Be a Supporter!

What is so bad about Socalism?

  • 2,886 Views
  • 137 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 06:23 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 06:13 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: You still didn't answer my question. Who owns your education?

An education is an intangible object. It isn't "owned" by anyone.

Definition of socialism, from Webster:

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

I thought we weren't talking about "political socialism"?

The American education system is socialist. The highway system is socialist. The frickin' army, because it's raised by the government, is socialism. Those markets are socialist because society has deemed that those markets are best controlled by the people rather than individuals.

Let me ask you this: how do you see those markets otherwise? If the highway market in the United States isn't socialist, then what is it by definition?

I see them as something everyone pays for, because everyone uses it. Opposite of socialism, in practice.

See above. Also, you're telling me that our tax dollars, collected by the government, isn't funding our education system or public roads? How do you think our government works?

Oh it does fund roads and education. But it also funds CEO private jets. It also funds propping failing businesses. It also funds corporate welfare.

That's the issue. As I've said probably 5 times now, I have no problem paying taxes when it goes to benefit the nation. I have a problem paying taxes so that insurance tycoons can buy new mansions. I have a problem paying taxes so Obama can kill more kids. I have a problem paying taxes to prop up companies that cannot run themselves.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 08:47 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 06:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote: An education is an intangible object. It isn't "owned" by anyone.

You just provided a definition of property. Education, by your definition,is property. Your statement contradicts your own definition!

I thought we weren't talking about "political socialism"?

We're not. Why did you bring it up? It's just part of the definition, but that's not that part I'm using.

I see them as something everyone pays for, because everyone uses it. Opposite of socialism, in practice.

If everybody pays for it and everybody uses it and if the payment is done through the government, who then distributes the good equally to everybody (I don't think you get more protection from the police moreso than the next person) again, that's the definition of socialism! (Which, for everybody's sake, I've already provided the definition of)

Oh it does fund roads and education. But it also funds CEO private jets. It also funds propping failing businesses. It also funds corporate welfare.

Someone mad about government corruption? Aw, too bad that has only been around since forever. If anything, corruption shows that there are individuals who have learned to game the system to their advantage and thus are enjoying the benefits of said advantage. If anything you should be praising those individuals; they're doing what any capitalist would do: trying to get more from the system than what they put in.

That's the issue. As I've said probably 5 times now, I have no problem paying taxes when it goes to benefit the nation. I have a problem paying taxes so that insurance tycoons can buy new mansions. I have a problem paying taxes so Obama can kill more kids. I have a problem paying taxes to prop up companies that cannot run themselves.

It doesn't matter what kind of tax you're paying. The very fact that you're paying taxes means that there are government services, which ergo is socialism! In a truly "free market" there's not going to be a national guard. The military would be PMCs, and a look at Blackwater back in Iraq tells you why we shouldn't hire PMCs. I can apply the same argument to any government service provided now.

Have you taken a basic civics/economics class or are you Mitt Romney's campaign manager still in rehab?


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 09:42 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 08:47 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: You just provided a definition of property. Education, by your definition,is property. Your statement contradicts your own definition!

The definition I posted (not mine, btw), doesn't apply to something like education.

We're not. Why did you bring it up? It's just part of the definition, but that's not that part I'm using.

Because the definition you posted says "politics"

If everybody pays for it and everybody uses it and if the payment is done through the government, who then distributes the good equally to everybody (I don't think you get more protection from the police moreso than the next person) again, that's the definition of socialism! (Which, for everybody's sake, I've already provided the definition of)

See, you say this. But I look at socialist cultures throughout recent history, and what you describe is not the case.

Someone mad about government corruption? Aw, too bad that has only been around since forever. If anything, corruption shows that there are individuals who have learned to game the system to their advantage and thus are enjoying the benefits of said advantage. If anything you should be praising those individuals; they're doing what any capitalist would do: trying to get more from the system than what they put in.

Except that isn't what capitalists do. That's what cheaters, thieves, and shills do.

You see, corruption and fucked up governments have always existed. What America was founded on, was bringing balance to the government/citizen relationship.

It doesn't matter what kind of tax you're paying. The very fact that you're paying taxes means that there are government services, which ergo is socialism! In a truly "free market" there's not going to be a national guard. The military would be PMCs, and a look at Blackwater back in Iraq tells you why we shouldn't hire PMCs. I can apply the same argument to any government service provided now.

So, corporate welfare is a "government service" now? Awesome. Can you show me where that is permitted in the Constitution?

And no, the military would still exist in a free market. Not sure why you think it wouldn't.

Have you taken a basic civics/economics class or are you Mitt Romney's campaign manager still in rehab?

I didn't vote for Romney, so...go fuck yourself?

I have taken advanced civics/econ classes...that's how I know your concepts and theories are incorrect.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 10:19 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 09:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I have taken advanced civics/econ classes...

Really?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 10:28 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 10:19 PM, Feoric wrote: Really?

Taught by a retired 3-star general. You?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 10:34 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 10:28 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/2/13 10:19 PM, Feoric wrote: Really?
Taught by a retired 3-star general. You?

Retired 4-star general.

Knis
Knis
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 10:57 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 02:50 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/2/13 01:31 PM, Knis wrote: The problem is that's retarded, you have to use force to take property in the first place. that's what these psuedolibertarians fail to understand.

So you're retarded.
Hmm. My property, every single thing I own, was acquired by me purchasing it. I didn't force anyone to give anything to me.

No but you do need force to keep people from taking it in the first place, I assume you frequently leave property and still expect it to be there when you get back? That's because we have a social contract that is enforced by law.
You may also own a space, as in a home, land, etc.. you don't own those by natural right, you own them because as a society we have agreed to allow space to be owned,.

I traded money

Money, you mean currency? Stored wealth that's value is enforced by law?


So, again, the socialist thought is flawed because it requires government forcing people to participate in things they may not want to do.

As does the capitalist model. I am forced not to forage on someones farmland, thus I am forced to purchase things which again forces me acquire currency.................

Of course I may ask how socialism requires the government do anything.

However, free markets work off of 100% voluntary action.

Free markets don't work at all, However we are not discussing markets, this is a discussion of the merits of he welfare state, which has nothing to do with markets, "free" or otherwise.

Not only are you incorrect,

How so?

but your world view seems to be based in some sort of fictionalized universe.

According to the person who points out that they benefit from the government forcing people to do things as proof that the government doesn't force anybody to do anything.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 11:12 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 09:42 PM, LemonCrush wrote: The definition I posted (not mine, btw), doesn't apply to something like education.

Yes it does. It says "A thing that belongs to a person". How is education not a thing? Unless you want to be really philosophical, education is a thing, ergo, property.

Because the definition you posted says "politics"

Have I been talking about politics? No. This is a nonissue. Either say something meaningful, or shut up. That fact that is is even an issue shows how immature you are.

See, you say this. But I look at socialist cultures throughout recent history, and what you describe is not the case.

I'm not talking about other socialist cultures. I'm talking about America and for the most part every 1st world country who don't even consider themselves socialist. I'm just talking about how history and society has dictated certain markets are best run by government rather than individuals.

Except that isn't what capitalists do. That's what cheaters, thieves, and shills do.

Then you might as well call everybody a cheater, a thief, and a shill because that's human nature, to always try to take advantage of the situation. That's the basis of rational decision making, people will always make the choice that benefits themselves. As a capitalist you should know people are self-interested, so those people who see a system and thus take advantage of the system should be applauded by capitalists; these are the people who have made the world work for them, not the other way around. Capitalism doesn't have ethics. It doesn't exist when all you care about is benefit.

You see, corruption and fucked up governments have always existed. What America was founded on, was bringing balance to the government/citizen relationship.

No it wasn't. America was founded on the core idea that people ultimately didn't want to pay taxes for a war they initatially supported. (Wait, people wanting to get more out of a system than what they put in? Where have I heard that before?) it was an economic argument that ultimately resulted in what would be called today terrorist acts. This, combined with the emotional zeal of (at the time) a radical left, lead to the revolution. Not government corruption. Britain had every right to tax the colonies, how else were they going to pay for war?

So, corporate welfare is a "government service" now? Awesome. Can you show me where that is permitted in the Constitution?

Can you show me where I said that? No? Then shut up, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And no, the military would still exist in a free market. Not sure why you think it wouldn't.

Yes, it would as I said.......except it would be entirely PMCs. And like I said: do you really want another Blackwater scandal?

I have taken advanced civics/econ classes...that's how I know your concepts and theories are incorrect.

Then what the hell are you smoking, and where can I get some?


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 3rd, 2013 @ 12:10 AM Reply

At 1/2/13 11:12 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Yes it does. It says "A thing that belongs to a person". How is education not a thing? Unless you want to be really philosophical, education is a thing, ergo, property.

It's neither a thing, nor does it belong to anyone.

Have I been talking about politics? No. This is a nonissue. Either say something meaningful, or shut up. That fact that is is even an issue shows how immature you are.

It's not an issue for me. You're dancing around and moving goalposts to try to make a point.

I'm not talking about other socialist cultures. I'm talking about America and for the most part every 1st world country who don't even consider themselves socialist. I'm just talking about how history and society has dictated certain markets are best run by government rather than individuals.

Like what? Certainly not schooling.

Then you might as well call everybody a cheater, a thief, and a shill because that's human nature, to always try to take advantage of the situation. That's the basis of rational decision making, people will always make the choice that benefits themselves. As a capitalist you should know people are self-interested, so those people who see a system and thus take advantage of the system should be applauded by capitalists; these are the people who have made the world work for them, not the other way around. Capitalism doesn't have ethics. It doesn't exist when all you care about is benefit.

Please, just for your own sake, before you dig your hole even deeper, do some reading about Capitalism (true capitalism, not Stalin or Mao's version), moral hazard, the free market, and the relationships between them. You seem to not understand how checks and balances, or volunteerism works.

No it wasn't. America was founded on the core idea that people ultimately didn't want to pay taxes for a war they initatially supported. (Wait, people wanting to get more out of a system than what they put in? Where have I heard that before?) it was an economic argument that ultimately resulted in what would be called today terrorist acts. This, combined with the emotional zeal of (at the time) a radical left, lead to the revolution. Not government corruption. Britain had every right to tax the colonies, how else were they going to pay for war?

Um, no. There's an entire section of the constitution that explains and supports my idea. None to support yours.

Can you show me where I said that? No? Then shut up, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You said the government uses tax money for "government services", did you not?

Yes, it would as I said.......except it would be entirely PMCs.

Why do you say that? PMC's and Blackwater were a result of policies and concepts that contradicted the free market entirely.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 3rd, 2013 @ 03:16 PM Reply

At 1/1/13 07:24 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Cutting wages saves them money. Using cheaper ingredients...people know the difference. You can't tell the difference between sugar and aspertame?

They have ingredients which taste the same for the most part, I mean Orange Juice for example is either fresh or it was stored in a vat for a year then a new flavor pack was added. For most people it's hard to tell the difference.

I worked for a multi-national food corporation for years. I see the cost cutting measures in quality of products, and employee/labor. They absorb the cost because they own almost everything that's probably in your pantry and bathroom.

This type of corporatism is only possible, when the government creates legistlation that benefits industry over consumers.

That doesn't make any sense. If the government did nothing what's stopping them from doing it?

Rockefeller actually obtained and created his monopoly through buying government seats and lobbying legislation in his favor.

In the state government and that was mostly purchasing of land and getting rid of regulation. But no Rockefeller obtained his monopoly by creating a good product then buying out the competition, then constructing pipelines to bypass railroads. These actions crashed the economy while benefitting him, which again is part of the whole "greed" thing.

And the government did not breakup monopolies. They are still rampant today.

Like where? I can only think of local garbage disposal but that makes sense. AT&T and Microsoft had monopolies but they were broken up by the government. So no.

Um, except it doesn't get paid back. Not to mention it creates a mindset of "we can fuck people over, and we'll always get money anyway!"

It does paid back and in fact the companies did pay back their loans to the government WITH interest. They also had to go by what the government told them to do in order to get these loans, so their CEO who managed them poorly is gone. It worked out pretty well hence why it wasn't a big news story.

Um, no that isn't libertarianism at all. Libertarianism, has NEVER been practiced in the nation, except maybe for a very brief period during the nations inception and even that's debatable.

Libertarianism is no government intervention right? So private corporations should be free to hire their own militia correct? Carnegie/Frick did this and they were used to put down strikes.

As I said, in a libertarian system, it would be paramount for a CEO to jump through hoops to make sure his employees and customers were as happy as possible.

Right through the barrel of a gun and through monopolies. GREAT RIGHT?

This concept of "private militias"...that's more inline with democrats and republicans than Libertarians...in fact the very concepts run totally counter one another.

What? How?

And regulation makes it worse. Case in point, the current economic crisis.

Our current econ crisis is due to a lack of regulation, not because of it.

