Money and Democratic Ideals
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/09/06 14:37:18
|
|
|||||
|
40 votes
|
|
57% | ||
|
7 votes
|
|
10% | ||
|
23 votes
|
|
33% | ||
What part of "socialism is great until you run out of other people's money" don't the Democrats understand?
And how can it be moral to borrow (or steal) from strangers to get what you want, instead of getting help from family?
That's what the Democrats actually said on Tuesday night, when they weren't taking God and Jerusalem out of the platform. (Only to put it back in, in the clumsiest fashion I have ever seen. But that's another topic for another poll.)
And how can it be moral to borrow (or steal) from strangers to get what you want, instead of getting help from family?
That's what the Democrats actually said on Tuesday night, when they weren't taking God and Jerusalem out of the platform. (Only to put it back in, in the clumsiest fashion I have ever seen. But that's another topic for another poll.)
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/06...
Top Opinion
-
Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
+11Just listen to the speeches those Democrats made on Tuesday night. "Thank God for food stamps, Pell grants, etc.!" (This as they took God out of their platform before they tried to slip Him back in.) They've spent their lives sponging off the taxpayer, not merely in holding public office but in being clients of social programs! No wonder they want those programs to continue!
That is a question I've asked to many who just live on hand-outs and won't get off their rears to help themselves ..
I've never gotten an answer .. to this basic question ..
when there's no food int he store .. because all the producers are GONE .. what happens?
Will the consumers be able to figure out .. or last long enough .. to gather or produce themselves (WithOUT any skills?)
http://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/...
The problem is, that the socialism you're talking about--textboook theory--is not the same one that gets implemented in the real world, which doesn't work in practice for a variety of reasons, mostly dealing with human nature and frailties.
Don't you understand?.
The "banksters" are a convenient boogeyman for class envious Commie dupes, but the plain fact is, that there isn't enough money to pay for everything for everyone, forever. That's why Europe is imploding; 60 years of Socialism. That, and the fact that they stupidly combined their economies, essentially putting the burden on them all, at the same time.
Yes, they were Socialist, to a point. They had nationalized healthcare and education (apparently a carryover from the Bismarck days of the previous century), and the government was highly-centralized. Socialism.
You're not getting that the textbook definition of "socialism"--which admittedly, sounds great, on paper--is never, and never has been, everywhere it's been tried, what results in the real world.
Socialist Europe's economies are collapsing in real time--I mean, there it is, right there--and still you deny what you see, and want that here.
We already have it here, really; socialist programs Medicare and Medicaid are already bankrupt. I mean, many doctors are refusing new Medicare/Medicaid patients, simply because they're not getting paid for their services, and you want the government to take it all over.
And oh, yeah; Obama has already taken nearly a trillion bucks from Medicare and slid it on over to Medicaid, to make Obamacare look solvent, and screwing the seniors. But that's okay, because
"sometimes grandma just has to take a pain pill."--Barack Obama
Social Security is a ponzi scheme, directly supported by money taken from taxing the people working today to support the retirees' benefits, and soon, thanks the the fact that the Baby Boomers will ...
Yes, they were Socialist, to a point. They had nationalized healthcare and education (apparently a carryover from the Bismarck days of the previous century), and the government was highly-centralized. Socialism.
You're not getting that the textbook definition of "socialism"--which admittedly, sounds great, on paper--is never, and never has been, everywhere it's been tried, what results in the real world.
Socialist Europe's economies are collapsing in real time--I mean, there it is, right there--and still you deny what you see, and want that here.
We already have it here, really; socialist programs Medicare and Medicaid are already bankrupt. I mean, many doctors are refusing new Medicare/Medicaid patients, simply because they're not getting paid for their services, and you want the government to take it all over.
And oh, yeah; Obama has already taken nearly a trillion bucks from Medicare and slid it on over to Medicaid, to make Obamacare look solvent, and screwing the seniors. But that's okay, because
"sometimes grandma just has to take a pain pill."--Barack Obama
Social Security is a ponzi scheme, directly supported by money taken from taxing the people working today to support the retirees' benefits, and soon, thanks the the fact that the Baby Boomers will be retiring en masse here in a couple years, and that burden won't end for almost 20 years (the Baby Boom lasted from 1946-1964) soon, there won't be enough workers paying into the scheme. The whole house of cards is going to collapse.
It's that Human Nature thing I mentioned; SS was a great idea, but it was also a great big pot o' money, right there, for the (Democrat) politicians to raid; and so, unable to resist, they did.
And the thing about healthcare is, when prices are set by the government and access to treatments is governed by a faceless, pencil-pushing, bean-counting bureaucrat rather than a doctor, the quality of healthcare suffers. It's that "grandma/pain pill" mindset thing.
Why do you think people from other countries come here for their medical problems, if they can? Because, though its expensive, it's still the best quality healthcare in the entire world.
There get to be fewer doctors, too, mainly because nobody wants to get involved in the red tape; this results in longer waits for treatment, and just plain overwork. And let's face it; human nature plays in here, too. One of the big incentives for becoming a doctor, putting up with all the crap, is often the pay. That changes, with Socialized medicine.
The last two years have already seen a wave of older doctors retiring early, to get out before Obamacare fully hits.
Socialism is a stifling, soul-sucking, freedom-crushing deal with the devil, nothing more, nothing less.
Editorial chides Castro for suggesting Romney was out of touch for telling college students to get a loan from their parents to start a business. Editorial argues that this is better than loans from strangers. Writer of the editorial obviously does not understand the point Castro was making. Castro was saying Romney is out of touch because most parents don't have any money to lend. As a parent now and a former student, I concur. I have no money to lend my kids and neither did my father when I was a kid.
The editorial asks, "Is it fair to borrow money from strangers?" Yes it is. And their is an entire industry that thrives based on this priciple - Banks.
The editorial goes on to compare this type of loan to stealing. Obviously the writer does not understand loans, as they are paid back, with interest. Imagine a pick pocket paying you back.
Very poor article to support any argument. Except maybe that the writer may be better off reading more and writing less.
Collectivization is the foundation of socialism. No collective ownership of the means of production means NO SOCIALISM! Capisce?
Capitalism = Leave me alone. Totally.
Communism = Government, tell me what to do, when to breathe; government owns it all.
Socialism = everything in-between.
MIXED ECONOMIES: Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are Marxist socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which means economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes.
Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.
ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS: Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every succe...
MIXED ECONOMIES: Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are Marxist socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which means economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes.
Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.
ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS: Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ayn Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.
Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.
ARE MIXED ECONOMIES "SOCIALIST"? The bottom line is simple. If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be "socialism," then the United States and ALL other economies are "socialist." The debate is over, because by that definition we have been "socialist" since the 18th century. If you only consider complete collectivism to be "socialism," according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually "socialist." The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea. If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.
To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government ownership or regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any ownership/regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The "trigger point" explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are both appropriate and common standards.
MARXIST SOCIALISM: Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production and distribution. That is the death of private enterprise. We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.
"Direction" is one thing. "Goal" is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In most Marxist states, however, capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.
SPECIOUS SPECULATION: I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.
My new definitions:
1. Algebra: An evil form of magic that only the best of sorcerers can master
2. Confusion: A state caused by reading too many things on sodahead.
Social welfare is a subset of socialism.
Socialism is an attitude, a teaching that the government may, indeed must, take from some for the unearned, unpaid benefit of others.
Somebody's using my money in a way that i do not control, and I don't have a choice about whether they use it or not, feels pretty much like socialism to me. You call it what you want to sleep better at night, it's still stealing.
And secondly, I believe that Democrats think that the government has money, all by itself. They have no idea where that money comes from but it it's there, they want it.
And most importantly, they don't understand how they are diminishing the human spirit in terms of gratification for providing for themselves. We have seen, and we have proof that welfare has become a 'right' for a segment of society who grew up on welfare and now use it as their means of income. Lazy people.
Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Not necessarily all but some. The products produced are then sold hopefully at a small profit. It is basically the concept that the government works as a business. In the US the best example of this are the public utilities. If we hold on to the GM stock forever, which I think we should it would be another example.
Social welfare is the concept of redistributing money from one person to another. In the ancient world this was normally done by the church since most states were semi-thocracies. Thus the concept of render on to Caesar. Then it was called a tithe now it is called a tax. Some churches like the Mormons and Catholics still practice this. In the US the government supports these welfare programs by allowing the donations to be deducted.
A key point is that taxes should always be a percentage. They should never take 100% The US tax rate of 35% plus 14.5% for FICA meets this goal, even in a state like California which adds 9%. This is particularly true because higher income folks have the 14.5% drop off at about $106,000.
This redistribution portion is a moral responsibility we all have doing it through the tax system and welfare meets that responsibility. It is a good, correct and useful function of government.
Hmmm, that raises a couple of questions:
1) What other "moral responsibilities" are the correct function of government?
2) Whose definition of "morality" do you use in deciding that?
3) Which actual clause of the Constitution empowers the government to enforce "moral responsibilities"?
(It's not the "general welfare" clause, because there is nothing **general** about taking money from some **specific** people and giving it to other **specific** people.)
Yes, exactly. How, and **whose**?
There is also the 10th amendment which grants all power to the people. So of course the people can have the government do anything they want.
You make a good point in whose definition of morality should be used. Within the rules allowed by the Supreme Court I will answer the majorities for 1 and 2.
When an individual or church disagrees they can take up the slack. That deduction should continue to be allowed.