It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Socialist I Am Calling You Out!

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by daskakik

I have avoided answering your question about business and "illegal immigrants" for two reasons. First, I do not see its relevance to this thread, and indeed, another poster even accused me of speaking to this irrelevance, when I had not, until now of course. Secondly, your question is a loaded question in that you ask if business should be "allowed" to hire someone who has skirted immigration laws. In a free society, no one is allowed to do anything, and all people either do what they do by Right or by wrong.

There is no legal authority to make businesses criminal simply because they do what businesses do, which is hire people. The failure of proper immigration lies with the federal government alone, and that federal, nor state or even local governments can invent a crime that does not exist. Immigrants who skirt immigration laws do not do so because businesses exist, they do so because the federal government has failed to prevent it. Of course, crime can rarely be prevented, but even so, it is pointless to kick a dog for barking, and pointless to kick a business for hiring people.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by daskakik

Well add one that would call for allowing illegals. As long as their is no welfare system.

You cannot institute the one, without the other. Allowing illegals to have the benefits without removing the detriments to the others, is unfair.

So I would allow illegals to work, if all welfare taxation is removed. Which of course our government would never do, without something happening.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

After reading your post I agree that the question could have been better worded and thought out a bit more. The reason I asked it was because I believe that many like the idea of freedom but are always willing to give a little of that freedom up if it gives them a leg up.

I wouldn't change the question because I believe that it draws a more honest answer. An answer that is touched by the fear and insecurity that often leads to us infringing upon the rights of others.

The unloaded version could be, Do you believe that government should control the number of foreigners a company has on it's workforce?

I understand that in a free society no one is allowed to do anything. The question is how far from a free society are you willing to go and after going that far would you still consider yourself a free person?

By definition you probably wouldn't be. This would show how many really have no problem being a little less free regardless of all their flag waving and constitution quoting.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by daskakik

By definition you probably wouldn't be. This would show how many really have no problem being a little less free regardless of all their flag waving and constitution quoting.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. You asked the unloaded question, which is should a government control the number of foreigners a company has on its workforce, and my answer is no. If I have a company that will do better if a talent in India would work here in this country and with my company, and is willing to move here, then I should be able to use my own inherent political power to sponsor that persons immigration. What would be wrong with that?

Again, I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by definition I probably wouldn't be, but it appears you are making assumptions about me, that are probably not reflective of my philosophy and political views. I remain fairly consistent in my views, and that consistency should suggest that I am all for immigration. Indeed, most immigrants I know understand freedom better than those I know born and raised in this nation. I have had the profound privilege of making friends with a member in this site, Projectvxn, who is the perfect example of that.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Sorry, the "you" in the post is not directed just at you but at any person reading the post and in the snippet that you quoted it would be the person who would give up a little freedom. This would shift things from a truely free market to one where government is allowed to regulate certain aspects of the market.

Someone who is OK with that isn't, by defenition a free person, although he may consider himself one.

His answer to the question would make that evident.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:04 AM
reply to post by daskakik

I would agree with you on your assessment of freedom and free market principles. The truth is that since the passage of the federal Constitution for the United States of America, there has never been a free market in this nation, as they fixed the the price of silver to gold, and in doing so offered up their first regulatory practice. It was all down hill from there.

I remain forever an advocate of the free market, and threads like this I find important as they facilitate these discussions, as I've said. I am for freedom, first and foremost, so I certainly don't advocate and imposition of free market principles, but I, quite frankly don't see how that can be done. There are, of course, anti-trust laws in place, and those anti-trust laws are impositions of free market principles, but they aren't enforced anyway. If they were, we would not have had to listen to the nonsensical rhetoric of "too big too fail".

The only reason we would even need anti-trust laws is to keep the corporations in check, and corporations are not natural entities, but rather statutorily created entities. I am not opposed to such a creation, but with that creation comes the subjugation to the legislation that defines those corporations. Free market principles demand massive competition, and a free and unregulated market place, and we just can not have a free market, when it is being regulated, and legislation is being used to favor corporations that become "too big to fail", at the expense of competition.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by hawkiye
Socialist I am Calling You Out!

You caught me!

I am sick and tired of all the socialist here showing thier utter ignorance and just parroting the crap they hear on the nightly news or read on some blog or website..

Well, since we can't all be in a million places at once in order to determine an accurate opinion on various matters we need to get our information from something...sorry if you think it's just 'parroted'.

If socialism is so great then what do you have against making it all voluntary? Are you afraid that you won't be able to steal enough funds by force to support your pet social programs? Seriously if you all start promoting voluntarism I will have no problem with you. As long you you don't you are promoting theft under color of law.

