Would this make me a "socialist"?

[kentuck]

I would like to see a more radical agenda:

A 35-hour or 37 1/2 hour work week.

A one-year moratorium on all FICA taxes under $30,000.

A national holiday for election day.

Public funded elections.

An increase in the minimum wage of $1.00 per hr.

Take the cap off income for Social Security purposes.

All income not invested would be taxed at 70%.

Jobs would be offered to every able-bodied person willing to work.

Those not willing or able to work, would get a guaranteed income equal to half of those that work.

Every state would have a referendum to stop automatic pay raises for Congressmen and Senators.

Products made in other countries by American companies would be taxed at a much higher rate than domestic products.

We would begin withdrawal of 50% of all our troops around the world and re-evaluate military pensions and all government pay-outs.

Limit all political contributions to the same amount, corporations or individuals, to $1000.

Create a single-payer health care system and take insurance totally out of healthcare business.

Reform the estate taxes to 90% for everything above $500,000.

Take back our airwaves from the corporate propagandists.

Re-instate Glass Steagall Act to regulate big banks.

Term limits for Congress - 3 terms for the House and 2 terms for the Senate.

Crack down on corporate welfare and corporate crime.


Then you could call me a socialist - like Barack Obama. :-)


I posted this on another site just for thought fodder for the tea baggers.

[Kievan Rus]

1. There's nothing wrong with being a socialist -- I'm one and proud of it

[Cleita]

16. Exactly. Socialism means you care about your fellow

human and want them to fare as well as you do in the world.

[Kievan Rus]

32. Had the Teabaggers lived 2,000 years ago, they'd have called Jesus a socialist

[phasma ex machina]

53. Jesus embodied love and focused on spiritual wealth. A spiritual socialist, so to speak.

While Judas Iscariot, the Sadducees, and others seemed preoccupied with haggling over money.

[BulletproofLandshark]

2. I like the way you think.

The only thing I could disagree with on that list is the minimum wage hike. I think minimum wage should be at least $10.

[NV Whino]

3. I disagree with some of your prposals

Not totally, just think they need to be tempered a bit. But mostly right on!

[Recursion]

4. Socialism means the people who work at farms and factories own them

Since none of what you mentioned makes that happen, then no, you're not a socialist.

[JVS]

12. Yup.

[socialist_n_TN]

17. Yep. Since I saw no government loans (or grants)

to workers as start up capital for worker owned factories and farms, it's not socialist. It IS old time Democratic policies though. The Dems of the 50s/60s would be proud.

Now, today's capitalists would DEFINITELY call this agenda socialist, but they're idiots or liars.

[Recursion]

19. Remember the window plant strike in '08?

That would have been an outstanding opportunity for socialism in action: the workers simply continue to work, as a co-op, running the factory. Then again, Bank of America caved precisely when the workers started talking about that, and that may not be a coincidence.

[socialist_n_TN]

23. I do remember that.........

Of course the problem would come when BoA sent the cops (and modern day Pinkertons) to clean them out. That's where the government grants or loans would have come in handy.

[Donnachaidh]

5. BAN all lobbyist jobs for ex-government employees

Stop the cycle of corruption.

[Synicus Maximus]

6. None of these proposals has any thing to do with socialism.

I do have some questions about 3 of your ideas.

All income not invested would be taxed at 70%.
I don't understand. This statement implies that if someone is making minimum wage they would be taxed at 70% unless they invest there income.

Jobs would be offered to every able-bodied person willing to work.
What would these jobs be?

Those not willing or able to work, would get a guaranteed income equal to half of those that work.
I assume that you mean they would get half of minimum wage. Or would everyone make the same wage?

[kentuck]

9. Good questions..

I was attempting to be brief but the 70% would be corporate profits, capital gains, and would hopefully stop the huge CEO salaries and wild investments.

Jobs would be fixing roads, cleaning parks and trails, and building needed infrastructure.. The guaranteed income is an old idea. But the "half the income" for not working may need to be re-thought? Some people are unable to work, some are hooked on drugs, some are mentally ill, etc. I think we have an obligation to offer assistance to these folks so they are not homeless or hungry. It would be a bare subsistence. There would need to be an clear incentive to work rather than not work.

[FooshIt]

39. bare subsistence for those who don't work

this is a meager life to offer for those among us who can't work ... just enough so they can get by to the next day until one day they die?

[glitch]

7. Publicly funded and publicly counted elections.

No more vote results from private unaccountable corporations.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. I disagree with this point:

Those not willing or able to work, would get a guaranteed income equal to half of those that work.

So a (ex) childless couple choosing not to work gets the same pay as a single parent who has to work to pay the rent?

Sorry, card-carrying DSA member here, but that takes out incentive, so no.

[kentuck]

10. Good question.

See comment #9 above.

[Curmudgeoness]

26. I had a problem with this one too, for another reason...

Those not able to work having to live on half income sticks in my craw. Disabled, mentally ill, mentally disabled---all lumped into the "not willing" to work category is not acceptable to me.

[kentuck]

35. Sorry if offended...

But there are homeless, drug-addicted, mentally ill people on the streets that are getting no help at all. To offer enough money for food and shelter seemed generous, to me, relatively speaking. Not able to work and not willing are two separate issues.

[bobbolink]

36. I asked you to include us, but you ignored that, only to later link all the

negative characteristics into the same ugly meme.

And this is "progressive"?

No, you are no socialist. That mind-set is no different from the RW.

[Obamanaut]

38. Silnce this was only an imaginary scenario that will not happen in

our lifetime (and probably not thereafter either), do you think that you are too angry too soon?

[bobbolink]

40. It won't happen because people don't give shit..

So, yeah, criticise us for pointing out the ugly stereotypes.

Aren't you glad that civil rights workers weren't "angry too soon" and didn't fight against the ugly stereotypes of their day?

Personal shit against people who are already hurting really takes a lot of balls. Its ever sooooooo "progressive".

:puke:

[JVS]

11. No.

and this "All income not invested would be taxed at 70%." would be murder on working people who are saving up enough money that they don't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck. It's essentially forcing them to risk their money in investments.

[kentuck]

13. See #9

Sorry for the brevity.

[Kalun D]

14. Liberal Or Progressive Might Be A Better Word

and as long as you're dreaming, you might as well dream BIG!

[Radical Activist]

15. It depends on whose definition you're using.

Single-payer is state socialist. Democratic Socialist countries do many of the things on your list. It's not my idea of socialism but some people would say yes.

[Recursion]

18. Well... not by most definitions

Socialism in medicine is "the people" owning the hospitals. Doctors, nurses, etc. work for the government and get a paycheck from the government. This is how England does it, and how the VA in the US does it.

Single-payer is a single medical insurance pool for everyone in the US run by the government (or conceivably a sufficiently independent non-profit corporation if you prefer). The hospitals are still private organizations and doctors' practices are still privately-owned small businesses.

[Radical Activist]

21. Nationalized insurance.

Single-payer would be a socialist form of health insurance. By having power to decide what gets paid out, it also gives the government tremendous control over the health care delivery industry. It's certainly not a free market arrangement.

[keep_it_real]

20. Can an individual start up a privately owned company in a Socialist Nation?

Could Bill Gates start up Microsoft in a Socialist government run nation?

[valerief]

22. Got this far: All income not invested would be taxed at 70%.

Huh? So my gross would be taxed at 70% and I get 30% to pay my bills? What do I get for my 70% More WAR?

[kentuck]

24. See #9

Of course, that is not wages from labor. That would be corporate profits or capital gains. Companies should not be permitted to hold on to $1.8 trillion dollars without a penalty.

[Zavulon]

25. The 70% tax...

...even if it applies only to corporations, why so low? Why not just crank it up to 99.5% if the intent is to punish people for not using money the way YOU want?

[Curmudgeoness]

27. OMG, you are such a Socialist! How terrible of you! nt

[miscsoc]

28. yeah, you're a quite right wing socialist

actually more of a left liberal. you'd be a socialist in europe, obama wouldn't

[stevedeshazer]

29. You socialist marxist pig

OK, I agree on all except term limits.

:hi:

[AnArmyVeteran]

30. You need to turn yourself into the Glenn Beck internment camp NOW!

You're a commie, but I agree with everything you stated!

I'd rather be red, than a redneck right winger.

[LWolf]

31. I don't know if it makes you a socialist,

but those are all damned fine ideas.

I have one addition to one of your ideas:

Jobs earning a living wage would be offered to every able-bodied person willing to work.

And a few of my own:

Get rid of NAFTA/CAFTA and base trade on labor and environmental standards.

Re-regulate. De-privatize.

And bury the current philosophies, bad ideas, and bad policies pushing education "reform" in favor of reforms that will actually help public education and help close achievement gaps.

[bobbolink]

37. Again, only those working.

Its the ice floes for the rest of us, eh?

[LWolf]

46. Not at all.

People who can't work deserve a decent quality of life, as well.

[bobbolink]

47. Then it needs to be stated that way, doesn't it? Do you know how it feels to disabled people

to constantly be left out? Ignored?

It really isn't that hard to THINK of us, which would lead to INCLUDING us.

[SheilaT]

33. I think what you mean by

"All income not invested would be taxed at 70%" you actually mean all income from investments would be taxed at 70%. That is, what the IRS calls unearned income?

Otherwise, as several others have already pointed out, the working poor and middle class who don't have spare money to invest would be taxed at 70%.

[bobbolink]

34. It would really be nice if you would include adequate housing so that nobody need be homeless.

We do get tired of being left out.

Thank you.

[Obamanaut]

44. According to this line in the OP, no one need be homeless; everyone

would be able to buy or rent: "Jobs would be offered to every able-bodied person willing to work."

[bobbolink]

48. Right. Exactly. You really don't GET it? Those of us too old, too sick, too injured to work

can take a flying leap off a cliff, right?

How is that any better than a damned RWer?

You also realize, of course, that even an "able-bodied" person willing to work CANNNOT GET A JOB when they are homeless, right?

Could some of you look beyond your limited scope? Is it really that difficult?

[harun]

41. Tax wealth not income.

[Greyhound]

42. One question; Your second to the last line, did you mean Barack Obama is a Socialist like you,

or did he call you a Socialist? Honest question, not watching TeeVee is a handicap sometimes as I don't always know where the latest mass media has focused...

Oh, and yes you are a Socialist like so many of us.
:kick: & R

[uncommon]

43. A 35 hour work week would really improve my quality of life.

And that would improve my productivity.

I miss my daughter. Seeing her a few more hours a week would really brighten my perspective on life.

And I agree with everything else you said.

And I am not upset to be a socialist. People are more important than profits.

[TheKentuckian]

45. Not really but in modern day America

Just being a regulated market capitalist makes you a radical so you get the distinction of being a hard core commie in the Twilight Zone that is our country.

Actual socialists are put into a similar though less acceptable camp as those that go unkempt and appear to have the most engaged conversations with the shopping carts they are pushing.
I assume true collectivist and communists are in prison, off the grid, dead, playing socialists, or are ex-pats at this stage.

[upi402]

49. FICA tax is capped at $106K -so rich don't have to pay

End the $106K FICA tax cap and the Delaware loophole that lets oil companies not pay tax - and we have a start at government that works.

It's insanity that a worker that makes $106K a year pays the same FICA tax as someone who makes million$.

[TBF]

50. I am quite fond of your posts Kentuck, but I don't see any reference to killing capitalism -

so I'm thinking you're liberal, like Barack Obama.

I laugh every time my crazy right-wing FIL forwards me one of those hate mails. Obama's statement about loving the market should've been their first clue that he is no where near socialism.

[area51]

51. You're already a socialist,

as are all the teabaggers, if you believe in having a single-payer police force, a single-payer fire department, a single-payer library and school system, single-payer roads, etc.

[MyNameGoesHere]

52. Sorry not even close.

You have liberal ideas and that is a start.

[blindpig]

54. A little meek, but it's a start.

If I might add and ammend....

Your minimum wage increase is too low. Screw the investment, see below.

Repeal Taft-Hartley.

Reduce the Pentagon budget by 90%.

Release non-violent offenders from prison.

Nationalize: Energy, Finance, the MIC corps, Health Care, Private prisons.

for a start....

[kctim]

55. Using todays political definition, yes

You support "the people" (government) controlling the way a private company schedules and pays its employees.
You support "the people" (government) controlling how much others can have and what they must use it for.
You support "the people" (government) taking from one and giving it to another whom you feel is more deserving.
You support "the people" (government) to pay for each others health care.
You support "the people" (government) to control the airwaves.

You are basically advocating for "the people" (government) to control how private businesses operate, how much individuals earn and what individuals must spend their earnings for. While not entirely socialism as defined, this style of government does have more in common with European style government than that of our own history, so many Americans equate it to socialism.
It is the future of our nation and we are living through the transformation.