Bookmark and Share  
Home Forum Index Politics Philosophy Diversions Theology Join Tips & Rules
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors
Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 12:28AM
[www.addictinginfo.org]


http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/socialism-comic.jpg

Quote:
From the article
I was talking recently with a new friend who I’m just getting to know. She tends to be somewhat conservative, while I lean more toward the progressive side.

When our conversation drifted to politics, somehow the dreaded word “socialism” came up. My friend seemed totally shocked when I said “All socialism isn’t bad”. She became very serious and replied “So you want to take money away from the rich and give to the poor?” I smiled and said “No, not at all. Why do you think socialism mean taking money from the rich and giving to the poor?

“Well it is, isn’t it?” was her reply....


[www.addictinginfo.org]

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Anonymous User
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 01:04AM
sardonicadonis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....Why do you think
> socialism mean taking money from the rich and
> giving to the poor?
>
> “Well it is, isn’t it?” was her reply....
>
>


She actually is correct. But her thinking is wrong, or at least her attitude is wrong. Our government and most other governments redistribute wealth. They are all socialistic to varying degrees. Not everybody pays taxes commensurate with their actual usage of the police department, fire department, health and safety inspectors, roads, parks, schools and other services that government provides. I personally don't drive a lot. My neighbor drives much more than I do. Therefore he gets more road use per dollar than I do. A big family gets more schooling for their tax dollar than a childless couple.

Over all society benefits as a government system of roads is more efficient that a patchwork of private toll roads. I am happy the county health department inspects restaurants; it's cheaper than my hiring a food tester whenever I dine out. The same is true of many other goverment services.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2012 01:11AM by Curt Anderson.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 06:25AM
Did you read the article? Your response signifies that, maybe not, as the issues you brought up were all addressed therein.

Yes, you may not get as much use out of the roads, or the education system as others who, in this example, drive more or have larger families. The thing is, when everyone's chipping in, everything is cheaper overall, and you end up with more money in your pocket, despite higher taxes.

Though you do already seem educated on the topic. Your post, however, contains misleading information.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Anonymous User
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 06:43AM
Sardo,
I read it. For me, that article was preaching to the choir. I didn't mean to indicate otherwise. I was mildly surprised that you apparently agree with the article, given your negative attitude about Social Security and you admiration of Ron Paul, who as a Libertarian is the antithesis of the points that the author was making. I am hoping that you found the article illuminating and convincing.
HHH
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 06:44AM
The article is pretty basic but points out the value of being community-oriented, of not valuing the individual to the exclusion of concern for our fellow citizens.

____________________________________________
A plague on both your houses. Bastards!
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 06:50AM
Actually it's not so absurd to think of a private company putting out fires. There's a company in Cali that does it right now. You pay them and they come out and protect your home in the event of a wildfire.

It's the Republican dream scenario - sort of like Somalia without the starving kids with guns.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:13PM
Curt Anderson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sardo,
> I read it. For me, that article was preaching to
> the choir. I didn't mean to indicate otherwise.
> I was mildly surprised that you apparently agree
> with the article, given your negative attitude
> about Social Security and you admiration of Ron
> Paul, who as a Libertarian is the antithesis of
> the points that the author was making. I am
> hoping that you found the article illuminating and
> convincing.


Actually, you guys changed my views on social security, not this article. & my issue wasn't with the program itself, though some of you continue to try to point to that - my issue is that I don't believe the program (or the USD, for that matter) is going to be around, or in a decent state, by the time I hit the age of retirement, which you old folks may be less worried about and say "The USD will never crash" or "The economy will stabilize itself", which is all well and good, but with today's politics in America, I just don't want to jump on that bandwagon and believe that everything's going to be ok, because Repubs say it will.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:20PM
sardo, the SS program, as designed, will remain solvent and accessible for many decades to come with little more than a few small adjustments. It is that its funds are being tapped and borrowed against and leveraged from outside that it is threatening it with catastrophe.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:23PM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sardo, the SS program, as designed, will remain
> solvent and accessible for many decades to come
> with little more than a few small adjustments. It
> is that its funds are being tapped and borrowed
> against and leveraged from outside that it is
> threatening it with catastrophe.


...and given current events in politics, I have little faith that America as we know it will be around when I hit retirement age.

