Social security and medicare taxes for small business owners

[claybuster101]

The old saying goes, "be careful what you wish for, because it might just come true!" Rush Limbaugh made the comment that the Republican party is extinct. While most everyone wanted changes this past election, those who voted for Barack Hussein Obama may not have realized that along with his savoir-faire demeanor came a whole lot of excess baggage in the form of old Clinton cronies. What change is that? One step forward and two steps back? I am not here to alienate fellow craftspeople who may not share in the opinions expressed. But, as a business person I am dissapointed that the future generations are left to wonder why they should work hard when it may be for nothing. I enjoy the fruits of my life's labors. Comfortable home, cabin in the woods, the boat docked at the marina, the constitutional right to bear arms and the freedom to make decisions (not all have been winner's by the way).

It was an interesting conversation with two of our sons when they found out they were on opposite sides of the politcal fence for president. It was like an episode of "Point-counter-Point" times 10. Mom and I just looked at each other and since they have out grown beating the crap out of one-another physically, we let them have at.

The "trade union" son, wanted change. He wasn't happy about the war in the Gulf, but on the other hand conceded that a strong military is needed to protect the US. Now, he indicates that in his latest monthly "union" newsletter they are "concerned" over Husseins agenda and are asking everyone to write their Congressmen/women and Senators to "voice" their concerns. What, they didn't see that coming?

The law enforcement son sees the weakening of our borders and the issues surrounding "illegals" here in SE Michigan as a very local threat. But try going to any, and I mean any local emergency room....Your insurance doesn't buy you a better seat. You still wait and wait and wait to been seen. In the meantime, many people who have no legal right to be in this country are seen by the same doctors and nurses...but guess what? The hardworking people, who made sacrifices along the way to have the means to pay for their care also are paying for everyone else. I'm done.

[bustedlifter]

I agree claybuster101. The government has gone way beyond what is constitutional.

[esantoro]

Who should decide what a livable wage is? The government already tells business the minimum it can pay. If $7.75 an hour is good, why not raise it to $15.00 an hour. Why stop there? Raise it to $50.00 an hour and everybody would make a decent living wage. Maybe throw in mandatory 8 weeks paid vacation a year,too.

Certain compromises can be made. Certainly $50 is not an issue. Mandatory vacation days would be nice but not necessary. With a reasonable working wage, people would be able to take unpaid time off if desired. The situation is never either or, as compromises can always be made.

I think the $5.25 minimum wage was set in the 1960's. Why on earth hasn't it been adjusted in the last 48 years. It hasn't been adjusted because the people it would benefit most don't vote, which doesn't mean neglecting to adjust the wage is the right thing to do, as other problems occur that affect all of us.

Who was it who artificially inflated housing values up to 100 percent for the last thirty years? Government or private business? The answer probably is a bit of both, but with the lobbying of the bankers. There is no proof that private industry runs anything better than the government does. There is evidence of success and failure for both. Without the lobbying interests of private business, government would run differently. If we changed the ways politicians funded campaigns, they would not need to beg for contributions.

To say that a government that bends over backwards for business does not work is not the same as saying that government does not work. Good government works. Good business works. Good business is not accountable to the people, save that people vote with their dollars. But that's not he same as journalists and the people covering government's every step and forcing government to make the necessary change. It's easier to force government to change -- that is a government that's not in the pockets of big business -- than it is to force Microsoft to make a better operating system. Just because people are paying for Microsoft Windows does not mean that it is the best product out there. All of us non-mac users could easily switch to Linux.

[esantoro]

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free. Check out how a lot of countries with "free" health care have to ration out meds or the waiting list for simple tests or procedures if they get done at all. It's IMPOSSIBLE to budget how much money would be needed for health care in a fiscal year because there are so many variables. Just think about how many people would run to the doctor, for any little reason, because it's "free". If the government is the sole health care provider then they OWN you. I think it's a control thing rather than the government having your best interest in mind. As usual, anytime the government gets involved in something they have no business being in,they bugger it up.

The irony is that we end up already paying as much as Europeans do and get much less. In this regard, we are a nation of suckers who lack the spines to make government put big business in its place. The only winners are insurance companies who care less about people than the government does.

