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 Demopublisocialists, or, Socialist party A, B, and C

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I was going to put this in the Socialism area, however it really deals with American politics on a wider scale as I address the platforms of 3 separate parties here.


Challenged recently in another topic by another member who became upset over my usage of the term socialism to describe the democratic and republican parties, I decided this would make a good topic of discussion.

I am going to start off with a fitting quote from Vin Suprynowicz book Send in the Waco Killers


When Russian President Boris Yeltsen met his opposite number, newly elected American President Bill Clinton, in early 1993, he came away with a positive impression. “I like him,” said the longtime member of the Communist Party of Russia. “He’s a socialist.”
By June 1993, having watched young Mr. Clinton in action for five months, Nobel economic laureate Milton Friedman, an American free-market capitalist, confirmed that this judgment was much more than an off-hand remark, calling Mr. Clinton “a socialist” in public and in writing.
The response to such a straightforward observation in polite American society today is to ignore it and move on as though nothing has happened. Press the point and you may hear a derisive snort.
As every schoolchild knows, “socialist” is now a totally out of date term, used only by doddering right-wing racists with ill-fitting hairpieces in a laughable attempt to insult today’s moderate, progressive, social democrats.
After all, is it “socialist” to be in favor of racial and gender equality? To be in favor of quality public schools and a compassionate “social safety net” for the unfortunate?



Well, of course every product of our mandatory government youth propaganda camps will tell you as well that there is no comparison between the Democrats and Republicans today and the socialist party platform of the watershed election of 1932.

Of course, you had one party calling for such goodies as the “immediate governmental relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works” and a “system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions.”

“For the proper support of government and as a step toward social justice,” stated this party, “we propose an increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old-age pensions and other social insurance.”

This party wanted to see the “public development of electrical energy,” and stated “as a further means of agricultural relief … insurance against losses due to adverse weather conditions.”

Now, let’s take a look at another party platform from the same year. “We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of the contract to which they are asked to subscribe. … We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagances to accomplish a savings of not less than 25 percent in the national credit by a federal budget annually balanced. … We advocate the removal of government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works. …”

OK, so let’s guess what platform goes with which party. Well, it is plain to see that the first platform is that of FDR and his Democratic coalition and the second is that of Hoover and his horrible, racist, Republican Party, right?

WRONG

The first platform, which mirrors the ideals of modern Democrats, was that of Norman Thomas, a SOCIALIST. FDR and his Democrats actually called Socialist Norman Thomas’s platform “fantastic and un-American.”

Now, about that second party platform I mentioned, the one that called itself a covenant with the people to knock down the then much smaller federal government by 25 percent.

Well, here we have the 1932 Democratic platform! (I dare any Democrat in office to put it into effect, BTW)


[edit on 25-12-2005 by cavscout]




posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
FDR's administration was the culmination in the Christian Socialist movement that was taking over America at the turn of the century. Of course, America is socialist now. We do have a "middle class" don't we? That's the result of the FDR administration. Though we've rolled back considerably from some of his initiatives. For example, you can own gold beyond just jewelry again.


But you're right in that the Republicans are just as socialist, if not more when you look at their giveaways and "free trade" where they all but make developing countries nationalized sweat shops.

Beyond America though, is there a civilized, prosperous nation NOT socialist? There's certainly no Superpower that isn't.

You can't undo socialism without undoing America. My advice? Enjoy the ride. It will end post oil, so minarchists will get their strongman fantasies eventually and we'll get to start over. AgriWar baby! Lock and load.

First reference: Titor.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Rant

I disagree that we can't undo socialism without undoing America, although I think we'd agree that it is probably not very likely seeing the current cowardice and ignorance of the American people.

I think there is a better balance we could strike, but I promise that if Universal Health Care comes to America, that will be the last sign of our last throws to the bottom.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I think there is a better balance we could strike, but I promise that if Universal Health Care comes to America, that will be the last sign of our last throws to the bottom.



It's inevitable. In our efforts to "compete" with developing third world nations already totally nationalized, we're disemploying our own workers ability to feed themselves, much less buy gas or healthcare.

Republicans are "fast tracking" the need for nationalized healthcare more than anyone.

Fear the FTAA Jethro. America is destined to be nothing more than one among many. 34 nationalized sweatshops, no borders, all serving corporate "America," located for your convenience at a PO Box in the Caymans.

Wal-Mart's Hillary will probably bring it too. That's her continuing job as the Republican conservative operating under the pretense of a "Democrat," just like her husband. The only substantive complaint I've heard from Republicans about Bill Clinton was he cut spending too much. Obviously, that's the case for neo-cons since Bush increased spending on everything!

