What you say is arguably true for socialism -- one could make a decent case for there never having been a true socialist country, Soviet block being state capitalism instead. Communism is supposed to be the next stage of socioeconomic progress after socialism, according to its 20th-century proponents. It has never been tried because nobody has ever implemented a functional (as opposed to dysfunctional) form of socialism. Even the 'Communist party' in USSR never claimed to have offered communism -- they said that communism was something they were working towards, not something they achieved. the moniker "communist countries" is thus an unfortunate linguistic confusion -- they are 'communist" not because they attained communism as one might suppose, but because they were controlled by the parties that claimed to have been working towards communism.

Ah, very well said. So your definition of communism is the 'final stage of society in Marxist theory'.

Edited to add taht my responses appear above as part of hte quote, sorry, dont know how to fix.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Charles Livingston

I havent seen ignorant arrogance here, just a name-calling response.

the namecalling instead of remedying one's ignorance -- that is arrogance.

Ah, very well said. So your definition of communism is the 'final stage of society in Marxist theory'.

it's not "my" definition. it's the definition (more or less) maintained by various political theorists, including marxist and communist ones.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
the namecalling instead of remedying one's ignorance -- that is arrogance.

What about namecalling instead of remedying one's evasiveness? Does that qualify as arrogance?

 

[Malachi151]

Ahh - more ad hominems rather than rational debate.

And I always love the argument that communism has never been tried. I agree that communism would be a great thing, unless human beings are involved in the system.

Well, first of its a fact that communism as described by Marx has never been tried.

Secodnly taking issue with capitalism does not mean that you want to implement Marxist Communism.

There are a million ways to skin a cat. Marx developed his ideas prior to the Americna Civil War, things have changed.

When anyone talks about Socialism or Communism they are nto saying that the want to impliment what Russia or China did. Anyone who known anything about Russia and China and Marxism knows that neither of those countries really implimented communism in any way shape or form, they just abused a movement that had popular support during the time to get themselves in power and then became dictators.

People talk about Mao and Stalin killing a lot of people when they took power. Do you know who they killed? They killed all the members of the communsit parties. Mao and Stalin were not Marxists or Communsits they were tyrants who cared nothing for Marxism or Communism, just nationalism and self power. When they came to power their biggest opponents were the Communist Parties, the Marxists. They killed the Marxists and implimented dictatorship. All they did was take advantage of revolutionary situations to rise to power.

All of the best prospects of Communism were destroyed by America, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nicoragua, and Cuba.

Now, I don't even agree with Communism anyway, but I don't agree with free-market capitalism either. As I said, I hope this country gets its wish. Bush will give it to you, and in 20 years you can be a slave worker for the fascist elite as well.

 

[Charles Livingston]

Charles Livingston

the namecalling instead of remedying one's ignorance -- that is arrogance.

it's not "my" definition. it's the definition (more or less) maintained by various political theorists, including marxist and communist ones.

I didnt mean to imply anything with the 'my'.

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Malachi
I can program, so I do it to make money, I make money my killing jobs.

But in the process aren't you also creating more jobs for those skilled in technology? This is a good thing. The problem isn't that you're "killing" jobs, rather, it is that the would-be-temporarily unemployed aren't trying to acquire new skills.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The rich derive benefit from healthy, educated populace -- it takes myopic lack of vision to not understand how even the rich benefit by having progressively taxed welfare state.

Isn't this why many employers offer medical insurance, investment opportunities, flex time, maternity leave, in-house child daycare facilities, etc? The medical insurance I receive from my employer far exceeds the national healthcare provided in Canada and the UK. I think business owners understand full-well that a healthy, educated, happy work force is in their best interests.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Communism has never been tried, dude. And you clearly have no clue about what communism is (based upon which, I can assume with some certainty that you don't know what socialism is either).

Are you familiar with the Plymouth colony and the Mayflower Compact? It's my understanding that the colony was quite communistic for some time, only to buckle under a stagnant high unemployment rate and a nasty drought. If I'm wrong, and Plymouth wasn't communism, feel free to correct me.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jude

Isn't this why many employers offer medical insurance, investment opportunities, flex time, maternity leave, in-house child daycare facilities, etc? The medical insurance I receive from my employer far exceeds the national healthcare provided in Canada and the UK. I think business owners understand full-well that a healthy, educated, happy work force is in their best interests.

Yup. And this is why there are many rich who are in favor of progressive taxation.

Are you familiar with the Plymouth colony and the Mayflower Compact?

yes.

It's my understanding that the colony was quite communistic for some time, only to buckle under a stagnant high unemployment rate and a nasty drought.

And rampant free-rider problem, I understand.

If I'm wrong, and Plymouth wasn't communism, feel free to correct me.

As far as I know, Plymouth was de-facto communist, and its failure in that regard exemplifies why communism is impractical.

 

[Gregor]

I've simply made a comment regarding the thread topic - whether progressive taxes are any solution or are more communistic (in the vernacular sense). I've not attacked Victor, personally.

It appears that Victor's acrimonious textual diarrhea reflects a deep-seated self hatred or insecurity. I wonder why he feels the need to lash out? Perhaps a date or inter-personal contact would help.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Gregor

I've simply made a comment regarding the thread topic - whether progressive taxes are any solution or are more communistic (in the vernacular sense).

You simply refused to own up to error, instead accusing me of ad-hominem attacks on you.

It appears that Victor's acrimonious textual diarrhea reflects a deep-seated self hatred or insecurity. I wonder why he feels the need to lash out? Perhaps a date or inter-personal contact would help.

i am happily married, with three kids no less. Perhaps you need to examine your deep-seated need to avoid admission of error by displacing blame?..

Charles livingston,

See what I meant?

 

[corplinx]

Let me defend everyone's favorite guy Victor. Most countries we have though of as "communist" were actually military dictatorships or one party autocracries under the guise of communism. In essence, these were huge feudal stats where everyone worked for the one party or the army.

So when Victor says communism hasn't been tried, I think you could make the arguement that he is correct of you use the classical definition of communism. Its sorta like liberal/conservative. Most people who claim to be one or the other don't fit the classical definitions.


Back on topic, I still haven't seen anyone show me how a 2 percent tax cut favors someone making 500,000 dollars over someone making 50,000. Each gets 2 percent according to their means back. Thats equality in its simplest form.

I do like how someone brought up the fact that income isn't as good a gauge of "rich" as net worth. There are folks in the PRK (peoples republic kalifornia) making 500,000 but are far from financially free.

 

[jj]

Gregor

You simply refused to own up to error, instead accusing me of ad-hominem attacks on you.

i am happily married, with three kids no less. Perhaps you need to examine your deep-seated need to avoid admission of error by displacing blame?..

Charles livingston,

See what I meant?

Well, Victor, I'm not going to launch into your character, but I think it's hard to criticize the idea that Communism is a religion based on the following article of faith, taken and held counter to many years of human history:

The human being will continue to work at or near maximum effort even in the presence of no reward for suck effort.

Note, I said "religion" not "deism".

You could (as I have) suggest that pure Capitalism is similarly flawed.

I would submit that true communism has been tried, but that due to its inherent flaws, always collapses into a totalitarian, militaristic state.

I'm sorry, to me, and I say this based on all the evidence available to date, this does suggest that communism is a failed philosophy/religion.

So I disagree with you.