At 12/24/12 07:56 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: The fact is this country is starting to get overrun by idiots who want their money handed to them instead of working for it. They want everything handed to them by the government.

Repeating something over and over does not make it true or any less stupid.

What kind of socialism is being talked about.

I won't even talk about a planned economy, regardless of how many additional pages of regulations get added on post industrial economies today, nobody really defends the idea of the government operating businesses. Socialism really should refer to and only to the planned economy since that was it's traditional definition. Republicans are going to turn themselves blue in the face and suffer from the boy-who-cried-wolf by calling various manifestations of the welfare state socialism.

So let's talk about those manifestations.

In the poor to rich wealth transfer, which is sometimes called Socialism. If the wealth transfers are narrow, concentrated, and targeted, you run the risk of creating an underclass. If the wealth transfers are broad to the point of encompassing a near majority or large plurality of society, you run the risk of creating a program that can never be reformed by voluntary political retrenchment.

In the Young to old wealth transfer [which is rather antithetical to the rich to poor transfer since old people are usually the wealthiest demographic in developed societies] is far worse than a rich to poor wealth transfer. You run the risk of depopulating your native population. State run old-age care replaces the role children traditionally played towards their parents with the cold impersonal love of the State. Young adults get hit with taxes which make it harder for them to raise their own kids, and the incentive for them to have children as a way to have them provisioned for in old age decreases. Therefore everyone has fewer children and in most developed countries with generous welfare states, You have greying populations, fewer young people supporting larger numbers of older people.

Socialism isn't bad. Human greed and selfishness is. Socialism would work if people cared for others, but we dont. Thats why humanity deserves to be extinct.

At 12/25/12 03:04 AM, penis-plant wrote: Socialism isn't bad. Human greed and selfishness is. Socialism would work if people cared for others, but we dont. Thats why humanity deserves to be extinct.

That's rather dark for someone who is happily using human structures and technology....

Its not that every human is corrupt so much as, when someone tries to take advantage of the system instead of working with it, it can be harder to get them out. Imagine all those corrupt groups like gunk in the drain, most of the stuff that goes down there slides by smoothly and works as it should, but not all, and gradually that starts to plug the drain and mess everything up to much for the water to get through without a deep cleaning.

At 12/21/12 06:26 PM, Warforger wrote: You don't even have to look at China or the USSR

In practice, neither was or have ever been socialist or communist.

At 12/25/12 09:15 AM, BumFodder wrote: In practice, neither was or have ever been socialist or communist.

Depends on the interpretation. You could argue that because of the black market they weren't Socialist, but that would be like saying that one of the biggest industries in the US is marijuana, it's not exactly legal and it isn't counted in the GDP. Some have said that it was merely one monopoly over everything but I'm pretty sure that was the point. But basically, they were Socialist, the government had control over everything not even just industries, you couldn't even have a stamp club or a soccer team without it being part of the government. They weren't Communist since Communism was the end goal, but they were certainly Socialist.

At 12/21/12 05:16 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

So correct if I'm wrong, but what is so bad about this concept?

The problem is, socialism promotes stealing from one group to prop up another, under threat of law.

At 12/25/12 09:15 AM, BumFodder wrote: In practice, neither was or have ever been socialist or communist.

Well if you're looking at ACTUAL communism/socialism, you won't find it, because nobody wants to give up money and things to support others.

You can always look to the Amish. However, it works for them, because they make the choice to be there. They do not have a leader saying "do this or go to prison". They choose to do it.

At 12/25/12 03:04 AM, penis-plant wrote: Socialism isn't bad. Human greed and selfishness is.

Actually human greed advances and, always has, the human race, since the beginning of time. The world needs more greed. Maybe then lazy welfare fucks would be more prone to getting a job and supporting themselves instead of selling themselves into slavery by the government and the rich.

At 12/25/12 05:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/25/12 03:04 AM, penis-plant wrote: Socialism isn't bad. Human greed and selfishness is.

Actually human greed advances and, always has, the human race, since the beginning of time. The world needs more greed. Maybe then lazy welfare fucks would be more prone to getting a job and supporting themselves instead of selling themselves into slavery by the government and the rich.

You mean like Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff and pretty much those people who purposely crashed the economy while making away with millions are good for mankind. Oh and drug dealers are also advancing our society too then. Oh wht evil government.

Socialism is anti-american and has been ruining countries for centuries.

~JohnFreedom

At 12/26/12 01:34 AM, JohnFreedom wrote: Socialism is anti-american and has been ruining countries for centuries.

~JohnFreedom

So I see youve made a new account

i don wanna live in a country where big gov'ment says i cant use rocket launchers to protect my family

At 12/25/12 05:03 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/25/12 03:04 AM, penis-plant wrote: Socialism isn't bad. Human greed and selfishness is.

Actually human greed advances and, always has, the human race, since the beginning of time. The world needs more greed. Maybe then lazy welfare fucks would be more prone to getting a job and supporting themselves instead of selling themselves into slavery by the government and the rich.

This entire argument is always the fallback for the DIY republican, and it's the worst one that could be used. The entire argument is based upon the notion that some professions are worth more than others.

If Lemonhead and his bunch had their way, the people making the most money would be the ones giving the least value to society. Athletes, pornstars, actors, financiers...oh wait...

Fact is that human greed needs to be curtailed because the fucking free market isn't the end all be all of everything, because if everyone is given a choice, they're going to choose porn and cheetos 99% of the time, not "intellectually stimulating entreprenuerialism" like these crazy republicans think.

Red states take in the most porn, by the way. LOL

At 12/24/12 11:17 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: What kind of socialism is being talked about.

... nobody really defends the idea of the government operating businesses.

I would disagree, while don't hold that government should run every business, (almost) everyone agrees that some "businesses" should be run by the state; corrections, various insurance policies including things such as SSI , health insurance etc, and mineral extraction are commonly run by governments.

Socialism really should refer to and only to the planned economy since that was it's traditional definition.

Why? The term "planned economy" works perfectly well to describe planned economy, while no other term exists to describe collective control of business.

At 12/25/12 06:19 PM, Warforger wrote: You mean like Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff and pretty much those people who purposely crashed the economy while making away with millions are good for mankind. Oh and drug dealers are also advancing our society too then. Oh wht evil government.

Bernie Madoff and Goldman Sachs were greedy, but stupid. True greed breeds innovation and economics...see Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, Bill Gates, etc. You're missing the difference between greed, and unchecked insanity.

The insanity, like you see with, say, the President's banking or insurance buddies, promotes nothing beneficial to society. THOSE people are socio-paths, fucking people over because they can get away with it...Bill Gates and entrepreneurs, who value a consumer/producer relationship, are not. They realize people want products produced because of their greed. So they make sure they use it properly.

At 12/26/12 09:29 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote: This entire argument is always the fallback for the DIY republican, and it's the worst one that could be used. The entire argument is based upon the notion that some professions are worth more than others.

Some are. A heart surgeon or OB/GYN is certainly more important than a car wash worker.

If Lemonhead and his bunch had their way, the people making the most money would be the ones giving the least value to society. Athletes, pornstars, actors, financiers...oh wait...

Um, no. Not sure where you drew that conclusion from..

Fact is that human greed needs to be curtailed because the fucking free market isn't the end all be all of everything, because if everyone is given a choice, they're going to choose porn and cheetos 99% of the time, not "intellectually stimulating entreprenuerialism" like these crazy republicans think.

It IS/can be curtailed if the government allows it to be. The problem occurs when you have the government propping up and protecting the greed. Preventing you from keeping greed in check.

The free market keeps greed in check. The government certainly doesn't. Hell, The government GIVES FREE MONEY to them.

Sweden and England nuff said ;)

At 12/27/12 11:29 AM, LemonCrush wrote: The insanity, like you see with, say, the President's banking or insurance buddies, promotes nothing beneficial to society. THOSE people are socio-paths, fucking people over because they can get away with it...Bill Gates and entrepreneurs, who value a consumer/producer relationship, are not. They realize people want products produced because of their greed. So they make sure they use it properly.

So basically what you're saying is that greed is not the lust for money but it's the attitude for a healthy consumer-producer relationship. Also Steve Jobs was pretty Psychopathic in his own sense, he had fathered a daughter with his girlfriend and refused to pay a cent for her and sought to get rid of her, this was also when he was worth millions of dollars.

Although I guess it's only the consumer-producer relationship that matters, the cheap labor in China isn't that important.

At 12/24/12 08:04 PM, Warforger wrote:

Repeating something over and over does not make it true or any less stupid.

Except he's right.

Perfect example: Bank and auto bailouts

At 12/25/12 04:57 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/21/12 05:16 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

So correct if I'm wrong, but what is so bad about this concept?

The problem is, socialism promotes stealing from one group to prop up another, under threat of law.

;;;;
You wanna hear some true tales of stealing ?

You got about an hour to spend listeing to an American General who documented the Bullshit done to your country ...
Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCiylpzR60U

At 12/28/12 11:22 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/24/12 08:04 PM, Warforger wrote:

Repeating something over and over does not make it true or any less stupid.

Except he's right.

Perfect example: Bank and auto bailouts

That's like not what he's talking about at all. Stuff like the bailouts and stimulus packages were all things the entire community of Economists universally agreed were necessary thus both Bush and Obama made them. What he's talking about though is the notion of there being lazy people on welfare who just take their welfare check and don't even try to go to work and the idea that welfare gives you too much money i.e. scapegoating people to blame on our budgetary problems. That's all rhetoric, actual statistics tend to paint a very different and contradictory reality but no matter what it doesn't seem to dispel this retarded notion.

At 12/27/12 11:32 AM, LemonCrush wrote: The free market keeps greed in check.

I've always wondered what kind of mental gymnastics people have to go through in order to believe this.

At 12/29/12 05:49 AM, Feoric wrote: I've always wondered what kind of mental gymnastics people have to go through in order to believe this.

I've always wondered what kind of mental gymnastics people have to go through to deny basic, documented, observable, historical fact.

The corporatism and economic issues associated with it, in the past century or so, were encouraged by social engineers in the government. The fact is, the government shields and protects those who line their pockets. The JP Morgans, the Rockefellars (sp?) or the world get special treatment. The rest of us eat shit.

If the average American had as much power or clout as major corporations, the nation would be a much better place.

It always cracks me up how quick democrats are willing to sell their ideals down the river at a moment's convnience. I remember during the Bush administration, how people were calling for Bush impeachment, because he came from oil money. How his own financial policy was set up to benefit corporations...and fuck everyone else.

And now all of that is okay, now that a democrat does the same EXACT thing. Tax cuts for the rich is evil and fascist...but giving billions to them. That' A-ok by democrats because it "saved jobs".

At 12/29/12 04:41 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/29/12 05:49 AM, Feoric wrote: I've always wondered what kind of mental gymnastics people have to go through in order to believe this.

I've always wondered what kind of mental gymnastics people have to go through to deny basic, documented, observable, historical fact.

You know like Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff or say every corrupt politician ever.

The corporatism and economic issues associated with it, in the past century or so, were encouraged by social engineers in the government. The fact is, the government shields and protects those who line their pockets. The JP Morgans, the Rockefellars (sp?) or the world get special treatment. The rest of us eat shit.

That would be true if it were like 1924, but we get Unemployment benefits we get Social Security Benefits we get Medicare benefits etc.

If the average American had as much power or clout as major corporations, the nation would be a much better place.

Oh god no, it would be the current situation with the Fiscal Cliff exponentially worse.

It always cracks me up how quick democrats are willing to sell their ideals down the river at a moment's convnience. I remember during the Bush administration, how people were calling for Bush impeachment, because he came from oil money. How his own financial policy was set up to benefit corporations...and fuck everyone else.

So would you say that the government is greedy? Going by that logic isn't this a good thing?

And now all of that is okay, now that a democrat does the same EXACT thing. Tax cuts for the rich is evil and fascist...but giving billions to them. That' A-ok by democrats because it "saved jobs".

Not the exact same thing, if Obama was doing that then he would win West Virginia by double digits (I mean, West Virgina is deep blue, nearly every politician there is a Democrat yet Obama had no chance of winning the state because of his position on coal).

Oh and corporations are not the same thing as wealthy people. This is a basic principle you learn in economics.

At 12/28/12 12:53 PM, Warforger wrote: That's like not what he's talking about at all. Stuff like the bailouts and stimulus packages were all things the entire community of Economists universally agreed were necessary thus both Bush and Obama made them. What he's talking about though is the notion of there being lazy people on welfare who just take their welfare check and don't even try to go to work and the idea that welfare gives you too much money i.e. scapegoating people to blame on our budgetary problems. That's all rhetoric, actual statistics tend to paint a very different and contradictory reality but no matter what it doesn't seem to dispel this retarded notion.

That's funny, I seem to recall the public up in arms over the Bush stimulus. However, unquestioned support when Obama does it. Can you explain that? How under [R] politicians corporate welfare and government-corporate relationship was evil, but under [D] politicians it's not only okay, but encouraged.

I tend to not believe in statistics. They're frequently skewed by those who benefit from them. However I have witnessed people on welfare or food stamps, not trying to find work, or taking despite having 2 jobs and enough money for video games and other expendable purchases. People will ALWAYS take free stuff. Always.

At 12/29/12 06:16 PM, Warforger wrote: You know like Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff or say every corrupt politician ever.

Exactly. Had the government not been protecting and encouraging this sort of thievery, we'd be in a much better place.

That would be true if it were like 1924, but we get Unemployment benefits we get Social Security Benefits we get Medicare benefits etc.

Unemployment benefits are paid for by individuals and/or employers. Please, tell me how a bailout of a bank benefits my medicare. Please tell me how Bush/Obama stealing from my social security to fight wars helps me.

How about, I opt out of BOTH programs, and save for it myself. I don't need a babysitter, and I don't need someone to pay my medical and/or retirement bills. So, why should the government be allowed to take money that I earn, without my consent, for things I don't want, and even if I did, will probably never see the benefits of?

Oh god no, it would be the current situation with the Fiscal Cliff exponentially worse.

If we lived in a nation where consumers (or plebs, more accurately) had the same treatment as the CEO of GM, or corporations recieved the treatment we get, there would be no unchecked corporatism. Corporatism only gets out of hand when you remove consumers from the equation via crony capitalist policies.

So would you say that the government is greedy? Going by that logic isn't this a good thing?

The government is not a person. The government does not innovate. The government steals money, and gives to those undeserving. That's not greed, it's evil.

Not the exact same thing, if Obama was doing that then he would win West Virginia by double digits (I mean, West Virgina is deep blue, nearly every politician there is a Democrat yet Obama had no chance of winning the state because of his position on coal).

Oh it's exactly the same. Bush bailout, bad. Obama bailout, okay. And let's not over look the fact that it will soon be federal law that you buy insurance from corporations. I thought Obama was supposed to put an end to all that crony capitalism stuff. You know, making the "fat cats" pay a little more? Now he's giving them billions, and now requiring you to give insurance corporations money? Something doesn't match...

Oh and corporations are not the same thing as wealthy people. This is a basic principle you learn in economics.

So?

At 12/21/12 05:16 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Isn't the basis of it taxing the rich to help out the poor? What's so bad about that? correct me if i'm wrong about that, but I've researched it and that's what usually comes up.

Anyway, the rich have plenty of money to help out the poor, I don't see what's so bad about sharing money, sure you earned it, but you're not going to help little Timmy who is your best friend's son survive his fight with a cold because his family can't afford it? I do not see what is so bad about this concept, and why people would even care if Obama is socialist or not. also, not everybody who is poor is a "lazy dirt bag" stuff happens, most people in this class work their hearts out. I know from personal experience.

So correct if I'm wrong, but what is so bad about this concept?

Let me point out a few things to the common Democrat, whose economic ideas are extremely generalized.

All in all it's not a terrible concept, and to some extent we should do this - but just as the first poster said, if we purely did this it would be disastrous. We shouldn't help those who aren't going to help themselves - we shouldn't take away money from those who work hard, run successful businesses just to give to a hobo who never worked hard in life and spends all his welfare checks on booze. However, we should help those who never had any opportunities in life and have intentions of helping themselves, getting a job, etc.

A lot of big businesses and corporations today are what drives America's economy - large distribution of goods with a lot of hiring of employees. In theory, if you tax businesses they will have less money to spend on hiring employees, thus slowing down economic growth and job growth. If you're wondering why the unemployment rate being high is such a big problem to our economy, it's because if we have less people working, we have less people paying taxes. The problem is that a lot of these big businesses end up hiring employees from other countries like India, which really hurts our economy.

This may seem like a very general answer to most of you regulars here on this forum, but I hope I answered your question OP.

socialism is fundamentally about taking from one person to give to another using the force of gov't laws.

In the begininng is sounds good because after all the rich supposedly have vast reserves of wealth, more than they can spend in a life time so basically that should some how be stolen from them, or forced through gov't mandate under penalty of fine or arrest or seizure to be taken by the gov't and distributed to whomever the interest groups are.

The problem with this besides out right theft of property, is the old saying of "you can give a man a fish and feed him for a day or you can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime" . Socialism is about giving the man a fish. It may help a person out in the short run but its no benefit in the long run.

Also the list of the needy is ever growing. Besides outright fraud, any body can become a political constituent and essentially lobby the political sphere for moneys.

âEUoeI have never understood why it is âEU~greedâEUTM to want to keep the money youâEUTMve earned,
but not greed to want to take somebody elseâEUTMs money.âEU

- Thomas Sowell

By helping out individuals you are essentially creating a culture of learned helplessness and irresponsibilty. This is what the social welfare "safety net" creates as an unintended consequence of goodwill. In the past wealthy people would donate some of their wealth to poor houses etc. and then use it as a tax write off. This could take care of some but was by no means able to satiate everybody's desires.

It's easy for politicians to use these classes of people to pander for votes and pretend to the populace that some how social ills and just facts of life are some how being fixed and managed by the state through the institution of a social welfare program. The problem is the longer this goes on the more advantageous it becomes to keep these systems in place.

A bribed populace is a happy populace

Unfortunately the hidden cost in socialism and "social welfare comes later down the line when at a certain point the people recieving the benefits of social welfare begins to become enormous. This cuts into the fiscal problems of the country becuase it is simply not possible to provide everyone with everything because at some level, all wealth that is created was created through production of goods or services. By taking wealth from productive members and giving it to those that are unproductive a nation begins to cease to invest in future labor and production by merely eating its own wealth through the subsidizing of the poor.

Recently Francois Hollande in france attempted to pass through a tax on the wealthy of nearly 75% of ones income over a certain level. The problem with this, is that it chases wealth out of the country. No rich person that is sane would want to stick around in a country that would take 3/4 of their wealth per annum. The net effect if they did stay is a lowering of everybody's standard of living. How? Eventually what happens when the wealthly are taxed to the point where they are no longer wealthy?

In order to continue to fund social spending the gov't must then go into debt or find the money elsewhere, or simply print it. All of these situations lead to catastrophic results which can be seen in the current financial crisis, the argentinian crisis in 2000-01, Zimbabwe Hyperinflation, Weimar Germany, etc etc.

People often forget that aside from social spending, a country also has to pay for itself and reinvest in itself. By placating the poor and subsidizing them, they are not investing that wealth in productive enterprises which would in the longer run generate more wealth over all in a society. However to most, that idea is untenable when one is poor right now, and through long term investment in a society one may only see economic prosperity in generational terms. This is assuming gov't could some how by itself pick winners and losers in a market (which is ofcourse communism) versus just letting the rich keep their money (free market capitalism)

Socialism is the very idea that theft makes right somehow. By robbing Peter to pay paul, you have increased paul's standard of living temporarily but also lowered Peter's. At some point there will be no more money left to steal from Peter, and paul will be very angry that he is not being paid. At that point socialism fails. As it has always failed. when there is no more money left to steal.

Socialism is antithetical to the idea of property rights. If the gov't or any force can essentially decree that what you "own" must be surrendered " for the good of all" then you do not own it.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." - ayn rand

At 12/30/12 01:03 AM, Light wrote: As a Democrat, I don't think my beliefs are "generalized," whatever the hell that means.

I wasn't saying that all Democrats have generalized views, I was saying that a lot of them do. However I agree with the rest of your post.