[edit on 25-12-2005 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I dont think there is a major modern political party today that is to an extent does not believe in 'socialist' policies, as many 'socialist' programs have become part of what people expect to be in a modern, western goverment, be it universal education or *gasp* universal healthcare that is provided by the people for the people. To claim otherwise would be ridiculous. The far majority of the people expect the government to provide at least some form of social programs, even if they are against things such as social welfare and universal healthcare. What level of social duty the government should provide to the people is ultimately upto the individuals own beliefs though.

I still cant grasp why socialism has such negative connotations in the united states, when in many ways it is the most noblest of human ideals

[edit on 25-12-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
so minarchists will get their strongman fantasies eventually


Wow, you really think that?

Let me tell you something, it has nothing to do with any strongman fantasies, RANT. Where do you get your propaganda from? I am starting to think that you watch too many movies.

It is about freedom. Sure, you think we all just say that, but it is true. I dont want you or anyone else running my life or stealing from me.

I am tired of senseless fell good legislation. I am tired of paying hyper-inflated prices due to government programs and state robbery. I am tired of working 50% of the time to support a government that wants more and more control, more and more restrictions, and is proving more and more everyday that it is not about what the people want but what the elite are going to do.

I am done paying for it, RANT. You know, my tax "return" is normally supposed to be around $4000 more than I put into the system directly. I always figure out what it should be and never file. I don’t need to steal from others; I have created a fine life from scratch without stealing or sending armed government agents to your house to steal on my behalf. Even when we were on the street I never received help from government programs, I used by brain and my willpower to pull us up into comfort.

I never file because I dont believe in stealing from the middle class who pay taxes and the poor who spend all their income on crap (and therefore pay taxes).

Strongman fantasies? No RANT, I am just tired of paying for everyone else. Know what? I have been as down as anyone can be financially. When my family was homeless, I did my homework and got a job at place that had an employee gym with a shower. I showered after my daily workout so I would be presentable and no one every figured out that they had a bum working for them. We saved and got an apartment (un-subsidized) and have slowly moved up from there. I worked for what I have, every scrap of it, and I don’t want to pay for someone else as well.

I did, so can they. No education, no expeirience, no home and I got a job and built a life. There is no excuse for most people to expect me to continue to pay for them. What excuse do they have? The old standby "I am black, you owe me"? No, nice try. "But remember slavery?" Nope, still not good enough. You would rather be back in Africa? Things don’t look so good there. Or how about the white used-to-be middle class redneck on food stamps. "My company moved overseas" he will whine. Well guess what Bubba, your ancestors saw greater opportunity in a different land and moved so its hard to believe you came from the same gene-pool. MOVE. The factory closed; go to any area with jobs. I did, and guess what? I HAVE A JOB
A job that pays for your food stamps, I should add.

You say strongman fantasies, I say I just want to keep what I have worked for.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Compelling story cavscout. Seriously. I hadn't seen you post that before, but it's great you've done so well.

Though, I don't entirely understand the anger at other people in your former situation now just because you got out of it.

Unless...

FYI: The "strongman" fantasy some allude to with rabid libertarians is a belief that 'all things being equal' they are uniquely qualified to thrive in difficult situations. If the government would just stop helping (and protecting) the "underserving" (like the people you're so angry at), then they could get rich, powerful or anything they like. Since these strongmen are so self reliant and smart, of course, and everyone else (their "competition") is so weak and unworthy.

Sound like anyone you know?



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Compelling story cavscout. Seriously. I hadn't seen you post that before, but it's great you've done so well.

Though, I don't entirely understand the anger at other people in your former situation now just because you got out of it.


Well I don’t know that I have posted it before. It is not something one usually broadcasts, however I think I have posted here enough that members who are familiar with me won’t be prejudiced.

I guess I can tell you my story so you will understand where I am coming from. I don’t know why, but I feel compelled to tell it now.

I grew up in a very poor Catholic family in a housing project outside of Oregon City. I am the oldest of 8 children. We lived in this project until I was in the 6th grade while both of my parents were in school and my dad worked full time.

I was very unpopular in school, coming from the projects in an otherwise middle class area. I was picked on and bullied all through grade school. I withdrew from society to include my home life at a very young age. I didn’t receive a passing grade in anything except band and a singe health class from the fourth grade on although I was never held back.

I finally dropped out of school at the end of the 9th grade. By this time I had experimented with various hallucinogenic drugs, however to this day I have never shot up or snorted anything and I haven’t used any drug in 6 years.

I left home at 16 when my parents moved to Las Vegas. Within a year I was on a plane to Vegas with nothing but a change of clothes and a guitar.

When I was 17 and living with a friend I met my wife, who was 21 and divorced with a child. We moved to Oregon after she became pregnant with my child and struggled to make a living there. My wife was sued for custody and won however with the stipulation that she move back to Las Vegas.

This was a very inconvenient move for us and we barely made it back. We had no friends left in town and my parents, still having 7 children at home, could not take us in. We slept in our car for two months. I eventually got a job at one of the larger casinos, like I said, with a shower in the gym. The casino offered dry cleaning for its employees at no cost and issued enough uniforms that I always had a clean one waiting for me at work.

We saved every penny (not hard when you don’t pay rent or utilities.) During this time, I was continually harassed by the police about where I could park my car, and this led to many threats from them about taking my step-daughter. Funny thing is I latter ran into many of these same cops when I worked for the police department.

Well we finally got an apartment three days before our car was repossessed. Shortly after getting a place, I joined the Army.

I am no out of the Army and I work on the executive protection team of one 20 richest people in the world. We live in a large five bedroom home in Vegas valued at over $400,000, drive nice cars, and wear decent clothes. I now have 4 children, my step-daughter included.

I worked hard to get where I am at, however I am not angry at those in my former position; I just don’t want them to take what is mine. I don’t think they are holding me back, I pay little in direct taxes and I try to stay away from the goods in the stores that are overpriced due to tax, tariff and regulation because on of the psychotic behaviors in the chronically poor I have noticed is that they spend every penny the make (or steal) I but gold with what I have left after bills, not 22 inch wheels for my car that is parked in government-subsidized housing project, like some.

There are very few people who really cant work and with no government welfare, those few would be absorbed by private charities.

You must also remember that social welfare programs are not the only reason Libertarians hate taxes. We dont want to pay for corporate welfare either. We dont want our money being stolen for other nations. As a minarchist, I take that one step farther; I dont want to pay for your roads, your policing or your children’s school, either. All those things would be provided much more efficiently by private industry.


If the government would just stop helping (and protecting) the "underserving" (like the people you're so angry at), then they could get rich, powerful or anything they like. Since these strongmen are so self reliant and smart, of course, and everyone else (their "competition") is so weak and unworthy.


I don’t think they are holding me back, RANT. I did just fine carrying them on back while I had less than them. I just want to keep what is mine. You want to help the poor, do it. Just dont force me to.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The problem you have, Cavscout is like many people you lack the basic knowledge on how many socialist ideologies are actually entwined with the United State’s, prior to the Republican and Democratic Parties - you also over-look, many socialist theories which you I assume are thankful that are in existence.

Before, I go overly in depth let us look at a few things which came about through Socialism.

On June the 30th, 1800 Glasgow successfully gained the right to establish a Police force through the Glasgow Police Act - this, the first ever professional Police force and where did the idea come from? Well, Adam Smith the basis for Marx and Engel’s works published in 1759, Theory of Moral Sentiments, this work still one of the leading critics of Capitalism called for the Professional Police Force - a force that would protect the morality [norms and values] of Society based on the along the line of the unpaid constables that existed in the United Kingdom from 1663.

The idea of a basic State Education, again can be traced back to early socialist works and this is where my agreement with RANT comes into play - to remove every aspect of socialism from the United State’s is to place a Nation back into the Dark Ages and to cause a massive amount of chaos that’ll only harm the lower/working class.

You speak of “opportunity” of “going out and doing it”, yet without institutions of socialisation such as School and institutions of control such as the Police society would degrade back into feudalism. If your argument is based around the fact, neither political party is bothering to curb any of these Socialist ideologies on a basic level you are wrong.

When you compare the Republican Party, just this December they passed an Act which would result in less money being spent in welfare programs, even though many leading functionalists such as Robert Reiner have accepted that the system of Welfare is actually a positive thing. In fact, so far every study into Crime/Deviance has found that those who have access to welfare are involved in less crime and it is only the New Right who have yet to accept this.

Yet, the New Right and many of its followers have no basis on which to argue these things - they have no studies, and primarily were founded by people like Charles Murrey who can be described as nothing less than a bigot and one of the most highly influential members of this movement - in fact, in the early part of the movement he once publicly said that Black people caused the most crime and when asked how he came to this conclusion [because the official statistics show otherwise] he said; “Look at them - you can see they do.”…and to me this sums up the whole movement perfectly.

When confronted with evidence, showing that Welfare helps improve social mobility there is nothing they can say or do to argue against it except resulting to childish name calling and baiting on peoples emotions and fears - the New Right Movement, thrives off of this.

Now, to argue that both parties are Socialist Parties is wrong the Republican Party, primarily follows the ideology of the New Right, where as the Democratic Party tends to follow the ideology of the New Left [who are just as bad.] A true Socialist Party, would desire more money into welfare, education and the Police force where as neither of the parties above do such a thing.

Do they have aspects of Socialism? Of course they do, but it doesn’t make up the Political Party and that is how it would be a Socialist Party. Many political parties have influences from other parties, for example the Green Party who have for years been attempting to get people to move away from fossil fuels - which the Republican and Democratic Party are now beginning to listen to - are they now the Green Party? No. However, they have seen a party begin to gain support and began to realise that things such as Global Warming are harmful and thus taken part of that party to help their own agenda.

This is what Party Politics is and with many Front-Line Parties, you will see they hold views from many different theorists, Adam Smith, Karl Marx to Charles Murrey and James Q. Wilson. That is how they keep control and divide the population, so that people hold views with both parties they find agreeable and then they have to vote for the; “Lesser of two evils” and while people focus on one aspect of the Party they dislike, they are over-looking other aspects they might agree with and like.

It is a simple; Divide and Conquer and people are falling for it left, right and centre.

-------------------------------------------
This is with me avoiding the aspect that Marx wrote to protect the Middle Class and Upper Class and not to mobilize the Working Class. Remember, they couldn’t read his writings and while minor aspects of Socialism are given to “us” people will never truly desire for that Socialist Nation which Adam Smith predicted would one day happen.
-------------------------------------------

[edit on 27/12/2005 by Odium]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The problem you have, Cavscout is like many people you lack the basic knowledge on how many socialist ideologies are actually entwined with the United State’s, prior to the Republican and Democratic Parties
You assume too much. Agreeing with them and being knowledgeable of them are separate things.


- you also over-look, many socialist theories which you I assume are thankful that are in existence.


There you go assuming again.


On June the 30th, 1800 Glasgow successfully gained the right to establish a Police force through the Glasgow Police Act - this, the first ever professional Police force and where did the idea come from? Well, Adam Smith the basis for Marx and Engel’s works published in 1759, Theory of Moral Sentiments, this work still one of the leading critics of Capitalism called for the Professional Police Force - a force that would protect the morality [norms and values] of Society based on the along the line of the unpaid constables that existed in the United Kingdom from 1663.

Assumption: cavscout thinks that professional police are desirable and necessary.
Truth: cavscout thinks police (not policing) are necessary only in a police state.


The idea of a basic State Education, again can be traced back to early socialist works and this is where my agreement with RANT comes into play - to remove every aspect of socialism from the United State’s is to place a Nation back into the Dark Ages and to cause a massive amount of chaos that’ll only harm the lower/working class.

A massive amount of chaos? Oh, of course, I see it now. Without kids going to their daily mandatory government youth propaganda camp instead of actually learning they would have too much time on their hands and start rioting.

So, what did we do before government schools? Mom sitting at home teaching kids the "three R's" wasn’t good enough? Of course, no one was able to read before state schools, right? Or only the rich? Of course the great works were completely lost on the masses during their time and only survived because of the interest of 1% of the population, right? Give me a break.

Oh, and while we are on the subject, the first mandatory government school in America didn’t open its doors until 150 years ago. Horace Mann started them with stated purpose of instilling a protestant work ethic in youth and destroying any Catholic or proto-Bolshevik ideas they may be picking up at home. There you have it; thought control and propaganda the reasons behind the formation of government schools, not education.

Anyone who thinks that government schools can teach children better or faster than home school environments (especially today, with the internet and TV) needs to, well, go back to school.

Home schooling is far more efficient. Even children schooled by parents with less than a high school education do better on standardized tests than high school grads. What exactly were you defending again?

Oh yeah, home schoolers dont demand that the IRS commit armed robbery on their behalf.

About the only logical argument you can make for government schools is what would happen to all those teachers if we instituted a separation of school and state? Well, the good ones of course would be hired on by the new, cheap and effective private schools that would spring up everywhere or be employed as tutors. As for the bad ones that fill our public schools these days, well sorry but I have some rocks in the back yard that aint gonna spread themselves.


