Lusatian
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:22 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Your argument that the legal definition of "commerce" is the same thing as "means of production and distribution of goods" is nothing but a red herring.
You are doing nothing but weaseling definitions to suit your world view. It's intellectually weak.


It's called a parallel argument. Or an argument by analogy. You've likely seen it before. And interestingly, you assume my world view requires a definition to validate, but I've actually spent a couple of posts trying to get through that socialism can describe a larger number of governmental situations than the one you challenged. "ownership + administration" ... Remember that post of yours.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:23 pm
@Lusatian,
We know you have spent a number of posts trying to redefine words to match what you want them to mean. It seems to be your only argument.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:26 pm
@Lusatian,
Quote:

It's called a parallel argument. Or an argument by analogy.

I would consider what you are doing to be a logical fallacy. (equivocation)
Lusatian
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:28 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Quote:
Wealth transfer is a polemical propaganda term. Taxing anyone for any reason is "wealth transfer."

Which was pointed out earlier.
All governments have to tax to survive so if wealth transfer is socialism then all governments are socialist.


A conceptually narrow statement that attempts to excuse "wealth transfer" with the argument that it's so broad that it happens everywhere and therefore is okay.

Here we go: Wealth transfer is generally used to describe a one-way transfer. Entitlements are paid out to recipients without financially benefiting a person having their taxes raised. There may be some moral comfort in the thought, or a more attenuated argument - general well being on the parts of the recipients benefits the 1% payer.

An infrastructure project, on the other hand (could also include police forces, schools, etc), all have GREAT potential to directly benefit the payer. Under this, rational basis review, a simply tax increase to fund an entitlement increase could easily be classified as a naked wealth transfer, while a similar increase to pay for a new highway system wouldn't.

Let me know if that went over any heads.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:32 pm
@Lusatian,
You are assuming that helping the poor has no benefit to society, a false assumption on your part. In fact it costs me less to feed a starving person than it does to jail them for stealing because they were starving.
Lusatian
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:34 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I would consider what you are doing to be a logical fallacy. (equivocation)


A seemingly common, and apparently cool-sounding, retort from some around here ("logical fallacy"). It may be interesting to some that many who are paid to full time come up with logical arguments frequently use arguments by analogy in the highest levels of argument decision-making in the world and country (e.g. U.S. Supreme Court, Circuit courts, etc).

Works like this:
A = B+C
B = ZxY
D = ZxYt
If Yt is similar to Y then it allows an argument that if A = B+C it should be rather alike to A = D+C.

Substitute letters for arguments or fact patterns and that should be discernible. (If still confused Google something like "Person of Ordinary Prudence" - analogy that allows for a definition of the term "reasonable.")
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:36 pm
@Lusatian,
I didn't say that it was "OK." I didn't say that it was not. I simply pointed out that "wealth transfer" is a meaningless polemical term. It doesn't matter if it was pointed out earlier, what matters is that it is just a code phrase which reactionaries use to mean social welfare, and which has heavy racist overtones.

If one wants to play the wealth transfer game, i would much rather see tax money used to be transferred to American families that need to feed, house and clothe their families rather than see it transferred to the pockets of, for example, defense contractors who routinely cheat, lie and steal. As Carl Sagan pointed out in the early 1970s, for the cost overruns on new military aircraft acquisition the entire NASA moon program over ten years could have been funded.
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:37 pm
@Butrflynet,
I see you've chosen to dodge my question and distract yourself and everyone else with arguments about the definition of socialism rather than cite examples of President Obama's "general believe in the importance and efficacy of wealth transfer" to support your "Obama's socialism" premise.
Lusatian
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:38 pm
@parados,
Quote:
You are assuming that helping the poor has no benefit to society, a false assumption on your part. In fact it costs me less to feed a starving person than it does to jail them for stealing because they were starving.


No such assumption. In fact, I completely agree with your statement. You should note that in my argument I was very specifically describing benefits to the payer - which you have conveniently substituted "SOCIETY" for. (An actual example of how liberal thought can lead to socialism - bringing the argument back around.)
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:38 pm
@Lusatian,
If only you had used an analogy.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:40 pm
@Lusatian,
Oh..
So in other words, when the government builds a road in Alaska, it is really "wealth transfer" then because I don't get any benefit from that road even though I paid for it.
Lusatian
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:43 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
If one wants to play the wealth transfer game, i would much rather see tax money used to be transferred to American families that need to feed, house and clothe their families rather than see it transferred to the pockets of, for example, defense contractors who routinely cheat, lie and steal. As Carl Sagan pointed out in the early 1970s, for the cost overruns on new military aircraft acquisition the entire NASA moon program over ten years could have been funded.


But that's the essence of socialism. (By the way, I would actually agree with you - based off of the actual choices you included.) But when society decides to subordinate the desires of the few in favor of the many, then turn around and require those same few to pay for the benefits of the many, that is as socialist as it gets.
Lusatian
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:44 pm
@parados,
Quote:
So in other words, when the government builds a road in Alaska, it is really "wealth transfer" then because I don't get any benefit from that road even though I paid for it.


It very could be a wealth transfer. And if you hate such an idea as I do, then you would surely agree that the "Bridge to Nowhere" was a terrible idea that demonstrates much that is wrong with our government. That still doesn't validate other similar wealth transfers. Your mother told you at some point "two wrongs don't make a right."
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:45 pm
@Lusatian,
Can you provide us evidence that the number of American taxpayers who are content with the outrageous contracts to defense suppliers and their cost overruns are not just a few? Because otherwise, by you latest silly definition, that is socialism.
0 Replies
 
Lusatian
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:49 pm
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
I see you've chosen to dodge my question and distract yourself and everyone else with arguments about the definition of socialism rather than cite examples of President Obama's "general believe in the importance and efficacy of wealth transfer" to support your "Obama's socialism" premise.


'Obama links entitlement cuts to tax changes'
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63872.html

Please see 2nd sentence:
"But Obama in his Rose Garden speech made clear that his commitment to an array of structural changes to health care entitlement programs is contingent on Republican willingness to impose taxes on the wealthy and on corporations."

Since entitlements are the lion's share of the federal budget, tax increases are only REQUIRED if the entitlements are intended to be kept at their current HIGH levels. Whether you agree with the levels or not is a different discussion.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63872.html#ixzz1mDbuS9ZY
Lusatian
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:59 pm
Pretty telling that when someone doesn't agree with the liberal peanut gallery appears this site cannot handle it. Interesting that somehow this thread has been shuffled into the category "Rw Idiocy." What moderator? Can't win the argument intellectually? Your chorus not cooperating enough?

Armchair arguments don't hold up to much scrutiny beyond the baritone section.
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:13 pm
@Lusatian,
You're saying that the process of negotiating budget cuts and tax increases is socialism?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:25 pm
@Lusatian,
Snort.

It is socialism if you redefine the term to mean what you want it to.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  5  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:44 pm
@Lusatian,
Lusatian wrote:
by: Ed Will

Three points:
  1. This 'economics professor' of Ed Will's has been a staple of conservative storytelling since long before Obama took office. I advise against taking it as a story that actually happened. I suggest you take it as one of those viral memes that keep spreading from Op-Ed column to Op-Ed column.

  2. Why do you think Ed Will is resorting to this fantasy story when there are plenty of real-world universal-healthcare systems all across the planet? Just look at the real thing in other countries and decide if those countries' economies are failing. That's what scientists do, and economists are supposed to be scientists.

  3. How do you think Ed Will would explain that Germany's economy is currently doing better than America's, even though Germany has universal healthcare and America does not?
If what Obama does is Socialism, I hereby renounce my previous political leanings and declare myself a Socialist. On second thought, I oppose his healthcare reform for not going far enough, so that probably makes me a communist. Boo-hooo!
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:46 pm
@Lusatian,
This is hilarious considering you started the topic with a copy and paste of a 3 year old email chain letter and immediately got called on it.

What is even more hilarious is your bringing an Obama quote from 2011 as support for an email written in 2009 to prove "Obama's socialism."

Edit: Looking at the Snopes article, it seems the story in your email chain letter is even older than that.

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Quote:
While we can't as yet pin down the origin of the grade averaging piece, anecdotal evidence indicates it's at least fifteen years older than its 2009 outbreak would tend to indicate, in that one of our readers says he heard it at bible college in 1994 from a professor teaching world civics.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 05:47:31