It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

While You Were Sleeping: Among Democrats 49% Favorable To Socialism

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It a very sound and unassailable theory. The dollar spent by one is no better than the dollar spent by another.


It would be nice to have the choice of whether you spend it on whatever, or not spend it at all...


How would a system like that work?

How would each individual taxpayer decide what their tax dollars get spent on?

Followup: who would pay taxes if they didn't have to?

Next followup: What imaginary place are you referencing beyond the obvious Fantasy-land?




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That won't exist in 20 years. They will have run out of others peoples money. It always happens.



Example : Greece!

Think about it, why all this Austerity talk.

Austerity all over Europe... why? You know why right?

It is unsustainable. Fact.


Socialism is sustainable

Debt based currency isn't sustainable and guarantees markets will crash while bankers get wealthy.

Financial markets don't crash because of the ISM they follow.

Financial markets crash because we live in a dept based society where a handful of elitists control monetary supply, inflation/deflation, the stock markets, trade surplus and deficits.

The elite who dictate monetary policy and international trade determine which ISM is successful and which ISM collapses.


edit on 25-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
If I am making $40 and my neighbor is making $0, you can take $20 from me and give it to my neighbor until the cows come home but it won't change the fact that my neighbor isn't being productive. Nor does it change the fact that you disincentivize me from putting forth the effort to continue making $40. Why bother? You're only going to take it away and give it to someone who does nothing to earn it.

So what do you do on the day I stop trying to earn $40 and only earn $20? Do you then take $10 from me every day until I only earn $10 and so on and so forth until I stop working entirely and on that day ... what do you do?

This is the eternal problem socialism has.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It a very sound and unassailable theory. The dollar spent by one is no better than the dollar spent by another.


It would be nice to have the choice of whether you spend it on whatever, or not spend it at all...


Funnily enough that's called Socialism, where the community decides and regulates their own pennies...


But keep that on the down low this thread is hilarious.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We've allowed a corporate take over of our government -- something that should never have happened in the first place.


We have allowed ALL special interests to take over our government via lobbying. The corporations are just one of many greasing the skids.


Agreed! Although I would counter with corporations have more resources and can exert more control. However, on a fundamental level -- yes, I totally agree. We're never going to be able to rid ourselves of people trying to influence the political process, but we should *at least* not make it as easy as we have it now.


People have every right to do what they feel is necessary, within legal and constitutional limits, to engage the political process. That is a basic right in this country.

Corporations are not people. Corporations have no right to affect the political process and they should not be allowed to lobby government according to the original corporate charter system that strictly forbid anything of the sort.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Social welfare systems are not socialism.

Should we develop a working definition of what we're talking about?



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

To me, a more socialist example would be working in a factory where all the employees are also owners of the company/factory. The better the factory did, the more profit it makes...The more profit made, the more everyone gets paid. The means of production and the company itself is owned completely by those working for it -- not outside investors, a CEO or a handful of board members.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Yes, your personal experiences are the measure of all things.


If you don't think the middle-class is disappearing or has mostly, what are you complaining about?


I'm not complaining, but if we go socialized as Sanders would like I think I would feel it the most...the shrinking over the last 6 years is mainly from our crappy commander and chief. We are now coming out of a recession after 6 plus years where all other Presidents in the past did it under 1 1/2 years. I think the first 4 years was wasted due to Barry's OJT.

The problem isn't really who pays too much taxes or not enough, it is a spending/wasting issue. As example: AugustusMasonicus stated that the education system is boated, and it is. This is the way of Government. It grows and grows while become less efficient in the process. Look at Obamacare it is growing as we speak into a beast there people pay more and more while getting less and less.

Went we look in the mirror we see Greece....



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I actually think the black or white comparators are hilarious, we can pick and choose but Judging by what has been said I'LL still take Dr.Carson, he isn't perfect but the rest, I don't really like their arrogance.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Social welfare systems are not socialism.

Should we develop a working definition of what we're talking about?


Too late buddy, page seven already and they've set the tempo once again for what Socialism is...

Happens every time.



That early years brainwashing really turned them into political Manchurian candidates who spout the most frivolous dross the moment the frequency of the word socialism triggers in their brain.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Social welfare systems are not socialism.

Should we develop a working definition of what we're talking about?


Social welfare systems are a product of an economic model in which the corporate, big-money interests are favored over the middle class and poor. Social welfare allows these entities to pay low wages and not provide benefits while the government covers the "gap" so that the people can still barely survive to make it to work the next day.

They keep us hungry for that meager paycheck so that we can make sure little Johnny has food to eat and shoes on his feet. Sadly, just having food on the table is becoming hard and the shoes are coming from donations or churches.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Funnily enough that's called Socialism, where the community decides and regulates their own pennies...
But keep that on the down low this thread is hilarious.


I guess I forgot to put the word "I" in my statement.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Gryphon66

To me, a more socialist example would be working in a factory where all the employees are also owners of the company/factory. The better the factory did, the more profit it makes...The more profit made, the more everyone gets paid. The means of production and the company itself is owned completely by those working for it -- not outside investors, a CEO or a handful of board members.


You do restore my faith in humanity at times Mystik. Yes, that's a much more clear example of socialism than anything being bandied about by our right-wing friends in this thread.

Bravo.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I know Charlie.

/sigh



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


To me, a more socialist example would be working in a factory where all the employees are also owners of the company/factory. The better the factory did, the more profit it makes...The more profit made, the more everyone gets paid. The means of production and the company itself is owned completely by those working for it -- not outside investors, a CEO or a handful of board members.

YES!!!

Profit-sharing with the actual producing workers, not just the 'stock-holders'......not the 'board' or the CEO and his sycophants!!!! Whatever the company earns is split amongst the WORKERS.

Yet, these capitalists act as though it's some kind of obscure other-worldly, unimaginable and impossible calculus rocket science to do that.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

SCARASM AHEAD

Yeap - the non-dumbed-down among us - know the definition of socialism and cower in fear.

Brilliant.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Funnily enough that's called Socialism, where the community decides and regulates their own pennies...
But keep that on the down low this thread is hilarious.


I guess I forgot to put the word "I" in my statement.


That's called living off the grid and nothing is stopping you...

Unless you're too attached to socialist benefits like policing, medical care, fire safety, that army that protects your borders, toilet paper, etc.
edit on 25-10-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Spelling again.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Wage slavery is an important aspect of American capitalism, certainly.

Such measures combined with market deregulation have caused the three greatest failures of our economy.

But I digress.

So, Introvert, what is the solution for 2015+ America do you think? Is there a way out for us?

(I know that's a big question ... but I and others would value your response. We've had enough of my combativeness here.)
edit on 20Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:20:37 -050015p0820151066 by Gryphon66 because: Tried to form an actual English sentence.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

Socialism and charity are two different things. Christians believe in charity. Socialism robs us of the chance to be charitable.

I love your soul ketsuko, but your idea of charity requires perpetual poverty.

I don't like poverty.

In this country packed full of resources, with more coastline than any other country in the world, there is no excuse for it. We should all be living in abundance.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
This is all about equal outcome. Regardless if you earned it or not.

Everyone gets a trophy.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join