You speak of “opportunity” of “going out and doing it”, yet without institutions of socialisation such as School and institutions of control such as the Police society would degrade back into feudalism.
First off, you display a huge lack of trust and respect for your fellow humans. Just which people would slip into feudalism, you or everybody but you?

Second, we live in a different world. Information is literally at the fingertips and available to all. Means of protection are far more advanced, from house alarms to guns to cars and TV (back to information) to name a few.
Standards of living are at an all time high, even the third world countries socialists like to whine about. You can’t say what would happen if freedom were given in one area and not another; you are just asking for trouble that way. Freedom must be granted in all forms, only then will everything come together, slowly at first and then quickly. Of course, we are going to get wet jumping out of the USS Socialism, the lifeboat that is sinking at an ever increasing rate of speed, but when we get reach the shore we can all dry off.



When you compare the Republican Party, just this December they passed an Act which would result in less money being spent in welfare programs
Really? I hadn’t noticed, my paychecks still have money missing from them.


even though many leading functionalists such as Robert Reiner have accepted that the system of Welfare is actually a positive thing.
Come now, one name? You make it sound like some sort of liberal socialist revolution, and then you throw out one name. You will have to do better than that since 90% of those who went to school to call themselves economists believe in a free market and privatization of social most social programs.


In fact, so far every study into Crime/Deviance has found that those who have access to welfare are involved in less crime and it is only the New Right who have yet to accept this.
This statement is false, and although I do not have time right now to prove this (my computer at home is down and I am limited to memory) I intend to.


Yet, the New Right and many of its followers have no basis on which to argue these things - they have no studies
WOW, now I know this is a lie. Again, later I will provide some studies for you so we can a spread just a little less ignorance.


in fact, in the early part of the movement he once publicly said that Black people caused the most crime and when asked how he came to this conclusion [because the official statistics show otherwise]
Could you provide some of those official statistics? I don’t spend that much time researching race issues, as I feel that most of the problems that minorities in America face are ones they create themselves through their leaders spreading anti-white racism and an attitude of apathy toward upward advancement because they feel that all whites hate them and will never let them win so it useless to try. However I would like to see those statistics you speak of.



When confronted with evidence, showing that Welfare helps improve social mobility
I dont think that evidence exists.


there is nothing they can say or do to argue against it except resulting to childish name calling and baiting on peoples emotions and fears - the New Right Movement, thrives off of this.
You seem stuck on this anti-new right thing. Could this be because the left (just a little more than the right) primarily agrees with your socialist theory? Wasn’t that basically the point I was making in the first place?

BTW, you arent trying to include me in this "new right" you speak of, are you?


Now, to argue that both parties are Socialist Parties is wrong the Republican Party, primarily follows the ideology of the New Right, where as the Democratic Party tends to follow the ideology of the New Left [who are just as bad.] A true Socialist Party, would desire more money into welfare, education and the Police force where as neither of the parties above do such a thing.
Yes they do! What, you think that the average American pays half of the money make to the government so that the government can put it into a savings account? Every year we throw more and more money into social programs and every year it doesn’t make a dent in the problems. So you want to what? Throw more money at social programs? This is literally psychotic!

As too the rest of your post, maybe next time, I like to keep posts short for the quality of things. No one wants to read a two page post and this is going on three.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Thank you, Cavscout for taking the time to reply to the thread as I know you are under-going a problematic time - I will attempt to keep this as short as possible, so that it doesn’t begin to seem like an essay instead of a post.

Your argument, is based around several points:
  • The Cost of Welfare.
  • Education inefficiency and;
  • Theorists to backup my argument.


The Cost of Welfare is heavily dependent, the United State’s is clearly going about their Welfare Programs the wrong way - they need to remove taxation on the lower-classes, to bolster the Middle Classes like they have in Sweden. Although those in the higher-income bracket, do pay slightly more in the Sweden than in the United State’s, the Middle-Class is larger and those who pay the most are in the 2million+ bracket.

Education; your argument on this is based around the standards of living, cost and socialisation. Each of these are fairly simple to disprove. The basis of living standards, isn’t directly wrong but you over-look the fact 12.7% of the United State’s population are below the poverty line. [1]

The idea of removing education and the system is heavily dependent upon many factors, the ability for parents to school their children, access to material, time, ability to afford private school, parents understanding. These are just some of the factors, when you take into account the Tom Sefton report, per-person Public Education costs £2,500 in the United Kingdom, compared to £7,500 for a Private Education. When that is compared to the average wage in the United Kingdom, which isn’t even £22,000 it is clear both parents working can’t afford to place their child in private education even with wages prior to taxation. Coupled with the fact, this is no longer the 1950’s, many households need two adults to work to afford to keep above the “Living Standard”.

The idea that they would be able to afford to take time off work to raise children is a joke, so that instantly eliminates those people from the ability to educate their children, except outside of work. You then have those in the lower-income bracket, who can’t afford it as well so instantly it is only the Upper Class to Upper-Middle Class who are able to send their children. You then have to include negligent parents, parents who do not have the basis requirements to educate their children [lack basic literacy for example] and so on and so fourth.

Now, the idea that the education system is controlling what you think isn’t strictly true - although they do not educate you on everything, they can’t possibly do such a thing without drastically increasing the amount of time spent in education. However, the fact that you and I both went through the education system and question the Government and Agencies of the Government display its inefficiency to socialise the population - the fact that education is only a minor factor in Secondary Socialisation is key to this. However, limiting children’s ability to attain and improve their social situation is unfair and by removing education you will impede their chances and improving their social situation - especially since many jobs require a College education.

As for theorists, I can go on all day:
Merton’s Theory of Strain, later backed up by Robert Reiner.
Stanley Cohen
Albert Cohen
Cloward and Ohlin and;
Jock Young.

Those are just a few theorists, from across the spectrum - Functionalism, Positivism, Internationalism, New Left Realism - not one of them is a Marxist and all have also criticised Marxist Theories, however all have done studies showing the benefits of Welfare Systems.

[1] en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I would like to see someone name one prosperous modern country that doesn't have a mixed economy. As a former "big-L" Libertarian I know how attractive the theory is, but frankly pure lasseize-faire capitalism in reality almost always turns into something looking more like feudalism, human beings being what they are.

Markets are the core of any modern, successful economy, but wealth tends to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands without some counterbalancing force, which leads to social instability. Neither "pure" capitalism nor "pure" socialism lead to the general prosperity that characterizes the modern First World.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Thank you, Cavscout for taking the time to reply to the thread as I know you are under-going a problematic time
No problem there, I did start it, after all; I kinda have to reply.



Your argument, is based around several points:
  • The Cost of Welfare.
  • Education inefficiency and;
  • Theorists to backup my argument.

Mind if I add another? It is un-constitutional (illegal) as well, both "mommy welfare" and educational welfare.


The Cost of Welfare is heavily dependent, the United State’s is clearly going about their Welfare Programs the wrong way - they need to remove taxation on the lower-classes...

Damn right they need to remove taxation on the lower classes! And the middle classes too! And the upper classes as well!

Well said, couldn’t agree more. Problem is all these damn socialist parties in the US raising the cost of government. Lets talk about lowering taxes, I like that one, that one makes me a very happy scout.

Now first off, they have removed taxation from the lower classes. I know that, even though I make above average income, I dont pay direct taxes. Sure, they take out a little less than 10% for social security, but that is all gonna come back to me latter, right? Right guys? Well, at least when I do my taxes every year I can work it just right so that I not only am I supposed get back the "small" amount I pay in, but somehow between $3000 and $13,000 as well. Free money, yeah! Good thing congress provides all those farm subsidies so that the money tree farmers can stay in business!

What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, taxation. Let’s look at some numbers.

According to Larry Elder in his 2000 St. Martin's Griffin book The Ten Things You Can't Say In America., (not using external link because I wont be quoting him directly right now, just giving credit and I don’t want the external link feature to make it look like I am putting words in his mouth), more than 32 percent of the taxes in this country are paid by the top 1% of taxpayers! Amazing, no? Again, that is 32% of the bill floated by ONE PERCENT of the population. And, from the same source, we find out that the top 10%, which is those who make roughly more than $75,000 per year, pay 62.4 percent!

So, again, 62.4% of all taxes are paid by the top 10% and 32% of all taxes are paid by those in the top 1%.

And all this with, according to you, no socialist parties running the government?

So, all that said, do the "rich" really float the bill and the "poor" get a real break? No.

The poor have no money for one reason: their mind. Now, that is not to say that the poor are all stupid, however something in their head keeps them down. Look at some of the actions of the poor. The poor tend to spend every penny they can get their hands on. When I worked housing authority here in Vegas I was amazed at the things I was, from the full mouth of gold teeth to the 22 inch wheels on escalades of "poor" people. I frequently had to enter these "poor" people’s homes and do you know what I would see? Brand new microwaves, large color televisions, leather furniture, and children talking on cell phones. Oh, they were so poor I just wanted to cry my eyes out.

They spend their money, rich people save and invest theirs. They will tell you that they have every right to live in that free house you pay for, to sit there on a leather recliner watching a giant color TV and talking on a cell phone while eating junk food that, again, you paid for. They have that right because the "white man is holding them down." I have had conversations with some of them where they have said that I just don’t know what it is like to be black in America; I wish I did, looks pretty good from my view. Now that is not to be racist, it isn’t only the black poor, I just don’t have any experience with poor white communities as an adult, although I am sure they are just as bad if not worse.

So, how does all that relate to funding the government? Every time they go out and buy something (which they are very good at), that something was taxed heavily multiple times before it made it on their car. So here we have it, the rich pay taxes on the top, then pay taxes every step of the way until the product reaches the poor who consume it with money they received from the rich person's taxes. The poor then get screwed, because they just had to pay artificially high prices on over-taxed and regulated goods. If they would tax the rich more directly and less in-directly, the poor would be able to afford so much more bling!



Education; your argument on this is based around the standards of living, cost and socialisation. Each of these are fairly simple to disprove.
Think so? Now this is something I really care about, it will not be as easy as you think, friend.


The basis of living standards, isn’t directly wrong but you over-look the fact 12.7% of the United State’s population are below the poverty line.


And what exactly is that poverty line a measure of in the richest nation on Earth? See above for my response to that



the ability for parents to school their children

I already answered that. Even parents who didnt graduate high school can home school their kids into better scores on standardized testing than government "educated" students.


access to material
Internet, Libraries, second hand textbooks, need I go on?


time


Time? And just how long do you think it would take you to teach an average student to read, write, add and subtract? 50 hours? 100 hours? 1000 hours?

Government schools get our children for 6,400 hours over many years and what is the result? Many of the students graduating can barely read.

Take 12 years. During that time, spend just 10 hours per week directly teaching a child. I think you will be amazed at the result.

Time, you say? I think you are referring to laziness.


ability to afford private school


Private school is often half as much as public school and offers twice the product. Oh, wait; we can’t afford private school because of our huge tax burden. The poor cant afford private school because the government taxes the crap out of the rich, making the poor pay a highly exaggerated price for their children's gold teeth, cell phone, and Nike shoes.

Well, get rid of government schools then, so that the forces of capitalism (sorry, I said the "C" word) can provide cheap and effective private schools.
Guess what, bud; some greedy capitalist out there wants to make money by teaching poor kids. Will he make that money if the poor families can’t afford the education? No, he will not. Oh, and if he offers CRAP for a product like the government schools do, he will be put out of business by someone who can do it cheaper and better instead of the poor throwing more money at him, which is the system we have now.


parents understanding
Well, I suppose after sentencing the parents to 12 years of government schools they probably don’t have the understanding. Good point there, keep it up



per-person Public Education costs £2,500 in the United Kingdom, compared to £7,500 for a Private Education


Sorry, I dont know enough about the system in the UK to comment.

I know that Americans spend something like $6000 per year, per student. I think, and I may be wrong, that the average cost of private school in the US is around $4000.

That said, see what I said above about shat would happen in a capitalist state to the cost of education.



The idea that they would be able to afford to take time off work to raise children is a joke, so that instantly eliminates those people from the ability to educate their children, except outside of work. You then have those in the lower-income bracket, who can’t afford it as well so instantly it is only the Upper Class to Upper-Middle Class who are able to send their children. You then have to include negligent parents, parents who do not have the basis requirements to educate their children [lack basic literacy for example] and so on and so fourth.


OMG, what did we do 150 years ago when there were no state sponsored schools in America?

What did George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ben Franklin all have in common? They never stepped foot in a government school.


Now, the idea that the education system is controlling what you think isn’t strictly true - although they do not educate you on everything, they can’t possibly do such a thing without drastically increasing the amount of time spent in education.

Oh, of couse. 6,400 hours over the course of more than a decade just isn’t enough.


However, the fact that you and I both went through the education system and question the Government and Agencies of the Government display its inefficiency to socialise the population - the fact that education is only a minor factor in Secondary Socialisation is key to this.

A minor factor? Well, if it is not socialization that makes you support government schools, then what is it? Surely it must be that 6,400 hours of education that teach kids just enough so that they can read the manual for that piece of factory equipment they are operating. My bad, this isn’t 1860, people don’t work in factories in America anymore. Well, then it must be that get up and move to a different area of the factory when the bell rings mindset that schools instill...wait, no, my bad again, we are not training factory workers here.

Know what dude? I am left scratching my head at just what about the tax-paid schools that you love so much.

Oh, and just for the record, when they were "teaching" I was sitting in the back of the class reading and learning. I paid no attention but I did read, so they left me alone instead of sending me to the "special" classes. Then I dropped out in my first year of high school after hardly ever attending class. I don’t hink your statement that "you and I both went through the education system" is really fair.


especially since many jobs require a College education.

Oh, crap! Better call my university and tell them I can no longer attend because I didnt complete my sentence in the mandatory government brainwashing institution! Man, I know of over 1 million home-schoolers in this country who are gonna pissed that they can no longer go to college.


Sorry I still don’t have those studies that I promised; my computer at home is screwed. Maybe I will go get on some government welfare program so that I can afford to buy a new one.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Even when we were on the street I never received help from government programs . . . Shortly after getting a place, I joined the Army. I am now out of the Army and I work on the executive protection team of one 20 richest people in the world.


Anyone besides me note a contradiction contained in those two statements?

Cavscout, the Army IS a government program. Granted, you have to work to benefit from it, but the fact remains that you pulled yourself out of a deep hole by taking advantage of government spending, which gave you a job for a while and skills you could use after you quit it.

Kudos to you for the discipline and effort required to do that, don't get me wrong. But you DIDN'T do it without government help, and that's a fact.



Mind if I add another? It is un-constitutional (illegal) as well, both "mommy welfare" and educational welfare.


No, it's not. Both of those programs are allowed by the first clause of Article I, Section 8, which empowers Congress to lay and collect taxes (and by implication, spend the money so collected) to provide for the "general welfare" of the United States. There is an implied provision that Congress can't favor one state over another in such spending but otherwise it can spend the money on whatever it sees fit, subject to the restrictions of Section 9 and of the Bill of Rights.



The poor have no money for one reason: their mind. Now, that is not to say that the poor are all stupid, however something in their head keeps them down.


Yes and no. We have a system in place that requires a certain percentage of losers at the bottom. Who exactly occupies those slots is determined by the sort of things you're talking about, but not how many of them there are. If, magically, we could make all the bad habits, drugs, mental illness, stupidity, and poor money management among those now poor disappear, we would still have just as many poor people, we would just have reshuffled the deck, and maybe some people now middle class would be poor while some people now poor would be middle class.

There are poor people because there are rich people. Can't have the one without the other. Who, precisely, is rich or poor, is a result of the rich and poor's own actions and advantages or limitations (mostly).



Well, get rid of government schools then, so that the forces of capitalism (sorry, I said the "C" word) can provide cheap and effective private schools.


Been tried. Been tried, in fact, throughout most of civilized history. State-sponsored education has only existed since about the 18th century. Education before that reform isn't impressive.



I know that Americans spend something like $6000 per year, per student. I think, and I may be wrong, that the average cost of private school in the US is around $4000.


It's true that public education is more expensive than private, whether your exact figures are right or not. However, that's because public schools have to educate ALL kids, including the poor, the mentally retarded, and the behaviorally disturbed (up to a point), while the private schools can be selective. Look at the breakdown for special-education costs sometime.



OMG, what did we do 150 years ago when there were no state sponsored schools in America?


Educated only rich people's kids.



What did George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Ben Franklin all have in common? They never stepped foot in a government school.


Not true in the case of Lincoln. As for the others, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were rich, and Franklin was a genius and mostly self-educated.

On the thread question, maybe we should ask what we mean by "socialist." Do we call a party "socialist" if it advocates or maintains any policies favored historically by parties that were undeniably socialist? Even if the only policies it advocates are those which have become common consensus? Seems to me that renders the word meaningless. Shouldn't we reserve it for those parties that are on the cutting edge, advocating that we move MORE in the socialist direction?

In that case, I don't think either the Republicans or the Democrats currently fit the bill.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by cavscout
Even when we were on the street I never received help from government programs . . . Shortly after getting a place, I joined the Army. I am now out of the Army and I work on the executive protection team of one 20 richest people in the world.


Anyone besides me note a contradiction contained in those two statements?

Cavscout, the Army IS a government program. Granted, you have to work to benefit from it, but the fact remains that you pulled yourself out of a deep hole by taking advantage of government spending, which gave you a job for a while and skills you could use after you quit it.

Kudos to you for the discipline and effort required to do that, don't get me wrong. But you DIDN'T do it without government help, and that's a fact.


No, you are wrong. I went from living in my car to employed and living in a nice place before I joined the Army. I didnt use the Army to pull me up, I actualy made less after enlisting. That said, you are right that it was tax-payer money that paid me while i was in.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join