It is great and it is voluntary. I like volunteerism, but that's not a politcal organization.

And also quit blaming Capitalism for the failing economies for god sake do a little research. You all have been duped by the media. We haven't had any semblance of capitalism in over half a century. In fact what you call capitalism is in fact socialism/fascism! They have convinced you thier socialism that is failing big time is capitalism.

Greed fostered by capitalism failed us. Power in the hands of few fostered by capitalism failed us.

Most of you agree we live in a Socialist Democracy ( even if it is illegitimate) yet you somehow blame capitalism for the economic meltdown. This goes for other countries also. All those countries are socialist yet blame capitalism for thier demise... hello...!

You're European, aren't you? I don't know any Americans who call our system of government a Social Democracy.

Capitalism is free markets where people have a choice and government does not intervene to give anyone an unfair advantage under the guise of protecting the consumer. Markets regulate themselves by the quality and service they provide. If quality and service suck or are corrupt people take thier business elsewhere. The only way you can stay in business is to provide a quality product or service as opposed to the socialist government eliminating your competition through regulation and allowing you to stay in business when you should have failed. Like the Big financial institutions they bailed out.

Capitalism and free markets don't foster choice. Any business would prefer you buy THEIR products over a competitor.

Socialism/fascism is where government intervenes with all kinds of regulation claiming to be protecting consumers from unfair market practices when in fact they are really protecting markets for the politically connected Corps and elites. Like the banks for instance they have a monopoly on the currency and finance. Which is why the economy is melting down. Try to start a bank and you have to jump through hoops and get all kinds of licenses etc. and agree to all thier rules and regulations via the Federal Reserve Bank. So there is no fair competition.

You have a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of socialism.

So can we discuss this in a meaningful way or will this just turn into another left vs right ignorance fest?

Not until you agree with me.

There's a few hundred replies to this thread, I know. The OP was calling me out, what was I to do?

Edit: Bad coding. x2

[edit on 9-5-2010 by links234]

[edit on 9-5-2010 by links234]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by links234

The O.P. did indeed call you out, and you were right to respond. In the absence of the O.P., of whom it is my guess will respond to your assertions, I will respond to them myself, here and now.

Whatever "gross misunderstanding the O.P., I or others have about socialism, that you have a gross misunderstanding of free market principles and capitalism is not in doubt.

First of all, Capitalism does not foster greed, as greed exists with or without capitalism. As the old saying goes, the only difference between capitalism and communism is that in capitalism man exploits man, and in communism it is the other way around. Greed will exist in any system, this is a reality.

Capitalism and free markets do foster choice, and you offered no reasonable argument as to why they don't. Indeed, the only support you offered of this argument was that one business selling a product prefers buyers buy that product from that business rather than the competition, but the very fact that you felt compelled to include competition only undermines your own argument, as that competition is choice.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:40 AM
Mhhh, yeah...too many regulations caused the crisis...suuuuuuuuure

If we had regulations that forced the rating agencies to do their bloody job, we wouldn't be in this mess. Banks/institutions/governments wouldn't have bought into those AAA derivates if they'd know they were CCC at best.

If we had regulations preventing stupid people from taking a loan when it's clear they can't afford it...or if we had regulations preventing greedy banks from handing out loans to clearly unsuitable candidates, we wouldn't be in this mess.

If we had regulations forcing the banks/investment companies to keep a minimum colateral suitable to cover their "risky investments", we wouldn't be in this mess.

So yeah, you asking for LESS regulation is pretty ignorant. 100% free market is a theoretical concept like communism, it doesn't work in least not how people expect it to work.

I see a lot of "socialism caused this mess" or "communism caused this mess" threads. This is utter bull#. It's key words some interest groups feed you to make it easy to follow their agenda, they are dumbing it down. Socialism didn't create the financial crisis, huge parts of our economy investing in bad derivatives that where labled as AAA investments did!

Also, saying that "socialist" services ruin this country is highly ignorant. Check out the 2010 Federal Budget. Two thirds of the budget consists of MILITARY EXPENSES!! No matter how much you save in all the other categories, it'll be a drop on a hot stone because 2/3rds of the budget is eaten up by the military. Over $750BIL!!

[edit on 9-5-2010 by MrXYZ]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:50 AM

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

Chavez says what he says to get support? So i guess that's why he's shut down @ least 30 of Venezuela's News Networks that were opposing him...

Yes? I would think this would be obvious. He's a dictator, he wants the support of his people and other nations (Russia primarily) so of course he is going to silence those that are opposing or criticizing him.

That's not socialism at all, that's just a dictator trying to preserve his power.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by MrXYZ

Another history rewriter. No, banks were not just willy nilly giving loans out.

Please research who and why these loans were given out.

Quit the rewrite of history only years old, it is quite ridiculous.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 01:57 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

You mean the loan agencies who got a commission from the banks for selling loans?

Yeah, that makes it better...

The fact remains, not enough regulation got us into this mess.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:00 AM
reply to post by MrXYZ

Please tell me you are not going to try and put that out as the federal budget.

I will have to call hoax or blatant misrepresentation.

Please give the TOTAL budget and a link to a reputable source.

I am noticing ONE HUGE MISSING component! Where is the debt interest?

Oh, this is a propaganda piece, sorry, my mistake. Carry on.

So, 3/2 times 757 billion. That equates to 1.135 Trillion.

So now the US federal budget has gone from what 3.7 Trillion down to 1.135 Trillion.

Hey, you just solved our debt crisis. Everyone pat em on the back!

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:06 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Yeah, and what caused that insane debt for the most part? Probably the expenditure that cost us the most on the past...and that is...drum roll...MILITARY EXPENSES!!

[edit on 9-5-2010 by MrXYZ]

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by MrXYZ

"Also, saying that "socialist" services ruin this country is highly ignorant. Check out the 2010 Federal Budget. Two thirds of the budget consists of MILITARY EXPENSES!!"

Where do think so much of the budget of the United Soviet Socialists Republic went?
Second line?

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:18 AM
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

You cannot seriously compare the USSR to the USA today...

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:29 AM

Wiki 2010 Budget

Wow, someone left out the socialist parts!

* Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
o $695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
o $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
o $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
o $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
o $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts
o $11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
o $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
o $164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
+ these ones

$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other


2.489 TRILLION for socialist outlays.

Yep, nothing to see here. Yes, the 737 billion was 2/3 of what again?

Oh the defense budget. What was the SOCIALIST OUTLAYS?


Nope, no obfuscation here!

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

Hey, no fair, you used wikipedia. But anyway...

Way to obfuscate the facts yourself by adding the discretionary expenses to the mandatory ones without mentioning you doing so!

Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

I also found it interesting you decided to leave in the TARP amount of zero.

I don't think anyone is saying we don't spend a lot of money on social programs...if they are, they're clearly wrong. However, we're also spending a lot of money on the DoD, which a lot of people agree we could be doing less.

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
There is not once that I have discussed immigration in this thread. Welfare, of course, is not irrelevant to this topic, it is one of the central issues of this topic.

For conservatives its always illegal immigration, welfare state and taxes.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your pointing to the Federal Reserve only supports the contention that big government is the problem.

What does a PRIVATE federal reserve have to do with "big government"?

How does it matter if we have a "small" or "big" government if the government itself is a corporation?

Does'nt capitalism mean everything is private and for profit? Isn't a corporation private in that only a limited number of people own shares within it?

Please be VERY CAREFUL how you answer these questions as they are paramount to the discussion and will help me understand HOW WELL you comprehend economics and politics. Most people fail miserably....

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Banking is not at all a necessary industry to free market principles, and the only product banking can offer that has any real value is the protection of wealth, and the issuance of loans. However, debt is slavery, and Shakespeare said it best when he wrote:

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be..."

I respectfully disagree. Banking is paramount to a healthy economy and the rules®ulations applied by government are equally paramount in providing stability and growth. I am talking about commercial banks!

The problem is who issues the money. Does government issue the money via the treasury department or does the PRIVATE(corporate) FED? I prefer the first.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
So, truly the only real value a bank can offer is the protection of wealth. Of course, most people do not need such protection as they don't have any real wealth to protect, and yet, because of the many corrupt legislative acts, people find themselves forced to do business with banks just to survive in the corrupt system of which they live.

Absolutely wrong! Banks provide stability and GROWTH to the economy if regulated properly. When regulation fails then many banks will fail and the economy will suffer.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Again, you continue to undermine your own arguments by pointing to all that that is wrong with government.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

I am not undermining my arguements at all its just that some people have A HANG-UP when it comes to "big and small" government. They figure government is always bad and will always bring tyranny when it does'nt have to be that way.

At the end of the day, it always comes down to people knowing how government works and participating in the decission process. If people are so ignorant by voting the same two parties again and again, then they deserve tyranny. I am sorry but this is the truth..........

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by hawkiye

My God.. Another thread where the writer has absolutely no idea what they are talking about..

Im not advocating Socialism but please.. The unregulated banking system and Capitalist investment markets crashed the global economy.. ie Capitalism.

Not Socialist policies anywhere.. What these have done is prolong it and cause more issues..

How are people not able to see this?

If you don't understand economics.. then don't harp on about it.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in