Weaken the government and increase the reach of big business and this is what you get:

From a review of Thomas Frank's _The Wrecking Crew_

"Mr. Frank follows the conservative movement from the turn of the Twentieth Century through the Depression and New Deal, focusing most heavily on the movement's rebirth under Ronald Reagan and on into the new millennium. Along the way, he discusses the growth of lobbying as a major force in converting the nation's capital into a massive feeding ground for corporate special interests. Frank also highlights the manner in which conservatives have repeatedly run the country into huge spending deficits in order to "defund the left" while simultaneously politicizing government management positions by favoring ideology over competence. The end result under Republican conservative stewardship is government that demonstrates itself as ineffectual and incompetent, offering but further proof that big government is inherently incapable of working and needs to be outsourced to private, professional concerns who can do the job correctly (and then inevitably failing to do so).

"There is little good news in THE WRECKING CREW. Author Frank shows that our national government has been hollowed out under Republican conservative control, savaged into an ineffectual husk. Furthermore, he illustrates clearly that this was no mistake, that it is part of a deliberate process not just to privatize government and eradicate government regulation but to make these changes permanent by destroying the liberal left (and with it, of course, the Democratic Party). Frank demonstrates well that present day politics has truly become, to invert von Clausiwitz's famous maxim, "a continuation of war by other means." Regrettably, one side of the battle continues to play the game as politics, as elections won or lost and citizens swayed or not, while the other side approaches it as an act of war, a no-holds-barred contest in which the only goal is the complete and utter destruction of the other side.

THE WRECKING CREW is compelling and informative even as it paints a bleak picture of an America being driven rightward and increasingly toward the excesses and inequities of the pre-New Deal era. We all know how that era ended in October, 1929. "

Edited May 28, 2009 by esantoro

[electrathon]

Certain compromises can be made. Certainly $50 is not an issue. Mandatory vacation days would be nice but not necessary. With a reasonable working wage, people would be able to take unpaid time off if desired. The situation is never either or, as compromises can always be made.

I think the $5.25 minimum wage was set in the 1960's. Why on earth hasn't it been adjusted in the last 48 years. It hasn't been adjusted because the people it would benefit most don't vote, which doesn't mean neglecting to adjust the wage is the right thing to do, as other problems occur that affect all of us.

The statement that minimum wage has not been raised since the 60's is so far wrong it makes me doubt every fact that you have listed.

I am not sure about everyplace, but in 1978 when I got my first job the minimum wage was $2.85 and hour.

Living wage means much differant things to differant people. That term is just a slur that the unions have started throwing around to try to get more. I agree with what was said above. I could live comfortably on $50 an hour. Of course, once I get that, I will want more, then I will want more, then I will complain about the evil greedy people that do not pay me $75 an hour, so I could have a living wage.

The irony is that we end up already paying as much as Europeans do and get much less. In this regard, we are a nation of suckers who lack the spines to make government put big business in its place. The only winners are insurance companies who care less about people than the government does.

Actually two differant issues are involved here. First is the greed of the 4 people that are eating at the table for free. They "deserve" the same as those that work. The level of care that we currently expect in America is not the same as the level that many are recieving in socialist countries. There is a reason so many Canadians willingly flood across our boarder to get health care, they can get it. There is not waiting list, there is not rationing of service. It is available now, not in 6 weeks. I have an aunt that lives near the boarder, the come into their office all the time.

Another differance is here we hold Dr's acountable for malpractice. Want to drop the cost? Take away the acountability. It has worked well in other countries. The Dr's can literally cut the cost of service nearly in half when they no longer have insurance premiums that are 5 times most Americans income.

One other issue to remember in all of this. There is not a business in the country that has ever paid a single penny in taxes, fees or whatever. 100% of those have all been passed on to the consumers, just in a hidden form.

[electrathon]

Only took me a minute to find the truth: http://www.dol.gov/ESA/minwage/chart.htm

[claybuster101]

One other issue to remember in all of this. There is not a business in the country that has ever paid a single penny in taxes, fees or whatever. 100% of those have all been passed on to the consumers, just in a hidden form.