I've been studying Mandarin.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:25PM
In which case, the solvency of Social Security will be the least of our problems.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:28PM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In which case, the solvency of Social Security
> will be the least of our problems.


At that time, yes.

In the meantime, why pay in to programs that may or may not exist by the time I need them? ...is all I was saying. Which we've had discussions on, and I know why we have SSI & all that jazz. It would be more beneficial to me, personally, right now, to not have to pay in to it, however. That is all.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:38PM
It would be beneficial - right now - to everyone who's paying in, to not have to pay in. Right? I'm not taking any money out right now - so if I don't put any money in - I'll have more money in my pocket (at least right now). So that argument is not very realistic. What you have to understand about the people who want to "kill" SSI is that they don't want to kill it - they want to evolve it into a system where your money goes directly into the market where they can steal it a lot easier. Your arguments against SSI are basically the long term effects of the propaganda they have been running on you your entire life. Your assessment is the exact conclusion they programmed you to believe is true when it's nothing like the truth. SSI is not in trouble. It's not going to collapse in your lifetime (or ever). It's not draining the treasury - it ADDS to the treasury. Your taxes will be HIGHER without SSI padding the bottom line of the US gov't. In all likelihood you will not gain anything by killing SSI - you will still be required to pay into some kind of retirement system that is not guaranteed like SSI OR you will be hit with a tax for not paying in. So even that small "gain" you get by not paying into SSI now will be smaller than they want you to believe.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:43PM
See, I follow what you're saying, but we've already been over this, and I'm fairly certain my last post covered my annoyance by you guys continuing to bend the words I use when talking about SSI.

If I stopped paying, I'd have more money. True or false?

If I stopped paying, and the USD collapsed, I'd have made a wise choice. True or false?

If I continued paying, and the USD collapsed, I'd have lost out on potential dollars. True or false?

I'm speaking in hypotheticals - though, your faith in the American economy does seem to trump mine.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:49PM
It would be beneficial to me in the short term to not have to pay for health insurance. Should I therefore stop paying into it because the whole country may collapse some day?


In a flashback in the film Annie Hall to when he was a small child, Alvy's mother takes him to the doctor because he's depressed.

"Why are you depressed, Alvy?", asks the doctor.

"It's something he read", says his mother. "Tell Doctor Flicker."

"The universe is expanding." says Alvy, looking dejectedly down at his shoes.

"The universe is expanding, eh?", says the doctor.

"Well the universe is everything and if it's expanding, some day it will break apart and that will be the end of everything."

"What is that your business???", screams his mom. "You're here in Brooklin. Brooklin is not expanding!!! [to the doctor] He's stopped doing his homework."

"What's the point?", asks Alvy.


(Is it sad that I can remember that scene and most other scenes from that movie verbatim?)

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2012 07:50PM by Ponderer.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:54PM
You're comparing healthcare, something everyone needs, or will need, regardless of age, with retirement funds.

Do I need to explain the difference?

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:56PM
Not everyone needs to have retirement funds eventually?

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 07:56PM
sardonicadonis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If I stopped paying, I'd have more money. True or
> false?

Assuming you had the choice to stop paying and drop out of the system... FALSE. You seem to think more money in your pocket TODAY means "more money". Over your lifetime you will take out more money than you pay into SSI. So FALSE.



> If I stopped paying, and the USD collapsed, I'd
> have made a wise choice. True or false?


FALSE. The USD in your pocket would be just as collapsed as the USD in the SSI system.


> If I continued paying, and the USD collapsed, I'd
> have lost out on potential dollars. True or
> false?


FALSE. You seem to believe the USD is on it's last legs and if it collapses (a very, very REMOTE possibility) - it will never rebound. That is not true. What will happen is it will be propped up artificially until it rebounds fully. Then we are back to the same scenario - (all things being equal - you don't die young or something) you will take more money OUT of the system than you ever put IN.

But again - the idea itself is borderline ludicrous. One thing you have to understand - when money is worthless - the power brokers have no power. So what is their main concern in life? Keeping their money valuable. The USD is NOT going to collapse.


> I'm speaking in hypotheticals - though, your faith
> in the American economy does seem to trump mine.


