On The Road To Socialism? We've Arrived!

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Heres an interesting quote from someone else that is prhaps thought provoking?

Can Democracy Last?

?A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.?

Alexander Tyler, Unknown

Assuming you agree with that sentiment, how do you explain Thatcher, and other right wing reformers? After a certain point people will take the hard road willingly because they can't accept the next generation enduring continued economic stagnation.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel49
Heres an interesting quote from someone else that is prhaps thought provoking?

Can Democracy Last?

?A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.?

Alexander Tyler, Unknown

Assuming you agree with that sentiment, how do you explain Thatcher, and other right wing reformers? After a certain point people will take the hard road willingly because they can't accept the next generation enduring continued economic stagnation.

Thatcher was the best thing that could have happened at the time too, we need a new Maggie because the current (UK) government is sheit. Brown is the choice of no one.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Thatcher was the best thing that could have happened at the time too, we need a new Maggie because the current (UK) government is sheit. Brown is the choice of no one.

Thatcher was terrible, and was properly on the way out until the gift of the Falkland war. She was the counterpart shill of the rich to Reagan, enabling bad policies.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel49
Heres an interesting quote from someone else that is prhaps thought provoking?

Can Democracy Last?

?A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.?

Alexander Tyler, Unknown

Assuming you agree with that sentiment, how do you explain Thatcher, and other right wing reformers? After a certain point people will take the hard road willingly because they can't accept the next generation enduring continued economic stagnation.

Do I agree with it? Not fully. Although I see some disturbing parallels at the moment.
I guess I see it more as an admonition and something to provoke thought about what we really want/need.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Thatcher was the best thing that could have happened at the time too, we need a new Maggie because the current (UK) government is sheit. Brown is the choice of no one.

I agree she did what was needed. Wouldn't have thought I'd hear that from JohnOfSheffield though; my dad is from sheffield and he'd clobber me with his walking stick if I told him I agreed with one single word she said

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Someone should try explaining the concept of the mixed economy, and then watch peoples head explode like a watermelon full of C4. The Military is our biggest socialist project.

Please explain to us how the ~$800 billion we're going to spend on the stimulus is vast government interference in our hitherto virginal market, and the $600 billion we spend on "defense," every year, is not.

It is a mixed economy, just like all industrial economies, even the so-called Communist ones. Your pure Capitalist' Paradise has never existed, and never will, except as propaganda to cover massive corruption.

Now: how, then, do we properly mix this economy? Some may favor market solutions, some may favor government intervention, and that's fine. But let's not pretend the economy is something it's not. As far as most todays Republican's are concerned anything that benefit's the population of a country is socialism. They are only interested in the military industrial complex. Reagan wasted billions on his fanciful 'Star Wars' project that never worked and so did both Bush's. As far as they are concerned the government should never give back to the populace that has always paid it's taxes. 'Socialism' is their newest buzz word and you can bet they will drive it in the ground before it's over.

So, nationalize the banks and the next thing that happens is you're locked out of your church and you have to apply to the government for a license to have a kid, which they will deny you because you're a Christian. Increase unemployment benefits and you're tempting the crowds of drunks on the streets who refuse to work. Cover health care and no one will be God-fearing any more.

Socialism, as used by the right, is a sloppy mass of: Soviet Russia, where religion was outlawed; Soviet China, which hates babies; Soviet Cuba which stole private land and companies; and liberal Europe which has high taxes, is irreligious, and hates babies. This is vaguely defined by Francis Shaffer. It's worth noting that conflating "socialism" and "government spending" is intellectually bankrupt, but conflating "Social Democracy" and any of those is bizarre. I'm sure that the nations with Social Democrat parties would be amazed to find out that they're crypto-Communist.

If they can't smear you for being 'foreign' or 'gay' or 'atheist' or 'intellectual' or being on welfare or being in a union - there is always red-baiting. Welcome to America!