Hmmmm....let's all take a moment to digest the above quote. Let's assume that I make, ummm, leather holsters. Ok, leather holsters it is. I need to have the following, including but not limited to: Some type of facility to work from...(where I live they charge an arm and a leg for property taxes, most of which funds a failing educational system that has been run into the ground...by guess who? Michigan educators and state goverment considered to be Democratic). Unless I use cave-man tools I will no doubt need electricity for lights and to run equipment. I still have a mortgage on the facility so I pay that every month. I need to maintain that facility (mechanical and structural) as well as weekly maintenance (lawn cutting, etc) Unlike some of the homes in Detroit that the people don't care what they look like. Uh, forgot to mention that I heat with natural gas and while we have dialed down, I have added extra insulation, new windows and doors to help control waste. Before I can even begin to consider a project I need to buy supplies. Leather, thread, tools, finish you all know the list goes on and on. BUT WAIT....all of this is not worth a damn if I don't have a customer to provide the goods for...that may require some advertising and promotion. If the customers are not forth coming, my supplies sit on the shelves and gather dust...in the meantime I still pay the above mentioned bills regardless of how much product has been sold. So, I guess the point of this is what the hell do you think pays for this stuff? It comes from PROFIT! Which in my vocabulary is not a dirty word. If I invest, take the risk, I deserve to profit from that risk. After all, that is (was?) the American way!

[esantoro]

Only took me a minute to find the truth: http://www.dol.gov/ESA/minwage/chart.htm

My apologies for jumping the gun on my minimum wage claim. I should have Googled it.

I based my assumption on the fact that the formula for determining poverty has not changed since the 1960's, but politicians of all stripes don't want to change it because doing so would raise the official poverty numbers on their watch.

To mitigate my error somewhat, the minimum wage still has not kept up with inflation. In the 1960's and 1970's, the minimum wage as with all things of financial value and whatnot were tied to reality. This I did Google:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/26/arts/how...?pagewanted=all

Further mitigation, if I may: "Adjusted for inflation, [the minimum wage has] declined from more than $6 an hour in the 1960's to $5.25 [in 2001].

I wasn't aware that the minimum wage is set to go to $7.25 this July.

Mea culpa, mea culpa. Thank you for correcting me on the minimum wage, but when the wage is adjusted for inflation I am not far off the mark.

I should also say that I don't hold my views because I think poor people deserve help. I hold them because a stacked deck affects 90 percent of Americans in negative ways. The artificially increased values of real estate the past 20 years is the most recent example. Limited health care for even those who think they are covered is another. I do see race playing a large hand in this, but in very subtle ways.

After World War II, America had to do something at least topically to dismantle apartheid in this country, especially after what NAzi Germany had done to Jews, Poles, and Gypsies. But at the same time the Civil Rights movement took place,financial mechanisms were also being tinkered with to skewer the playing field, which accounts for the fact that 80 percent of Americans are not better off than they were nearly 40 years ago. This has come about by design, not chance.

[esantoro]

Yes, you do deserve those profits. And you also deserve to deduct your expenses from your taxable income. Do you also deserve a 9% reduction in taxes for being a manufacturer, if the government is offering such a reduction?

(note: I know there is this 9% reduction out there and I know you need to have at least one employee. I'm not sure on any of the other particulars, just read about this while doing my taxes back in April.)

This doesn't really apply to small businesses, but how many large corporations do it all on their own without any government assistance. Why else do they contribute to politicians' campaign funds. They are getting a 5 percent return or better, much better, on those contributions. They are not doing business on their own, as most small businesses are.

Just for the record, I think you do deserve the 9% reduction if the government is offering. My only point is that many people talk about individual responsibility and individual profits, yet it seems that many of the corporations and wealthy entrepreneurs who hold this same line are sucking at the tit of corporate welfare.

One other issue to remember in all of this. There is not a business in the country that has ever paid a single penny in taxes, fees or whatever. 100% of those have all been passed on to the consumers, just in a hidden form.

Hmmmm....let's all take a moment to digest the above quote. Let's assume that I make, ummm, leather holsters. Ok, leather holsters it is. I need to have the following, including but not limited to: Some type of facility to work from...(where I live they charge an arm and a leg for property taxes, most of which funds a failing educational system that has been run into the ground...by guess who? Michigan educators and state goverment considered to be Democratic). Unless I use cave-man tools I will no doubt need electricity for lights and to run equipment. I still have a mortgage on the facility so I pay that every month. I need to maintain that facility (mechanical and structural) as well as weekly maintenance (lawn cutting, etc) Unlike some of the homes in Detroit that the people don't care what they look like. Uh, forgot to mention that I heat with natural gas and while we have dialed down, I have added extra insulation, new windows and doors to help control waste. Before I can even begin to consider a project I need to buy supplies. Leather, thread, tools, finish you all know the list goes on and on. BUT WAIT....all of this is not worth a damn if I don't have a customer to provide the goods for...that may require some advertising and promotion. If the customers are not forth coming, my supplies sit on the shelves and gather dust...in the meantime I still pay the above mentioned bills regardless of how much product has been sold. So, I guess the point of this is what the hell do you think pays for this stuff? It comes from PROFIT! Which in my vocabulary is not a dirty word. If I invest, take the risk, I deserve to profit from that risk. After all, that is (was?) the American way!

[electrathon]

One other issue to remember in all of this. There is not a business in the country that has ever paid a single penny in taxes, fees or whatever. 100% of those have all been passed on to the consumers, just in a hidden form.

Hmmmm....let's all take a moment to digest the above quote. Let's assume that I make, ummm, leather holsters. Ok, leather holsters it is. I need to have the following, including but not limited to: Some type of facility to work from...(where I live they charge an arm and a leg for property taxes, most of which funds a failing educational system that has been run into the ground...by guess who? Michigan educators and state goverment considered to be Democratic). Unless I use cave-man tools I will no doubt need electricity for lights and to run equipment. I still have a mortgage on the facility so I pay that every month. I need to maintain that facility (mechanical and structural) as well as weekly maintenance (lawn cutting, etc) Unlike some of the homes in Detroit that the people don't care what they look like. Uh, forgot to mention that I heat with natural gas and while we have dialed down, I have added extra insulation, new windows and doors to help control waste. Before I can even begin to consider a project I need to buy supplies. Leather, thread, tools, finish you all know the list goes on and on. BUT WAIT....all of this is not worth a damn if I don't have a customer to provide the goods for...that may require some advertising and promotion. If the customers are not forth coming, my supplies sit on the shelves and gather dust...in the meantime I still pay the above mentioned bills regardless of how much product has been sold. So, I guess the point of this is what the hell do you think pays for this stuff? It comes from PROFIT! Which in my vocabulary is not a dirty word. If I invest, take the risk, I deserve to profit from that risk. After all, that is (was?) the American way!

I think you are making my point. If you have all the above listed expenses, they are mixed into your total sale price, plus some more so you can pay yourself. If you had few to no expenses, you could easily charge less and make the same amount of prophit. Raise the expenses on you (because you become successfull) and you will need to pass those on to the consumer as well.

I totally agree, you and others should be able to keep the money YOU earn. It is both ethicly and morally wrong to take your money and "redistribute the wealth" so that others can sit at home watching jerry springer stoned out of their mind philosiphising about why the world treats them unfair.

[electrathon]

My apologies for jumping the gun on my minimum wage claim. I should have Googled it.

I based my assumption on the fact that the formula for determining poverty has not changed since the 1960's, but politicians of all stripes don't want to change it because doing so would raise the official poverty numbers on their watch.

Why should the FORMULA change? If data is properly adjusted (inflation/deflation verses income/expenses) then the only reason for adjusting the formula is because the formula is wrong, not to be able to include a larger percent of people to arrive at a preconcieved notion. Example: If the poor are the bottom 15%, then adjusting the formula to include the bottom 20% or the bottom 10% would only be done to "prove" that things are now worse/better than they were before.

The poor do get a lot of help in our country. Remember they are the 40% who eat at the table for free. Some of them do pay in some, but they also use more than they contribute.

I am enjoying the exchange of thoughts/ideas. I am not trying to offend or upset anyone. It is good to see the other side of the island sometimes. Another thought here: I really do not understand the uber rich at all. I do know though that a "living wage" to that segment of society is far above what I would consider wealthy. Just as my middle class earnings is far above rich to the poorest segment of society.

[claybuster101]

My apologies for jumping the gun on my minimum wage claim. I should have Googled it.

I based my assumption on the fact that the formula for determining poverty has not changed since the 1960's, but politicians of all stripes don't want to change it because doing so would raise the official poverty numbers on their watch.

To mitigate my error somewhat, the minimum wage still has not kept up with inflation. In the 1960's and 1970's, the minimum wage as with all things of financial value and whatnot were tied to reality. This I did Google:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/26/arts/how...?pagewanted=all

Further mitigation, if I may: "Adjusted for inflation, [the minimum wage has] declined from more than $6 an hour in the 1960's to $5.25 [in 2001].

I wasn't aware that the minimum wage is set to go to $7.25 this July.

Mea culpa, mea culpa. Thank you for correcting me on the minimum wage, but when the wage is adjusted for inflation I am not far off the mark.

I should also say that I don't hold my views because I think poor people deserve help. I hold them because a stacked deck affects 90 percent of Americans in negative ways. The artificially increased values of real estate the past 20 years is the most recent example. Limited health care for even those who think they are covered is another. I do see race playing a large hand in this, but in very subtle ways.

After World War II, America had to do something at least topically to dismantle apartheid in this country, especially after what NAzi Germany had done to Jews, Poles, and Gypsies. But at the same time the Civil Rights movement took place,financial mechanisms were also being tinkered with to skewer the playing field, which accounts for the fact that 80 percent of Americans are not better off than they were nearly 40 years ago. This has come about by design, not chance.

So congress instituted a plan to balance out a proper number of minorities to be hired into jobs they would not have otherwise qualified for. Affirmative action was still discrimination, just against anyone who is considered (non-black) white. For the longest time the SBA had "special" considerations for females looking to get startup business loans. They (SBA) lowered the standards to allow these applicants to qualify. The US postal service used affirative action to discriminate against white males vs. non white males on test results for becoming a postal carrier (I have first hand knowledge of this).

Since the world changes hands about every 50 years or so, how is it that 80% (using todays population stats or stats from 1969?) are worse off? Worse off in what ways?

And other than Washington bleeding the average American dry, who is the designer of such a scheme? You want to talk racism? I am willing to bet if I applied for a scholarship to get an advanced degree through the NAACP they would turn me down and probably have a good laugh doing it. The other tidbit of Barack O'Trivia that I find disgusting is how he and his "peoples" play up the fact that his mother was white and his daddy was black. That must make the black gene the dominant force in his life. At least he knew who his daddy was. Like a Phoenix rising out of the ashes in less than 4 years we as the American people have the real power to correct the wrong and set the ship back on course. In the time it took to compose this reply, the illegal alien counter said 794 more illegals have inflitrated our sacred borders....drug dealers, prostitutes, gun smugglers, rapists, thieves and several more leather craftsmen....don't you just hate the additional competition.

[electrathon]

... which accounts for the fact that 80 percent of Americans are not better off than they were nearly 40 years ago. This has come about by design, not chance.

I missed this statement earlier. I think this fact is from the same source as the minimum wage thing. In America nearly everyone is far better off than our parents. We have so much more than any generation has ever had before. I am not sure if I personally know anyone who is not better off than their grandparents (40 years = 2 generations). I have heard the stories of the past, they were tough times. I am thankfull that I do not have to work as hard for so little as my father or grandfather did.

[bustedlifter]

Certain compromises can be made. Certainly $50 is not an issue. Mandatory vacation days would be nice but not necessary. With a reasonable working wage, people would be able to take unpaid time off if desired. The situation is never either or, as compromises can always be made.

I was being sarcastic with the $50.00 an hour, but the point I was trying to make is if the government says this is a good minimum to pay someone wouldn't more be even better? One more question, where in the Constitution of the United States is the clause that gives congress ,or the president, the right to tell businesses how much to pay or how much vacation to offer?

[esantoro]

So congress instituted a plan to balance out a proper number of minorities to be hired into jobs they would not have otherwise qualified for. Affirmative action was still discrimination, just against anyone who is considered (non-black) white. For the longest time the SBA had "special" considerations for females looking to get startup business loans. They (SBA) lowered the standards to allow these applicants to qualify. The US postal service used affirative action to discriminate against white males vs. non white males on test results for becoming a postal carrier (I have first hand knowledge of this).

Since the world changes hands about every 50 years or so, how is it that 80% (using todays population stats or stats from 1969?) are worse off? Worse off in what ways?

And other than Washington bleeding the average American dry, who is the designer of such a scheme? You want to talk racism? I am willing to bet if I applied for a scholarship to get an advanced degree through the NAACP they would turn me down and probably have a good laugh doing it. The other tidbit of Barack O'Trivia that I find disgusting is how he and his "peoples" play up the fact that his mother was white and his daddy was black. That must make the black gene the dominant force in his life. At least he knew who his daddy was. Like a Phoenix rising out of the ashes in less than 4 years we as the American people have the real power to correct the wrong and set the ship back on course. In the time it took to compose this reply, the illegal alien counter said 794 more illegals have inflitrated our sacred borders....drug dealers, prostitutes, gun smugglers, rapists, thieves and several more leather craftsmen....don't you just hate the additional competition.

The racism I'm speaking of is much subtler. Affirmative Action was a smoke screen that was used to divert attention from changing economic factors, or it forced the hand to shift economic factors. I'm arguing that these economic shifts were largely influenced by big business manipulating government the last 40 years.

Big business has more to do with allowing illegal immigration than the government has. They need the cheap labor. They play both sides of the coin on this to great dramatic affect.

Question: Would this country run better with less government control and free reign of business? Where is the proof? Exxon? Enron? WorldCom? Adelphia? Arthur Andersen? Global Crossing? IMClone? TYCO?

Are Americans better off today than 30 or forty years ago?

Here's just for the past 8 years:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications...you-better-off/

Here's looking farther back:

[esantoro]

Exactly. It is far easier to live off the ever flowing nipple than to work for what you get. The nipple provides just enough to keep you from supporting yourself.

Historicly, America started out as socialist. People were starving to death. They switched to a capitalist system and very soon, there was plenty. This was a long time ago.

Now I need you to defend this statement. How did America begin with socialism? It was private trading businesses from day one. In fact, it first tried to enslave Native-Americans to do the work, and by 1619 started using the transatlantic slave trade. This was coupled with indentured servitude, which is still with us today in curious ways. If you intend to go only as far back as 1776, where's the socialism. America embraced some socialist policies from 1933 to 1965, but it is not today a socialist country.

For those who are calling America a socialist country, it is not, not by a long shot. Just ask anyone from a country that truly does merge socialism with democracy.

But what I really want to know is how America started with socialism?

[bustedlifter]

But what I really want to know is how America started with socialism?

The pilgrims tried it and it failed miserably. If someone likes socialism, there are plenty of countries in the world to move to. I prefer the system that was set up to preserve the rights of the individual not what is in the best interest of "the common good". I remember when Clinton promised a tax cut but later said he couldn't do it. One of the reasons he gave was because he thought we might not spend the money the right way. What arrogance! It's our money in the first place!

[esantoro]

I certainly think there is a place for social democracy and believe that many other countries do a fairly good job with this.

I do think that conservative and liberal arguments go too far in their own ideologies.

Here's an article that seems to bridge some middle ground, though perhaps I like it because it blames unchecked conservative free-market ideology of the past thirty years for the necessary corrections that appear to be underway, necessary corrections that are being pejoratively labeled as "socialist." And it's free market ideology that has brought us to this point, not government. If the government has been involved, it has been to the extent that it has been taken over by free market ideology, an ideology that is anything but for the free market but rather for corporate markets. Where would we be in 20 years if such policies were allowed to continue growing more influential? Free marketers should know that Adam Smith greatly disagreed with the pseudo free market thinking of the past 30 or 40 years. Our founding fathers and Lincoln would also be appalled, as corporatocracy is another name for aristocratic control.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eleven-re...my?pagenumber=2

Exactly. It is far easier to live off the ever flowing nipple than to work for what you get. The nipple provides just enough to keep you from supporting yourself.

Historicly, America started out as socialist. People were starving to death. They switched to a capitalist system and very soon, there was plenty. This was a long time ago.

Now I need you to defend this statement. How did America begin with socialism? It was private trading businesses from day one. In fact, it first tried to enslave Native-Americans to do the work, and by 1619 started using the transatlantic slave trade. This was coupled with indentured servitude, which is still with us today in curious ways. If you intend to go only as far back as 1776, where's the socialism. America embraced some socialist policies from 1933 to 1965, but it is not today a socialist country.

For those who are calling America a socialist country, it is not, not by a long shot. Just ask anyone from a country that truly does merge socialism with democracy.

But what I really want to know is how America started with socialism?

[bustedlifter]

For those who are calling America a socialist country, it is not, not by a long shot. Just ask anyone from a country that truly does merge socialism with democracy.

?

Like the French , the Germans or the Brits ? Their countries are real powerhouses on the international scene, not really. Ask people who lived behind the "iron curtain" about the direction they see our country going in. Oh, by the way, the United States is a representative republic not a democracy.

[electrathon]

Now I need you to defend this statement. How did America begin with socialism? It was private trading businesses from day one. In fact, it first tried to enslave Native-Americans to do the work, and by 1619 started using the transatlantic slave trade. This was coupled with indentured servitude, which is still with us today in curious ways. If you intend to go only as far back as 1776, where's the socialism. America embraced some socialist policies from 1933 to 1965, but it is not today a socialist country.

For those who are calling America a socialist country, it is not, not by a long shot. Just ask anyone from a country that truly does merge socialism with democracy.

But what I really want to know is how America started with socialism?

I was going a lot farther back than 1776. I ment in the beginning, the early pioneer times. It has been a long time since I was in school, but this is pretty well known. They were all working togeather for the good of the comunity, farming, raising crops, and whatever else early settler life consisted of. They did very poorly. Someplace a few years into this, someone came up with the idea of allowing each person to farm their own land, keep what they wanted and sell the rest. The process worked out well.

Also, America is not a democracy, it is a republic.

[esantoro]

Like the French , the Germans or the Brits ? Their countries are real powerhouses on the international scene, not really. Ask people who lived behind the "iron curtain" about the direction they see our country going in. Oh, by the way, the United States is a representative republic not a democracy.

Yes, it is a representative republic, but "democracy" has become shorthand for that.

The U.S. is a military powerhouse hands down. A commercial/consuming powerhouse, too. The highest standard of living? No. The healthiest? No. The happiest? No. The most unwittingly propagandized? Yes.

If military power is the only criterion to be a powerhouse, then you are correct. But Americans pay for that military power with very little in return. And that military power for the past eight years has been more of a burden than a benefit.

http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-t...stein-eagle.htm

When you add in factors other than military power, the U.S. rarely if ever ranks in the top 7 countries.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html

For six years I lived in and traveled around Eastern Europe, that place that was once behind the iron curtain, and met many people who love their home country and would never think of immigrating to America. If America comes up, it is as a place to make money and then return home. America is seen as a financial clearing house, which is not very flattering.

None of this is to say I don't appreciate my country. But America and Americans need a serious reality check. The last thirty years have been a delusional ride that was charged to credit.

The one nice thing about America is that it used to be open to honest self-examination.

The U.S. has less social mobility than most other developed countries.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-01.htm

These things should be part of the national discussion, not ignored as if they do not exist. Britain did the same thing, ignore its shortcomings as it was losing its position as the world's most powerful country throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The U.S. by default and two World Wars became the dominant country after World War II but was already beginning to lose that position in the 1970s. Now there is talk of China being the most powerful. Holding on to the mantle of the most powerful nation for 25 years after it had landed in your lap is no great feat. You'd think the U.S. would have been able to hold that position for at least a century.

Edited May 30, 2009 by esantoro

[bustedlifter]

Yes, it is a representative republic, but "democracy" has become shorthand for that.

No. it's still a representative republic although there are quite a few who would like to change it.

When you add in factors other than military power, the U.S. rarely if ever ranks in the top 7 countries.

Says who? Some survey from a socialist county(ies)?

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html

For six years I lived in and traveled around Eastern Europe, that place that was once behind the iron curtain, and met many people who love their home country and would never think of immigrating to America. If America comes up, it is as a place to make money and then return home. America is seen as a financial clearing house, which is not very flattering.

Because they see where this country is heading.

Edited May 30, 2009 by bustedlifter

[esantoro]

The surveys are international surveys. I'm sure whatever office they came out of was not in the U.S. But by that criterion we also can't accept any survey coming out of the U.S. either. For the record, I would argue that many of the international surveys take a more holistic view of a country's pros and cons. The happiest country, supposedly, is Denmark, but then one Danish journalist challenged that with the statistic that Denmark has the second highest suicide rate in Europe.

The U.S.'s reputation has been in decline around the world, but these countries are also seeing greater employment opportunity at home, or at least were a year or so ago.

Even Eastern Europeans who went to England for work are returning home for better employment opportunities. I guess that's the same with Chinese expatriates as well.

My own little theory is that economic prosperity of the last 20 or so years was built on a house of cards. But as long as everyone was deluded they rode the artificial tide and felt financial growth. For the next 20 or so years we are forced to deal with real economics and values, which is good. But I wonder how well other countries will turn out having to deal with an America that has to play by authentic numbers. Let's say The U.S. hits full economic recovery by the end of 2010, Europe could take an additional five, as its infrastructure isn't as flexible as the U.S.'s

I was going to post some info about national debt, but was surprised to find out that compared to a handful of other countries, the U.S. has a credit tab of 60% of its GNP. Italy and some African countries have debt over 100 percent of GNP. These were 2007 figures.

At one time, Americans were encouraged to learn Russian because it was thought that that's where the growth was going to be. Didn't happen. Then they said Japanese. Didn't happen. Now they say Chinese. Maybe this also won't happen.

Like the French , the Germans or the Brits ? Their countries are real powerhouses on the international scene, not really. Ask people who lived behind the "iron curtain" about the direction they see our country going in. Oh, by the way, the United States is a representative republic not a democracy.