I do not understand why your faith is easily shaken. We just went thru the worst economic time of our lives. Here we are on the other side - not as well off, but certainly nowhere near collapse. Look at the Soviet Union - complete collapse - 15 years later they're back again. Everything is cyclical. The country is not going under.
Anonymous User
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 08:00PM
National Journal reports: Things are bad out in Real America
The crumbling of once-great institutions isn't to blame for middle-class decline and anger. Politicians are

Ron Fournier, the editor in chief of the National Journal, and reporter Sophie Quinton have a story on hard times in Muncie, Ind., as a microcosm of the failure of American institutions as a whole.

It’s a good piece. It’s even an “important” piece, in the sense that the cloistered elites who run the country could learn something of the reality of life out in the country at large if this piece makes it to their desks. D.C.-based news organizations should report from “the rest of America” more often, because in Washington mass foreclosures and double-digit unemployment are usually seen as abstract problems slightly less pressing than the fact that Social Security will, decades from now, pay out slightly more than it takes in. (Joe Klein, who is basically a buffoon, returned from his stunt “2010 road trip” sounding suddenly much less buffoonish. Getting outside the bubble is often instructive.)

[www.salon.com]
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 08:02PM
Your answers are all FALSE pretenses. Allow me.



Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sardonicadonis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > If I stopped paying, I'd have more money. True
> or
> > false?
>
> Assuming you had the choice to stop paying and
> drop out of the system... FALSE. You seem to think
> more money in your pocket TODAY means "more
> money". Over your lifetime you will take out more
> money than you pay into SSI. So FALSE.
>

I will take out more money than I pay in ... for what? More money TODAY does mean more money ... TODAY. If we were talking about tomorrow, it'd be a different question. And ok, let's say we are talking about tomorrow. NOT paying into SSI means I have less money tomorrow? Why? Unless I'm spending it fruitlessly, like, say, giving it all to a program that may or may not exist in the future ...

>
> > If I stopped paying, and the USD collapsed, I'd
> > have made a wise choice. True or false?
>
>
> FALSE. The USD in your pocket would be just as
> collapsed as the USD in the SSI system.


Here's one of those FALSE pretenses - Yes, again, if we're talking about tomorrow, and we're assuming I put away all the money I would have put into SSI, instead of, you know, exactly what I've been talking about, which is needing and using it now, than any money I had when the dollar collapsed would be useless.

However, if I spent it when I needed it, beforehand ....


> > If I continued paying, and the USD collapsed,
> I'd
> > have lost out on potential dollars. True or
> > false?
>
>
> FALSE. You seem to believe the USD is on it's last
> legs and if it collapses (a very, very REMOTE
> possibility) - it will never rebound. That is not
> true. What will happen is it will be propped up
> artificially until it rebounds fully. Then we are
> back to the same scenario - (all things being
> equal - you don't die young or something) you will
> take more money OUT of the system than you ever
> put IN.
>
> But again - the idea itself is borderline
> ludicrous. One thing you have to understand - when
> money is worthless - the power brokers have no
> power. So what is their main concern in life?
> Keeping their money valuable. The USD is NOT going
> to collapse.
>


Money IS worthless, and the USD is falling. It has been falling. It doesn't "bounce back", if it did, a dollar would still be worth a dollar (its not, its only worth about 4 cents).

You do understand how the Federal Reserve system works, don't you?


> > I'm speaking in hypotheticals - though, your
> faith
> > in the American economy does seem to trump
> mine.
>
>
> I do not understand why your faith is easily
> shaken. We just went thru the worst economic time
> of our lives. Here we are on the other side - not
> as well off, but certainly nowhere near collapse.
> Look at the Soviet Union - complete collapse - 15
> years later they're back again. Everything is
> cyclical. The country is not going under.


I'm not calling for Armageddon - you'll note my use of the term "America as we know it" in a previous post.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 08:17PM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not everyone needs to have retirement funds
> eventually?



Touche. I tried to think of a counter argument, but couldn't come up with any that would really make my point.

I'm not even trying to argue against SSI here ... I've already expressed this, as well as my frustration with the entire topic.

I'd prefer not to pay, because I don't believe its going to benefit me in the future, whereas there are investments I could make with my own money, that would indeed benefit me, perhaps more so than SSI would.

I'm not trying to kill SSI. I don't support the taking down of SSI (thanks to you guys in the discussion WE ALREADY HAD ON THIS). I simply don't believe that I'll be able to take advantage of SSI. If I do hit that age, and all is well, I'll retire happy, and let you all know you were right.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 08:24PM
"I'd prefer not to pay, because I don't believe its going to benefit me in the future, whereas there are investments I could make with my own money, that would indeed benefit me, perhaps more so than SSI would." -sardo

Investments you could make that would survived the destruction of America as we know it? How much gold do you think you could hang onto in a refugee camp?

