Quantcast

Money and Democratic Ideals

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/09/06 14:37:18
Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
Money is the root of all evil, unless the government has it and spends it.
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos
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.)

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/09/06...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/09/06 14:41:05
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +11
    Just 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!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • J.L.Worley 2012/09/30 20:21:50
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    J.L.Worley
    +2
    Democrats are driving this country into hell.
  • sglmom 2012/09/10 04:11:59
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    sglmom
    +1
    What happens when there is nothing left to 'redistribute'?
    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?)
  • Beccy 2012/09/07 23:54:45
    None of the above
    Beccy
    I think that many Americans have a mistaken belief about how an economy should run.
  • Charles R. Anderson 2012/09/07 11:51:51
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    Charles R. Anderson
    +1
    How about Obama claiming we have inalienable rights, but we are supposed to voluntarily give them up because we have responsibilities. The Government is the law-maker that tells us what our responsibilities are and that we will give up the exercise of such of our rights as the democratically elected, maybe, tells us we must. Of course, those who do not recognize the same responsibility as the majority (or the special interest, more likely), will be deprived of their individual rights by the force of government. It is all very brutal for them, just as George Washington said it was. Of course, George thought government should be minimal so such brutality would be minimal. But, not our Democrat Socialist Party neighbors. They love a head bashing while proclaiming that they do it in the name of responsibility.
  • Emotive 2012/09/07 05:03:45
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    Emotive
  • Icono1 2012/09/07 00:16:29
    Money is the root of all evil, unless the government has it and spends it.
    Icono1
    +1
    Government redistribution of wealth is nothing more than legalized theft.

    http://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/...
  • Raymond Allamby 2012/09/06 21:01:01
    None of the above
    Raymond Allamby
    how about this, what part of, you haven't got a clue what socialism is, or how it works, don't you understand?
  • JackoClubs Raymond... 2012/09/06 22:28:38 (edited)
    JackoClubs
    +1
    I see this all the time. Folks like you always say things like this, but you never expound on it; you never tell us what we don't seem to know. Don't just tell us how ignorant we are, tell us how we are ignorant. Or can you?

    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?.
  • Raymond... JackoClubs 2012/09/06 23:16:15
    Raymond Allamby
    it's working fine in europe. until the banksters raped their economies, like they did ours, they were doing way better then we've been doing since reagan began our slide into oligarchy. you are confusing communism with socialism, and they are NOT the same thing.
  • JackoClubs Raymond... 2012/09/06 23:43:07
    JackoClubs
    +2
    No, they're not; Communism is Socialism with brute force added for good measure. It was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics for a reason.
    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.
  • Raymond... JackoClubs 2012/09/06 23:56:26
    Raymond Allamby
    they used the term socialism to make people believe they were doing something good. the nazi's were the national german socialist workers party. were they socialist? no. you can 't see beyond the lie you bought into years ago, so this conversation is at an end.
  • JackoClubs Raymond... 2012/09/07 09:38:45 (edited)
    JackoClubs
    +2
    Typical commie dupe.
    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 ...





    Typical commie dupe.
    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.
    (more)
  • Raymond... JackoClubs 2012/09/07 09:56:10
    Raymond Allamby
    +1
    bye bye, retardlican, your foxtarded view of the world holds no sway with me.
  • Icono1 JackoClubs 2012/09/07 00:19:50
  • JackoClubs Icono1 2012/09/09 16:28:07
    JackoClubs
    +3
    Heh....I win. Raymond blocked me. It must be great to be a liberal and just ignore the truth.
  • Icono1 JackoClubs 2012/09/09 19:42:04
    Icono1
    +2
    Ignorance is bliss.
  • MR. 2012/09/06 20:06:27
    None of the above
    MR.
    +2
    THERE CAN BE NO LIBERTY, UNLESS THERE IS ECONOMIC LIBERTY! (MARGARET THATCHER: GREAT BRITIAN'S PRIME MINISTER (1979'-1990')
  • Tortoise 2012/09/06 19:55:30
    None of the above
    Tortoise
    +1
    both parties suc
  • Dan der Mensch 2012/09/06 19:12:39
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    Dan der Mensch
    +3
    It's what gets them re-elected and sadly they know it. The people electing them, on the other hand, are very capable at extending their hands and rationalizing theft all day long. They sleep well at night evidently. Eventually it will come to blows I think.
  • morris44 2012/09/06 18:45:46
    None of the above
    morris44
    +1
    Read the link. Here's my take on it.

    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.
  • toni 2012/09/06 18:35:35
    None of the above
    toni
    +2
    This country has never had laizze faire capitalism. We have had plenty of government interference on the side of big business.
  • goatman112003 2012/09/06 18:24:25
    None of the above
    goatman112003
    +2
    The problem is more than government ownership such as GM or regulation as an utility company but the blatant attempt to ration what you have. The average worker today lives in a world of taxation equal to what the Jews had in the time of Christ under the Romans. He actually lives on 1/3 of what he makes , The rest goes in taxes, directly seen and the rest indirectly. Where does the money go, to the clueless and rarely to the unable. Now the Dems are on a cause of saving the world at our expense of course. Of course for this privilege of saving the world we on the whole become poorer but the Elite for thinking up this scheme extort their pound of flesh.
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/09/06 18:03:23 (edited)
    None of the above
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    What part of "socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole" don't YOU understand?

    Collectivization is the foundation of socialism. No collective ownership of the means of production means NO SOCIALISM! Capisce?
  • Temlako... Kaleoku... 2012/09/06 18:07:05
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +2
    No. Non-"capisce."

    Capitalism = Leave me alone. Totally.

    Communism = Government, tell me what to do, when to breathe; government owns it all.

    Socialism = everything in-between.
  • Kaleoku... Temlako... 2012/09/06 18:17:17 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    +2
    Sorry, but you cannot make up your own definitions. Any economy that leaves business "alone totally" is anarchy! No air traffic control? No protection from quack medicine? No food standards? That's just the TIP of the regulatory spear protecting Americans!

    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...











    Sorry, but you cannot make up your own definitions. Any economy that leaves business "alone totally" is anarchy! No air traffic control? No protection from quack medicine? No food standards? That's just the TIP of the regulatory spear protecting Americans!

    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.
    (more)
  • morris44 Kaleoku... 2012/09/06 18:54:26
    morris44
    +4
    Great response.

    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.
  • ComeOnNow 2012/09/06 17:55:14
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    ComeOnNow
    +3
    The democrats entire platform has become that democrats deserve free stuff stolen from their neighbors, the republicans are big meanies for not letting them steal enough to give them enough hand outs, if we can just tax the rich higher an give the democrats more hand outs, it will solve everything, so vote democrat.
  • Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩ 2012/09/06 17:47:40
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩
  • sbtbill Philo® ... 2012/09/06 18:38:07
    sbtbill
    That's social welfare not socialism
  • Temlako... sbtbill 2012/09/06 21:17:36
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    And is that any more moral?

    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.
  • Philo® ... sbtbill 2012/09/06 21:19:05
    Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩
    +2
    A distinction without a difference.
    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.
  • texasred 2012/09/06 17:42:53
    Democrats grew up spending other people's money. That's all they know.
    texasred
    +4
    It's so darn easy to be charitable when it's not your own money. Look at Joe Biden. The perfect example. That's why the majority of Conservatives are truly charitable. They give of themselves and their own money.... even when times are tough.
  • Philo® ... texasred 2012/09/06 17:49:03
  • texasred Philo® ... 2012/09/06 19:24:03
    texasred
    +2
    That is exactly the truth of the matter.
  • Louisa - Enemy of the State 2012/09/06 17:26:12
    None of the above
    Louisa - Enemy of the State
    +4
    First off....democrats and ideals is an oxymoron. {An oxymoron is a figure of speech in which incongruous or contradictory terms appear side by side.}

    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.
  • sbtbill 2012/09/06 16:59:11
    None of the above
    sbtbill
    You are confusing social welfare and socialism.

    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.
  • RJ~PWCM... sbtbill 2012/09/06 17:26:06
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +6
    "This redistribution portion is a moral responsibility "

    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.)
  • Louisa ... RJ~PWCM... 2012/09/06 17:31:15
    Louisa - Enemy of the State
    +6
    Great comment! How would you legislate 'morality' and how do you enforce it!! ; }
  • RJ~PWCM... Louisa ... 2012/09/06 18:10:07
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    Thanks :)

    Yes, exactly. How, and **whose**?
  • sbtbill RJ~PWCM... 2012/09/06 17:36:42
    sbtbill
    +1
    We obviously interpret the general welfare clause differently. Not an uncommon event been going on since 1788 before the constitution was ratified.

    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.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/18 23:54:59

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals