Call Me A Socialist And I Won't Get Mad

reply to post by ViperChili


Well if that is what smart business people do and they are telling you that they are risking capital and maybe even loosing then they are doing something wrong or they are lying to you. I have made a profit in every business that I have had and closed. Maybe I don't qualify as smart but I ain't losing money either.

Why would closing be the last option? If you see earnings dropping what are you going to do wait until you start reaching into your savings to keep things afloat? Then what? Use credit? Once your in that position you have risked and lost.

Way of base, and spoken truly as someone who is ignorant on economics. The reason, purely and simply, that conservatives have an issue with these programs is because they too are HEMMORAGING money!

I know my economics pretty well; we just disagree on what school of thought we are following.

From what you post, I get the impression that you're a believer in the "trickle down" theory, or "supply side" economics. This theory was first advocated by President Reagan in the 1980s, and it has basically prevailed for the last thirty years in this country. This theory postulates that the way to stimulate the economy is to give trillions of dollars to the big corporations and the top 2% of the country. Forget the middle class and the poor. The spending of these fortunate few is supposed to "trickle down" to those of us who are not of the at the top of the heap financially. We are supposed to fight among ourselves for the pennies they toss at us from time to time. Your theory also postulates that these untold billions will cause the big corporations to expand and therefore increase the hiring of the common folk.

The results of this have been that the top 2% of the country have seen their wealth increase by at least 100% while the wages of the middle class and the poor have stayed flat. When you adjust for inflation, there has been no growth at all for these groups. Right now we are rapidly losing more and more ground as the middle class is shrinking fast and the ranks of the poor are increasing. We are also finding the middle class pitted against the poor in the scramble for economic survival.

Another result is that the big corporations (who are doing just fine without government subsidies) are creating jobs, only not for Americans. These jobs are going to China and India and Bangladesh and many other third world countries instead of to us.

In short, the average American has not benefitted at all from "trickle down" economics.

I, on the other hand, advocate Keynesian or "bottom up" prosperity," which has been used successfully by this country in the past. This theory is advocated by Paul Krugman and other distinguished economists (take a look at Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal," which lays it out fairly easily).

Take the 1950's and early 1960''s for instance. During that time period the middle class was growing daily and the poor class was shrinking. It is remembered as a time of great prosperity.

What the country's leaders did was to first institute a minimum wage. This had the effect of raising the salaries for workers on the next rung up of the economic ladder, which increased the salaries of the next rung up, etc.etc.

The result was that almost all Americans had more money to spend. Once they could afford to, everyone could buy more, and the demand for goods and services went up and up dramatically. The economy was humming.

I take it you agree that the more money that is in circulation the healthier the economy is. I think it is a given that it doesn't matter whose dollar it is, the important thing is that it's circulating.

Take Walmart as an example. It has grown phenomenally, and not because the rich are spending very much there. It's the millions from the middle or working classes who do most of their
shopping there, That's where they make the big bucks. The same goes for most grocery stores.

In fact, one of the best ways to stimulate our economy is by giving more money to the poor. Whereas the super-rich tend to stash lots of money in offshore accounts, or buy vacation houses in other countries, or put their money into trust funds or in other ways of dodging their taxes and keeping their money out of the economy, the poor have to spend all of their money on the basic necessities of life. It's the same with with the dollars that are given out in unemployment compensation. It's the same with the money spent on government projects. Again, great way to keep those dollars in circulation.

The worst thing one can do when the economy is poor is to take more money out of it.

Double post. Sorry!

Triple post. Sorry!

Originally posted by Sestias
In fact, one of the best ways to stimulate our economy is by giving more money to the poor. Whereas the super-rich tend to stash lots of money in offshore accounts, or buy vacation houses in other countries, or put their money into trust funds or in other ways of dodging their taxes and keeping their money out of the economy, the poor have to spend all of their money on the basic necessities of life. It's the same with with the dollars that are given out in unemployment compensation. It's the same with the money spent on government projects. Again, great way to keep those dollars in circulation.

The worst thing one can do when the economy is poor is to take more money out of it.

Yes Yes Yes and YES
This is why I don't believe in open marketing, it's just makes the super rich spend the money elsewhere!
Wealth fare is only making money circulate and has long has this money is not spent outside the country, it is making people work and not get poorer.

I'm Canadian and if it was just me, I wouldn't say yes to the first American that wants to cut down my trees and bring his profits outside of my country, JUST for the sake of making jobs. This is not how a country gets rich. Especially since big companies pay a lot less taxes in % of their profits and have so many ways to make the taxes deductible.

I think "free" markets has made me more socialist when I see how the money gets stolen out of my country.

reply to post by User8911

Like I said in another tread, part of the people against socialism are just plain selfish. You just don't get it. What if, generations before you payed for you now, come on don't you get it! The only reason why you think capitalism is better is because your stuck with the problems capitalism brought in the first place, just think of it farther and you will see...

I don't see anything but someone who refuses to be personally responsible for their self.
Read this next part very carefully.