Yes, it is a representative republic, but "democracy" has become shorthand for that.

The U.S. is a military powerhouse hands down. A commercial/consuming powerhouse, too. The highest standard of living? No. The healthiest? No. The happiest? No. The most unwittingly propagandized? Yes.

If military power is the only criterion to be a powerhouse, then you are correct. But Americans pay for that military power with very little in return. And that military power for the past eight years has been more of a burden than a benefit.

http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/global-t...stein-eagle.htm

When you add in factors other than military power, the U.S. rarely if ever ranks in the top 7 countries.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html

For six years I lived in and traveled around Eastern Europe, that place that was once behind the iron curtain, and met many people who love their home country and would never think of immigrating to America. If America comes up, it is as a place to make money and then return home. America is seen as a financial clearing house, which is not very flattering.

None of this is to say I don't appreciate my country. But America and Americans need a serious reality check. The last thirty years have been a delusional ride that was charged to credit.

The one nice thing about America is that it used to be open to honest self-examination.

The U.S. has less social mobility than most other developed countries.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-01.htm

These things should be part of the national discussion, not ignored as if they do not exist. Britain did the same thing, ignore its shortcomings as it was losing its position as the world's most powerful country throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The U.S. by default and two World Wars became the dominant country after World War II but was already beginning to lose that position in the 1970s. Now there is talk of China being the most powerful. Holding on to the mantle of the most powerful nation for 25 years after it had landed in your lap is no great feat. You'd think the U.S. would have been able to hold that position for at least a century.

[Hilly]

As with my lamp fix, smelting lead, dremel resuscitation, and various other experiments, I can't seem to let this one go either.

It seems to me that civilization has been the progression of power changing hands from the physically, thus biologically, stronger to the physically/ biologically weaker.

Let's pick a CEO at random and a steelworker at random for an all-out brawl and place our bets. It seems that this is what the stock market does but with the advantaged reversed.

All living organisms have a finite lifespan. It seems to me that the pinnacle of human existence was reached when the physically, biologically powerful started losing out in the race, which was a sign of physiological decrepitude in the human race. Assuming early forms of humans existed 400,000 years ago, I say we have no more than 100,000 years left in us. I would further argue, even as a connoisseur of technology and not a Luddite , that the rise of technological technology has actually been a signal of the onslaught of this decrepitude -- like bacteria in a petri dish shitting all over itself and dying out amid the waste.

It seems that this thread has veered off-topic and should be placed in its respective category. Not true.

Death and taxes. Death and taxes.

Wow, Ed! That was..................................deep.

[claybuster101]

"The U.S. has less social mobility than most other developed countries."

Social mobility? While those 2 words can take on a broad meaning, I recall my most recent extended trip to Europe and crossing into Switzerland. I was driving a new Opel with Duetschland plates. The border crossing security service were carrying fully automatic weapons ready to extinguish any threat they encountered. Good for them! While travel among the EU has drastically improved over the last decade or so, can you imagine if crossing from state to state here in the US the National Guard or Blackwater forces were checking for people who didn't belong and took decisive action when they found someone?

But as soon as this would happen the ACLU and other liberal rights orgs would be crying foul.

Since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a sector of our nations population who have been born into welfare, continued to live on welfare, fostered children (many times with as many number of different sperm donors) into welfare. The system has been abused and yet this group of people are the ones who support the hands that feed them. I shouldn't have to mention the word Democrat here, but I will so there is no confusion. The most recent statistic is that teenage pregnancy is on the rise. Fostering more Democrats for generations to come.

You mention education, specifically in Germany. You failed to mention that they have little or no welfare as we know it here in the United States. The idea of trade school or university goes back several generations well prior to WW2. The Germans by and large are a very proud people. They do not put up with filth, petty theft and the assorted crap that we as Americans have come to ignore but it is a common everyday occurence. So when you make comparisions, try to at least show the larger picture so the people who read this can draw a educated conclusion.

While all this banter could go on forever, only time will tell how the dust will settle. The goverment has forced the auto companies into non-competitivness, to submit to such an extreme that the cancer the goverment has injected into our manufacturing sector will festor for generations. Fair trade for US manufacturers is not fair trade at all, and has not been for sometime.

If you thought George W was in bed with the oil companies, just wait....you will no doubt see multiple menage-a-trois's with King Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Feinstein, Levin, Stabenow etc. So much so, it will make anything George W did look like a handholding instead of a full blown goverment orgy.