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.

 

This is why I hate socialists

page: 13
69
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The real problem with socialism is this:
Telling the truly needy from the truly greedy.
Jesus was a socialist but I have to believe each person is entitled to the fruits of their own labor.
Selling everything you own and giving it to the poor just makes one more poor person.




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Totally agree with your sentiments. I get into more arguments with people who are against any tax cuts because they say, "who will pay for it?".

Pay for what? A tax cut allows the working person to keep more of the money that they EARNED. (same goes for tax cuts for corporations).

I'll tell you not many understand this fact. If they do understand, the next sentence is usually something like, "and how will the govt. pay for ....?" To which I typically respond with something like, "GMAB they've got PLENTY of our money already, if it's not enough they should start by cutting their own salaries and benefits and maybe get rid of some of the useless bureaucrats that the govt. is full of".

Anyway, this conversation never ends well. I always get called a Trump supporter (and I'm not).

However, I am in favor of keeping more of my money, I'm taxed to death everywhere I turn. local/state/federal

Ever look at your cable bill and see how much you are charged in taxes alone? OMG. pisses me off
edit on 4-12-2017 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Yes.

Our taxes went down during the Bush years. During those 8 years, our family thrived and the company my husband worked for also expanded and went through the roof successfully. He was well placed at that time to take advantage of both booms - our personal one and the company one.

State taxes have also gone down for us once or twice ... and they've gone up too.


This is yet another argument I've had with people. They usually say that Republicans only ever cut taxes for the rich. To which I reply that the only tax cut I can remember was during the Bush II years. To which they scream is totally false.

I didn't vote for Bush either. but I tell the truth.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: DBCowboy
Presumably you never ever used any resources/infrastructure that you have not contributed to directly........have a wee think....here's a really really simple bleeding obvious one - roads, and there are many more but go on spit blood rant and rave. My guess is you are Trump supporter who is becoming agitated as hell because you just can't admit to being wrong.

I see it over here with the Brexiteers, reality is too hard to stomach for some so its rant and rave time.



LOL (although this isn't a response to me personally) THIS is exactly what I'm talking about in my 2 previous posts.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Jesus was not a socialist. He believed in generosity such that we would recognize what we did not need and give freely to those who did.

Socialism as modern society defines it is a dark philosophy of theft controlled by greed -- two things Jesus never endorsed.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Jesus was not a socialist. He believed in generosity such that we would recognize what we did not need and give freely to those who did.

Socialism as modern society defines it is a dark philosophy of theft controlled by greed -- two things Jesus never endorsed.


Correct, he was concerned with how each of us treat the needy not how the gov did or didn't do. To that idea, he was an anarchist to the people in charge even though he told them to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. They wanted Justice from God upon the Romans but Jesus wasn't against the Roman gov.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The real problem with socialism is this:
Telling the truly needy from the truly greedy.

Quite the paradox isn't it?

How do you determine who is who without growing the government? Do we just say screw the truly needy because some of them might be truly greedy?



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The real problem with socialism is this:
Telling the truly needy from the truly greedy.

Quite the paradox isn't it?

How do you determine who is who without growing the government? Do we just say screw the truly needy because some of them might be truly greedy?


With or without big government, there is no way to tell. There never will be, nor can be.

It's like trying to tell smart students from dumb students. If there is a reward for being dumb, then every time you administer a spelling test, the dumb kids will fail naturally, and the smart kids will fail on purpose.

It's only when there is a reward for being smart that you can tell which kids fall into which category.






originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'll tell you not many understand this fact. If they do understand, the next sentence is usually something like, "and how will the govt. pay for ....?" To which I typically respond with something like, "GMAB they've got PLENTY of our money already, if it's not enough they should start by cutting their own salaries and benefits and maybe get rid of some of the useless bureaucrats that the govt. is full of".


Bureaucrats are hard to get rid of, because they hold hostage whatever it is they are in charge of. Also fellow managers are reluctant to suggest cutting in their own office, for fear of making enemies (who may retaliate by seeking to cut their job.)

Large corporations suffer from this JUST AS MUCH as government, though.


What the government needs to do is create a new department (which ironically means a new bureaucracy) dedicated to dealing with this problem, and this problem only. Finding ways to overcome bureaucratic entrenchment.

The "anti - entrenchment" bureau.

If any president were capable of creating such a bureau, I think it would be Trump. The man is a flawed genius. (A VERY flawed genius, mind you, but still capable in his areas.)



edit on 6-12-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-12-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

I think the trick is in what form "assistance" takes.

Provide social safety nets that encourage self-sufficiency and independence and the truly needy will run with it while the "greedy" in the same position will stagnate as they do now.

Take food stamps for example: Instead of handing out money (that is unsurprisingly held in major banks), that adds up to absolutely staggering amounts over the years, provide the means, tools, and knowledge to grow their own food using automation.

It may be a higher initial cost, but that would drop off significantly as the program continues. It also has the benefit of decentralizing our food supply.

The same approach could be used in a few different ways, up to and including establishing a new type of decentralized manufacturing base in the US.

This would, of course, reduce dependency on the "ruling class." Which has been avoided since the inception of feudalism, perhaps even before.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Which is again why this should not be government's job to begin with.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I wouldn't mind instituting "optional communism". Government run communes where people are guaranteed a job (and accommodation within that job for any and all disabilities).

However, in the commune, you don't have the right to choose your job, or quit. You can't even call in sick unless you really are sick (commune doctors will be sent to your home to verify).

All housing, food, and healthcare is provided, and worker still earns a salary (probably below minimum wage, though, since they are getting the free housing, etc.)

But you either have to work, or they throw you in jail. It's a perfect safety net, because nobody would actually want to go there, but if you do go go there, you can get back up on your feet (since all the money you make is "disposable income")



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Bone75

I think the trick is in what form "assistance" takes.

Provide social safety nets that encourage self-sufficiency and independence and the truly needy will run with it while the "greedy" in the same position will stagnate as they do now.

Take food stamps for example: Instead of handing out money (that is unsurprisingly held in major banks), that adds up to absolutely staggering amounts over the years, provide the means, tools, and knowledge to grow their own food using automation.

It may be a higher initial cost, but that would drop off significantly as the program continues. It also has the benefit of decentralizing our food supply.

The same approach could be used in a few different ways, up to and including establishing a new type of decentralized manufacturing base in the US.

This would, of course, reduce dependency on the "ruling class." Which has been avoided since the inception of feudalism, perhaps even before.


Where would these people grow this food? It's not like folks on foodstamps own their homes or even have yards to grow stuff in or graze cattle.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bone75

Which is again why this should not be government's job to begin with.


Perhaps if folks such as yourself were taking care of the less fortunate to begin with, our government wouldn't have to.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

A valid question, to be sure. Of course, its just my own take on how it can be handled specifically under a general guideline of "encourage self-sufficiency, not dependence."

I think the key, like so many things, is to address it with technology. Its not particularly difficult to meet a families food needs without land, or even permanent installations.

Doesn't seem like the place to really go into it.. and, while standalone packages that would do this might not be readily available, some folks are working on 'em.


All that jabbering aside, I don't see social safety nets going anywhere anytime soon. So, I think the goal should be figuring out how we can design and implement them in a way that actually strengthens society.

I think the argument can be made that everyone does benefit from these programs if, and only if, they are designed correctly. As it is though, its difficult at best to make an argument for expansion of these programs.

I think that's where we stand now. One "side" wants more extensive government involvement based on ideals and "feeling good," irrespective of efficacy or method. The other wants them all gone regardless of any potential benefits or consideration for bolstering a nations economy, various advancements, etc.
edit on 6-12-2017 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

this is an across the board tax increase. how is that half of this country think they are getting a tax cut and the other half think that only the rich are getting a cut. this is a tax increase. there is no hope for this country, no one can think, only repeat what their team leader spews. i say again, this is a tax increase, for everyone



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I 100% agree with you about Corporations being just as guilty of having useless bureaucrats (administrative positions, etc...). I hope I do not give the impression that I am a fan of the big business, in most cases, I most definitely am not.

Agree that Trump is flawed...Whether or not he is a genius as well I'm still waiting to see....I'm forever hopeful but usually I'm let down.
edit on 7-12-2017 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2017 by toolgal462 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bone75

Which is again why this should not be government's job to begin with.


Perhaps if folks such as yourself were taking care of the less fortunate to begin with, our government wouldn't have to.


You mean the less fortunate AND the lazy, right?

Because, until someone finds a way to always know which is which, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do one and not the other.

The lazy are a blight we would like to get rid of, if we can. At least stop them from raising kids.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So what, kill everyone you don't think works hard enough? Great plan, let's start with the CEOs and stockbrokers who haven't done a day's work in their entire lives. Maybe then the bankers who just shuffle imaginary money around. And hey, without those idiots around hoarding all the world's resources, we'll have enough to give people a decent quality of life.

But that's not what you mean at all, is it? We all know what dogwhistle you're blowing with this kind of talk.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ShadeWolf

I didn't really get any of that from his/her post...

I think its a valid point, and that there are ways that a distinction can be made. Where, assistance is still provided, but in a form that lets the truly needy run with it and use it as a platform to start, or restart, their lives.

Taken in a larger context, some methods could even change things at that end of the economic spectrum permanently. Still meeting needs while expanding and strengthening infrastructure. Instead of weakening it, as current approaches do very well.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I kind of have the same sentiment as Sanders. I feel like it's my tax money and my social security money. I pay taxes every year and I should have a say to where it goes. It shouldn't go to the rich. It shouldn't subsidize oil and coal companies. It shouldn't go to tax breaks for huge corporations. It should go to all the 700 + military bases we have around the world. It shouldn't go to pay congressmen's salary and benefits.

By the way we already basically live in a Social Democracy. Sanders is a Social Democrat. Real socialism is like that in Argentina.




top topics



 
69
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join