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.

 

US Socialist/Medicare Programs: $3 Trillion Annual Loss By 2013

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Rubbish you keep blaming everything on government when it's corporations and big business and the private ownership of the resources they control and manipulate that creates the problems.

Government is a tool that is controlled by those with enough financial power to do so. The government is controlled by the capitalists, not the other way around.

But I plead with you to do some reading on all political systems so you have a better understanding of them instead of the media's version, which is usually wrong because they use generalizations and have an agenda to demonize anything that is a threat to them (yes they are capitalists to).

Sorry but you also seem to think anything starting with the word 'social' has something to do with socialism. It doesn't the term 'social' simply means it's to do with society as a whole, like social science is the study of society. It has nothing to do with socialism as an economic system.




posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Government has created the debt crisis, not private industry.

Globalist corporations are nothing without the power of government.

Goldman did not give itself 700 billion in cash, the government did.

GM didn't give itself a bailout, the government did.

AIG didn't destroy our social security trust, government did.

Citi didn't hand 23.7 trillion to itself, the government did.

Al Gore doesn't stand to become a billionare on his own, he needs government regulations and carbon taxes for that.

Boeing is nothing without government.

McDonald Douglas is nothing without government.

Raytheon is nothing without government.

JP Morgan is bankrupt without government.





[edit on 9-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


See the problem is that the entire global economy is printing, loaning and getting into more debt.

As long as the printing is backed with something is not going to be collapse, but those nations that only survive in debt will start to collapse first, Greece anyone? Spain next.

In order for the US to collapse so UK, Germany and all those more affluent nations will collapse also.

Who do you think is behind the big banks and the central banks? from where do you think that the decisions for loaning to nations comes from.

Just look who created the economic crisis that now is hitting all those nations that have not means to back their own currency.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


America is run by corporations, while people believe that we are becoming socialist is nothing but a lie, Obama is been ruled by corporations in this nation and so all the president behind him

Don't be deceived.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
In order for the US to collapse so UK, Germany and all those more affluent nations will collapse also.


They are collapsing.

After the eurozone finishes collapsing, the UK will be next.

Germany might be able to make it out in one piece if they go back to using Marks.

After the UK, the US will fall.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Marxist/Leninist doctrine first called for a revolution, then a neo-capitalist interim period, then state governed socialism, which would gradually be phased out to no state socialism--the workers paradise. The problem is that this theory has never worked in practice. It is a pipe dream, which serves as the Road of Serfdom.

In Russia, China, and North Korea (which are the most prominent examples of the socialist experiment), the good of the state replaced the good of the workers (people), and a totalitarian, repressive regime developed. Once you give power to the state, it never reliquishes that power, but only consolidates it.

In all three of the examples above, the elite party members became the new exploitive class, while everyone else became an indentured slave to the state and those elites. This is characteristic of collectivism, where the "good" is defined in terms of the "good of the greater number", and social engineers attempt to regulate every aspect of individual and collective life.

The Western Nations are heading down this same road (call it what you will). Except in this case, the elite correspond to the banking and financial elites, who are striving to create a collective, highly regulated and controlled system where the banks call all the shots (overiding national sovereignity) and everyone else is in debt peonage.

Communism, socialism, nazism, fascism--they are all different faces of the same general model, which amounts to collectivism, ie. the sacrifice of individual god-given rights for rights which can be granted and taken away by the elites class (party members, corporate leaders, politicians, bankers, etc.) in charge.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
 


Government has created the debt crisis, not private industry.

Globalist corporations are nothing without the power of government


They may have had a part in the present 'financial crises', but look at the whole picture and the history behind it, it all stems from private ownership of resources as I've explained.

You can't look at the present in a vacuum, get some historical perspective and it all looks so different.

I agree they're nothing without the power of government, that's why we need a true socialist system, take the power away from all of them and put it in the hands of all of us, instead of private individuals who's motivation is for themselves and not society as a whole.

Again look at Libertarian Socialism, it makes far more sense...


Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)....

Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Angiras
 


That's exactly right.

The mega corporations use the power of government to loot the people.

This is how it has always been and how it will always be.

In Russia, the political class controlled the factories and means of production, but the results were the same. They used the power of government to enrich themselves at the expense of the masses.

Without government, there can be no monopolies or mega corporations, since corporations have no power to loot the public on their own.

They need government guns, fiat currency, and corporate welfare to do that.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No, the problem stems from government control over the money supply.

The federal reserve system.

That's where the root of this problem stems from.

Private ownership of companies has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It has to do with government - period.

Corporations gorge themselves at the tax payer trough.

Without government, the globalist corporations are nothing.




[edit on 9-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angiras
In Russia, China, and North Korea (which are the most prominent examples of the socialist experiment)


Wrong, those countries were never socialist, or communist.

That was a myth perpetuated by the West...

www.worldsocialism.org...

www.mtholyoke.edu...

A government can call itself what it wants, doesn't make it true, I mean Hitler called his government national socialist, nationalist and socialist are an oxymoron, you can't be both at the same time. But obviously we know Hitler was a right wing fascist based on the fascism of Mussolini.

BTW the reason Marx suggested 'State' socialism was because he thought it would be an easier stepping stone to true socialism, a better evil than capitalism. State socialism was never what the socialists really wanted because it still maintained a 'state' system (a system that allows one class to rule over another).

[edit on 6/9/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I guess you missed the original post where I laid out just what government has done to you.

You're still in here arguing in favor of some pie in the sky utopia.

Let me ask you something.

If we pretend that government did not exist tomorrow, do you think your Utopian system would naturally come about on its own, or would it require the use of force?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
 


No, the problem stems from government control over the money supply.\


Man I'm just shaking my head at your claims...You're not reading my posts because you're replying too fast to have read checked and absorbed what I said.

You keep blaming everything on government, I'm trying to explain how both are responsible but you are not listening...

The start of the problems lies in private ownership of the means of production, everything else, government, stems from that. What came first? Do you even know the history of how it all came about? If you're American probably not, do you learn about European politics?
If you understand how capitalism, socialism, fascism and all that in Europe came to be you would be much wiser in the ways of politics and economics of today and how you are conditioned to support capitalism.

You won't even consider my point will you? The conditioning is strong with this one...


Learn to see through the BS.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Private corporations are not responsible for anything.

By claiming private corporations are responsible, you are claiming that voluntary groups of people working voluntarily together are somehow responsible for the forced confiscation of wealth from others.

They are not.

They can only achieve this with the use of government guns (ie. the tax system and fiat currency laws)







[edit on 9-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If we pretend that government did not exist tomorrow, do you think your Utopian system would naturally come about on its own, or would it require the use of force?


Utopian system? You are media educated aren't you? You know the cliches well my friend.

I find that common claim to be pretty funny, doesn't Utopia mean the ideal society? What is the ideal society? To you it seems to be anarcho-capitalism, no? Or are you admitting that you are supporting a system that is not ideal to you? Why would you do that?

So do you think capitalism would be the natural existence 'if their was no government'? Well history proves that wrong...

libcom.org...

Please spend some time and read that.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Capitalism is a free market of goods exchanges. Any attempt to claim capitalism is anything other than this is a fallacy. It is a lie. Capitalism is nothing more than a free market of exchange for good and services. I reject any claim that capitalism involves the use of force or government. It does not.

And yes, history is quite clear that when people are left to their own devices, they will trade freely with each other.

Originally people traded item for item in a barter system. Then they realized they could trade their item for a good that everyone wanted, which made finding a trading partner much easier.

This good that everyone wanted and accepted as money was generally gold or silver.

This all came about naturally.

Fiat currency can not evolve naturally on its own. It is impossible. If I was to offer someone a pretty piece of paper, they would look at me a laugh. It was only after this paper was tied to gold that it became acceptable as a currency.

Today, there is no gold backing, the money is not real.

Government may print as much of it as it likes, and corporations may gorge themselves on as much of it as government sees fit to give them.

People will also naturally defend a resource they have worked as their own. If someone works a field, they will defend the crops. If someone makes a spear, they will call that spear their own. This is how private property originates.

This too comes about naturally without force.


[edit on 9-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquidMirage

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Because when food costs 10,000 for a loaf of bread, you're going to have to sell your house to put food in your mouth.


Or learn to bake!! In real terms, a loaf of bread will cost 1/8 of a day's work. The US lives beyond it's means, you can't do that forever, but the average person won't lose their house, that just doesn't happen.

Economies have collapsed before, there's a drop in the standard of living but you get by.


Yeah, because flour, eggs, and all other ingredients for bread making falls out of the sky and costs nothing. Do you people ever actually use that ball of mush between your ears?


You can make flower from ground acorns, which grows on trees, and you can use bird eggs, which come from nests in trees. Close enough?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK
 


Private corporations are not responsible for anything.

By claiming private corporations are responsible, you are claiming that voluntary groups of people working voluntarily together are somehow responsible for the forced confiscation of wealth from others.

They are not.

They can only achieve this with the use of government guns (ie. the tax system and fiat currency laws)


Again you are so flat out wrong. Private ownership of the means of production means that the private owner has the power and control of the supply of needed resources (food, homes, jobs, people) and can control the distribution of those resources in order to keep them scarce so they can control the price they sell them for.

If those resources were freed and were no longer in short supply prices would drop dramatically. The needed resources are kept controlled in order for private entities to make, in abundance, the resource of money which they can then use to purchase more 'real' resources they really don't need but just want. Money is an illusion and only has value because of the system set up by the capitalists in order to control the population to their benefit.

There are enough real resources on the planted for every one to be fed and housed and live a life free of coercion due to their lack of financial freedom, a freedom controlled by capitalism.

At the moment the only thing keeping this 'beast' from completely raping the planet of everything is government control. Get rid of capitalism and there would be no need for government control as we have now.

That is why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, you are still giving up your individual power to someone else if you support capitalism/private ownership of the means of production and distribution of resources (that should belong to all of us).

BTW you didn't read that link before replying, so I'm done because you're not interested in learning anything, your mind is made up it seems.

[edit on 6/9/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Whatever. The point is that socialism, communism, etc. are just buzz words for collectivism--the notion that the "good of the many" prevails over the rights of the individual. A true classless society would require that the individuals are devoid of "ego", which is not going to happen without a major change in the consciousness and value system of mankind. No man-made -ism is going to change human nature. That can only be achieved by an act of God. We may very well arrive at a classless and egoless society at some point in the future, which I agree would be ideal, but not with this current generation.

Btw, did you know that the ancient Vedic texts describe such a society during the previous golden age, called the Age of Truth? One of the hallmarks of that time was that there were no castes (classes) in society, because every individual had eradicated their ego, and become a selfless servant of the unseen forces that actually run the universe--cosmic intelligence if you will. They also stated that there were no forms of organized religion, or religious rituals at that time, because every human soul had direct and immediate apprehension of the truth (God). So there was no need for priests, or religious leaders, or kings, or political leaders. Of course, this was long before "civilization" began, which required the onset of classes, kings, and priests to manage the increasingly concentrated population.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



"Again you are so flat out wrong. Private ownership of the means of production means that the private owner has the power and control of the supply of needed resources (food, homes, jobs, people) and can control the distribution of those resources in order to keep them scarce so they can control the price they sell them for. "


So Apple controls the copper mines that produce the copper necessary for their phones.

I see.

So one copper miner controls all other copper mines and any attempt to produce more copper without his say so will result in violence.

I see.




[edit on 9-6-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angiras
reply to post by ANOK
 


Whatever. The point is that socialism, communism, etc. are just buzz words for collectivism--the notion that the "good of the many" prevails over the rights of the individual.


Not true at all. This present system we live in hates individualism.

Society is rife with hate for anyone who is different, gays, minorities, short guys, fat women....Try really being yourself and not just a clone of everyone around you.


Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.



Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still * peasents as far as I can see, JL



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join