Red-baiting in the Republican Party, which shoveled Keynesian 'Kommie' Kash into military spending for years. Just don't call it that. Red-baiting (and anarchist-baiting) worked during the 8 hour day movement in the 1880s, worked strongly in the teens and the 20s during the Bolshevik revolution, a bit in the 30s, then roared back in the 50s due to revolution in China and events in Eastern Europe, still utilized in the 60s and early 70s, weakened a bit then, then became solid foreign policy under Reagan for many years. In other words, our experience with red-baiting is over a 130 years long. And yet, they still don't know what a 'red' is, nor do they care. Which is the point.

It's too bad that quality posts like this tend to end debates on here rather than further them... or maybe that's a good thing.

Because it's crap?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Thatcher was the best thing that could have happened at the time too, we need a new Maggie because the current (UK) government is sheit. Brown is the choice of no one.

Thatcher was terrible, and was properly on the way out until the gift of the Falkland war. She was the counterpart shill of the rich to Reagan, enabling bad policies.

I'd watch my tounge if i were you, especially concerning the Falkland war.

I don't expect you to understand anything at all, in fact, i've come to the conclusion that you just don't.

Don't discuss this issue ever again with me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Thatcher was the best thing that could have happened at the time too, we need a new Maggie because the current (UK) government is sheit. Brown is the choice of no one.

I agree she did what was needed. Wouldn't have thought I'd hear that from JohnOfSheffield though; my dad is from sheffield and he'd clobber me with his walking stick if I told him I agreed with one single word she said

She did fix a lot of things that were beneficial for England while pretty much all of the world had problems we avoided.

Blair had to go but did we have to get BROWN? We seriously need a change or we'll end up in the same position that most of the EU and the US is in right now.

Personally, i'm a Captain in the military so i'm pretty secure in the job situation, but i have two children who are soon to graduate and if Brown keeps up these policies i'm afraid they will live at home until all three of us are greyhaired.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wouldnt say hardcore socialist but we are fast approaching European style socialism. We couldnt even make it into the EU if we applied with our appalling double digit deficit spending.

The sad part is that none of you seem to understand that the protectionism you're all advocating IS in fact socialism.

Socialism has to do with the governments influence on the free market and i doubt there is any nation in the EU that is as socialist as the US has become except maybe for France which is following your lead.

I havent advocated any protectionist policies and I agree with you on the last part. We are devling into territory we havent seen in a long time if ever in this country.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wouldnt say hardcore socialist but we are fast approaching European style socialism. We couldnt even make it into the EU if we applied with our appalling double digit deficit spending.

actually, some parts of the government are quite hardcore socialist.

they LOVE big government spending programs.

the Pentagon, for instance.

just don't call it socialism - it's bad for your career.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wouldnt say hardcore socialist but we are fast approaching European style socialism. We couldnt even make it into the EU if we applied with our appalling double digit deficit spending.

actually, some parts of the government are quite hardcore socialist.

they LOVE big government spending programs.

the Pentagon, for instance.

just don't call it socialism - it's bad for your career.

Defense is a legitimate function of govt. Also I dont view it as socialism because what production does the pentagon control witihn the armed forces? Most if not all actual production for the armed forces is conducted via private industry. At worst it could be considered a fascist model.

It is a state function that has to be controlled by the state. Just because it is state controlled doesnt make it socialist.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Sure because the military doesnt buy anything expensive ever.

Good one mate.

Trying to fix what the free market messed up is hardly socialism.

S&M

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
Trying to fix what the free market messed up is hardly socialism.

I'm pretty sure it is...

Maybe you just need to stop thinking of socialism as a dirty word?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: daniel49
socialism.

Well we are taken a few steps in that direction.
Here is one of the more publicizes stories about the home mortgage bailouts.
The schoolbus driver who is in danger of loosing her 800,000 Home.
Me thinks the last time I was out shopping for a house, I didn;t even look in the 800K range, because I knew I could not afford it.
So why should I finance her lack of common sence?
link to cnn video

The woman is a bus driver, and her husband is a construction worker, and they buy an $800,000 house? Here's the solution - kick her out of the house and make the mortgage broker who gave her the loan, pay off the principle. They both need to be punished.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
Sure because the military doesnt buy anything expensive ever.

Good one mate.

Trying to fix what the free market messed up is hardly socialism.

S&M

The explosive housing market was not a free market. It was pushed by an overzealous government trying to convince everyone they should buy a home.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
Sure because the military doesnt buy anything expensive ever.

Good one mate.

Trying to fix what the free market messed up is hardly socialism.

S&M

The explosive housing market was not a free market. It was pushed by an overzealous government trying to convince everyone they should buy a home.

An explanation a lot closer to the truth would be that they got a nongovernmental subprime mortgage which the lender pushed at the behest of a Wall Street firm that collateralized the mortgage as part of an allegedly AAA bond, all protected by unregulated CDS's-again a creation of Wall Street gurus and totally unregulated. But that explanation doesn't have the good ole' small government mantra, does it?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
Sure because the military doesnt buy anything expensive ever.

Good one mate.

Trying to fix what the free market messed up is hardly socialism.

S&M

The explosive housing market was not a free market. It was pushed by an overzealous government trying to convince everyone they should buy a home.

An explanation a lot closer to the truth would be that they got a nongovernmental subprime mortgage which the lender pushed at the behest of a Wall Street firm that collateralized the mortgage as part of an allegedly AAA bond, all protected by unregulated CDS's-again a creation of Wall Street gurus and totally unregulated. But that explanation doesn't have the good ole' small government mantra, does it?

So the Federal Reserve practically giving away money after 9/11 in order to "stimulate" the economy was a part of the free market?

And Fannie and Freddie being multi-trillion dollar parts of the subprime game of hot potato has nothing to do with the government either?

What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel
Sure because the military doesnt buy anything expensive ever.

Good one mate.

Trying to fix what the free market messed up is hardly socialism.

S&M

The explosive housing market was not a free market. It was pushed by an overzealous government trying to convince everyone they should buy a home.

An explanation a lot closer to the truth would be that they got a nongovernmental subprime mortgage which the lender pushed at the behest of a Wall Street firm that collateralized the mortgage as part of an allegedly AAA bond, all protected by unregulated CDS's-again a creation of Wall Street gurus and totally unregulated. But that explanation doesn't have the good ole' small government mantra, does it?

So the Federal Reserve practically giving away money after 9/11 in order to "stimulate" the economy was a part of the free market?

And Fannie and Freddie being multi-trillion dollar parts of the subprime game of hot potato has nothing to do with the government either?

What color is the sky on your planet?

The US government did not create credit derivatives, you know the 58 trillion dollars worth. that is sinking the world wide banking system.

S&M

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Now: how, then, do we properly mix this economy?

We do it with the political process, that goes back and forth across that perfect middle ground balance in a process that is called elections, where the winner is generally the guy that raises the most capital, thus always favoring capitalism. Once in a while it doesn't work out, when the guy buying your vote lies his ass off to get your vote. Once in a while the political balance is shifted outside the bounds of capitalism by a gimmick, like when a political party gains executive power simply based on the potus candidates skin color.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: wwswimming

Originally posted by: Genx87
I wouldnt say hardcore socialist but we are fast approaching European style socialism. We couldnt even make it into the EU if we applied with our appalling double digit deficit spending.

actually, some parts of the government are quite hardcore socialist.

they LOVE big government spending programs.

the Pentagon, for instance.

just don't call it socialism - it's bad for your career.

Defense is a legitimate function of govt. Also I dont view it as socialism because what production does the pentagon control witihn the armed forces? Most if not all actual production for the armed forces is conducted via private industry. At worst it could be considered a fascist model.

It is a state function that has to be controlled by the state. Just because it is state controlled doesnt make it socialist.

I don't understand the logic on these forums. I see all the time that Conservatives claim that redistributing wealth in Socialist. The redistribution under Obama is basically letting the Bush cuts expire and giving income tax credits to the working class (people get tax breaks on earned income, it's not welfare). This is basically taking slightly more from the wealthy and giving slightly more to the working poor. Many people here call that Socialism. When the government taxes people to pay infantry who are predominantly high school educated workers, we call that a legitimate function of government. I don't understand. What's the difference between taxing someone to give the working poor tax credits and taxing someone to give the oft less-educated working grunts a paycheck? Why is one Socialism and the other not? People have to work in either case.

I further don't understand why defense has to be controlled by the state. Does Blackwater not dispute this? Is it not possible for the government to pay private contractors for wars won? If so, why isn't this massive state war machine a Socialist concept? Couldn't the private sector do it more efficiently?

I guess I'm not understanding: why the double standard? I've rarely seen a Conservative on these boards claim the government can do something better than the private sector, why shouldn't this apply to fighting wars? There are obviously companies out there willing to do it. Wouldn't that make this industry one that is needlessly government owned? And if we really define Socialism as taxing the rich and giving tax credits to the poor, why is taking money from the rich and directly employing the poor not also Socialism? Does the difference lie merely between the distinction of credit and direct employment? If so, would Conservatives on this board feel better if the poor who are receiving tax credits were directly employed by the government in some sort of labor army?

 

[cwjerome]

Every couple years I hear how the military is socialism. I'm not even sure what that means...

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Every couple years I hear how the military is socialism. I'm not even sure what that means...

Then you're like most people on this board.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Every couple years I hear how the military is socialism. I'm not even sure what that means...

Then you're like most people on this board.

One of life's big mysteries I suppose... I guess we'll never find out

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Every couple years I hear how the military is socialism. I'm not even sure what that means...

Then you're like most people on this board.

One of life's big mysteries I suppose... I guess we'll never find out

Well, you may be confused at what Socialism is, it regardless of what Rush says is NOT high taxes/dictatorships/some fantasy robin hood wealth redistribution
What the military DOES supply to it's "workers" is a total welfare state:
1. Free Healthcare
2. Free Housing
3. Free Food (or subsidized in mess halls)
4. Free Transportation on base
5. Free training
6. Govt. picks your job -but you are ALWAYS employed

Need any more examples?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Every couple years I hear how the military is socialism. I'm not even sure what that means...

Then you're like most people on this board.

One of life's big mysteries I suppose... I guess we'll never find out

Well, you may be confused at what Socialism is, it regardless of what Rush says is NOT high taxes/dictatorships/some fantasy robin hood wealth redistribution
What the military DOES supply to it's "workers" is a total welfare state:
1. Free Healthcare
2. Free Housing
3. Free Food (or subsidized in mess halls)
4. Free Transportation on base
5. Free training
6. Govt. picks your job -but you are ALWAYS employed

Need any more examples?

I've long thought about how the military is the opposite in so many ways of American principles for the way of life we want for citizens:

It's a massive government program paid for by taxes. The people who enlist are put under a strict authoritarian regime. They are subjected to invasive conditioning to make them reliably obedient to the military authority. They are put into government housing (low quality) where the government wants them, they wear government uniforms, they eat what the government feeds them, they listen in many cases to what the government wants them to hear for 'entertainment', they are forced to risk their lives and be away from friends and family, they can be ordered to kill people whether they agree or not, i.e., to murder in some cases, among other things that 'free Americans' would find horrible.

The justification has always been that it's needed to make the sacrifices to protect the country, but that's been a hollow 'cover story' for a very long time given the nature of wars we've been in for a long time (see Gen. Smedly Butler's book 'War is a Racket' for examples nearly a century back). Recently the justification has included that it's a 'volunteer military', suggesting that removes any issue with the situation.

It's pretty ironic to have the least free 'fighitng for the freedom' (supposedly) of the rest.

And yes, while not exactly socialist - socialism is a lot more positive - it is largely one huge socialist activity.

I sure recommend to people not to join unless and untl there's actually a clear and present danger creating a need.

Of course I recognize it's a lot more, too - a huge business among other things, with plenty of 'opportunity' for gain.