Yes. They are called lobbyists. I'm sure you're aware that former CEO's of corporations sit as head of "regulatory" agencies, right? Like the head of the FDA used to be the CEO of Tyson Chicken?

Yah I know, but that doesn't mean every single regulation is created by private corporations.

The Army protects me from Al-Quida. Bailouts do not.

The Bailouts were not part of the military......

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have robber baron insurance companies jacking up prices with impunity?

? The guy got sick and his company went bankrupt, he lost all of his savings. This was years ago....

So, explain again why I am not allowed to have freedom to decide whether or not to participate.

That's not the point.....

Hmm.. Private sector has given me hospitals, computers, phones, fuel, food, airplanes (I'm a pilot), cars and entertainment, not to mention numerous paychecks. The government has given me war, murder and can arrest me without trial.

Most of which were due to subsidies from the government....

I'm smart enough to realize killing people will not make them like you :)

Well yah, but the people the military targets are people who want to kill you so it kind of doesn't matter.

BTW, Obama has invaded Libya, Yemen, Pakistan (when he murdered Bin Laden), and Somalia.

Not true, he's attacked but he hasn't sent any ground forces to take them over. As for Somalia he's done actually nothing, that is mostly Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia who are doing the invasion.

Show me a socialist society in history where that is true...30's germany? Greece? Denmark? 30's Italy? Where?

What? You've gone of a tangent again, you talked about a society where there was no government intervention and a CEO was equal to a consumer, I marked that as Libertarian Socialism and you said you weren't a Socialist, which then I pointed out you wanted a society where everyone was equal, which is Socialism.

Ever heard of Guantanimo Bay?

Right, used for detaining terrorists.

As for assassinations, even the HUFFINGTON POST knows it's true

Oh and here's a quote from Obama's head of DNI
"Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans."

Whoa, so if I try to kill Americans, being an American citizen doesn't protect me? What dicks the government has no right to kill armed criminals because they're US citizens!

Maybe not hyperinflation...but inflation at an alarming rate non the less. Brought a loaf of bread lately?

As far as I know it's been going up a couple of dollars, inflation isn't that alarming really.

No, they expanded too much because they lobbied government to write laws in their favor, and look the other way (See JP Morgan, Rockefeller, et al)

No they expanded too much because they felt the boom would go on forever, they felt that they could then start exporting more goods and produce more. When people overseas began to prefer buying their own countries products and passed tariff's to make imports there unprofitable our companies all of a sudden had excess inventory and had now to begin downsizing with massive layoffs beginning 1926. When the stock market crashed in 1929 people simple stopped buying.

No they didn't. You need to check your history. Companies like IBM were developing the technology WAY before the federal govt.

The earliest computers were from the 1900s (decade) from Cambridge University if I recall correctly.

Where?

You said Business innovates whereas government does not.

Exactly.

It's great how our satellites are there by private comp... or wait.

No, the veterans DO earn it (risking their lives and all). Children DO deserve it (general welfare).

But those are the people taking up considerable chunks of the Federal Budget.

The government steals from them to benefit their campaign contributors.

You know like Seniors.

And that's where consumers and employees come into the equation. However, when you take power from them to keep it in check, or having the government supporting it, you have a problem. Look around you.

Except when you have monopolies and private militias that doesn't exactly work.

Right. Regulation that takes away your right to choose what you purchase. Of course a company isn't going to force you to buy their shit. They can't...that's why some people are uninsured.

Because of regulations.

Question: How could they insure everyone if there was no regulation forcing people to buy?

They could, it would just be too expensive since they need to turn a profit.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 3rd, 2013 @ 04:21 PM Reply

At 1/3/13 03:16 PM, Warforger wrote: They have ingredients which taste the same for the most part, I mean Orange Juice for example is either fresh or it was stored in a vat for a year then a new flavor pack was added. For most people it's hard to tell the difference.

Most people can.

That doesn't make any sense. If the government did nothing what's stopping them from doing it?

Their self interest for profit.

In the state government and that was mostly purchasing of land and getting rid of regulation. But no Rockefeller obtained his monopoly by creating a good product then buying out the competition, then constructing pipelines to bypass railroads. These actions crashed the economy while benefitting him, which again is part of the whole "greed" thing.

Exactly! He bought influence in governments (federal as well), and wrote his own legislation.

Like where? I can only think of local garbage disposal but that makes sense. AT&T and Microsoft had monopolies but they were broken up by the government. So no.

The food industry is a good example. Fuel/energy is another. Banking too.

It does paid back and in fact the companies did pay back their loans to the government WITH interest. They also had to go by what the government told them to do in order to get these loans, so their CEO who managed them poorly is gone. It worked out pretty well hence why it wasn't a big news story.

They repaid it with tax dollars and tarp money they had already received.

Libertarianism is no government intervention right? So private corporations should be free to hire their own militia correct? Carnegie/Frick did this and they were used to put down strikes.

Libertarianism, is equal rights and power between government, citizens and industry. Therefore, the private militia concept does not fall under that category, because it puts corporate power ahead of citizens' powers. Such things can only happen with government help, and/or favorable legislation to allow it. Blackwater would have never happened if not for the extreme amount of govt. assistance and favoritism (legal and financial) they were receiving.

Right through the barrel of a gun and through monopolies. GREAT RIGHT?

Fuck does this even mean? In a free market, monopolies are not possible. Monopolies only happen with government intervention.

What? How?

Because a private militia would be an example of industrial/corporate power outweighing the power of the government and the citizenry. Which is the opposite of libertarianism.

Our current econ crisis is due to a lack of regulation, not because of it.

Really? For shit's sake, please do some research on the Community Reinvestment Act. This was a bill that sought to fine and restrict banks if they did not make high-risk and unqualified loans.

This lead to billions of dollars being loaned out, that could not be repaid. Which lead to banks losing mass amounts of money. Which lead to begging the govt. for money...which the government didn't/doesn't have....get it?

Yah I know, but that doesn't mean every single regulation is created by private corporations.

Of course, not every single one. Just the ones dealing with our food, military, and personal finances. Even if that wasn't the case, it creates a POTENTIAL danger for which there is no defense.

The Bailouts were not part of the military......

Duh.

? The guy got sick and his company went bankrupt, he lost all of his savings. This was years ago....

You mentioned he was a top naval pilot. In my opinion, military, and former military deserve extreme benefits for the risks they take. Politicians do not see it this way, and never hesitate to try and cut their benefits. IMO, I think your buddy, if he has the career you claim, should have no finacial issues.

That's not the point.....

That is the ENTIRE fucking point.

Most of which were due to subsidies from the government....

Hmm...the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford got govt. subsidies huh? News to me...

Well yah, but the people the military targets are people who want to kill you so it kind of doesn't matter.

Yeah, all those kids Obama killed were totally dangerous to me.

Not true, he's attacked but he hasn't sent any ground forces to take them over. As for Somalia he's done actually nothing, that is mostly Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia who are doing the invasion.

What the fuck do you think and invasion is? I didn't say conquered, I said invaded.

What? You've gone of a tangent again, you talked about a society where there was no government intervention and a CEO was equal to a consumer, I marked that as Libertarian Socialism and you said you weren't a Socialist, which then I pointed out you wanted a society where everyone was equal, which is Socialism.

Well, every socialist society I've ever heard of, puts corporate power above citizen power...similar to fascism.

Right, used for detaining terrorists.

Without a trial, how do we know if someone's a terrorist or not?

Whoa, so if I try to kill Americans, being an American citizen doesn't protect me? What dicks the government has no right to kill armed criminals because they're US citizens!

Call me crazy, but I'd think that you should be arrested and given a trial by your peers....like the law says.

As far as I know it's been going up a couple of dollars, inflation isn't that alarming really.

A couple dollars?

No they expanded too much because they felt the boom would go on forever, they felt that they could then start exporting more goods and produce more. When people overseas began to prefer buying their own countries products and passed tariff's to make imports there unprofitable our companies all of a sudden had excess inventory and had now to begin downsizing with massive layoffs beginning 1926. When the stock market crashed in 1929 people simple stopped buying.

Read "the Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffen....it explains, in great detail how exactly a handful of corporatism bought the government to funnel money into their pockets.

The earliest computers were from the 1900s (decade) from Cambridge University if I recall correctly.

Right....and that's why you're typing on a Cambridge computer right now, right?

You said Business innovates whereas government does not.

Mmhhmm. That's exactly correct.

It's great how our satellites are there by private comp... or wait.

Yep.

But those are the people taking up considerable chunks of the Federal Budget.

And they deserve to

You know like Seniors.

Actually, the government steals from seniors to write legislation favorable to private insurance companies.

Except when you have monopolies and private militias that doesn't exactly work.

Monopolies are not possible when there is a balance.

Because of regulations.

No, they're uninsured because they can't afford it, because government makes it too expensive. They're compounding and making it more expensive with Obamacare, where cheap coverage must be eliminated because the government says they "don't cover enough"

They could, it would just be too expensive since they need to turn a profit.

Right. Just like you need to turn a profit.

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 3rd, 2013 @ 04:28 PM Reply

Maybe I'm missing something after reading the back and forth in the last few pages, but Socialism is a pretty easy concept to pin down and distinguish from a community investment. Roads and schools are not examples of socialism because, like Lemon said, they have a positive direct effect on most everyone and a positive indirect effect on everyone (even if you don't use the roads or public schools yourself, some aspect of your life, whether it's what you do for job or what you buy has been made possible in part by this sort of infrastructure).

However, programs like Social Security and Medicaid are socialist, or at least very close to it. The country as a whole doens't benefit from payments to senior citizens, only senior citizens do, and because of the way the payment system is set up, the current recipients haven't technically earned it; there just happens to be enough money in the system at the moment for it to seem like they're getting their own money back. It won't always be the case. It's a similar situation with Medicaid, because it benefits people who tend to be very replaceable in terms of their ability to contribute to society (and the economy).

Both of them are socialist in design, but because the alternative is letting poor people die from untreated injuries or diseases and seeing elderly or disabled people who are literally unable to work pushed into poverty are so unpleasant, most people don't have a problem with them.

If you ask me, the federal unemployment benefit extensions are socialist because they basically redistribute money from one group and give it to another for no other purpose than to prevent the recipient from liquidating his assets and eventually becoming eligible for public assistance. Being poor obviously sucks, but no one has an inalienable right to own a home, or to have a car, or to maintain a savings or retirement account. The argument that it stimulates the economy misses the point because the same could be said to justify placing annual spending quotas on each citizen or confiscating the wealth of people who've saved too much or spent their money on things that don't stimulate the economy enough (like imported goods). When a government ventures into the area of deciding what is and isn't acceptable economic activity it veers the country closer to a command economy, which have usually been inspired by socialism but were universally oppressive.

Socialism, when put into practice, basically restricts people's choices and freedom and undermines the individual's right to benefit from his own efforts, abilities, or good fortune.

captainlolz
captainlolz
  • Member since: Feb. 9, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Movie Buff
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 5th, 2013 @ 02:49 AM Reply

socialism is where people collectively own everything it's basically a democracy without the minority making it unrealistically utopian


if it is a gigantic horrible typo mah bad

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 5th, 2013 @ 01:16 PM Reply

At 1/5/13 02:49 AM, captainlolz wrote: socialism is where people collectively own everything it's basically a democracy without the minority making it unrealistically utopian

In theory, yes.

In practice, it's just the opposite. The government owns everything, and people are forced into giving to the state. In practice it's the concept of "state over people"

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 5th, 2013 @ 02:05 PM Reply

At 1/3/13 04:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Most people can.

Not always.

Their self interest for profit.

So if they want to make a profit they won't do something like say tear down an entire forest?

Exactly! He bought influence in governments (federal as well), and wrote his own legislation.

But that's still Libertarianism. The government sold land (which is part of the government) and de-regulated for the companies.

The food industry is a good example.

Nope, it's probably the least prone the monopoly because so many people own farms and can sell their own products.

Fuel/energy is another.

I can walk down the street and find two different gas stations by two different companies right next to each other. Otherwise you're right in the sense of electricity but that's bound to be a local monopoly anyway.

Banking too.

Again I can merely walk down the street and know that this is complete bullshit. In fact all I have to do is look at my mom's wallet and find credit cards from Citi and American Express.

They repaid it with tax dollars

No, they got tax payer money, then they used that to carry out the demands of the government then they legitimately paid back the loans with interest.

and tarp money they had already received.

TARP was purchasing the company's stock and then selling it back to them when they got back on their feet. So again the government again took freedom away from the company so they could get their shit together and not crash the economy.

Libertarianism, is equal rights and power between government, citizens and industry. Therefore, the private militia concept does not fall under that category, because it puts corporate power ahead of citizens' powers.

No that's the ideology of FDR and his New Deal maybe not modern Liberalism though. The only consistent definition is getting rid of government coercion and emphasizing freedom.

Such things can only happen with government help, and/or favorable legislation to allow it. Blackwater would have never happened if not for the extreme amount of govt. assistance and favoritism (legal and financial) they were receiving.

Pinkertons were a private militia hired by private corporations......

Fuck does this even mean? In a free market, monopolies are not possible.

And in a Communist government the state will wither away.

Monopolies only happen with government intervention.

Monopolies happen because private corporations become too large to take on.

Really? For shit's sake, please do some research on the Community Reinvestment Act. This was a bill that sought to fine and restrict banks if they did not make high-risk and unqualified loans.

You should also do some research because Bush didn't enforce the regulations on banks by not appointing people to enforce them. This was a huge part of it and partly why it wasn't stopped. But you telling me to do research is so hilariously hypocritical......

Of course, not every single one. Just the ones dealing with our food, military, and personal finances.

If that were the case then sawdust would probably still be pretty common in meat.

Even if that wasn't the case, it creates a POTENTIAL danger for which there is no defense.

There's a potential danger of the Bill of Rights to be removed from the Constitution as well. But there is a defense, elections.....

Duh.

Then why did you bring them up?

You mentioned he was a top naval pilot. In my opinion, military, and former military deserve extreme benefits for the risks they take. Politicians do not see it this way, and never hesitate to try and cut their benefits.

No they don't, they try to cut benefits because they can't afford them.

IMO, I think your buddy, if he has the career you claim, should have no finacial issues.

And this is where reality comes crashing down. He doesn't have a Master's degree and he's old, this had barred him from several jobs.

That is the ENTIRE fucking point.

No it's not, we were talking about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security then you talked about how you didn't have a choice to opt out.

Hmm...the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford got govt. subsidies huh? News to me...

To an extent. For example the government hastened production of airplanes when they went into WWI.

Yeah, all those kids Obama killed were totally dangerous to me.

Not the kids, but you know like Bin Laden. But you're talking as though Obama started those wars, in fact you've even claim he did, he's merely trying to end it without looking weak which again if he wasn't using drones you'd be criticizing him for not using them. .

What the fuck do you think and invasion is? I didn't say conquered, I said invaded.

An invasion is attempting to occupy a country, not the same thing as conquered though.

Well, every socialist society I've ever heard of, puts corporate power above citizen power...similar to fascism.

No they put state power above citizen power, but they've always used corporations since the 20's to modernize their economies (such as Ford building factories in the USSR).

Without a trial, how do we know if someone's a terrorist or not?

They're detained not punished.

Call me crazy, but I'd think that you should be arrested and given a trial by your peers....like the law says.

Whoa so if I just go in a bank with a gun and start killing people I should be taken to court first and convicted of murder before the police can start shooting me?

A couple dollars?

You get the point it's not alarming. Inflation at around 2-3% is ideal and right now it's 1.76%. For all of Obama's term it's never gone above 3% and there was even deflation back during 2009. So it's not really an issue.

Read "the Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffen....it explains, in great detail how exactly a handful of corporatism bought the government to funnel money into their pockets.

So we've gone off on a tangent again?

Right....and that's why you're typing on a Cambridge computer right now, right?

Innovation =/= production.

You said Business innovates whereas government does not.
Mmhhmm. That's exactly correct.

Great so we've just gone an entire 360 where you admitted the government can innovate and now you're saying they can't.

Yep.

Good, finally we can agree that the government at least sends space ships into space.

And they deserve to

Great so your proposals of cutting favor to corporations and cutting off welfare to I think poor people will not even dent the deficit and will probably make it larger.

Actually, the government steals from seniors to write legislation favorable to private insurance companies.

That was a major Romney quote, but it ended up being bullshit again especially when you see that the AARP supported the move.

Monopolies are not possible when there is a balance.

And in a Communist society everyone will be excited to be part of the superior order.

No, they're uninsured because they can't afford it, because government makes it too expensive.

It's more expensive because medical costs are rising, not because the government is forcing it.

They're compounding and making it more expensive with Obamacare, where cheap coverage must be eliminated because the government says they "don't cover enough"

In the short run, in the long run the costs will go down.

Right. Just like you need to turn a profit.

So you agree that insurance companies are harmed by Obamacare and would not in any way wanted it to pass because they didn't want to cover more people?


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 5th, 2013 @ 02:50 PM Reply

At 1/5/13 02:05 PM, Warforger wrote: So if they want to make a profit they won't do something like say tear down an entire forest?

Because that wouldn't be profitable for them to do so. An industry that utilized large amounts of wood, say a paper company, needs a sustainable source of wood. Destroying an entire forest would be suicide.

But that's still Libertarianism. The government sold land (which is part of the government) and de-regulated for the companies.

No, that's isn't libertarianism, it's corporate welfare. No different than Reagan price fixing sugar prices for the sugar lobbies, or Obama price fixing for insurance companies.

Nope, it's probably the least prone the monopoly because so many people own farms and can sell their own products.

Most of those farms are owned, or under contract to monopolies like ConAgra, or Monsanto.

I can walk down the street and find two different gas stations by two different companies right next to each other. Otherwise you're right in the sense of electricity but that's bound to be a local monopoly anyway.

And the gas either comes from Opec, or the supermajor oil company consisting of BP, Exxon, Chevron and Shell.

Again I can merely walk down the street and know that this is complete bullshit. In fact all I have to do is look at my mom's wallet and find credit cards from Citi and American Express.

All those banks fall under the same conglomerate

TARP was purchasing the company's stock...

With taxpayer money.

No that's the ideology of FDR and his New Deal maybe not modern Liberalism though. The only consistent definition is getting rid of government coercion and emphasizing freedom.

Oh you mean FDR, the guy who exerted more government force over the citizenry than any president ever? Yeah, he's a libertarian *rolling my eyes*

Pinkertons were a private militia hired by private corporations......

When the government allowed/encouraged it.

And in a Communist government the state will wither away.

K?

Monopolies happen because private corporations become too large to take on.

Which can only happen when the government makes consumer power/rights impotent, by giving the corporation favorable treatment.

You should also do some research because Bush didn't enforce the regulations on banks by not appointing people to enforce them. This was a huge part of it and partly why it wasn't stopped. But you telling me to do research is so hilariously hypocritical......

Bush is such a tiny part of the problem, from a domestic econ viewpoint. The car was already off the cliff by the time he was in office.

If that were the case then sawdust would probably still be pretty common in meat.

I'd take sawdust over hormones, pesticides, chemicals and mutations anyday.

There's a potential danger of the Bill of Rights to be removed from the Constitution as well. But there is a defense, elections.....

As witnessed by the Bush and Obama elections, they can easily be bought and sold.

No they don't, they try to cut benefits because they can't afford them.

Right. Because they're trying buy shitty cars, and loaning it out to corporate failures.

And this is where reality comes crashing down. He doesn't have a Master's degree and he's old, this had barred him from several jobs.

Exactly, and considering his service, he should be paid for life, by the government. BTW, I'm calling bullshit, because you don't fly military without a degree.

No it's not, we were talking about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security then you talked about how you didn't have a choice to opt out.

My point was, it's insolvent, and getting worse (you even said yourself), so why can't I opt out of it?

To an extent. For example the government hastened production of airplanes when they went into WWI.

No. No. Fucking no. A government contract is not the same as a subsidy.

Not the kids, but you know like Bin Laden. But you're talking as though Obama started those wars, in fact you've even claim he did, he's merely trying to end it without looking weak which again if he wasn't using drones you'd be criticizing him for not using them. .

Yemen, Libya and Somalia...Obama started. As for Pakistan, Afghanistan and the like...continuing them is just as bad as starting them.

And no, I oppose war, by and large.

An invasion is attempting to occupy a country, not the same thing as conquered though.

INVASION
An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

No they put state power above citizen power, but they've always used corporations since the 20's to modernize their economies (such as Ford building factories in the USSR).

Actually the USSR took over the Ford factories.

They're detained not punished.

Right. So imprisoned without trial. Which is illegal. Don't you remember the right to due process?

Whoa so if I just go in a bank with a gun and start killing people I should be taken to court first and convicted of murder before the police can start shooting me?

No, if you're witnessed to be shooting people, and that's the only way to stop you, then yes, deadly force should be used to stop it. However, if you're a suspect in a bank robbery, I don't think the government should be allowed to break into your house at night, and just murder you while watching TV.

You get the point it's not alarming. Inflation at around 2-3% is ideal and right now it's 1.76%. For all of Obama's term it's never gone above 3% and there was even deflation back during 2009. So it's not really an issue.

Yeah, it really is.

So we've gone off on a tangent again?

No?

Innovation =/= production.

Exactly.

Great so we've just gone an entire 360 where you admitted the government can innovate and now you're saying they can't.

I tihnk you need to learn what "innovate" means. The word you seem to be grasping for is "invent"/

Good, finally we can agree that the government at least sends space ships into space.

Nope.

Great so your proposals of cutting favor to corporations and cutting off welfare to I think poor people will not even dent the deficit and will probably make it larger.

What does this even mean?

That was a major Romney quote, but it ended up being bullshit again especially when you see that the AARP supported the move.

In 2011, the CBO determined that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimate released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.

And in a Communist society everyone will be excited to be part of the superior order.

Sure, after the idea is beat into them with violence, starvation and murder.

It's more expensive because medical costs are rising, not because the government is forcing it.

When government gets involved in industry, prices always rise. From food, to space travel, to medical stuff, to military. Always.

In the short run, in the long run the costs will go down.

So, just fuck everyone in the meantime, right?

So you agree that insurance companies are harmed by Obamacare and would not in any way wanted it to pass because they didn't want to cover more peop

The character limit cut you off, but insurance companies are helped by Obamacare, not harmed by it.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 5th, 2013 @ 07:49 PM Reply

At 1/5/13 02:50 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Because that wouldn't be profitable for them to do so. An industry that utilized large amounts of wood, say a paper company, needs a sustainable source of wood. Destroying an entire forest would be suicide.

Depends, if a 3rd world nation just lets the company get access to more and more forest that won't be the case.

No, that's isn't libertarianism, it's corporate welfare. No different than Reagan price fixing sugar prices for the sugar lobbies, or Obama price fixing for insurance companies.

So let me get this straight. Selling land to companies is Corporate welfare. SELLING LAND is WELFARE.

Most of those farms are owned, or under contract to monopolies like ConAgra, or Monsanto.

If you can name more than one company it's probably not a monopoly. And again there are local farmers as well like you know at farmer's markets?

And the gas either comes from Opec, or the supermajor oil company consisting of BP, Exxon, Chevron and Shell.

The Gas doesn't come from OPEC, most of it comes from Canada and/or is domestically produced. OPEC used to be able to set the price but now its market power has waned especially with countries like Kuwait not joining and lowering the price of oil. It's a Cartel that failed.

All those banks fall under the same conglomerate

CITI and American Express are quite clearly different companies.

With taxpayer money.

That doesn't change anything, its handing over control of the company to the government which then forces the company to make changes. Its the worst case scenario for any CEO especially one who mismanages their company.

Oh you mean FDR, the guy who exerted more government force over the citizenry than any president ever?

Oh my god he gave people jobs FASCISM!

Yeah, he's a libertarian *rolling my eyes*

You missed the point. What you described was the ideology of FDR and is very far from what Libertarianism tends to be defined as.

When the government allowed/encouraged it.

Um it would though be the way of the government to not interfere with such matters? Because they don't want to regulate everything?

K?

So you agree that what you said was merely theoretical and practice shows that it is wrong?

Which can only happen when the government makes consumer power/rights impotent, by giving the corporation favorable treatment.

lolz. Nope this happens when somebody becomes too good at Capitalism and unfairly takes down other companies.

Bush is such a tiny part of the problem, from a domestic econ viewpoint. The car was already off the cliff by the time he was in office.

Pretty much because of what he did during his term.

I'd take sawdust over hormones, pesticides, chemicals and mutations anyday.

Really? Because sawdust is actually harmful to you.

As witnessed by the Bush and Obama elections, they can easily be bought and sold.

Bullshit. Nobody gets elected just because they have more money. There are many times where a candidate vastly outspends his opponent yet loses. The candidate has to be appealing first before he gets money.

Right. Because they're trying buy shitty cars, and loaning it out to corporate failures.

Again you've missed the point.

Exactly, and considering his service, he should be paid for life, by the government.

So you're a Socialist?

BTW, I'm calling bullshit, because you don't fly military without a degree.

The guy has alot of evidence to back up his claim of military service and I certainly wouldn't doubt it.

My point was, it's insolvent, and getting worse (you even said yourself), so why can't I opt out of it?

And my point was that those people who said it was going to go bankrupt soon are just trying to fear monger and in all of actuality it's going to be fine for a while, at least by the time you get on it.

No. No. Fucking no. A government contract is not the same as a subsidy.

Oh right it's welfare.

