I'd like to ask you something about the following: Would you agree that leaving the 'right' unchecked would also be deadly?
That would be an argument I would make as well. But if one looks at the numbers, over the last one hundred years the left's politics have killed perhaps hundreds of millions. If one is to google wiki they state, and I am not a big fan of the website and only use it since everyone is familiar with it, "Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 & 100 million" or 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, 'The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,' published by Harvard University. Now that is just Communism which is from the left. Throw in Germany's nationalistic socialist movement, hitler didn't go around killing all of those people himself you know, and you can easily add tens of millions more.
Ok, just wanted to see how absolute you were on that lol I don't see things as 'left' or 'right' so much, though I do see tendencies to be 'left' or 'right'. The issue I have with it is that it encourages the 'one side against the other' mentality, lessening the chance for moderation between the two. So I do my best to avoid that kind of extreme generalizing, though I'd agree Communism and Socialism may have more in common with Liberals than Conservatives, just not as much as you're sayin'.
I do not recall linking my posts to mainstream liberals. I would regret giving that impression if i did. The definition of a liberal is a person who is open minded and tolerant. The left is none of those things. The left likes to pass themselves off as liberals and some people who think they are nice people because they identify themselves as liberals are not liberals. The facts are that Socialists as well as communists tend to have zero tolerance once in total power and have killed a hundred million or more people in the last hundred years whereas the first they tend to kill is each other. The reason of my thread and postings is that the media tends to give off the impression that the left is nice and harmless caring people while ignoring the hard facts of the left wing. Michael Moore would have fit in great as a progandist in either Hitler or Stanlin's regimes to give one example of a person who is not as harmless as presented.
I'd have to disagree somewhat on that. While it's true there were a lot of killing going on by people who called themselves Communists or Socialists, there were also a lot of killing going on under the Capitalist or Liberalist (whatever) labels... probably more so (when you consider all history). The other thought I have is that you are probably talking about leaders doing the killings... single individuals or relatively small groups of people who make the executive decisions. While they may be murderous savages the general population would probably rather not be killing or be killed.... since they are usually the 'cannon fodder' and are considered expendable. With exceptions, of course... there is always a certain percentage of any population that likes to kill. I'd go so far as to say that politics has had less to do with killings throughout history than religion has. IMO, religious beliefs have historically been the primary source of tensions leading to wars.
I guess I'm saying I'm of the opinion that politics, or more specifically political beliefs, is low on the list of reasons why people kill. Greed is the number one reason I'd give. They want control over your land, they desire your property. Religion is probably a more modern reason for killing people, and appears to be increasing tensions in the World. IMO, politics really only comes into play when you are talking about a country's leaders, not the general population. If you're thinking in terms of a country's leaders being Socialist or Communist, resulting in killings, then you may have a point... but only that those Socialist or Communist leaders were murderous.
Thank you for your comments. Have a nice day. ...but I'll add that when I do generalize, I make the attempt to state that it is a generalization. Obama 2012
The left has done so much killing the last hundred years that it would be a close one with who killed more in history, religion or the left and do not forget for the leftist their politics is their religion. and do not fool yourself their were millions of people who gladly killed others under the banner of National Socialism as well as Communism.
Yeah, sorry... I corrected myself in the comment afterwards regarding religion. And yeah, I'd agree patriotism is a major reason to kill too. Just look at Iraq for evidence of us doing that. I understand your opinion that the left (Socialism and Communism) is responsble for more deaths... but I can't agree with it... because I think other reasons besides political beliefs are the main reasons... politics, to me, has less to do with deaths in the last 100 years than want for power (control) or greed or religious beliefs have.
Ego and fear are always behind politics and religion. It is a human condition. So we agree with that.
I would think killing by the state would have more to do with the authoritarian nature of said state than its economics. Authoritarian being a state where the government is overly strong and wields excessive power over people's lives. However, I have to wonder if (real) socialism* - with its reliance on government to provide - does not have a tendency to lead to an overly strong state that wields excessive power...such as in Nazi Germany or the various communist countries...which would lead to more killing. And as for greed...could someone looking at someone else who has more and saying it should be taken and given to everyone else (including themselves) be considered greed? I am not talking about giving to those that do not have enough to survive (I do not think it is greedy to want to live) but rather those that lead quite comfortable lives. We have a President who is fighting tooth and nail to eliminate tax cuts for the 'rich' but tells those making 50K, 100k, 200k or a quarter million a year that they are exempt from having more taken from them. I would consider it a form of greed to support that kind of policy if one was making that kind of money. The less rich wanting the government to take from the more rich so they can have more wealth and goods and services from the government and so they can have more wealth and goods and services from not paying more taxes themselves. It is still about wanting more and taking from someone else to get it. *not the capitalism with some social programs that we have in western democracies.
I could agree on that. What I hear most from politicians is either the right for Industry to earn profits or the rights of the middle-class to gain some ground on the rich. Both are essentially driven by greed. As for how much someone makes... income can be a bit deceiving. By that I mean if you are in a large city, your expenses are going to be higher than where I live in the country. $50,000 would make me quite comfortable where I live, but in a city i'd imagine it's much less comfortable. If I remember right, Obama's threshold for raising taxes was $250,000 a year. Oh yeah... I think I could handle a few more thousand in taxes if I was making that kinda loot.
You can work in a large city but not live in a large city. I know people (families with kids) who make in the 50K to $60K* range working in a large city and do just fine living outside the city. They might live a little more comfortably living in a small town like me but they are not struggling to survive. *They are gov't employees so I do know how much they make because, like the military, the pay scales are public info. lol
It's always easier to expect others to pay their "fair share" than it is to expect the same from yourself.
...here we go again, like Alice in Wonderland... ...sooooo, should I pay $10,000 a year in taxes? on wages of $4,000? If so, I'd be forced to TAKE things from other people to make up the difference. Where did you say you lived? To be clear: Making $250,000 a year... I'd have no problem what-so-ever paying an increased rate of taxation... and I'd completely ignore looting your vast properties... But, back to reality, you say you pay 35% (in the highest income bracket) and get essentially nothing back. I said I pay roughly 21 to 23% (last time I gave a poof to look, several years ago) and receive most of that back as a refund. And that doesn't sit well with you. Me, getting to keep $700 to $800 a year while you don't get poof back. How horrible, eh? Of course, that $700 to $800 is a major portion of my income, while it's what to you? An extra gold coin or two? I am a horrible person for not giving a poof about your loss. Try putting things into perspective, and stay away from the crazy rabbits while you're at it.
If you make $4000 in a year and are in the US, how do you pay any federal income taxes? I thought the personal exemption and standard deduction was over 9000. Looking at a tax calculator, even as a single person with no dependents, you would not pay federal income tax on $4000 in income. Even at 10000, you might pay $50 in federal income tax at most. Unless you are talking SS, etc taxes or state taxes, etc too.
Federally, I have the taxes withheld, then refunded. I like it that way 'cause it's essentially forcing myself to save a few bucks every check... otherwise it'd be gone. I use the refund to pay major bills tax-time. Opening a savings account is tough unless you have a certain level of income and can expect to keep that money in there long-term. State-wise they usually don't refund 100%, unless your income is extremely low (in Michigan). I have worked in the tax business in the past, and still have access to that kind of info. My last full-time job took roughly 23% out for taxes... can't remember exactly how much of that I got back as refunds, but will guess roughly half.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt & assume you are just being silly. Obviously the point I'm making is that we should both pay the same PERCENTAGE in taxes, I've never said or implied we should pay the same dollar amount. What's unfair with us both paying 20% or 30%, whatever the number happens to be?
