Public works are not Socialist

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: muzzleflash

Not as ridiculous as the nearly 1 trillion per year we pay on interest to the national debt. Or the 1 trillion plus per year the Republican president is adding to the deficit in a "great economy" (that we are borrowing money to create)

So you want to borrow exponentially more via socialism...? Seems legit.

a reply to: luthier

I agree with you that our government has been sliding towards socialism step by step since the 1800s. Although I believe that a balance between the two sides of the spectrum is necessary to achieve a viable modern civilization, I would agree if anyone said that we have gone too far into socialism (simply because I think it's way too expensive and I'd prefer to have zero national debt and lower taxes).

a reply to: muzzleflash

No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, and hours of labor short enough so after his day's work is done he will have time and energy to bear his share in the management of the community, to help in carrying the general load. 

Theodore Roosevelt

It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize. 

Theodore Roosevelt 

In August 1866, the National Labor Union at Baltimore passed a resolution that said, "The first and great necessity of the present to free labour of this country from capitalist slavery, is the passing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal working day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is achieved."

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: muzzleflash

Not as ridiculous as the nearly 1 trillion per year we pay on interest to the national debt. Or the 1 trillion plus per year the Republican president is adding to the deficit in a "great economy" (that we are borrowing money to create)

So you want to borrow exponentially more via socialism...? Seems legit.

No i want people concerned Republicans are not fiscally conservative rather than call out an element that has existed since the civil war.

originally posted by: Halfswede
People who say "It's not that kind of socialism being proposed", seem to ignore the fact that their heroes Bernie etc. openly touted the greatness of Cuba and Venezuela as bastions of progress.

Have they really done that? Because those nations are complete disasters and nothing to brag about. They experience starvation, low education, extreme poverty, their political stability is low and are at risk of coups or rebellions, their technology levels are among the lowest, etc.

Look at what happened with the USSR or PRC - they are one of the worst events to happen in human history. Actually considering death-tolls, suffering, etc - they ARE the worst thing to ever happen in human history.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I agree. My point is it's far more concerning there are no fiscal and small government conservatives that can make any policy

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Halfswede
People who say "It's not that kind of socialism being proposed", seem to ignore the fact that their heroes Bernie etc. openly touted the greatness of Cuba and Venezuela as bastions of progress.

Have they really done that? Because those nations are complete disasters and nothing to brag about. They experience starvation, low education, extreme poverty, their political stability is low and are at risk of coups or rebellions, their technology levels are among the lowest, etc.

Look at what happened with the USSR or PRC - they are one of the worst events to happen in human history. Actually considering death-tolls, suffering, etc - they ARE the worst thing to ever happen in human history.

We should also remember prior to socialism and the labor movement people like Rockefeller were literally amassing private armies and exploiting labor.

We need a balance.

#wherearetheconswrvatives?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: muzzleflash

Not as ridiculous as the nearly 1 trillion per year we pay on interest to the national debt. Or the 1 trillion plus per year the Republican president is adding to the deficit in a "great economy" (that we are borrowing money to create)

So you want to borrow exponentially more via socialism...? Seems legit.

No i want people concerned Republicans are not fiscally conservative rather than call out an element that has existed since the civil war.

Hey if I was emperor I'd cut the budget big time right away, and then start cutting it more and more every year. I would make increases in certain areas but major cuts in most. I think paying off our debt and staying out of debt should be our #1 priority until it's accomplished.

I'd also make tons of other changes but won't bother going into all that right now. It'd be like Ron Paul but on steroids lol.

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Halfswede
People who say "It's not that kind of socialism being proposed", seem to ignore the fact that their heroes Bernie etc. openly touted the greatness of Cuba and Venezuela as bastions of progress.

Have they really done that?...

Google Bernie 1985 praises Fidel Castro etc. It's on video. Similar comments when Venezuela went social. Now of course, he says 'Not that kind of socialism", just like every other failed socialist has said.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Lol, totally...

I just think the fact Republicans since Nixon have been big spenders and big government is far more dangerous than socialism.

Socialism has existed a long time in the us from Grant being sympathetic to labor to john dewey, womans rights etc...

What is actually different is the lack of fiscal conservatives

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: muzzleflash

I agree. My point is it's far more concerning there are no fiscal and small government conservatives that can make any policy

I will vote for anyone that will say "NO" to all legislation. I miss Ron Paul...

I agree we need to balance all of the powers and keep them pitted against each other so no single power can take over and dominate resulting in complete tyranny.

It's extremely concerning there are no small gvt fiscal conservatives. That means we WILL go bankrupt, not if but when.

a reply to: Halfswede

Roads etc are " State Owned " unless built by a private enterprise in the form of Toll Roads.

State owned is neither Socialist, Capitalist or Communist.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: muzzleflash

Lol, totally...

I just think the fact Republicans since Nixon have been big spenders and big government is far more dangerous than socialism.

Socialism has existed a long time in the us from Grant being sympathetic to labor to john dewey, womans rights etc...

What is actually different is the lack of fiscal conservatives

That's why I usually tell people that both parties - Repub and Dem - are a bunch of liberals. Hahaha

originally posted by: alldaylong
Roads etc are " State Owned " unless built by a private enterprise in the form of Toll Roads.

There are quite a few state-owned toll roads, bridges and tunnels here as well.

a reply to: muzzleflash

It's TRUE.

And the liberals suck and only play off people's compassion.

This is how people like AOC would rather use photo ops with detained immigrants than pass a bill getting them more resources while in holding. Or try and increase judiciary spending so they aren't stuck in the camps for months.

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Halfswede
People who say "It's not that kind of socialism being proposed", seem to ignore the fact that their heroes Bernie etc. openly touted the greatness of Cuba and Venezuela as bastions of progress.

Have they really done that?...

Google Bernie 1985 praises Fidel Castro etc. It's on video. Similar comments when Venezuela went social. Now of course, he says 'Not that kind of socialism", just like every other failed socialist has said.

Wow, thanks for showing me this!

He actually says "Castro gave them this and that" as if 1 guy owned everything and was so charitable to give the people a life. Castro didn't give anything he took everything away and redistributed some of it and kept the rest. That's what tyrants do.

Bernie apparently doesn't know much about how govt works.
Why is it that virtually everyone running for office has no clue about anything anymore??
That's scary...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: muzzleflash

It's TRUE.

And the liberals suck and only play off people's compassion.

This is how people like AOC would rather use photo ops with detained immigrants than pass a bill getting them more resources while in holding. Or try and increase judiciary spending so they aren't stuck in the camps for months.

I honestly think that AOC is one of the most uneducated big-mouths I've ever seen or heard from. It must be a conspiracy to make me want to repeal the 1st Amendment just to shut her up, lol!!!

a reply to: muzzleflash

I bet if you asked her what new sustainable energy artifacts are exciting to her she would have no clue what it even being developed.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: alldaylong
Roads etc are " State Owned " unless built by a private enterprise in the form of Toll Roads.

There are quite a few state-owned toll roads, bridges and tunnels here as well.

I try to go around Oklahoma because I hate paying the tolls on their turnpikes. Getting to go 5mph faster isn't a big deal. Plus there's hardly any gas stations or rest stops through long stretches on some of them. I just don't like them.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: muzzleflash

I bet if you asked her what new sustainable energy artifacts are exciting to her she would have no clue what it even being developed.

I bet AOC doesn't have a clue about anything except how to scream and get attention. Omg she's horrible. And so are her friends. None of them bothered to read a history book or think. I'd rather have 2 Hillary Clintons than half of an AOC. That's how bad it is, hahahah!