Yemen, Libya and Somalia...Obama started.

No he didn't. For example we have military bases all over the world, we have them in Kazakhstan, we have them in Korea, Germany, Georgia (Caucusus) etc. so this makes involvement irky to mark the beginning of. Yemen he just assassinated people so it wasn't exactly a war. Libya he mostly just supplied NATO forces and again he's done nothing in Somalia. That was Papa Bush and Bill Clinton who sent forces there and they pulled out a few years after invading. Right now like I said the African Union is invading, mostly consisting of Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya. At least read my post, doing your research beforehand is the next step.

As for Pakistan, Afghanistan and the like...continuing them is just as bad as starting them.

He's ending them. We're scheduled to leave Afghanistan in 2014.

INVASION
An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.

Thanks for proving my point.

Actually the USSR took over the Ford factories.

No the USSR had private contracts with foreign companies. In fact businesses were one of the groups pushing to recognize the USSR and establish relations because they wanted to use the labor.

Right. So imprisoned without trial. Which is illegal. Don't you remember the right to due process?

Yes, they apply to citizens and during peacetime.

No, if you're witnessed to be shooting people, and that's the only way to stop you, then yes, deadly force should be used to stop it. However, if you're a suspect in a bank robbery, I don't think the government should be allowed to break into your house at night, and just murder you while watching TV.

If however you run off from the bank and are a fugitive who is armed, killing them is not out of the question.

Yeah, it really is.

It's 1.7%, that is actually a little low and it needs to be a little higher.

I tihnk you need to learn what "innovate" means. The word you seem to be grasping for is "invent"/

Jesus Christ learn what words mean.

Nope.

*facepalm*

What does this even mean?

That fundamentally you're pretty much like Obama.

In 2011, the CBO determined that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimate released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.

Which again was debunked as bullshit because it didn't actually effect anyone's benefits. Essentially the money was being wasted.

Sure, after the idea is beat into them with violence, starvation and murder.

See, it makes as much sense as Libertarianism.

When government gets involved in industry, prices always rise. From food, to space travel, to medical stuff, to military. Always.

You mean like price ceilings?

So, just fuck everyone in the meantime, right?

That's what insurance companies do.

The character limit cut you off, but insurance companies are helped by Obamacare, not harmed by it.

Oh jesus christ I'm pretty sure we just reached the conclusion that they were harmed by it.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 5th, 2013 @ 10:34 PM Reply

At 1/5/13 07:49 PM, Warforger wrote: Depends, if a 3rd world nation just lets the company get access to more and more forest that won't be the case.

That's between the 3rd world country, and the company, I think.

So let me get this straight. Selling land to companies is Corporate welfare. SELLING LAND is WELFARE.

No, deregulating and altering laws so they can funk people over with it, is corporate welfare.

If you can name more than one company it's probably not a monopoly. And again there are local farmers as well like you know at farmer's markets?

Ok. Oligopoly. Better? And there is no way a farmers market can ever compete with Monsanto and ConAgra.

The Gas doesn't come from OPEC, most of it comes from Canada and/or is domestically produced. OPEC used to be able to set the price but now its market power has waned especially with countries like Kuwait not joining and lowering the price of oil. It's a Cartel that failed.

Ok. So now we just have the one, lovely super-major oil conglomerate. Splendid.

CITI and American Express are quite clearly different companies.

LOL. Illusion of choice.

That doesn't change anything, its handing over control of the company to the government which then forces the company to make changes. Its the worst case scenario for any CEO especially one who mismanages their company.

Yes it does change something. The money the "paid back" wasn't theirs in the first place

Oh my god he gave people jobs FASCISM!

The definition of Facism...according to fascists (Mussolini, for example), is the strengthening of the government/industry relationship. But that's kind of irrelevant.

And no, he did not give people jobs. He literally stole their money out of their pockets.

You missed the point. What you described was the ideology of FDR and is very far from what Libertarianism tends to be defined as.

No, you're wrong on both counts.

Um it would though be the way of the government to not interfere with such matters? Because they don't want to regulate everything?

What?

So you agree that what you said was merely theoretical and practice shows that it is wrong?

Communism fails because it's forced. The government decides where money goes. Who can have what. What a business can do. Libertarianism, or rather, free markets, stem from volunteerism. No one forces anyone to do anything. And that's why it is the only system that can really work.

lolz. Nope this happens when somebody becomes too good at Capitalism and unfairly takes down other companies.

Right, and that can only happen with government help. No company can get that big on it's own. It only happens when unions and lobbyist change laws in their favor.

Pretty much because of what he did during his term.

No actually, the issue with the housing crisis/bubble started with Carter.

Really? Because sawdust is actually harmful to you.

So is bleach and E.coli

Bullshit. Nobody gets elected just because they have more money. There are many times where a candidate vastly outspends his opponent yet loses. The candidate has to be appealing first before he gets money.

Oh. So the Bush family being connected to Diebold is a coincidence. Reports of voting machines being miscalibrated is a coincidence?

Again you've missed the point.

No I didn't. Let me make it simple. If the government wasn't handing over cash to shitty CEOs who run their companies into the ground, and lining their donors pockets, there would be more money for veterans and people who deserve the money.

So you're a Socialist?

No retard, he EARNED THE MONEY.

And my point was that those people who said it was going to go bankrupt soon are just trying to fear monger and in all of actuality it's going to be fine for a while, at least by the time you get on it.

Except you're wrong

Oh right it's welfare.

Um, no, it's the government deciding it likes something, and exchanging money, for a good or service.

No he didn't. For example we have military bases all over the world, we have them in Kazakhstan, we have them in Korea, Germany, Georgia (Caucusus) etc. so this makes involvement irky to mark the beginning of. Yemen he just assassinated people so it wasn't exactly a war. Libya he mostly just supplied NATO forces and again he's done nothing in Somalia. That was Papa Bush and Bill Clinton who sent forces there and they pulled out a few years after invading. Right now like I said the African Union is invading, mostly consisting of Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya. At least read my post, doing your research beforehand is the next step.

He used military force in a sovereign nation. That is war.

He's ending them. We're scheduled to leave Afghanistan in 2014.

Sending more troops = ending? Okay.

Thanks for proving my point.

You said he DIDN'T invade. But he did use military force against a sovereign nation.

Yes, they apply to citizens and during peacetime.

No, is applies to citizens always. Unless you're a corrupt piece of shit...like Obama and Bush were. Whatever, when you're targeted, don't come cryin' to the people who tried to warn you...

If however you run off from the bank and are a fugitive who is armed, killing them is not out of the question.

Exactly. This was not the case with Bin LAden.

FWIW, the cops would probably not open fire on a fleeing fugitive like that.

It's 1.7%, that is actually a little low and it needs to be a little higher.

So the dollar can be even more worthless!

Jesus Christ learn what words mean.

LOL. You didn't even read that did you?

That fundamentally you're pretty much like Obama.

Except not in any way.

Which again was debunked as bullshit because it didn't actually effect anyone's benefits. Essentially the money was being wasted.

Um, no. CBO > Obama. Especially in economic matters.

See, it makes as much sense as Libertarianism.

Libertarianism is the opposite of forcing people into an economic system.

You mean like price ceilings?

No, like they force companies to raise prices.

That's what insurance companies do.

And they're sure as hell gonna do it now!

Oh jesus christ I'm pretty sure we just reached the conclusion that they were harmed by it.

Say you sell apples. Let's say Obama passes a law that says everyone must buy apples. Not just apples, but the most prime, expensive variety of apples that you offer. Does that help, or hurt you?

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 12:16 AM Reply

At 1/5/13 10:34 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No, deregulating and altering laws so they can funk people over with it, is corporate welfare.

So regulation is good then?

Ok. Oligopoly. Better? And there is no way a farmers market can ever compete with Monsanto and ConAgra.

On the local scale they can.

Ok. So now we just have the one, lovely super-major oil conglomerate. Splendid.

So the hundreds of oil companies including those run by grocery stores are all one big cartel again? It's not a monopoly in any sense of the word it's competitive industry.

Yes it does change something. The money the "paid back" wasn't theirs in the first place

You're right, they were given that money when they gave people their product and then used that money to pay off that debt. Oh what thieves.

The definition of Facism...according to fascists (Mussolini, for example), is the strengthening of the government/industry relationship. But that's kind of irrelevant.

It was a joke.

And no, he did not give people jobs. He literally stole their money out of their pockets.

Rofl, "HE STOLE MONEY STRAIGHT OUT OF THEIR POCKETS HES AN EVIL WIZARD". What FDR did was he basically made a whole bunch of construction projects and regulations, he basically restructured the economy to make it more stable all the while getting more and more people back to work through his administrations. US history students tend to have to learn a whole alphabet soup of administrations for this era such as the Works Progress Administration (WPA), Public Works Administration (PWA), Soil Conservation Administration, National Recovery Administration etc. etc.. All of these led to a steady decline in unemployment throughout the 30's, except for when he felt that the time for his "doles" was over and tried to dismantle them in 1937 which led to a brief recession and increase in unemployment. He himself in the modern age wouldn't be that far to the left because he didn't like welfare programs but felt that they were necessary but he came from a very different time.

No, you're wrong on both counts.

Let's make this simple, this is what wikipedia says for Libertarianism, notice how it has absolutely nothing to do with what you said it was. Otherwise What FDR created was the modern system of interest groups where the interests of farmers, labor, business and consumers and all of their interactions would be mediated by the government. This is essentially the closest the government has ever gotten to what you described.

Communism fails because it's forced. The government decides where money goes. Who can have what. What a business can do.

But Communism also expects the proletariat to take up the cause and be excited to farm and work for the greater good. That's why Communist societies had a harm time to get good agricultural output.

Libertarianism, or rather, free markets, stem from volunteerism. No one forces anyone to do anything. And that's why it is the only system that can really work.

"Volunteerism"? That's the approach Hoover had for the Great Depression and it failed hard. It's retarded and assumes just like Communism that people will sacrifice their self-interest for the greater good. It's actually sort of hilarious seeing how similar Libertarians and Communists are but that's another story.

Right, and that can only happen with government help. No company can get that big on it's own.

Um wow now you've really gone into a corner ideologically.

It only happens when unions and lobbyist change laws in their favor.

What?

No actually, the issue with the housing crisis/bubble started with Carter.

I'm pretty sure it started with Clinton. Otherwise there were many things that set up the bubble, one of them was Bush setting interest rates low basically puffing up the bubble faster than anticipated.

So is bleach and E.coli

And due to gov regulation they're not in food. But that's irrelevant because we were talking about hormones and mutations.

Oh. So the Bush family being connected to Diebold is a coincidence. Reports of voting machines being miscalibrated is a coincidence?

That is completely irrelevant. We were talking about if it was possible to buy an election, I pointed out that's complete bullshit. For example in my Congressional District the incumbent (Pete Stark) had twice the budget of his opponent (Eric Swalwell) yet his opponent defeated him because if the candidate himself/herself is not popular then it doesn't matter how much money they have. Hitler could have several trillion dollars yet he couldn't possibly win any election in the US.

No I didn't. Let me make it simple. If the government wasn't handing over cash to shitty CEOs who run their companies into the ground, and lining their donors pockets, there would be more money for veterans and people who deserve the money.

No because they would have even less money since the economy would've tanked.

No retard, he EARNED THE MONEY.
Except you're wrong

Oh great 2033, that's exactly what I said.

Um, no, it's the government deciding it likes something, and exchanging money, for a good or service.

You just called buying land welfare though so I made the logical conclusion.

He used military force in a sovereign nation. That is war.

Right but it was limited and temporary. In essence we were merely supporting a war that went on anyway. The alternative would have ended up with even more Libyans dead.

Sending more troops = ending? Okay.

Ok then go tell the military how to do its job, I assume you know how to do it or else you wouldn't be saying that.

You said he DIDN'T invade. But he did use military force against a sovereign nation.

He used force, the definition said a large amount to take over. Hell he didn't even use that much force in Libya, he mostly just supplied fuel to NATO allies.

No, is applies to citizens always. Unless you're a corrupt piece of shit...like Obama and Bush were. Whatever, when you're targeted, don't come cryin' to the people who tried to warn you...

No it doesn't apply during times of war. Now when you're not in America and you're hanging out with terrorists I think there's pretty good reason that you're not trying to be peaceful.

Exactly. This was not the case with Bin LAden.

Bin Laden however was not a US citizen, he was a foreign criminal. And again Obama did not order him dead, the Navy SEAL merely killed him because he knew he could get away with it.

FWIW, the cops would probably not open fire on a fleeing fugitive like that.

If he's armed he will.

So the dollar can be even more worthless!

A rate of inflation around 2-3% means the economy is growing at a good pace, if there's inflation it generally means that actual demand is increasing and the economy is growing. This isn't the case with say stagflation but that isn't a current problem.

LOL. You didn't even read that did you?