I do not wan't THE GOVERNMENT to provide for me. I would MUCH rather provide for myself.
Will I be relying on SS for my retirement? NO!!!! I will plan and put money away. MYSELF! FOR MYSELF!

I prefer to be personally responsible and take care of myself.

And further more previous generations DID NOT PAY FOR ME! Nor will they ever with the current system.

I have thought further and I still do not see....whatever it is your peddling.
I prefer the CHOICE. The FREEDOM to CHOOSE. Currently Americans do not have that freedom.


DENY IGNORANCE

Originally posted by TruthAboveIgnorance
I do not wan't THE GOVERNMENT to provide for me. I would MUCH rather provide for myself.
Will I be relying on SS for my retirement? NO!!!! I will plan and put money away. MYSELF! FOR MYSELF!

I guess it's time to move to another country. You could look around to see if there is one that offers the freedoms you like or maybe take to the high seas.

reply to post by Misoir


Oh Misoir I like the way you write. I agree with your positions. We do have a mixed economy in the USA, and the Socialists are working very hard at mixing it up some more with such legislation as the Affordable Health Care Act, shenanigans with Baillouts of the banks and financial sectors, the auto industry, and energy, what with the imposition of the ban on drilling for oil while giving our taxpayer dollars to subsidize the socialized Petrobas of Brazil.
Socialism is intended as bridge between Capitalism and Communism because the proponents of both those systems know that pure Communism will be rejected by those who love Freedom and Liberty. Incrementalism is the key, and they call it Fabian Socialism.Oh, and yes Michael Savage did say that Bush Jr was a fiscal socialist. That one really woke me up.

reply to post by Sestias


The Super-Rich hide their money in Charities, Trust Funds, and Swiss bank accounts. The Progressive income tax sliding scale hurts the Middle Class, while keeping the lower classes boxed in. As soon as your hard work has gotten you anywhere, it's in the next income tax bracket. When hard work is penalized like that while rewarding slackers and cheats, something is wrong. Success is penalized and lack of it rewarded under the Socialist system.
And we both know the State never withers away.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Since when are social programs socialists?...

This is one of the many issues i have with people who like you claim this, you actually think that socialism initiated all these programs, when that is not true.

There was public transportation, and other similar social programs in the U.S. before socialists, and the collectivists started invading the U.S. and indoctrinating Americans who do not bother to review history.

Social does not equal socialism, socialism/communism = centralized power/government which makes it an authoritarian/totalitarian state.

The problem with socialism is that whether socialists and collectivists want to agree or not they ALWAYS give power to the government, or corporations/elites instead of their claims that "the people will have the power."

What happens in socialism/communism is "centralization of all power" and the people do not have that power despite claims of the contrary.

Socialism/communism are nothing more than FAILED utopias because you ALWAYS implement totalitarian/authoritarian governments when socialism/communism completely takes over.

The United States and capitalism was working well until "progressives" started giving power to the elites.

What was the first thing a "Progressive Democrat" (Woodrow Wilson) did to the U.S. and Americans?...

He signed the Federal Reserve Act into effect as well as the current IRS, the two main agencies responsible for the problems occurring in the U.S. today and since 1913.

It was through the Federal Reserve Act that a Progressive Democrat gave the economy of the U.S. to the elites, corporatists and banksters and forever put into slavery, and debt all Americans.

Yet you still have people claiming socialism/collectivism or "the "progressive movement" is good?...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Well said, and even socialism itself, without capitalism, FAILS ALWAYS.

Capitalism only fails when there is centralization of power, which means when socialism/communism/progressivism is introduced, which is how the elites/banksters and corporations get in power.

Capitalism has existed since mankind has existed because people would trade with other people, or tribes for resources they didn't have. That was the beginning of capitalism, and when people found that in groups there is a better chance of survival.

Double post

reply to post by TruthAboveIgnorance

I don't see anything but someone who refuses to be personally responsible for their self.
Read this next part very carefully.

I do not wan't THE GOVERNMENT to provide for me. I would MUCH rather provide for myself.
Will I be relying on SS for my retirement? NO!!!! I will plan and put money away. MYSELF! FOR MYSELF!

I prefer to be personally responsible and take care of myself.

Well, get out your shovel. I trust you are going to build a highway all by yourself?

Oh no! Not socialism!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/00880f442e11.gif[/atsimg]

Firstly, let me state that I havent read a word past the OP and thus am totally unaware if the arguments I might offer have been stated (possibly much better) or not. Its late on Saturday and Im having a bit of fun, so take the following with a large salt shaker~

Disclaimer aside, let me dive in head first.

Actually, I myself am only a semi-socialist. I advocate capitalism with a lot of regulations to impose restraints along with the socialization of our major social programs.

What you describe here, to me, is not 'semi socialism' but instead full blown socialism. It seems you advocate a free market, or capitalism, only to the extent that it provides the necessary production needed to fund your stated latter necessities, those being 'social programs', while every aspect of trade is subject to 'a lot of regulations' via state intervention.

