Socialist takeover of America?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by thomas_jefferson, Nov 30, 2010.

Loading...
?

Are we facing a socialist takeover of America?

  1. Yes.

    8 vote(s)
    25.0%
  2. Maybe.

    7 vote(s)
    21.9%
  3. No.

    12 vote(s)
    37.5%
  4. ...a what?

    5 vote(s)
    15.6%
  1. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    Proposition 13 was enacted as a ballot initiative. In other words, it was enacted directly by California voters; not by the legislature or governor. It remains popular today, so even if it was repealed by the state government, the voters would probably put it back. Note that homeowners (who pay property taxes) are more likely to vote than renters or the homeless (who don't).

    Note also that Prop.13 was enacted in 1978 -- 25 years before Arnold became governor. It doesn't really have a lot to do with him.

    One consequence of Prop. 13 is that two seemingly identical properties, located next door to each other, can be taxed at very different levels, depending on when they were bought. For many people, this does create a market disincentive against moving, because even if you move to a property of identical value, the property tax assessment will be "reset" at a higher level. That's why Post #18 above states

    "I would rather add on rather than move and have higher prop taxes."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2010
  2. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    The clownishly grotesque Schartznegger aka GAS (or whatever his name is) had to resort to a recall election, which hasn't been done in 100 or 150 years. He used his money and attacked Davis, who did not stand a chance because people love Class B actors I guess. Then he went on his "blowing up the boxes" gimmick. So what did he do? Cut the car tax instantly creating a giant whole in the budget. Wow! He saved Kalifornians a few bucks a year, but added debt to the State budget. Popular, but not smart. Now, I am not saying that that created the whole budget fiasco in present day Cali, but that did not help things. We now know the budget is MUCH worse than what GAS was claiming. Further, things like using private attorneys (to fight illegal labor actions), instead of his own well qualified State staff attorneys has cost taxpayers several millions. This coupled with the fact that he has hired several private contractors at ten times the cost State workers cost gives one an idea of his money management philosophies. Of course Petey Wilson is his right hand man, and he did not leave the State in good condition when he left.

    Oh well, life will go on no matter who is in power.

    Abner

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2010
  3. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    The current CA property tax system clearly favors retirees and other longtime homeowners over newcomers. But you should realize that in the 1970s, when it was established, the concerns ran in exactly the opposite direction.

    At that time, the state economy was booming, new residents were rapidly moving in, and property values were soaring -- even for modest little houses that had long been owned by retirees.

    But as the property values soared, so did the property taxes. And at that time, it was the retirees with the limited incomes who were getting slammed with "brass knuckles," in the form of property tax bills that were higher than they had ever imagined. In some cases, retirees were supposedly forced into the sale of homes that they had lived in for years, because they could no longer afford to pay the property taxes on the newly assessed values of their longtime homes.

    So the perception in the 1970s was that long-time homeowners were the victims. At the time, the intention of the Prop. 13 tax system was not to punish newcomers, but to give old-timers some relief.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2010
  4. mattbrent

    mattbrent Well-Known Member

    That's where Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 comes into play. There's a lot of things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but the Necessary & Proper Clause allows for others things to be achieved. So you are right. The Constitution doesn't specifically give the government the ability to create Social Security, a cabinet, or even a Louisiana Purchase, but if politicians want to do something badly enough, they can find a workaround.

    -Matt
     
  5. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    As it relates to America today, I believe that the term socialism is a disingenuous exaggeration designed to scare people. A more liberal policy does not somehow result in such a radical shift that we surpass several more liberal countries than us and become socialist. Canada is not socialist, England is not socialist, they have some liberal policies that share socialist tendencies in some cases, but socialist they are not. Given this, the idea that America is going to embrace more liberal policy than these countries in the near future seems unlikely to me.

    Finally, I want to once again make sure my position is clear:
    I'm a libertarian, I'm simply arguing definitions and tactics, I don't support more liberal policy in 85% of cases.
     
  6. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I too am libertarian, and agree with you that the word "socialism" has been misused a lot by conservatives and libertarians, especially since Obama rose to political prominence.

    -=Steve=-
     
  7. thomaskolter

    thomaskolter New Member

    Good

    I want the government at all levels to meet the real needs and wants of its citizens and to be sure everyone is given a basic standard of living. As for the Constitution its a 200+ year old document with undefined authority at the Federal level such as the right to regulate interste commerce and the necessary and proper authority to execute its authority. Social security for example is simply taxing and redistributing that wealth from workers to seniors and the disabled so they are provided for. Welfare programs are mainly state level and shared with the Federal government such as Medicaid no state must take part. And health care as a complex interstate industry that is acting fraudulantly when they take a premium and then refuse care that doctors say is necessary its at best questionable and what they do in emergency care is downright wrong - treating you THEN they bill whatever they want to any doctors that decide to poke your body for five minutes and then bill you. If I have a plumbing problem I can still demand even if my house is flooded a price estimate within 10%. Its this reaon I support government oversight to clear and streamline problematic business practices they can and should do that.

    But I'm like many Americans some things I want them to do so it takes the worry off my back and to make sure business is clear and honest for all even health care.

    So yes they are going socialist and have been protected by the Supreme Court so who cares I want this, as long as basic freedoms are maintained.
     
  8. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    That's not the job of the United States government, per the constitution.
     
  9. james_lankford

    james_lankford New Member

    The Preamble

    We the People of the United States, in Order
    1) to form a more perfect Union,
    2) establish Justice,
    3) insure domestic Tranquility,
    4) provide for the common defence,
    5) promote the general Welfare,
    6) and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
    do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    From wikipedia on the court's use of the preamble.
     
  10. ITJD

    ITJD Active Member

    1. The media will use media tactics to gain a reaction from the middle-fifty of their viewership.
    2. Who is Glenn Beck and what is his middle-fifty?

    If his middle fifty is likely to believe his argument and that argument will by virtue of increased viewership of his information stream increase the amount of money in his employer's bank account and by association his bank account then that's the value of his argument.

    Until the election rules change in the United States it's entirely unlikely that any political shift will result in a takeover of any kind unless the core values of the majority of the electorate change over time. That is the strength of our political system, it's remarkably resilient in the face of temporary social stress and long-term change reflects in the makeup of and issues dealt with by our legal system.

    Two cents. Kill your television :)
     
  11. chasisaac

    chasisaac Member

    Are you kidding me? We are not facing a takeover! It is already here.
     
  12. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    I would like to clarify that the issues of constitutionality and socialism are two very different things. Even if some of the recent federal government actions are unconstitutional that does not make them socialist. It's important that people learn to make these distinctions instead of turning them into political buzz words.

    So I ask, are we discussing constitutionality or socialism?
     
  13. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    :shocked: AAHHHHHHHHHHHhhhh... ahhh.... ah? Oh, the earth is still intact? *continues eating bucket of fried chicken*
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2010
  14. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    I can't eat or sleep MC, because our country is becoming Socialist (Ay DIOS MIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). I am scared, everyone might as well quit their job because life in this country as we know will come to end tomorrow.

    Here is my simple conclusion. No matter what, whoever is in power as President will come under criticism. The world somehow didn't end under GW, and it won't end under Obama.

    Abner :)
     
  15. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    What bothers me is that conservatives claim to be so horrified of losing freedom (in this conversation socialism is equated to less freedom, which I think is generally true); however, they not only allow, but encourage, and are directly responsible for our outrageous incarceration rate (currently the highest per capita, by far, of any documented country). Even CHINA has a lower incarceration rate than we do. CHINA!
    At four times the world average we have to ask ourselves...is this really how a free country does things?

    Of course this statistic excludes closed countries like N. Korea. They certainly could be worse.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 29, 2010
  16. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Except that the Maya calendar only goes as far as 2012, so maybe the world will end on Obama's watch.
     
  17. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    It is ridiculous who we incarcerate.
    Yesterday a guy is threated with prison for reading his wifes email - if this is really a crime why not just fine him?
    And jailing Martha Stewart - why not just fine her (say 25% of her wealth)?
    And in Redondo beach a mentally handicapped guy was sent to prison after stealing a slice of pizza from a kid (under CA's 3-strike law).
    And there are many similar situations where the incarcerated are not a physical danger to the public
     
  18. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Oh damn, now we are really in trouble!!!!!!!!!!! Chingos!!!!!


    Abner :)



     
  19. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Absolutely. If I were president for one day, I'd make heavy use of the powers of pardon and amnesty.

    -=Steve=-
     
  20. aic712

    aic712 Member

    "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often and for the same reason"
     

Share This Page