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 08:27PM
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I'd prefer not to pay, because I don't believe
> its going to benefit me in the future, whereas
> there are investments I could make with my own
> money, that would indeed benefit me, perhaps more
> so than SSI would." -sardo
>
> Investments you could make that would survived the
> destruction of America as we know it? How much
> gold do you think you could hang onto in a refugee
> camp?


I have to invest in America?

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 08:28PM
Nothing I said implies that.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 08:52PM
I invest abroad; I live abroad; the collapse of America doesn't effect me as much as those who are stuck within the system.

At all? Not claiming that. However, investments I could make might be smarter than investing in something that may not exist.

Then again, any investment any of us make could end up going sour. This is not my point.

I support SSI. Stop implying that I don't. I fear SSI, because TPTB want to take it from me - from us - and I believe they will.

Pessimistic? Sure. Unrealistic? I disagree.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 09:07PM
So you live abroad and you think the US is going to collapse - but you stay an American citizen... why? Like most (if not all) of your arguments - it makes no sense.

To address your answers above...

1. You didn't say "more money TODAY" - you said "more money". If all you're worried about is TODAY - I will give you $10 right now if you sign a contract that says you'll give me $100 tomorrow. Since you're only worried about TODAY and TOMORROW obviously takes care of itself.

2. Already addressed - the USD is NOT going to collapse and if it did, there are mechanisms in place to make sure it rebounds. Not the least of which is the angry mob it will create. Which lunatic fringe radio program is selling you this nonsense? Whatever it is - turn it off and rejoin reality.

3. Do YOU understand how the MONETARY system works? Put aside your Fed fairy tales for a moment - a dollar is not worth 4 cents. I pay $3.49 for a gallon of milk - when was there a time when YOU - PERSONALLY - could buy a gallon of milk for 13 cents? Because THAT is what you are saying. We can put whatever freaking "value" number you want on a dollar - 2 cents, 20 cents, 100 cents, 1000 cents - it doesn't matter a whit. The only thing that matters is WHAT YOU CAN BUY WITH A DOLLAR. So all this nonsense about "the Fed doesn't have any money" and "Fort Knox is empty" and "The US sold all it's gold in 1972" - EVERY CONSPIRACY FAIRY TALE OUT THERE - means absolutely nothing as long as you can walk into the grocery store and buy that gallon of milk for $3.49. THAT'S how the monetary system works IN THE REAL WORLD. What can a dollar BUY - not what number you place on it or what you're using for money - gold, paper, tiddly-winks - DOES NOT MATTER. You are lost in the conspiracies my friend - you'll see the light eventually.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 09:15PM
And you think I'm living in a fairy tale ... eye rolling smiley

Never mentioned staying an American citizen. Where'd you get that?


1) You're arguing semantics, rule #1 when you've got nothing to say.

2) Learn as much as you can about the Federal Reserve, how it works, how it "funds" the banks, etc. I don't listen to talk radio, I'm not old enough. If you need some help understanding how our central banking system works, here's an easy to follow video:

[www.youtube.com]

3) You understand how numbers work. Now go learn about the Fed & the banks, and how they're tricking you into believing that milk actually costs "3.49 a gallon".

Also, just because I can't remember there being a point where the dollar was actually worth a dollar, doesn't mean that the dollar isn't worth less. It is. A lot less. Again, learn about the banks and how they work. Your money is imaginary, compared to what it used to be.

============================================================================

Tax the rich & raise minimum wage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2012 09:39PM by sardonicadonis.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 09:23PM
Social theories have obvious real life consiquences when applied; take the real case modern day example of Ron Paul. Conservatives like to have a social theory that is so centered own their very own rugged individualism, that their views seem to have a lot of egotism to them naturally. What I'm trying to say is that because they are typically comfortable middle class white male conservatives, libertarians and thinking along those lines just seems to discount other peoples walk of life. I witnessed a lot of bigotry canvassing Cincinnati, by some very proud conservatives who just wanted big government off their back. Howver their answer to me always when asked about what the real problems were, was under their breath "the other people in the inner cities".


