Obama's first failed appointment

[TGRR]

Joe the who? Oh, yeah...the loser that stuck his nose in to politics and then cried when he got burned.

If ya can't handle the heat, stay the fuck out of the kitchen.

[classicman]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.


The phrase summarizes the principles that, under a communist system, every person should contribute to society to the best of his ability and consume from society in proportion to his needs, regardless of how much he has contributed.

[sugarpop]

Communism, if it could be done correctly, would not be such a bad system. Unfortunately, every communist nation has also been a dictatorship. It has never been done correctly according to the definition. Just like socialism.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Communism, if it could be done correctly, would not be such a bad system. Just like socialism.

So what would be one's incentive to produce "to your abilities" if only to be compensated "to your needs"?
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

So what would be one's incentive to produce "to your abilities" if only to be compensated "to your needs"?
Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

I have never said I thought all people should have the same thing or the same amount of wealth. I DO think all people who work hard should be compensated well enough to live comfortably and have a life. Not everyone wants massive amounts of wealth. A lot of people just want a good life, and they are willing to work hard for it. They are content with being the middle class. But when the wealthiest are taking more and more of the pie, and squeezing out the middle class so they can no longer afford to live, there is a real serious problem.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

You can't have it "be done correctly." Communism is a system for angels, not for men.

Probably because men have free will and angels do not. Or so it's said.

Communism never allowed for the fact that "even under the most rigidly controlled conditions of temperature and pressure, the organism will do as it damn pleases." Organisms actively seek their own advantage, one expression of which at least among the hominids is the profit motive.

As for Socialism/Communism-lite, the libertarians would say it founders on the fact that there is really no such thing as "the collective." There is only, we say, the ability of many individuals to act in unison towards a goal -- we can march in close formation. This kind of unanimity is always temporary, and we say that's how it should be. We also note that it is seldom absolute -- and that too would be temporary. We are not the Borg.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Where the actual fairness is in soaking the rich continues to escape me.

I think it escapes most really thoughtful people.

[lookout123]

They just need to get rid of all the ways rich people get out of paying.

Once again I'd like you to define rich for me.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Once again I'd like you to define rich for me.

I have defined "rich" numerous times. I am talking about people who earn about 5-10 million+ a year or more.

[lookout123]

So putting that in real terms: I only need $60K/year to live my life. I have the ability to earn considerably more than that. If I don't need it and I don't get to keep it and I'm willing to trust the government to provide for me in the future why exactly should I work harder to earn more?

This needs and abilities sounds like a pretty sweet deal really. When I hit the number I need, I'll just check out and go home.

[classicman]

Sugar, you avoided the questions. You said that communism, true communism was a good idea. If that is still your belief, then explain who Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

Why do you also continue to focus on the top minuscule percentage. What about the other end of the spectrum? The bottom who make absolutely no contribution, have no ability to make any and can only take from those who are productive?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Sugar, you avoided the questions. You said that communism, true communism was a good idea. If that is still your belief, then explain who Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

Why do you also continue to focus on the top minuscule percentage. What about the other end of the spectrum? The bottom who make absolutely no contribution, have no ability to make any and can only take from those who are productive?

I don't believe the bottom make no contribution and I do not believe they are not productive. I believe most people WANT to contribute, but they also want to be paid fairly and treated with respect. I don't believe CEOs make more contributions to society or are more important than teachers, or scientists, or cops, or soldiers, or artists. I do not believe bankers and executives do either. In fact, I would argue that many of those jobs are MORE important. I do not believe the executive class deserves to be paid SO MUCH MORE than everyone else. Why should they? What possible reason could you give that a CEO or an executive should make 400-500 X more than the average worker?

Having said that, I also realize that everyone is not capable of being a doctor or a lawyer or even a *cough*CEO*cough*, but from the same perspective, not everyone is cut out to be a teacher or a soldier or a janitor. So why should one have so much more value planced on them than the others? I'll tell you, without those janitors, we would be in a world of shit, literally. Soldiers and cops put their lives on the line every day. Isn't that more important, the possibilty of dying while doing your job, than being a banker? Teachers are molding our future generations. Isn't that at least as important as running a company? If we didn't have anyone to build the bridges and buildings or to make the cars or to do the plumbing, we wouldn't have any buildings or bridges or cars or plumbing. Maybe if we looked at ALL JOBS as having inherent value, we wouldn't place so much emphasis on some being so much more important than others.

Here's the thing, have you ever read any Aldous Huxley? I think he made a lot of really great points in his book Island. On the island, everyone shared in the responsibilties. Even the doctors had to sometimes go out and dig the earth to plant, or do some other, what we would call menial, job. That kept everything more in perspective, for everyone. We could learn something from that.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't believe the bottom make no contribution and I do not believe they are not productive.

There are infinitely more on the bottom end than the top. It isn't even close. There are many who feel entitled to live off the Gov't as well. welfare has become a way NOT to work and to just keep on receiving while giving ZERO.

All this is well and good, but means nothing as you again haven't answered the questions? Lemme try again.

Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

There are infinitely more on the bottom end than the top. It isn't even close. There are many who feel entitled to live off the Gov't as well. welfare has become a way NOT to work and to just keep on receiving while giving ZERO.

NO SHIT it isn't even close. THAT alone should tell you there is something seriously wrong. And that gap keeps getting wider every year.

There is no welfare anymore. Clinton abolished welfare. You can get free or reduced housing, if you qualify, and food stamps, if you qualify, and if you are on disability, you can get a small amount of money to live, and medicaid. If you have kids, you can get more.

I'm not saying some people don't abuse the system, because they do, but I believe it is a much smaller number than people think, and compared to corporate welfare, it is drop in the bucket. IF one is capable of working, they should work, but in the case of being disabled, that depends on jobs being available that will work with a person's limitations. There aren't always jobs available for people who want to work but have limitations due to a disability. In addition, since most of those people are low skilled or uneducated, the jobs available to them pay minimum wage. If you have a kid and all you can make is minimum wage, and you have to pay a babysitter, that takes away all your hard earned money. Who can blame someone in that position for not working? IF lower end jobs paid a living wage, we wouldn't have that problem. In addition, IF we had a real living wage, we wouldn't need so many of those services, except in certain cases of disabilities. Do you really think people want to be poor, and live like that? Because I don't.

All this is well and good, but means nothing as you again haven't answered the questions? Lemme try again.

Who defines needs? who defines abilities?

I don't know who defines them, but as it is now, the people defining them need to be fired, because our system, it ain't working for the vast majority of people out there. Any system that is designed to only work for the few at the top, that system is seriously flawed and needs to be changed.

[lookout123]

OK, so do you think Obama is out of line calling for tax increases for non-rich people then?