This assertion, I might venture, is socialist to its core, with nothing 'semi' about it. Why you feel the need to mitigate your description of your own political philosophy with arbitrary distinctions makes me question your intentions.

This is being done successfully in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

Your definition of 'successful' must diverge wildly from mine. Lets explore that, shall we?

Medicare and Social Security are essentially socialized already,

And what degree of success would you assign to each of these programs? Does that they are mostly government run follow that they should be totally government run?

Do you regard medicare and social security (both of which are completely bankrupt and indebted) as 'successful'?

which is why the ultra-uber-right is frothing at the mouth about them and trying to eliminate them.

No doubt those types do oppose these programs, if not for more than a purely self defensive measure to not have their property stolen from them in the name of 'the greater good'. This is only but one legitimate complaint against such misguided, and I would argue, evil 'policies'.

Actually, they have been doing this ever since FDR instituted Social Security in the 1930's, but the American people just wouldn't have them undone. Until now. And the attempt looks entirely doomed from the outset.

Regardless of opposition, the proposal of socialism is doomed from the outset by its very nature. Violence in the form of taxation (theft) and redistribution (bribes) is not, and can never be, a sustainable model. (ex. the catastrophic and unpayable debt of every nation that engages in this kind of multigeneraltional madness.)

The popularity of these two programs is evident in the poll results showing that a huge majority of the American people have no intention of getting rid of either program, and show only slightly less support for eliminating Medicaid, which some people object to because it benefits the poor.

Is your standard of what is just and virtuous entirely based on what everyone else around you thinks? If this is your standard, surly you have no problem with the weekly stonings of homosexuals in many ME countries, as 'huge majorities' also support such measures?

Do you honestly believe people oppose these programs because they 'benefit the poor'? I would strongly argue the opposite is true. (people who pay no attention to words, and have a keen eye for actions realize that the welfare state actually increases poverty.)

I personally object to these programs *because* they increase dependency and poverty.

Just get rid of the scary word "socialism" (when I was in school I was taught to fear the "red menace") and just about everybody is for it.

To paraphrase Hayek "most socialists would oppose the means by which socialism must be applied."

Socialism is simply slow motion Communism, and people are right to fear that mass murdering menace.

Go on, ultra-right, run yourselves right off the cliff with this one. Good riddance.

And how do you respond to my critisisms, which are neither left or right? How do you argue without your scapegoat?

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by Sestias

 

Socialism is simply unconstitutional. . Of course the dregs and parasites support socialism, otherwise they would actually have to be responsible adults and provide for themselves.

The matter need not be discussed any further

The Constitution doesn't mention either capitalism or socialism. That's because they are economic theories and the Constitution mainly addresses the establishment of a democracy and how it should be governed. It is entirely possible to have a socialist democracy or a capitalist dictatorship.

it should also be noted that the Constitution was written in the later part of the eighteenth century. Marx and Engels (considered to be the forefathers of modern socialism) weren't born yet.

Sincerely,
Your friendly parasitic dreg

Call me a socialist and I won't get mad either.

I really need to refrain, anymore, from saying, "I am a" (This or That). I think social safety nets are lifesavers, and government (VA) healthcare saved my life. HOWEVER!!! I like Ron Paul ALOT. I believe-------that people would not be taking sides and fighting over "entitlements" "healthcare" and other government social safety nets (Social["ist"] Security) food stamps, etc., if it was not for all our bankrupting wars of aggression. I imagine all the money available in the US 'coffers' if we NEVER attacked Iraq under Herbert Walker, much less the later adventures, and even Vietnam.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

What you describe here, to me, is not 'semi socialism' but instead full blown socialism. It seems you advocate a free market, or capitalism, only to the extent that it provides the necessary production needed to fund your stated latter necessities, those being 'social programs', while every aspect of trade is subject to 'a lot of regulations' via state intervention.

This assertion, I might venture, is socialist to its core, with nothing 'semi' about it. Why you feel the need to mitigate your description of your own political philosophy with arbitrary distinctions makes me question your intentions.

I am asserting that I am a socialist to some extent. I am actually advocating a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. If you want to call me a socialist, go ahead. I am making this distinction in deference to those who really are socialists. I am also qualifying my position for the sake of clarity.

Is your standard of what is just and virtuous entirely based on what everyone else around you thinks? If this is your standard, surly you have no problem with the weekly stonings of homosexuals in many ME countries, as 'huge majorities' also support such measures?

Am I correct in assuming that you are actually against democracy? You seem to be implying that only a select few should be able to have power.

And what has the stoning of gays in the middle east got to do with socialism? I think you're going far afield to find some analogies. My apologies to the GLBT community for trivializing their plight.

We;re just a hop, skip and jump away from a maneuver which I call Reductio ad Hitlerum That's when each side compares the other to Adolph Hitler.

As far as polls are concerned, we all like to take the results when they go in our favor, and discount them if they don't. Nevertheless, I believe a majority of Americans are opposed to any attempt to toy with Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

These programs have been called "the third rail" in politics. Touch them and you're dead. The right wing is learning this the hard way, I think. They will pay for this in the next election.