They don't take a day to even think about those actual other human beings and their conditions of living, which directly apply to the need of government assistance programs, the welfare system, and "big government". They discount the fact that without big government there would be riots, of epic proportioins. Do people actually know what it's like within the inner cities, from the upper middle class areas?

I'm not saying everyone from that school of thinking is a bigot. I'm speaking an example from personal experience, various times. However from someone who was once wooed by conservatism, I just have a questions as a still recovering member from that school of thought.

Why are we just simply talking black and white; big government cut a budget to scale it all back.

They are going in and trying to rid the people of the biggest portions of the deficit to "save the country" blindly in a Sweeney Todd fashion without taking a step back to realize where the biggest problems are.

The problem isn't in social programs, nor the abuse. That's a wedge issue with little to no relevance. Just because you think there shouldn't be medicare, medicaid, social security, snap, s-chip?, food stamps, WIC ext... It doesn't mean they should all go away, be optional, or whatever variation of a reason to get rid of them. That's the egotism speaking in the conservative school. The conservative train of thought is so inbedded in absolute freedom from government, that it discounts the various other opinions, walks of live, and given situation. I'm not saying nobody else thinks they're always right, and a little egotistical. But conservativm just strikes me as it being very subconciously so.

For the real life example see Ron Paul again. His supporters will scof when you say his budget cuts are detrimental. Well we have to cut that budget, and it's big government, and he's just trying to "free the people from their shackles of big government programs"

Ron Paul also supports the public private partnerships, and JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs henchmen unconciously for the fact that he suppors Paul Ryan, and what those rascal State Governers are butchering their cities with.

People speak of the governers of Wissconsin, New Jersey, Detroit, and Ohio as if they are helping people in any way shape or form. They speak great doublespeak, heck it even sounds a little traditional conservative. In reality they are corrupt beyond all belife, and could actually care less about the people of their states by their actions. They are indifferently making cuts, and just going along to get along. They don't really believe in it as much as someone more passionate like Ron Paul does. They aren't really leaders, they just say, and think, and follow, and go along to get along. The cities of America are literally crumbling, infrastructure is so incredbly outdated. My question is if everything is so old, and we're obviously not over spending on the development of our very own society, what is that money going to?

They are cutting budgets not to free us, but rather to put money back into the coffers of big banks. supporting the turning of public utilities into that of privately owner mega cartels in the name of the "free market" Ron Paul may not openly say he supports that, but for the fact that he endorsed Paul Ryan, is speaking volumes right now.

Big cartels are privatising all the inner cities, from infrastructure, to used to be public entities. They are now installing banker cartels especially in Detroit as the current example to just continuing to slash the budget. The blind ironic beuracrat Ron Paul hailing from D.C. needs to come up from Texas, and witness these cities, and the condition they are in. They're practacly abondoned, ghost towns, despite the large real estate groups buying the abondoned houses, and buildings on the cheap, investing little amounts into them, and now calling them "loft aparments" trying to still turn a profit.

What simple point I'm trying to get to, or maybe just one question?

Ron Paul's programs want to cut up to 2/3's in "big government programs" but it only pertains to 15% of the Pentagon Budget?

Ron Paul I thought big government was the problem? 15% is coming out of the budget anyway, regardless, so stop blabbering about it and using it as a talking point.

The Pentagon should take a bigger haircut than any social programs, because it's not a matter of whether those programs should exist, if they government should be in our lives, all irrelevant. We are in the midst of a profound economic crisis, never seen before in this country.

Sadly, ironically, the New Deal was big government socialism in action. It also saved, created, and preserved the Middle Class for a good long while. It gave people property, jobs, kept them in their houses free of foreclosure, and stuck it to the Banks. It was Big Government alphabet soup groups set up, to serve specific functions.

No matter how flawed they were, are, nor corrupted, they did that. It also built Dallas Texas Congressman Paul, even San Francisco. It created some engineering wonders of the world in the TVA, the Hoover Dam, The New River Gorge in WV.

I'm sorry conservatives, budget cuts are detrimental to the collective people. Simply supporting budget cuts and arguing for it is chasing your tail. More people should come visit Cincinnati, Detroit, and all the other cities from the midwest on up all the way from there to Pittsburgh, tracing the map to upstate NY. The actual backbone of industry this country once supported it's people rotting. If that's not working, then how are we so bankrupt? Where is all the money going, and is it really just simply a problem of big government and all it's damn programs?

Honestly the only starting point of politics making a possitive change hinges on government action itself, against the financial interests, and leveling the proverbial playing field. So cutting budgets of any sort, won't free anyone, they are just simply deflationary, and will only do what Herbert Hoover did, before that radical Roosevelt came in and told the American people in regards to Wall Street that they are "an oligarchy" "the money changers fleeing from their high seats upon the temple of our civilization" "an oligarchy" and that he had only thought that "the tories had left a long time ago"

I wish the Ron Paul supporters would stop using the word government, and speak in those terms. Scaling back government, budgets, and everything they propose only lead to ruin, and continued unbridled greed in the name of that "free market" which so ever so precious and needs to be preserved. That's why California is privatized, and bankrupted. That's what budet cutting will get you, but from someone that lives in Cincinnati Ohio, I fear even more budget cuts being made, just simply for the sanity of the cities along that aforementioned backbones sake.

It's not a question of socialism vs. Conservatism either. They are both social theories... naturally people will always agree to disagree, and let there forever be debate. However I just don't want the person who is cutting my hair, to be in any way blind.

We need in tact social programs, more government intervention into the REAL problems, and to build up. You can't do that, or restore any order, when scaling back, and cutting blindly just simply calculating and crunching numbers. It's bean counting to the extreme... while blaming just simply the government for the wasted beans, discounting completely the blight causing them to spoil ie the now absolutely lawless deregulated financial institutions. I'll chose attempted government regulation, in the interests of the people, over the "free market"; call is comunism, call it socialism, call it what you'd like... I don't even know what I would classify it as anymore.


Much of the actual inner city of Cincinnati Ohio is 1 meal away from starving, or already are. Detriot too... empty houses, empty buildings, crime is only rising, but that's only because of desperation. It's not the people in the City, ALL of them are the victims. And if anything it's from government inaction, not just simply the size of a large government; but it's intent, and consiquences based on it's servitude, and love of $.

A real life example of someone who gets it more than Ron Paul is appropriately to this topic Bernie Sanders.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2012 09:51PM by josephaiorio.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 10:33PM
There is no way I can pass this one up....


sardonicadonis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you think I'm living in a fairy tale ... eye rolling smiley

You are. I'll tell you where you're at, son - you've read some conspiracy theories, you think you're onto something grand, but really all you have is a bunch of useless nonsense that means absolutely nothing. You WILL discover that one day - just not today.


> Never mentioned staying an American citizen.
> Where'd you get that?


You said you live abroad. So you don't even live here and you believe the country is on the verge of collapse. So if your only concern is not paying SSI - the answer is very simple - denounce your citizenship and become a citizen of whatever grand country you currently reside in. All your problems vanish - poof! No SSI payments, no worries about the USD collapsing, no concerns with the country going the way of Burma....


> 1) You're arguing semantics, rule #1 when you've
> got nothing to say.


No semantics. I'm serious. I will give you $10 TODAY - April 22, 2012. If you will give me $100 TOMORROW - April 23, 2012. Heck I'll even let you go a full week on that - you can pay me that $100 on April 29, 2012 if that's better for you.


> 2) Learn as much as you can about the Federal
> Reserve, how it works, how it "funds" the banks,
> etc. I don't listen to talk radio, I'm not old
> enough. If you need some help understanding how
> our central banking system works, here's an easy
> to follow video:
>
> [www.youtube.com]


A Fed conspiracy video. Why am I not surprised? Do you know how long Alex Jones and all the other conspiracists have been selling that one? Since the Fed originated. The problem here is not that I don't understand the Fed conspiracies - the problem here is you don't know how much you don't know.



> 3) You understand how numbers work. Now go learn
> about the Fed & the banks, and how they're
> tricking you into believing that milk actually
> costs "3.49 a gallon".

Oh yes - not only that - they're "tricking" me every time I go to the store! I hand them $3.49, I take home a gallon of milk and when I get home my first thought is "DAMN! They TRICKED me again! I gave them $3.49 and they gave me a GALLON OF MILK!"

LOL! Do you realize how STUPID you sound? Yes - I GET it - in 1913 (when there was no Fed!!!!), milk was only 13 cents. News flash - it's not 1913. Is that the way you want it? You want 1913 prices? Because you would also be getting 1913 wages. Get it? They are INTERCONNECTED IDEAS. You get paid more - you spend more. Hello.


> Also, just because I can't remember there being a
> point where the dollar was actually worth a
> dollar, doesn't mean that the dollar isn't worth
> less. It is. A lot less. Again, learn about the
> banks and how they work. Your money is imaginary,
> compared to what it used to be.


Yes - and your paycheck used to be imaginary. Henry Ford paid his employees $5 a week. That's why milk was 13 cents a gallon. You are failing to grasp the larger concept my friend. Money is illusory - YES. The paper that is in my pocket is not something I can eat or use to shelter myself. So if armageddon hits - the money is worthless (of course - so is gold and everything else). But for the time being? I can take that "imaginary" $3.49 down to the market and get a REAL gallon of milk. There's your sticking point. You don't understand that we DO. We're all playing the money game - as long as everyone is playing - the game is on. If you want to hide in a fallout shelter with bars of gold - feel free, bro. Most of us would rather see the sun shine and be able to walk into a market, hand over some paper "money" and walk out with food to eat and milk to drink. That's the larger concept at work here. You act like you're telling us something we don't know. Everybody knows.
Anonymous User
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 10:47PM
Sardo,
Another thing that those advocate against Social Security conveniently forget is that not all private investments make money, as witnessed by the nosedive the stock market took in 2008. Property, which was long considered a safe investment, still hasn't recovered. If large segments of the retiring age population are simultaneously victims of a down market and a bad economy, you have obvious problems.

Consider what would happen is only some people made bad investments or no investments at all. Inevitably there would be winners and losers. What happens when some people are past the point where they can work, but they don't have any money to retire on? Do those elderly simply linger and starve in the streets in a sort of anti-utopian society? Do the people who invested successfully help the losing investors financially? I would think that they would have to provide some sort of social safety net, as I don't think we are a ready for a Mad Max-type world. But even that's a probem. That is because if people knew matter how wildly and speculatively they invested, that society would still prop them up, they would be less inclined to be a prudent investor, since there would be a big potential upside, and minimal downside. Bernie Madoffish promises of high return on investment would be popular.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 10:59PM
People were free to invest on their own before SSI. What did most people do? Exactly what Sardo wants to do - spend that money NOW - who cares about "tomorrow"? (Yes - semantics, I know). The problem is tomorrow eventually comes and the money is gone - spent on Alex Jones conspiracy videos and tin foil for protective hats.

Sorry - couldn't resist. smoking smiley
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 11:00PM
The main reason Social Security was even instituted was because regular investing can be so volatile and is no guarantee of anything even for those with the resources to invest. Republicans think it would be a welcome trade-off to swap the guarantees of SS for being allowed to invest that money privately and have a chance at sums for retirement being there. Forget about the assured portion of the population who might fail at successful investing on their own or who might be swindled or otherwise be unlucky. Casualties of war I suppose. But that such a retirement system is guaranteed to fail a portion of the populace isn't important. The truly important thing to Republicans is that corporate industry be given yet another way of being blood-sucking middle men draining off profits from a helpless population.

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 22, 2012 11:44PM
Exactly. The irony here is Sardo believes he is somehow warning us when in reality he is buying into the very rhetoric of the very people he's trying to warn us about.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 23, 2012 01:03AM
So if armageddon hits - the money is worthless (of course - so is gold and everything else). But for the time being? I can take that "imaginary" $3.49 down to the market and get a REAL gallon of milk. There's your sticking point. You don't understand that we DO. We're all playing the money game - as long as everyone is playing - the game is on. If you want to hide in a fallout shelter with bars of gold - feel free, bro. Most of us would rather see the sun shine and be able to walk into a market, hand over some paper "money" and walk out with food to eat and milk to drink. That's the larger concept at work here. You act like you're telling us something we don't know. Everybody knows.

INDY - GOLD HASN'T BEEN WORTHLESS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. COUNTLESS PAPER MONIES HAVE GONE TO ZERO.

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE IS DOWN 96% SINCE IT'S CREATION. IT HASN'T HIT ZERO YET......MAYBE THEY CAN KEEP THE BALLS IN THE AIR FOR MANY MORE DECADES. OR MAYBE ANOTHER 96% DEVALUATION FROM HERE....angry smiley

GOLD/SILVER ARE MONEY, THEY CARRY THEIR VALUE WITH THEM. PAPER MONEY DOESN'T CARRY ITS VALUE. IT RELIES ON THE MANAGERS OF THE PAPER TO KEEP CONFIDENCE IN IT.

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 23, 2012 01:27AM
So carry gold and silver, TX. I already covered that point right here...

If you want to hide in a fallout shelter with bars of gold - feel free, bro. Most of us would rather see the sun shine and be able to walk into a market, hand over some paper "money" and walk out with food to eat and milk to drink.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 23, 2012 01:30AM
The idea that one would be so much better off if one did not have to pay for social programme membership, is facile and superficial. At best. An individual is legally responsible for providing the necessities of life for ageing parents (who would have no pensions in countless millions of cases). He would have to pay for private laneways to his home, for all those services without which life in a modern society would not be possible.

He would have to pay for the bodies of the indigent to be removed from his doorstep and for the lime for their burial pits (assuming that he remains fortunate and does not become one of the indigent).

Social programmes make things cheaper for every member of society. Education is a social programme and universal education gives an enhanced economic value to all.

To cover just a few points.

At the Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow gave a brilliant speech, but the cynical journalist H.L. Mencken told him "You may as well have shouted it up a waterspout in Outer Mongolia for all the effect it will have on your listeners ..

Ditto here.
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 23, 2012 02:28AM
Agreed. They actually stimulate the economy all in all, a picture is often painted as them being the sole drain of money within society. It's actually some of the most useful spending by the government, they just don't have enough on a Federal, State, or Local level to cover the "budget" since we are facilitating bailouts to private banks through private firms, not to mention the long wars, and all the expendatures that come with continued foreign occupations, on top of it all.


Wasn't Enron a ponzi scheme of sorts that bankrupted the State of California's energy grid, while privatizing the hell out of it? Dick Cheney toungue in cheek also demanded at the task force committe meeting on it while "investigating" to keep the "deregulation" of the market. No conflicts of interest I'm sure...


Social spending on the governments part is more cost effective than privatizing anything. The infrastructure of the nation being the prime example, it always cost the government signifigantly less to be directly involved, instead of relying on private, profit generating interested corporations, firms, or anything of the sort.

As you said...

"Social programmes make things cheaper for every member of society. Education is a social programme and universal education gives an enhanced economic value to all."

The more government infests into social programs intending to uplift the population of or dun dun dun "the general welfare" of the nation, it actually is a stimulant. Better it goes into such programs, than bailouts, wars, or some of the off the wall spending our government does in other areas.

Public Private Partnerships are proof of how economically unsound it is to completely de-regulate anything, or to all together take it out of the responsibility of the government.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2012 02:32AM by josephaiorio.
Anonymous User
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 23, 2012 03:44AM
Explaining Socialism To A Republican assumes that there is a commonly accepted and accurate understanding of what socialism is. Unfortunaltly this is not the case. In many political circles especially those of the right the term socialism is used as a pejorative and shibboleth. In the United States the term has been used incorrectly so often that it has ceased to have any meaning at all


Josephaiorio and others have made thoughtful post but TX ain’t one of them. For TX and the unreconstructed Right there is a quote and reference to George Orwell for their edification



A market economy* on which both private-sector firms and firms owned by government take part in economic activity. The proportions of public and private enterprise in the mix vary a great deal among countries. Since the 1980s, the public role in most mixed economies declined as gave way to privatization.
* (aka mixed capitalist society)


Capitalism is a free-market system built on private ownership, in particular, the idea that owners of capital have property rights that entitle them to earn a profit as a reward for putting their capital at risk in some form of economic activity

Socialism is the government ownership and control of the means of production. It is not to be confused with a market economy/mixed capitalist system



Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases -- bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.
( George Orwell- [www.mtholyoke.edu])
HHH
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 23, 2012 04:48AM
Gold advocates - Just how practical would it be to use gold as currency in the event the regular currency failed? Not very IMHO.

____________________________________________
A plague on both your houses. Bastards!
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 23, 2012 04:57AM
How many Krugerrands for a bag of rice...???

http://imgdump.novarata.net/image.php?di=WN26
HHH
Re: Explaining Socialism To A Republican
April 23, 2012 06:51AM
I think it can serve as a hedge as currency losing value but never as a replacement should currency lose all value. Better make other plans for an economic disaster like that.

____________________________________________
A plague on both your houses. Bastards!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum