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.

 

The only people who want Socialism are people who don't produce

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
This is my theory and you will not talk me out of it. My assertion is that *nearly* only the people who don't produce are the ones who want a socialist or quasi socialist society.

My theory is based on this fact;

Capitalism is about the ability to own what you produce EI private property rights. This issue is essentially what the Revolutionary war was fought over. Remember it was fought over taxes and sovereignty. The king was taxing goods without representation essentially stealing your property or what you produce from you.



so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


Socialism is the antithesis to private property or in other words, owning what you produce.

Right now what we have in this economy is not capitalism. We have a quasi-socialist democracy and not a functioning constitutional republic which is why we are where we are.

If we want to live within a proper capitalistic society as our society was designed to work (based on the ideas of freedom and liberty) and this is UNDIENIABLE as it is all over the writings of all the founding fathers, the Federalist papers and is found everywhere in the bill of rights and constitution we need to hold these ideas above all else.

The government taxing you and taking your property to give it to someone else, or taxing you and taking the profit from what you produce is actually anti-American and it goes against the ideas of freedom. It's everything we fought the British to get away from and is the key element to a successful society where everyone has ample opportunity and incentive to be successful.
edit on 29-8-2017 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
How long have we been under this quasi socialist democracy?


Right now what we have in this economy is not capitalism. We have a quasi-socialist democracy and not a functioning constitutional republic which is why we are where we are.
a reply to: toysforadults

How deep are we, in other words what should we do?



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Damm good thread!! True also I think!!



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I always noticed that the people whom would get free healthcare was always for it where as the people whom would pay for it were against it. The best part is the first group would call the second group a bunch of racists for no wanting free healthcare when they are the ones that have to pay for it.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

FDR was pretty much the one who set the tone for the next century. It mostly began with him and the crash of the big banks.

www.garynorth.com...



Franklin Roosevelt's Big Bank Bailout: March 6, 1933


Gold confiscation.

Also...

Social security act of 1935

FDR new deal

FDR was the worst president in the history of the US.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


The government taxing you and taking your property to give it to someone else, or taxing you and taking the profit from what you produce is actually anti-American and it goes against the ideas of freedom. It's everything we fought the British to get away from and is the key element to a successful society where everyone has ample opportunity and incentive to be successful.


Then why did The Founders put it in the COTUS?



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jkm1864
I always noticed that the people whom would get free healthcare was always for it where as the people whom would pay for it were against it. The best part is the first group would call the second group a bunch of racists for no wanting free healthcare when they are the ones that have to pay for it.


Precisely.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

It's limited to the continuity of government otherwise known as "general welfare". It was not meant to be abused as it is now.

You need to read their writings and the constitution to understand the full scope of what when and how.

What you have right now is an over simplification of what when and how. Look into the tax rates until the Federal reserve and the IRS were made real.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
It's understandable. Some people don't have the opportunity to improve their earnings; the retired, disabled, carers, children of the unemployed. So they are going to vote for parties that offer to give them improved benefits.

Anyone who earns a decent amount of money is going to vote for the party that offers to reduce their taxes or at least not raise them. They certain won't vote for the other party.

Inbetween, there will be those with moderate amounts of money and willing to vote based on emotional or ethical issues alone without regard to cost. Then another group will be fed up of the rich getting tax exemptions and seeing large amounts of money being wasted.

So it's like a four person tug-of-war over a chest of gold coins. With proportional representation, there can be dozens of ropes and everyone switching sides.


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Now I'm admin for ISP. Before I did 3d animation, before it some 2d graphics. I was never on welfare support. I'm for socialism ....



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JanAmosComenius

Yes as I said, *nearly*.

You are confused more than anything on the solution to todays problems.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I don't agree with your opinion. Doesn't the rich elite on the left want socialism? Are you saying the wealthy left doesn't produce anything? Or are you saying the rich left wing isn't socialist like many on ATS preach?
edit on 29-8-2017 by Singswithchickens because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell




It's understandable. Some people don't have the opportunity to improve their earnings; the retired, disabled, carers, children of the unemployed. So they are going to vote for parties that offer to give them improved benefits.


This is beyond the scope of party politics.

The solution is capitalism not quasi-socialism. Putting the power back into the hands of the people by putting their products back into their hands and returning the incentive to produce.

Taxes are a burden not a benefit.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Singswithchickens
I don't agree with your opinion. Doesn't the rich elite on the left want socialism? Are you saying the wealthy left doesn't produce anything? Or are you saying the rich left wing isn't socialist like many on ATS preach?


Can you provide an example of a rich elite leftist who wants socialism, or in other words, doesn't want to own what they produce?


+10 more 
posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jkm1864
I have worked over 40 years in the healthcare arena. I have had times when I have had health insurance and times when I didn't. Yet no one has ever paid for my healthcare, it all came out of my own pocket. Not all people without insurance get services for free.

I have never provided care for someone based on their ability to pay. I have found over the years that those with the least are the most appreciative and most co-operative.

If I had my wish, I would make healthcare services available to anyone that needs it, without them having to go bankrupt in the process.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Let's not forget that huge corps are for socialism as well. There seems to be a line of thinking supported by our elected officials that privatizing profits and socializing losses.

Our elected officials are not afraid of the voters, they are afraid of the too big to fail welfare queen corps.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Mark Zuckerberg supports universal basic income. What is it?
money.cnn.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: Singswithchickens
I don't agree with your opinion. Doesn't the rich elite on the left want socialism? Are you saying the wealthy left doesn't produce anything? Or are you saying the rich left wing isn't socialist like many on ATS preach?


Can you provide an example of a rich elite leftist who wants socialism, or in other words, doesn't want to own what they produce?


You can use ATS search engine type"Soros socialist" and you will see more links than you can post



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: toysforadults

Mark Zuckerberg supports universal basic income. What is it?
money.cnn.com...


That's because the quasi-socialist see capitalism as the problem when in fact it's the socialism part of our economy that's the problem.

They are uneducated and woefully misinformed on how the economy was designed to work.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: toysforadults

Let's not forget that huge corps are for socialism as well. There seems to be a line of thinking supported by our elected officials that privatizing profits and socializing losses.

Our elected officials are not afraid of the voters, they are afraid of the too big to fail welfare queen corps.


They are for socializing the economy because their products dominate the market due to failed corporate socialism and lobbying in DC.

DC has to much power. We need to decentralize DC and the economy and get back to a free market so the little guy can compete again.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join