Yah it had two definitions which mostly amounted to introducing something new or doign something in a new way, which is what we've been going over for pages about.

Except not in any way.

You think that some people deserve welfare and that other groups don't, that's like Obama.

Um, no. CBO > Obama. Especially in economic matters.

The CBO said nothing about actual benefits, it only said that it was being cut which is something Obama never denied. What he did say though was that the money was being wasted and that transferring it to Obamacare will help Seniors anyway.

Libertarianism is the opposite of forcing people into an economic system.

Libertarianism on the other hand offers little ability to check too powerful companies.

No, like they force companies to raise prices.

You said every regulation, all of them, including price ceilings, raise prices. I was merely pointing out how absurd that is.

Say you sell apples.

We seriously just went over this and you admitted it was bad for Insurance companies. I'm tired of reiterating this crap go re-read old posts.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 12:49 AM Reply

At 1/6/13 12:16 AM, Warforger wrote: So regulation is good then?

Depends on who it benefits most. When it benefits one group over another, it becomes a problem

On the local scale they can.

No, supermarkets and chains out do farmer's markets

So the hundreds of oil companies including those run by grocery stores are all one big cartel again? It's not a monopoly in any sense of the word it's competitive industry.

The hundreds of oil companies are owned by either Shell, BP, Exxon and Chevron. They all work together as well. Watch a documentary called "Gashole"

You're right, they were given that money when they gave people their product and then used that money to pay off that debt. Oh what thieves.

They didn't deliver a product, that's why they were in trouble in the first place. We're they moving products, they wouldn't have needed TARP

Rofl, "HE STOLE MONEY STRAIGHT OUT OF THEIR POCKETS HES AN EVIL WIZARD". snip

He literally made it illegal to own gold and silver. Back then that was money.

Let's make this simple, this is what wikipedia says for Libertarianism, notice how it has absolutely nothing to do with what you said it was. Otherwise What FDR created was the modern system of interest groups where the interests of farmers, labor, business and consumers and all of their interactions would be mediated by the government. This is essentially the closest the government has ever gotten to what you described.

Exactly. And that's why FDR was a problem. Benefit of one group at the expense of others.

But Communism also expects the proletariat to take up the cause and be excited to farm and work for the greater good. That's why Communist societies had a harm time to get good agricultural output.

Please...look up the cultural revolution. Just...do it.

"Volunteerism"? That's the approach Hoover had for the Great Depression and it failed hard. It's retarded and assumes just like Communism that people will sacrifice their self-interest for the greater good. It's actually sort of hilarious seeing how similar Libertarians and Communists are but that's another story.

Hoover was the BIGGEST perpetrator of government welfare when he started taking over private farms as government property. Fail.

Libertarian encourages CHOOSING to sacrifice, if you choose, for your OWN good.

Um wow now you've really gone into a corner ideologically.

History. Check it out

What?

It's pretty self explanatory. Had the government not gotten involved in say, Rockefeller's bullshit, he wouldn't have gotten the foothold he got.

I'm pretty sure it started with Clinton. Otherwise there were many things that set up the bubble, one of them was Bush setting interest rates low basically puffing up the bubble faster than anticipated.

No. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed during Carter.

And due to gov regulation they're not in food. But that's irrelevant because we were talking about hormones and mutations.

Did you really just say bleach and E.Coli are not in food? Are you fucking dumb or just pretending?

That is completely irrelevant. We were talking about if it was possible to buy an election///

It is not fucking irrelevant, it's directly related to what we're talking about.

No because they would have even less money since the economy would've tanked.

The economy would not have tanked. On the other hand, we gave them the money, and guess what. STILL TANKING!

Except you're wrong

Did he, or did he not work for the military. If he did, he earned the money. If not, then he didn';t...

Oh great 2033, that's exactly what I said.

mmhmm. I will not be able to collect. So shouldn't I be able to not pay?

You just called buying land welfare though so I made the logical conclusion.

Except I didn't

Right but it was limited and temporary. In essence we were merely supporting a war that went on anyway. The alternative would have ended up with even more Libyans dead.

Oh. So it's okay. Murder and war is okay...as long as it's "temporary". BTW, if it's "temporary" why is it the longest conflict the US has ever been involved in?

Ok then go tell the military how to do its job, I assume you know how to do it or else you wouldn't be saying that.

LOL. You don't know me, or the people I know. Trust me on this. I'm not military. My friends are though. High level too. I've heard and seen things that'd make your head spin

He used force, the definition said a large amount to take over. Hell he didn't even use that much force in Libya, he mostly just supplied fuel to NATO allies.

Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in drone strikes :)

No it doesn't apply during times of war. Now when you're not in America and you're hanging out with terrorists I think there's pretty good reason that you're not trying to be peaceful.

The Bill of Rights always applies. Also, how can you prove someone is "hanging out with terrorists" if you don't give them a trial?

Bin Laden however was not a US citizen, he was a foreign criminal. And again Obama did not order him dead, the Navy SEAL merely killed him because he knew he could get away with it.

Didn't order him dead, but sure bragged about it enough

If he's armed he will.

Not likely

A rate of inflation around 2-3% means the economy is growing at a good pace, if there's inflation it generally means that actual demand is increasing and the economy is growing. This isn't the case with say stagflation but that isn't a current problem.

Actually, inflation is the opposite of "growth"

Yah it had two definitions which mostly amounted to introducing something new or doign something in a new way, which is what we've been going over for pages about.

Yeah, that's my point. Coming up with an idea doesn't mean shit unless you make it into something. Those who take the idea to the mainstream, deserve credit.

You think that some people deserve welfare and that other groups don't

I have literally been saying the 180* opposite this entire time. WTF are you talking about?

The CBO said nothing about actual benefits

YES IT FUCKING DID!

Libertarianism on the other hand offers little ability to check too powerful companies.

That's where consumers come in.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 01:48 PM Reply

At 1/6/13 12:49 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Depends on who it benefits most. When it benefits one group over another, it becomes a problem

So you think it's fine for the government to coerce people into doing things?

No, supermarkets and chains out do farmer's markets

Not really. The quality doesn't tend to match Farmer's Markets and they also tend to be more expensive.

The hundreds of oil companies are owned by either Shell, BP, Exxon and Chevron. They all work together as well. Watch a documentary called "Gashole"

I'd assume they would work together anyway, that's pretty normal. But to say that it's some monopoly is a bit much.....

They didn't deliver a product, that's why they were in trouble in the first place. We're they moving products, they wouldn't have needed TARP

So let me get this straight, they paid back their government loans ALL of them, with government loans and it could not possibly be because they changed what they were doing and became solvent again. Do you seriously not see how absurd that is?

He literally made it illegal to own gold and silver. Back then that was money.

He made it illegal to trade it in at your local bank and confiscated it yes but then payed it back. He loosened the dependence on the gold standard which was dragging down the economy. But this was not stealing, it was compensated. Nixon would complete the whole currency thing by removing the Gold Standard.

This of course does not address how he fixed the economy and got people jobs and therefore money back into their pockets.

Exactly. And that's why FDR was a problem. Benefit of one group at the expense of others.

No, what you described as "Libertarianism" is exactly FDR's ideology, FDR was a bit biased against business yes but he did not make them weak they had merely become too powerful and incompetent and discredited themselves. I pointed out that this is nothing like what Libertarianism is defined as so I don't really think you are one.

Please...look up the cultural revolution. Just...do it.

Exactly. The Communists weren't able to motivate enough people so had to use violence and indoctrination to do so. The Cultural Revolution targeted precisely the people who weren't supporting Communism of which there were many. It's true that groups of youth got excited, but it did not mean that the rest of the population was like that, that would be like assuming the US was going to elect a Socialist President in 1968 because there were so many Left wing protests that year.

Hoover was the BIGGEST perpetrator of government welfare when he started taking over private farms as government property. Fail.

Uh what? All he did in terms of government was raise taxes on the wealthy and try to made it easier to pay off your house. He didn't take over private firms and he tried to gather with the leaders of many of the biggest corporations to work together to fix the economy and that didn't work out so well.

Libertarian encourages CHOOSING to sacrifice, if you choose, for your OWN good.

The problem is when people become too powerful.

History. Check it out

Yah you should.

It's pretty self explanatory. Had the government not gotten involved in say, Rockefeller's bullshit, he wouldn't have gotten the foothold he got.

The government sold land to him, lowered rates and de-regulated his industry, that's perhaps the most Libertarian you can be.

No. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed during Carter.

But the worst parts were from Bush and Clinton.

Did you really just say bleach and E.Coli are not in food? Are you fucking dumb or just pretending?

There are occasional contaminations but they get removed asap.

It is not fucking irrelevant, it's directly related to what we're talking about.

It is. We were talking about if money wins elections, while the Bush family has a good fundraising scheme it doesn't mean that just because you have alot of money that you will win. Like I said, if the candidate does not have popular idea's it doesn't matter how much money he has he won't win.

The economy would not have tanked.

Great Depression, and the whole bunch of Panics before that prove you wrong.

On the other hand, we gave them the money, and guess what. STILL TANKING!

Lolz. We're not tanking at all, we're just making a slow recovery.

Did he, or did he not work for the military. If he did, he earned the money. If not, then he didn';t...

Oh great 2033, that's exactly what I said.
mmhmm. I will not be able to collect. So shouldn't I be able to not pay?

That doesn't mean that it will actually go away in 2033. The CBO had for example predicted back in the early 2000's that by 2012 we would have a surplus again but politics got in the way. There will be a reform for Social Security which will push back the date of its collapse until politics finds a solution.

Except I didn't

Oh right de-regulation is corporate welfare.

Oh. So it's okay. Murder and war is okay...as long as it's "temporary". BTW, if it's "temporary" why is it the longest conflict the US has ever been involved in?

Libya is not the longest conflict we've ever been in, it lasted a couple months. I think you're talking about Afghanistan, if that's the case then we're scheduled to leave in 2014.

LOL. You don't know me, or the people I know. Trust me on this. I'm not military. My friends are though. High level too. I've heard and seen things that'd make your head spin

That's nice, doesn't mean it means anything, like at all.

Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in drone strikes :)

You do realize Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya are not the same country right?

The Bill of Rights always applies.

Only if you're a US citizen on US soil.

Also, how can you prove someone is "hanging out with terrorists" if you don't give them a trial?

When you can quite clearly see they're in terrorist organizations?

Didn't order him dead, but sure bragged about it enough

Because that's the normal thing to do. People were going to the streets about this, if he was sad about it he would've lost popularity.

Actually, inflation is the opposite of "growth"

Wow learn Economics. If you're experiencing economic growth you probably also experience a higher rate of inflation because more money is going through the economy (i.e. if people's incomes rise businesses will raise prices to get more profit as well as needing to raise their wages to meet inflation for their workers etc. etc.), that's fine if its controllable like at say 2-3%, if the economy grows too rapidly then you get high inflation. Deflation on the other hand is the word you were looking for, if you experience that it means that your economy is contracting, that happened during the Great Depression and it happened in the worst of the econ crisis back in 2009. Now the only case where you're right is in Stagflation, but that only happens if there is a huge shock in energy i.e. OPEC raises prices, businesses therefore produce less decreasing supply and thus increasing prices, news of higher oil prices in the future increases demand also increasing prices. It'll be much easier to explain if you can read a Demand-Supply graph.

Yeah, that's my point. Coming up with an idea doesn't mean shit unless you make it into something. Those who take the idea to the mainstream, deserve credit.

And they did. The government did that, Cambridge did that. The Private Sector merely profited off of them.

I have literally been saying the 180* opposite this entire time. WTF are you talking about?

No you haven't, re-read your posts. You think Seniors and Veterans deserve Welfare, while corporations don't.

YES IT FUCKING DID!

The cuts in Medicare were going to Insurance companies. The idea being that the money going to them would bring rates down which it didn't and it's exactly what Obamacare does. Thus it would be a waste of money to keep funding that portion of Medicare.

That's where consumers come in.

The real world is contrary to theory yet again!


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 07:04 PM Reply

At 1/6/13 01:48 PM, Warforger wrote: So you think it's fine for the government to coerce people into doing things?

Absolutely not.

Not really. The quality doesn't tend to match Farmer's Markets and they also tend to be more expensive.

And it will always be that way. Once they get to big, regulation in passed to "keep them in their place"...so the corporations don't have to compete

I'd assume they would work together anyway, that's pretty normal. But to say that it's some monopoly is a bit much.....

Oligopoly then

So let me get this straight, they paid back their government loans ALL of them, with government loans and it could not possibly be because they changed what they were doing and became solvent again. Do you seriously not see how absurd that is?

They paid it back with money they took from taxpayers, not through money they earned.

He made it illegal to trade it in at your local bank and confiscated it yes but then payed it back. He loosened the dependence on the gold standard which was dragging down the economy. But this was not stealing, it was compensated. Nixon would complete the whole currency thing by removing the Gold Standard.

He did not pay it back. All he did was inflate the dollar to coerce people into thinking dollars were worth more that the metals.

This of course does not address how he fixed the economy and got people jobs and therefore money back into their pockets.

He didn't

No, what you described as "Libertarianism" is exactly FDR's ideology, FDR was a bit biased against business yes but he did not make them weak they had merely become too powerful and incompetent and discredited themselves. I pointed out that this is nothing like what Libertarianism is defined as so I don't really think you are one.

Ok, well then, he did the polar opposite of his "ideology", by putting corporations and government power ahead of the people.

Exactly. The Communists weren't able to motivate enough people so had to use violence and indoctrination to do so.

So it's cool then? The government resorting to murder because it didn't get it's way?

Uh what? All he did in terms of government was raise taxes on the wealthy and try to made it easier to pay off your house. He didn't take over private firms and he tried to gather with the leaders of many of the biggest corporations to work together to fix the economy and that didn't work out so well.

The government should not work with corporations.

The problem is when people become too powerful.

No one can become too powerful if they all have to play by the same rules.

The government sold land to him, lowered rates and de-regulated his industry, that's perhaps the most Libertarian you can be.

No, they changed the laws to make it easier for him to obtain, as well as changed laws in his favor. The exact opposite of libertarian. That's called corny capitalism, and it's pretty much the same problem we're dealing with today. Government bending over backwards to aid industry, while the rest of us eat shit.

There are occasional contaminations but they get removed asap.

No, they are consistently in every piece of meat you've ever eaten.

It is. We were talking about if money wins elections, while the Bush family has a good fundraising scheme it doesn't mean that just because you have alot of money that you will win. Like I said, if the candidate does not have popular idea's it doesn't matter how much money he has he won't win.

Yes it does. Especially if you rig elections and buy votes.

Great Depression, and the whole bunch of Panics before that prove you wrong.

Government regulations actually caused the Great Depression. In 1914, the Federal Reserve became the central bank in control of U.S. currency and the amount issued. The depression was created by increasing the money supply over the next 15 years, and then precipitously decreasing it.

Our neighbor, Canada, didnâEUTMt have a central bank during that period. Between 1921 and 1929, American depositors lost an estimated $565 million, while Canadian losses were less than 3% of that. The Canadian system was largely unregulated. Instead of a central bank and one currency, each bank issued its own money. To stay competitive, Canadian banks had to make sure that they didnâEUTMt over-inflate. Our Federal Reserve had a money monopoly, no competition, and no such restraints.

Sadly, the Canadians got a central bank of their own in 1935. Why would they go from a system that worked so well to one that didnâEUTMt? Central banking allows its controllers to make or break nations. Like a wolf in sheepâEUTMs clothing, the power brokers try to convince the public that the aggression of government regulation will protect them from bad banking.

Lolz. We're not tanking at all, we're just making a slow recovery.

No, unemployment is still high, food and gas prices are rising, and our debt is increasing. We're not in recovery.

That doesn't mean that it will actually go away in 2033. The CBO had for example predicted back in the early 2000's that by 2012 we would have a surplus again but politics got in the way. There will be a reform for Social Security which will push back the date of its collapse until politics finds a solution.

The takers of the nation will never allow SS reform. The motherfuckers can't even pass a budget, you think they're gonna reform social security? Not to mention the takers would have a hissy fit.

Oh right de-regulation is corporate welfare.

Depends on who it favors, and at whom's expense

Libya is not the longest conflict we've ever been in, it lasted a couple months. I think you're talking about Afghanistan, if that's the case then we're scheduled to leave in 2014.

No Libya, Afghanistan. And we are not scheduled to leave in 2014 lol

That's nice, doesn't mean it means anything, like at all.

Delta Force and CIA > You

You do realize Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya are not the same country right?

To Obama they are.

Only if you're a US citizen on US soil.

Where is that written in the Constitution?

When you can quite clearly see they're in terrorist organizations?

How can you prove that without a trial?

Because that's the normal thing to do. People were going to the streets about this, if he was sad about it he would've lost popularity.

Normal to "spike the football"? According to Obama, that was a bad thing when Republicans did it.

Wow learn Economics....

YOU need to learn economics. You're a Keynesian retard.

And they did. The government did that, Cambridge did that. The Private Sector merely profited off of them.

No, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did. That's why we're using their products today.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 08:56 PM Reply

At 1/6/13 07:04 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Absolutely not.

But you just said regulation was ok if it didn't benefit one group.

And it will always be that way. Once they get to big, regulation in passed to "keep them in their place"...so the corporations don't have to compete

You know like anti-Trust legislation. In fact AT&T had a monopoly, the government broke it up and forced AT&T to split into several companies. There's also a reason you can buy an IPhone and be able to sync it to a Windows PC, because the government ordered Apple to do that so they won't have a monopoly (the alternative to force their customers to buy macs).

Oligopoly then

Which again is more like a Cartel, and by then there's less incentive because if one of them decides to say sell gas at a lower price the whole thing falls apart. It's why OPEC failed.

They paid it back with money they took from taxpayers, not through money they earned.

You know I'm tired of going in circles with your horse shit, pony up the sources behind this or just get off this claim.

He did not pay it back. All he did was inflate the dollar to coerce people into thinking dollars were worth more that the metals.

"Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $371.10 today[3]) per troy ounce."

He didn't

*sigh* please take a real US History class, or read a book on the New Deal or something, anything to get you out of your limited education.

Ok, well then, he did the polar opposite of his "ideology", by putting corporations and government power ahead of the people.

LOL! Corporations hated him. In fact one enterprenuer Wendle Wilkie got tired of it and ran and got the GOP nomination for President. If anything he put the power of Consumers, Labor Unions and Farmers above that of the corporation.

So it's cool then? The government resorting to murder because it didn't get it's way?

No that has nothing to do with what I said. That isn't even twisting what I said it's just completely irrelevant.

The government should not work with corporations.

Hoover worked with corporations in an attempt to have a coordinated recovery. This was called "Volunteerism" and going by Libertarian ideology it should have worked, but again because whats good for the economy is not always good for business it didn't happen.

No one can become too powerful if they all have to play by the same rules.

Nope, never true. Like at all. In school everyone is given the same rules, but some kids get better grades than others.

No, they changed the laws to make it easier for him to obtain, as well as changed laws in his favor. The exact opposite of libertarian. That's called corny capitalism, and it's pretty much the same problem we're dealing with today. Government bending over backwards to aid industry, while the rest of us eat shit.

Um no? You know why do I bother, apparently selling land and de-regulating industries is against Libertarianism according to you and you've yet to understand what Libertarianism is.

No, they are consistently in every piece of meat you've ever eaten.

Suuure they are.

Yes it does. Especially if you rig elections and buy votes.

Except you can't "buy votes" since it's not 1876 anymore. You can tamper with a couple of voting machines but you cannot do it on a large scale. Again you've yet to prove that having bigger campaign finances wins elections.

Government regulations actually caused the Great Depression. In 1914, the Federal Reserve became the central bank in control of U.S. currency and the amount issued. The depression was created by increasing the money supply over the next 15 years, and then precipitously decreasing it.

Right the Federal Reserve during the time of the Depression unwilling to increase Inflation hoarded money. If it had been doing what it was made to do and distributing that money it would have allieviated part of the Depression. But the main reason was not government regulations, it was merely businesses overexpanding.

No, unemployment is still high,

It's declining. It was at a peak of 10% during Obama's 1st term, not it's down to 7%.

food and gas prices are rising,

Yah, that's generally a sign of growth.

and our debt is increasing.

That has nothing to do with the economy. If that were the case we would've been in several Depressions under every Republican President after Ford.

We're not in recovery.

Pretty much nearly everyone who knows what they're talking about disagree's.

The takers of the nation will never allow SS reform. The motherfuckers can't even pass a budget, you think they're gonna reform social security? Not to mention the takers would have a hissy fit.

They did pass a budget, that was the whole Fiscal Cliff fiasco. I am saying that a repeat of that is going to occur, i.e. a last minute compromise that merely pushes the date back until they can maneuver to get what they want.

No Libya, Afghanistan. And we are not scheduled to leave in 2014 lol

Whoa an entire article which shows just how uninformed you are.

Delta Force and CIA > You

Ahuh. That's nice.

Where is that written in the Constitution?

The Constitution doesn't give a precise definition, in fact there wasn't even a definition of what a citizen was until the 15th amendment I believe. This will probably be handled in legislation.

How can you prove that without a trial?

Intelligence networks? People openly saying that they are with a group?

Normal to "spike the football"? According to Obama, that was a bad thing when Republicans did it.

Source?

YOU need to learn economics. You're a Keynesian retard.

Even Classical Economics would say that there's inflation when there's an economic boom, try again.

No, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did. That's why we're using their products today.

They didn't introduce anything new as per the definition. They stole other peoples inventions and profited off of them. The people who did the actual innovation were university professors and government projects. Again Innovation is introducing something new, most of the vital innovation was by the government and the universities, not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
science-is-fun
science-is-fun
  • Member since: Jul. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 01:29 PM Reply

Something to do with placing all your faith in a "people's republic".

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 02:19 PM Reply

At 1/6/13 08:56 PM, Warforger wrote: But you just said regulation was ok if it didn't benefit one group.

Yeah...and?

You know like anti-Trust legislation. ....

Depends on who's donating to what campaigns I suppose

Which again is more like a Cartel, and by then there's less incentive because if one of them decides to say sell gas at a lower price the whole thing falls apart. It's why OPEC failed.

Exactly.

You know I'm tired of going in circles with your horse shit, pony up the sources behind this or just get off this claim.

YOU ADMITTED IT YOURSELF..

But since you evidently have the attention span of a cricket, here's the first source from google

"Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $371.10 today[3]) per troy ounce."

That's what I said.

*sigh* please take a real US History class, or read a book on the New Deal or something, anything to get you out of your limited education.

Hmm...a history class from a state-run indoctrination center telling me how government thievery, expanded government power, and outrageous spending was a good thing? No, I'll just stick to facts and observable history, thanks.

If anything he put the power of Consumers, Labor Unions and Farmers above that of the corporation.

He was a liberal piece of shit, and we're still feeling the negative effects of his presidency

No that has nothing to do with what I said. That isn't even twisting what I said it's just completely irrelevant.

You inferred that China was justified in their murder and starvation of people because they didn't want communism.

Hoover worked with corporations in an attempt to have a coordinated recovery.

And it failed horrible, as you can see by today's economy. It never, ever, ever works.

Nope, never true. Like at all. In school everyone is given the same rules, but some kids get better grades than others.

Because they put in the work and study harder, and earn the grade. Thanks for proving my point.

Um no? You know why do I bother, apparently selling land and de-regulating industries is against Libertarianism according to you and you've yet to understand what Libertarianism is.

THE GOVERNMENT CHANGED LAWS TO BENEFIT ROCKEFELLER BECAUSE HE PAID THEM TO DO SO. Which part of that sentence does not make sense to you?

Suuure they are.

You do know how they clean meat, right? Have you ever been in a meat factory?

Except you can't "buy votes" since it's not 1876 anymore. You can tamper with a couple of voting machines but you cannot do it on a large scale. Again you've yet to prove that having bigger campaign finances wins elections.

Except you can when you own the voting machines. Case/point Obama and Bush

Right the Federal Reserve during the time of the Depression unwilling to increase Inflation hoarded money. If it had been doing what it was made to do and distributing that money it would have allieviated part of the Depression. But the main reason was not government regulations, it was merely businesses overexpanding.

Did you even read what I wrote? They gave money, and then took it back (in simplest terms). That made the Depression worse. That's what happens when you let a para-governmental private bank control the money supply. They can do what they want, when they please. Wouldn't it be nice if we let Congress, and supply/demand run economics instead of banks?

It's declining. It was at a peak of 10% during Obama's 1st term, not it's down to 7%.

Even Obama's own Dept. of Labor said that 7% was "generous at best" and the actual number is closer to 14%....on top of that, if you measure it the way they did in 1930, it'd be over 20%.

Yah, that's generally a sign of growth.

No it's not, it's a sign of dollars losing their value

That has nothing to do with the economy. If that were the case we would've been in several Depressions under every Republican President after Ford.

We have actually be in an almost continuous recession since 1914.

Pretty much nearly everyone who knows what they're talking about disagree's.

Like who?

They did pass a budget, that was the whole Fiscal Cliff fiasco. I am saying that a repeat of that is going to occur, i.e. a last minute compromise that merely pushes the date back until they can maneuver to get what they want.

One budget in 5 years. Great.

Whoa an entire article which shows just how uninformed you are.

Actual military leaders > Obama propaganda

Ahuh. That's nice.

Yep. And you're still wrong.

The Constitution doesn't give a precise definition, in fact there wasn't even a definition of what a citizen was until the 15th amendment I believe. This will probably be handled in legislation.

So there's nothing in the constitution limiting those rights to "peacetime"?

Intelligence networks? People openly saying that they are with a group?

Hmm.if I confess to murder, I'm still given a trial. How can you be certain that intelligence is correct and reliable without investigation and a trial?

Source?

Well, it was on bumper stickers, he brought it up in every debate, he talked about it incessantly...did you watch the news at all when it happened?

Even Classical Economics would say that there's inflation when there's an economic boom, try again.

I'm pretty sure history shows that inflation forced by the government leads to collapse.

They didn't introduce anything new as per the definition. They stole other peoples inventions and profited off of them. The people who did the actual innovation were university professors and government projects. Again Innovation is introducing something new, most of the vital innovation was by the government and the universities, not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.

They didn't steal shit. That's like saying Newton and Einstein stole math.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 07:25 PM Reply

At 1/7/13 02:19 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Yeah...and?

So you think coercion by the government is fine, therefore you're not a Libertarian.

Depends on who's donating to what campaigns I suppose

Great.

Exactly.

Thus you admit it isn't run by an oligarchy.

YOU ADMITTED IT YOURSELF..

But since you evidently have the attention span of a cricket, here's the first source from google

Whoa, you're accusing me of that? You've contradicted yourself constantly this entire thread. And this is was speculative, they've since paid this back. Thus you haven't found evidence of this and I was right when I said that they paid it off the old fashioned way. Keep in mind this is the banks, not the auto companies.

That's what I said.

No it's not anything like what you said. You said he literally stole people's money without compensation, I said it was compensated and it was when you claimed it wasn't.

Hmm...a history class from a state-run indoctrination center telling me how government thievery, expanded government power, and outrageous spending was a good thing? No, I'll just stick to facts and observable history, thanks.

Wow now you've gone into leanlifter insanity. "Anything that contradicts my opinion is propaganda and indoctrination". I'm beginning to think arguing with you is pointless because you'll just deny anything that contradicts your narrow opinion.

He was a liberal piece of shit, and we're still feeling the negative effects of his presidency

Blah blah blah Libertarian revisionism again.

You inferred that China was justified in their murder and starvation of people because they didn't want communism.

That's not what I was implying at all.

And it failed horrible, as you can see by today's economy. It never, ever, ever works.

No today the government forces companies to restructure themselves to become solvent and it has worked.

Because they put in the work and study harder, and earn the grade. Thanks for proving my point.

No, some people excel and become more powerful, in real life people become too powerful in industry and form monopolies. It dissproves your point entirely.

THE GOVERNMENT CHANGED LAWS TO BENEFIT ROCKEFELLER BECAUSE HE PAID THEM TO DO SO. Which part of that sentence does not make sense to you?

Right, that doesn't mean it was corporate welfare.

You do know how they clean meat, right? Have you ever been in a meat factory?

Cleaning something does not mean the cleaning agent was left behind.

Except you can when you own the voting machines. Case/point Obama and Bush

Except each state and then each precinct has its own standards for voting and buys machines from many different companies. There is no way to have ownership of all of the voting machines. And no, Obama was geniuenly elected and Bush was elected one time, quit spouting your horseshit.

Did you even read what I wrote? They gave money, and then took it back (in simplest terms). That made the Depression worse. That's what happens when you let a para-governmental private bank control the money supply. They can do what they want, when they please.

No, the Federal Reserve was hoarding money in an attempt to control inflation, if the Federal Reserve had say lent out more money and allowed for some inflation then the economy would have improved and companies would have been kept solvent.

Wouldn't it be nice if we let Congress, and supply/demand run economics instead of banks?

Jesus Christ no that would be the biggest disaster ever. The Federal Reserve is much better at its job than Congress.

Even Obama's own Dept. of Labor said that 7% was "generous at best" and the actual number is closer to 14%....on top of that, if you measure it the way they did in 1930, it'd be over 20%.

No 7% is the accurate #, but it is generous because it doesn't take into account the size of the labor force.

No it's not, it's a sign of dollars losing their value

No it doesn't have much to do with actual value, purchasing power yes but not international value. But please point me to any period of economic growth where there wasn't inflation. The only time deflation occurs i.e. the purchasing power of the dollar is higher is during a severe economic depression. When there is an economic boom inflation naturally occurs, it's general common sense, if income is increasing businesses raise their prices, since prices are higher the cost of living increases meaning workers demand higher wages so their wages increase as well. This is the phenomenon known as inflation. In fact inflation usually occurs when the economy is expanding too much.

We have actually be in an almost continuous recession since 1914.

Biggest pile of horse shit I've ever read. Real wages have increased since then, the standard of living has gone up, far less people are in poverty etc. etc. People were fucking poor in comparison to pre-1914.

Like who?

Economists, statistics facts etc.

One budget in 5 years. Great.

Exactly, they pushed it back into March, that's exactly what I said they were going to do with Social Security.

Actual military leaders > Obama propaganda

Yes, anything that disagree's with you is propaganda.

Yep. And you're still wrong.

You said Obama attacked Somalia, but clearly have no idea whats going on. I think it's pretty fair to say you have no idea what you're talking about

So there's nothing in the constitution limiting those rights to "peacetime"?

There is actually, in times of war the Constitution allows the government to suspend the right of Habeus Corpus and to violate your rights.

Hmm.if I confess to murder, I'm still given a trial. How can you be certain that intelligence is correct and reliable without investigation and a trial?

Because it's the military and trying to convict someone of a crime while in a war is kind of obstructive. I guess killing Japanese soldiers too was wrong because we didn't try and convict them in court.

Well, it was on bumper stickers, he brought it up in every debate, he talked about it incessantly...did you watch the news at all when it happened?

Where did Obama condemn it?

I'm pretty sure history shows that inflation forced by the government leads to collapse.

Um no one's talking about inflation forced by the government and I don't recall any government trying to inflate the currency. But like I said, everytime there's an economic boom there's a higher rate of inflation.

They didn't steal shit. That's like saying Newton and Einstein stole math.

No they flat out took programs and inventions they had no part in creating and taking it for themselves. For example DOS was originally formed by a small tech company, Microsoft stole the system and started producing it on its own. Steve Jobs also did the same taking idea's by other companies and building it on their own.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 12:40 PM Reply

At 1/7/13 07:25 PM, Warforger wrote: So you think coercion by the government is fine, therefore you're not a Libertarian.

See, you made that up. I never said anything of the sort. In fact, again, I've been saying the opposite the entire time.

Thus you admit it isn't run by an oligarchy.

No, it is.

Whoa, you're accusing me of that? You've contradicted yourself constantly this entire thread. And this is was speculative, they've since paid this back. Thus you haven't found evidence of this and I was right when I said that they paid it off the old fashioned way. Keep in mind this is the banks, not the auto companies.

I have not contradicted myself a SINGLE TIME in this thread. I don't know why you keep saying this...idk, maybe you can't follow a fairly basic conversation. Maybe you can't decipher what I'm saying. Maybe you don't speak english. I don't know what it is, but you seem to just have a really hard time following the conversation

No it's not anything like what you said. You said he literally stole people's money without compensation, I said it was compensated and it was when you claimed it wasn't.

It wasn't compensated though.

Wow now you've gone into leanlifter insanity. "Anything that contradicts my opinion is propaganda and indoctrination". I'm beginning to think arguing with you is pointless because you'll just deny anything that contradicts your narrow opinion.

I never said that, nor was it inferred, nor do I believe that myself. I'll paraphrase again: I'd rather look at things that actually happened, instead of the interpretation of a teacher who is paid by the government, to spread lies. It's pretty basic. Actual documented history over liberal/statist interpretation

Blah blah blah Libertarian revisionism again.

Oh yeah. That doesn't exist. Have you looked at the economy lately?

No today the government forces companies to restructure themselves to become solvent and it has worked.

Right...giving them billions while Americans are starving in the streets and losing their homes. That sounds like the right course of action

No, some people excel and become more powerful, in real life people become too powerful in industry and form monopolies. It dissproves your point entirely.

Exactly, and they do it by their own will and perseverance. Those who don't put in the work, don't succeed and it's their own fault. The monopoly analogy is inaccurate because, historically, monopolies are aided by government welfare and assistance.

Right, that doesn't mean it was corporate welfare.

Yes, that is the very definition of corporate welfare. Corporations receiving special treatment.

Cleaning something does not mean the cleaning agent was left behind.

In this case, it is.

Except each state and then each precinct has its own standards for voting and buys machines from many different companies. There is no way to have ownership of all of the voting machines. And no, Obama was geniuenly elected and Bush was elected one time, quit spouting your horseshit.

All of the machines (rather, a large number of them) are manufactured by the same company.

Obama cheated, Bush cheated both times.

No, the Federal Reserve was hoarding money in an attempt to control inflation, if the Federal Reserve had say lent out more money and allowed for some inflation then the economy would have improved and companies would have been kept solvent.

THEY DID LEND OUT MONEY and TOOK IT BACK 15 years later...do some fucking reading.

Jesus Christ no that would be the biggest disaster ever. The Federal Reserve is much better at its job than Congress.

Yeah...the economy has been booming along since 1913 lol

No 7% is the accurate #, but it is generous because it doesn't take into account the size of the labor force.

Department of Labor > you

No it doesn't have much to do with actual value, purchasing power yes but not international value. But please point me to any period of economic growth where there wasn't inflation. The only time deflation occurs i.e. the purchasing power of the dollar is higher is during a severe economic depression. When there is an economic boom inflation naturally occurs, it's general common sense, if income is increasing businesses raise their prices, since prices are higher the cost of living increases meaning workers demand higher wages so their wages increase as well. This is the phenomenon known as inflation. In fact inflation usually occurs when the economy is expanding too much.

Purchasing power IS value.

Biggest pile of horse shit I've ever read. Real wages have increased since then, the standard of living has gone up, far less people are in poverty etc. etc. People were fucking poor in comparison to pre-1914.

Try again retard

Economists, statistics facts etc.

They don't support your ideas lol

Exactly, they pushed it back into March, that's exactly what I said they were going to do with Social Security.

Just so you know, 20% is a failing grade

Yes, anything that disagree's with you is propaganda.

No, people who lead and serve in the military...their opinion is more reliable than a corrupt lawyer who's never served a day in his life.

You said Obama attacked Somalia, but clearly have no idea whats going on. I think it's pretty fair to say you have no idea what you're talking about

Pay attention to the world around you

Obama is a warmonger

There is actually, in times of war the Constitution allows the government to suspend the right of Habeus Corpus and to violate your rights.

Where?

Because it's the military and trying to convict someone of a crime while in a war is kind of obstructive. I guess killing Japanese soldiers too was wrong because we didn't try and convict them in court.

But we haven't declared war on anyone since 1941. So legally, we are not in any wars. We are just murdering people. Without trials or due process.

Where did Obama condemn it?

Condemn what? His murder of Bin Laden? No where! He's been bragging about it, that's my point!

Um no one's talking about inflation forced by the government and I don't recall any government trying to inflate the currency. But like I said, everytime there's an economic boom there's a higher rate of inflation.

Right. And it isn't natural, it's a bubble created by banks and (lesser so) the government

No they flat out took programs and inventions they had no part in creating and taking it for themselves. For example DOS was originally formed by a small tech company, Microsoft stole the system and started producing it on its own. Steve Jobs also did the same taking idea's by other companies and building it on their own.

And Stephen Hawking stole calculus from Newton, right?

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 07:20 PM Reply

At 1/8/13 12:40 PM, LemonCrush wrote: See, you made that up. I never said anything of the sort. In fact, again, I've been saying the opposite the entire time.

You have either terrible memory, terrible reading skills or terrible writing skills.

At 1/8/13 12:40 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No, it is.

Then quit contradicting yourself.

I have not contradicted myself a SINGLE TIME in this thread. I don't know why you keep saying this...idk, maybe you can't follow a fairly basic conversation. Maybe you can't decipher what I'm saying. Maybe you don't speak english. I don't know what it is, but you seem to just have a really hard time following the conversation

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You have a hard time reading what's being asked.

It wasn't compensated though.

READ.

I never said that, nor was it inferred, nor do I believe that myself. I'll paraphrase again: I'd rather look at things that actually happened, instead of the interpretation of a teacher who is paid by the government, to spread lies. It's pretty basic. Actual documented history over liberal/statist interpretation

"I didn't say that state schools indoctrinate their students into Liberal idea's, but state schools indoctrinate their students into Liberal idea's". That part in particular is hilarious because you're just pulling shit out of your ass, no evidence just logical fallacies.

Oh yeah. That doesn't exist. Have you looked at the economy lately?

ROFL.

Right...giving them billions while Americans are starving in the streets and losing their homes. That sounds like the right course of action

If the companies went bankrupt a whole lot more Americans would've lost their homes and the economy would have tanked.

Exactly, and they do it by their own will and perseverance. Those who don't put in the work, don't succeed and it's their own fault. The monopoly analogy is inaccurate because, historically, monopolies are aided by government welfare and assistance.

Please we've been over this.

Yes, that is the very definition of corporate welfare. Corporations receiving special treatment.

Selling land and de-regulation is stretching "Special Treatment".

In this case, it is.

If it did then it would have killed people, which would've left the FDA to take them back.

All of the machines (rather, a large number of them) are manufactured by the same company.

Source? Because if that was true then our voting process wouldn't be so inefficient.

Obama cheated, Bush cheated both times.

LOL!

THEY DID LEND OUT MONEY and TOOK IT BACK 15 years later...do some fucking reading.

No please read on your own. The Federal Reserve at the time of the Depression was hoarding money to control inflation, if it lent out more money it would have helped the economy.

Yeah...the economy has been booming along since 1913 lol

Yah we have. We've had 3 of the largest economic booms in US history since WWII, there were recessions and they were no where near on the scale of pre-WWII recessions, each boom is much more equally distributed among the population than past booms. But if you seriously think that in 1913 people were more wealthy than in 2012 I think you should examine the way you approach things.

Department of Labor > you

You don't understand the way the unemployment rate is calculated, and I wasn't saying she was wrong you were merely interpreting the way you wanted too.

Purchasing power IS value.

Right, but that doesn't change my point.

Try again retard

That doesn't say anything. There's about as many recessions then and before, and the article even says that our current recessions are not as bad as pre-1914 recessions. It doesn't even say that we've been in continuous recessions either. On top of this recessions are cyclical, so of course they happen it's natural.

They don't support your ideas lol

Well REAL facts do, you of course read some controversial article and then fill in the rest with your fantasy then accept that as fact.

Just so you know, 20% is a failing grade

Ok?

No, people who lead and serve in the military...their opinion is more reliable than a corrupt lawyer who's never served a day in his life.

No it's not, it doesn't mean that they know what they're talking about. Obama is someone who knows generals, loads of people, hell Colin Powell even endorsed him. He knows what he's talking about alot more than you.

Pay attention to the world around you

Obama is a warmonger

So let me get this straight, assassinating people is invasion?

Where?

The part where it says that if Congress declares a state of rebellion or invasion they can do that? It's what Lincoln did.

But we haven't declared war on anyone since 1941. So legally, we are not in any wars. We are just murdering people. Without trials or due process.

We're fighting insurgents, they're enemy combatants, they try to kill us, it makes sense to kill them.

Condemn what? His murder of Bin Laden? No where! He's been bragging about it, that's my point!

Ok so it's fine? I guess we just agreed now.

Right. And it isn't natural, it's a bubble created by banks and (lesser so) the government

So bubbles cause economic booms?

And Stephen Hawking stole calculus from Newton, right?

Stephen Hawking created something new, expanded and say innovated concepts. What Steve Jobs/Bill Gates did would be copying Newton's work then retitling it.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 07:59 PM Reply

At 1/8/13 07:20 PM, Warforger wrote: You have either terrible memory, terrible reading skills or terrible writing skills.

I tihnk you're just stupid. Please, show me where I supported "government coercion"

Then quit contradicting yourself.

I haven't

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You have a hard time reading what's being asked.

What did you even ask?

READ.

No, YOU read!

"I didn't say that state schools indoctrinate their students into Liberal idea's, but state schools indoctrinate their students into Liberal idea's". That part in particular is hilarious because you're just pulling shit out of your ass, no evidence just logical fallacies.

So, you're just having fun making up your own quotes and arguing with air, huh?

ROFL.

So, you haven't then?

If the companies went bankrupt a whole lot more Americans would've lost their homes and the economy would have tanked.

No they wouldn't. The auto companies would need to lower their prices and sell...like Chrysler did. See, the auto industry was in no danger, other than the UAW throwing a fit because they're demands weren't meant. Notice how none of the automakers needed money?

Please we've been over this.

And you still don't get it. No matter how many examples history shows you, you will deny it up and down until you're on your deathbed.

Selling land and de-regulation is stretching "Special Treatment".

Selling land was not the issue. Changing laws about what corporations could get away with, and at who's expense, was the problem.

If it did then it would have killed people, which would've left the FDA to take them back.

LOL. FDA. You mean the organization run by former food industry CEOs. executives and sharholders? Yeah, they're trustworthy lol I'm guessing you're pretty easy to sell a used car too

Source? Because if that was true then our voting process wouldn't be so inefficient.

Here ya go

LOL!

It's not funny.

No please read on your own. The Federal Reserve at the time of the Depression was hoarding money to control inflation, if it lent out more money it would have helped the economy.

THEY DID LEND OUT THE MONEY for fuck's sake. Are you retarded?

Yah we have. We've had 3 of the largest economic booms in US history since WWII, there were recessions and they were no where near on the scale of pre-WWII recessions, each boom is much more equally distributed among the population than past booms. But if you seriously think that in 1913 people were more wealthy than in 2012 I think you should examine the way you approach things.

Um, no we haven't. The dollar has been losing it's value, and the economy has become more and more volotile since the Federal Reserve Act

You don't understand the way the unemployment rate is calculated, and I wasn't saying she was wrong you were merely interpreting the way you wanted too.

Yes I do, and so does the Department of Labor and Statistics

Right, but that doesn't change my point.

Except it totally does because your entire point was based on the (imaginary) distinction

That doesn't say anything. There's about as many recessions then and before, and the article even says that our current recessions are not as bad as pre-1914 recessions. It doesn't even say that we've been in continuous recessions either. On top of this recessions are cyclical, so of course they happen it's natural.

Then you didn't read it.

Well REAL facts do, you of course read some controversial article and then fill in the rest with your fantasy then accept that as fact.

I didn't read any "controversial" article

Ok?

So, this current administration FAILS in the budgeting department...and many others

No it's not, it doesn't mean that they know what they're talking about. Obama is someone who knows generals, loads of people, hell Colin Powell even endorsed him. He knows what he's talking about alot more than you.

It absolutely does. You can't really make opinions on war if you've never been there. I mean, you don't see Harvard putting me in charge of thermodynamic physics, do you? Now why would that be? Probably because I have no experience or schooling in that field. Just as Obama has no experience or knowledge of the military.

Colin Powell, btw, resigned because of the Bush/Obama concept of foreign policy (that is, bomb them into peace)

So let me get this straight, assassinating people is invasion?

Um, no. What the fuck?

The part where it says that if Congress declares a state of rebellion or invasion they can do that? It's what Lincoln did.

The Bill of Rights are inalienable, pal. Fuck Lincoln

We're fighting insurgents, they're enemy combatants, they try to kill us, it makes sense to kill them.

Define enemy combatant for me

Ok so it's fine? I guess we just agreed now.

No, it isn't fine. Obama should be tried, and if found guilty, executed for murder and war crimes.

So bubbles cause economic booms?

Artificial ones, yes.

Stephen Hawking created something new, expanded and say innovated concepts. What Steve Jobs/Bill Gates did would be copying Newton's work then retitling it.

Stephen Hawking's theories, and Einstein's for that matter, were based on, and would not have been possible without calculus. Which Newton invented. Therefore, in your eyes, he "stole" it

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 9th, 2013 @ 08:40 PM Reply

At 1/8/13 07:59 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I tihnk you're just stupid. Please, show me where I supported "government coercion"

You said government regulation is fine as long as it doesn't benefit any one group. Any type of regulation is coercion of some sort.

I haven't

No seriously not even just in some random way you quite literally said something then I responded and you replied saying the complete opposite.

What did you even ask?
No, YOU read!

A dead link? Ok let me just link you to what anyone can read.

all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67

There I shortened it so you won't be confused.

So, you're just having fun making up your own quotes and arguing with air, huh?

Then what are you saying? You're saying that the government teaches kids that government intervention is good and that they're always biased in favor of the government. That's akin to indoctrination (which is quite a hilarious claim nonetheless).


No they wouldn't. The auto companies would need to lower their prices and sell...like Chrysler did. See, the auto industry was in no danger, other than the UAW throwing a fit because they're demands weren't meant. Notice how none of the automakers needed money?

If that was the case no one would have bailed them out, not Bush not Obama. Everyone HATED the Bailouts, but they were necessary.

And you still don't get it. No matter how many examples history shows you, you will deny it up and down until you're on your deathbed.

Oh please son you don't even know history. I'll accept actual history, just not the interpretation of fringe revisionists with obvious bias who won't consider any other interpretation.

Selling land was not the issue. Changing laws about what corporations could get away with, and at who's expense, was the problem.

Right, it's called de-regulation, it's a core Libertarian belief, hence history says Libertarianism helps monopolies.

LOL. FDA. You mean the organization run by former food industry CEOs. executives and sharholders? Yeah, they're trustworthy lol I'm guessing you're pretty easy to sell a used car too

The FDA has the incentive to keep contaminated foods from the markets and they have been pretty good about that. Simply being part of a corrupt company doesn't necessarily mean you're not capable of doing a job, I mean many of the top anti-Global Warming scientists gets boatloads of money from oil companies, but that doesn't mean their arguments are instantly invalidated because they're getting money.

Here ya go

Right, and it says the government broke up another monopoly.

THEY DID LEND OUT THE MONEY for fuck's sake. Are you retarded?

If they did that would have increased inflation, and they didn't. Learn history son.

Um, no we haven't.

lulz.

The dollar has been losing it's value,

That's fine as long as real wages increase, which they have. The dollar losing its value is natural, but so is increasing wages to compensate, increasing wealth, increasing purchasing power etc. If the dollar undergoes deflation that's generally a sign that the economy is tanking. Not all cases of inflation mean that the economy is in an economic expansion as in the case of Stagflation, but everytime there's an economic boom there's inflation. It's why inflation has been pretty low under Obama and there was even Deflation back during 2009.

and the economy has become more and more volotile since the Federal Reserve Act

It's more or less more stable than before WWII. I mean there were many panics pre-WWII constantly, Panic of 1893 was one of the worst until the Great Depression occurred. Before WWII the economy was as unstable as shit, but since then Keynesian economics have been applied, which weaken the effect of the business cycle. Hence our recessions aren't nearly as bad as the ones pre-WWII.

Yes I do,

If you did then you would be talking about how it doesn't indicate the size of the Labor Force. For example, Unemployment rose to 7.9% around the time of the election, this was actually a good thing because it meant that people were re-entering the Labor Force. People seem to think that the unemployed are those people who don't have a job , but it's not and that's what you seem to be talking about.

and so does the Department of Labor and Statistics

The Department of Labor says it's 7.9%.

Except it totally does because your entire point was based on the (imaginary) distinction

No, because I describe what inflation is and when it occurs. You didn't refute anything.

Then you didn't read it.

Ok I guess you should read it first then.

I didn't read any "controversial" article

You linked to more articles about how Hoover was a big government Liberal. I'm calling bullshit on that.

So, this current administration FAILS in the budgeting department...and many others

We weren't even talking about this administration.

It absolutely does. You can't really make opinions on war if you've never been there. I mean, you don't see Harvard putting me in charge of thermodynamic physics, do you? Now why would that be? Probably because I have no experience or schooling in that field. Just as Obama has no experience or knowledge of the military.

Obama on the other hand has many military and national security advisers who have the most experience in the military so I'm sure he knows alot more about the military than you do.

Colin Powell, btw, resigned because of the Bush/Obama concept of foreign policy (that is, bomb them into peace)

The foreign policy of Bush and Obama are quite different. Obama isn't launching invasions on the scale of Bush. He hasn't occupied more foreign nations for example. Powell resigned because Bush didn't give a shit what he thought and took Cheney's and Rumsfelds advice over his. He was the biggest opponent of the Iraq war in Bush's cabinet and had to soil his reputation when he was forced to make the case for it in the UN.

Um, no. What the fuck?

That's what your articles said he was doing and that's what drone strikes are.

The Bill of Rights are inalienable, pal. Fuck Lincoln

The interpretation of how far they go though are not.

Define enemy combatant for me

Aye doing so would make actually fighting terrorists alot harder.

No, it isn't fine. Obama should be tried, and if found guilty, executed for murder and war crimes.

You admitted yourself that he didn't order the killing of Bin Laden. Secondly, are you seriously saying that Bin Laden was innocent?

Artificial ones, yes.

So natural ones don't?

Stephen Hawking's theories, and Einstein's for that matter, were based on, and would not have been possible without calculus. Which Newton invented. Therefore, in your eyes, he "stole" it

No it's not. What Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did was take idea's without paying the original creators anything such as DOS and then selling it. Stephen Hawking said one thing, Einstein went on and said another using Newton's legacy of Calculus. On the other hand like I said this would be like Stephen Hawking saying one thing, then some physicist copying his work and retitling it and publishing it as his own and filing patents for it that he owns.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature