jump to last post 1-32 of 32 discussions (466 posts)

Socialism, oh my!

  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6903240_f248.jpg


    Love this!

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't forget unemployment and food stamps.

      1. Shadesbreath profile image90
        Shadesbreathposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ... and welfare income based on the number of children you can crank out.

        While that cartoon has a point, it is one of those (like most) political statements that relies on a half truth, ignoring the other half.

        Every time I come into the politics forums I just think that the great rhetoricians of the past must watch us debate the health of the U.S. and cry a little at the opportunity we still have--it's not dead yet--but that we squander with an increasing dedication to "winning" through wit and popularity rather than genuine problem solving.

        1. Cagsil profile image75
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +1

        2. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In the forums I'll happily go with wit and winning!
          The only problems I ever see solved here is sometimes a hubber will lose it and get banned.
          smile

          1. undermyhat profile image61
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think it is interesting that you find that witty.  I think it is rather dull witted and obvious.  Two characteristics of things that are not funny.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I think it's interesting that you chose to respond. Do you have antennae that immediately pick up the words socialist and winning. By the way,  witty and winning do not necessarily have the same definition. But you knew that, right?

        3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          MIGHTY MOM DOES IT AGAIN! One itsy bitsy funny thing and everyone goes crazy.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            smile smile smile

        4. Hendrika profile image72
          Hendrikaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The welfare on how much children you can crank our is very relevant in South Africa where I live. Very often that is all entire families have to survive on!

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      big_smile

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And that makes you smile? That for some, the only way to survive is to have children and claim benefits?

    3. undermyhat profile image61
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The first public schools, that is schools open to the public, were established by the Catholic Bishop of Baltimore.  "WALL OF SEPARATION, OH MAY"

      The first hospitals for the public were established by private charities.  "PRIVATE CHARITY HOSPITALS, OH MY"  (private charity hospitals are subjected to a tax under Obamacare)

      A a single payer health care system meets the definition of socialist medicine just as Social Security is a socialist program.  It takes something from everyone who works and doles it out more or less equally - how is that not socialist?

      Shouldn't people be caustious about socialism?  It worked so well for the USSR and it appears it is about to work as well for China.

      1. twosheds1 profile image61
        twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Neither the USSR nor China are socialist countries. Yes, I am aware that the second "S" in USSR stands for "socialist" but China's official name is the "People's Republic of China." Is it a republic? They are/were communist. There is a big difference between communism and socialism.

        Another error: The first public school in the Americas was Boston Latin School, which opened in 1635.

        Most countries in the world have health care as a right guarenteed in their constitutions.

        1. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you would prefer a constitution that tells you what your rights are as opposed to one that tells the government what its limitations are.  You see, the American Constitution was to make the power of government definite and finite.  It has since become indefinite and infinite.  This cannot happen and retain the natural rights of the individual - which are, by their nature, indefinite and infinite.  It requires a tyrannical state to enumerate the rights of the people.

          A constitution that tells you what your rights are tells you that you are not free.

          1. Insanity Inc profile image60
            Insanity Incposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @undermyhat:  I can't help but be encouraged by your reply.  If you read our Constitution, it specifies that we have certain GOD GIVEN rights...not Big Brother's opinion on what you rights are/should be.  For example: the right to free speech, as in GOD gave you the brain that thinks, and the mouth to express that thinking.  As we are doing now!!!

            1. Niteriter profile image78
              Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this


              Now and then I hear my American neighbours quoting their Constitution as saying their rights are "God given".  A question that occurs to me at such time is, if your rights are already given by God, who presumably is the the eternally existent God that rules the heavens and the earth, why is it necessary to point out that they are also in a document that was written a couple hundred years ago by a group of mortals?

              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hey are you trying to be logical and rational?  How dare you!

                https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/562869_454653697902386_1344805653_n.jpg

                1. Niteriter profile image78
                  Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL! My sincere apologies; I lost control for a minute there!

              2. Brother Shannon profile image60
                Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                niteriter: You miss the point of GOD GIVEN and it is expressed in the Constitution for a few reasons,
                1:The king of England believed our rights came from HIM, not God,  He was wrong.
                2: People like yourself have to be reminded regularly that our rights are natural and given by God, so when someone takes liberties with our rights we feel a lose of power within ourselves.
                3:The only way to keep people free and free thinking is to occasionally remind them of the freedom they  possess, We do need reminding that WE hold power through choice and action, those are not given by any government but is something we are born with, hence God given.  We need only exercise it to feel the freedom of choice and the power of controlling our own destiny.
                4: God granted us the brains to know not everyone has our best interests in heart, so he gave us the ability to make and use tools, not just to make great things but to make weapons to defend ourselves from greedy usurpers and those who would make slaves of those that are weaker or dumber.  Now granted some people have, throughout history, done their best to impose their opinion on others and eventually the oppression is overturned, not once in history, but again and again. This I think is due to that tickle of liberty that God has given us to be free and responsible for our actions and lives.

                1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Your "God" is just another concept (like democracy) thought up by a Bronze Age civilization. Ironically you don't have the "freedom" of mind to understand that fact. You know a bit of history but,  evidently, not enough.

                  1. undermyhat profile image61
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So the Declaration of Independence was written in the Bronze Age?

                  2. Brother Shannon profile image60
                    Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wizard, I see that you have no desire to debate but to play troll and snipe at those more informed and quite possibly smarter than yourself. Insults do not make for a comment worth any response but you I see need to be put in your place as a person who wishes to demean and discourage any kind of descent.  Please when commenting about anything I say actually place your ignorance in the background and keep your elite lack of education to yourself.  Progressives like you, and I know you are one, I have been reading your blathering for a while, are looking for nothing more than a moment to measure your penile fortitude against those who have no desire to play that game.  I expect you to respond in some infantile way as that is your MO or better yet as I have proven myself so easily your better you remain silent.

                2. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually the king of England thought he was the preordained ruler by god (The divine right to rule) and thus his word was the delivered word of god, a definition some disagreed with sure but he still believed the rights were god given.

                3. Niteriter profile image78
                  Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Brother Shannon, you are a prize.

                  "People like yourself..."? What kind of people are you talking about?

                  "not given by any government..." That's what I said. Oh wait, maybe your enjoy the the little sticks the corporations use to prod you into the life they want you to live.

                  And the question remains: If you know your rights are given by God, why do you need to bring up the words of a few rich mortals from a couple hundred years ago?

                  1. Brother Shannon profile image60
                    Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Much like sacrament, which is a reminder of your agreements made with God. The Constitution is a document affirming our rights from God and of what the government CANNOT DO!!. The only reason some of our rights are spelled out is that they are addressed as counterpoints to what the King was trying to infringe upon ( which he was doing at the behest of a corporation mind you).  Things like due process, freedom of speech, and freedom OF religion, ( not freedom FROM religion) not to mention the the ability to defend ones self, are GOD GIVEN, and in this country it is recognized as such and the Constitution is an affirmation of that, as well as a rulebook of what our government cannot do, like infringe ( or take away) our God given rights.  If the government gave it to you they can take it way, like a drivers license.
                    In this video a man playing a bum says it best and I cannot say it better so I simply ask that you watch it.  It pretty much sums up and defeats any counter you have in reference to " rich mortals" writing the Constitution. Also remember that those same mortal men, as many do today, defended even your freedom 200 plus years in the past, so you can today say what you say:   

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImTi03FPBr8

                    I stated "people like yourself " because, if you and people like you, have to ask the questions like that you obviously don't know history or the reason why this country was founded.  The question speaks for its self.

                    Try listening to a guy named Mike Church on Sirius, He's all about explaining the constitution and how today's government is breaking it regularly. It's just a hunch but I am confident you won't even make it through the video, if you do, I am happy to be wrong...

                    The reason we speak of those who came before is that they spoke with a passion and an understanding of what it is like to NOT have these rights respected, and much like looking to the Bible for guidance today, what those mortal men said so many years ago still are, in a spooky way,  relevant.  200 plus years ago the actions of our government (today) were predicted by Patric Henry and others, that is why the limits exist in the Constitution, not for us but for the Government, and the fact that you have to ask explains why we must look back to then and them for answers. To know history is to learn from it, ignore it at your peril.

              3. StegToDiffer profile image62
                StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The phrase "God-given" just means "natural."  When people talk about having "God-given rights" they are simply talking about their "natural rights" (those rights that were initially theorized by 18th-century philosopher John Locke.)  I dislike it when people dismiss someone's argument simply because they use the term "God-given."  It often changes important arguments into petty ones.

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"

                  Jefferson was schooled in Natural Law Theory and used the language of it.  It is always petty to choke on the phrase because its root is the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America - not relevant to everyone(or is it)  But the Enlightenment ideas it reflects have informed even Canada's laws.

        2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I thought the first public school was Harvard.

          1. 0
            DMartelonlineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I see your comment wasn't addressed "The first public school in America was established by Puritan settlers in 1635 in the home of Schoolmaster Philemon Pormont and was later moved to School Street. Boys from various socio-economic backgrounds attended Boston Latin School until 1972 when girls were also accepted."

            http://www.cityofboston.gov/freedomtrai … public.asp

      2. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this


        Whether Russia or Chin are socialist depends on the broader meaning of socialism.  They were both founded in social theory at least, you know - the theory that pointed out to people who were little more than slaves that 1% of the population had everything and happily watched them starve and their kids die of easily cured deseases. 

        But hey - that old wheel of ignorance just keeps turning,  and now you guys have to hitch a ride with the remains of the USSR to the space station that the USSR mainly put up there,  and you depend on China to bail you guys out financially to prevent you crashing to third world status just by over-spending.  On balance captialsim is'nt doing so good except for your fat cats that would have been called barons a short while ago.

        1. innersmiff profile image78
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The reason China is becoming so prosperous is because of the capitalisation of their economy. Businesses want to base there because regulations are less strict and there is, on balance, more economic freedom. In the height of the USSR and communist China, nothing was being produced (well, they did make some good movies), and only through trusting in freedom to a fair degree they have regained some standing in the world. Socially though, both Russia and China are behind.

          There is nothing like capitalism to be seen in the western world, only this twisted form of corporate fascism that is the furthest thing from a free-market - a free market that would tend to the needy and sick where a government can not.

          1. twosheds1 profile image61
            twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I disagree. I think Russia right now is what you get with an unfettered free market. China controls their economy very tightly. Yes, regulations are less strict, such as workplace safety, etc., but I wouldn't say they have economic freedom.

            1. 0
              rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              WHY are you guys praising the pseudo-commie nations of China and Russia?
              You do realize that these are very poor countries.
              The average Mexican is twice as wealthy as the average Chinese, should we copy Mexico's political system.
              Per capita income in Russia $12,993
              Per capita income in the U.S. $43, 387!!!

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If we continue to export jobs and technology we will soon acquire a standard equal if not less than those we sell it to.

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You do understand that the countries with the freest trade are also the most prosperous and those with the most restrictive are the poorest.  Who produces hammered brass decorations?  Check Pier One Imports - they aren't wealthy countries.  Should we not export hammered brass manufacturing?  Countires that are poor make everything they consume - trade creates wealth. 

                  It isn't until the explosion of trade following the Age of Discovery that economies actually grew.  The most static economies are the poorest.  Dynamic economies are wealthy economies and dynamism is messy, chaotic, destructive,empowering, liberating, inspiring and creative.

                  Old methods of production must be destroyed in favor of new ones, failing to do so destroys prosperity.  Exporting jobs is a part of a dynamic economy.

                  Countries that practice free trade also live in greater peace.

                  "If trade does not cross borders, armies will.' Bastiat

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Your theories and conjecture is based on a free and open trade policy with the countries trading.  Unfortunately the trade is more and more the technology and not the items manufactured.  For instance GM has opened plants in China to manufacture the products that if made in the US would be cost prohibitive.  This is by Chinese mandate.  Who profits from this when it is the most lucrative trading item we can export.  In the meantime China exports items of low quality to the US that need double the replacement that quality items would incur.  American companies are driven out of the marketplace by these cheap imposters because other companies partake of the shortsale using their American name to push the sale.  I know this because I manufacture in China.  You have to play the game to survive.  Your general push towards this trade imbalance make it more and more difficult for US companies to compete because of the slave wages being paid in China for equal work in the US.  The only way competition can be equalized is to reduce the cost of wages or mechanize everything possible or go out of buisiness and ship the job overseas which leaves the US worker unemployed.

                2. 0
                  rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No one owns jobs, and there is a little thing called competitive advantage, that you should read up on.
                  You know who doesn't export jobs and technology, North Korea. Surely they must be better off.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Always the gutt punch when you don't understand the point being made.  Afraid of the unknown so place your fear right out there.  What a shame because you seem to be an educated and knowledgeable person only caught up in some sort of preconcieved prejudice of theories and conjecture.
                    To expand the conversation you must be open to the thought before the training takes over.

                3. 0
                  rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you think this dribble is funny or is it an attempt to insult me with arm chair economic theories?  It is funny how the people who are not cognizant of the deterioration of quality jobs that started with NAFTA and such are so quick to point out that the jobs lost were too low a level job to consider as a loss and therefor the service oriented jobs that need to be filled will suffice the population.  What is even funnier is that the highly educated workforce that we are turning out of college are not qualified to even fill blue collar jobs that employers are in need of.

                    http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/155837962 … up-on-math

                    The ignorance you allude too speaks volumes to the fact that we are rated 27th in the world in math skills.  Maybe the South Park reference is the best you can come up with but someday at the rate we are going a tomato picking  job may equal your salary with the jobs that will be open for the so called educated.

              2. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This is as preposterous as me setting one person up on a cliff face with a hammer and a team of builders on a piece of flat ground then ask them to build a house, if the team on the flat ground with the good tools build it faster it means their system is better right? of course not.

                Socialism and communism only occur in countries that are in extreme poverty (look for an example to the contrary) be it China or the USSR or Cuba or most of South America when conditions under capitalism are no longer bearable revolution occurs and the system changes but it takes over a country which is already in dire economic straits. Therefore what we should be looking at is not how much money do they have right now but how fast are they growing in real GDP terms. Like communist Mongolia which grew 11.5% last year, Turkmenistan (socialist) which grew 9.9%, Argentina (socialist) 8.8%, Laos (communist) 8.3%, Bhutan (communist) 8.1% etc. etc. etc.

                1. 0
                  rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Socialism and communism only occur in countries that are in extreme poverty "

                  couldn't another explanation for this correlation be that socialism causes poverty?

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No because revolutions to socialism and communism occur only during extreme poverty, the poverty is pre-existent and thus has nothing to do with the socialism/communism.

                  2. twosheds1 profile image61
                    twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sweden. Socialist, yet is among the highest in life expectency, per capita income, literacy, etc. And they've been putting out a lot of good books lately. And then there's: http://www.swedishbikiniteam.com/

                  3. Charles James profile image86
                    Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No. These countries were poor. The people were poor. Now they are less poor.

              3. twosheds1 profile image61
                twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I wasn't praising either of them. Russia is a mess, all but controlled by organized crime, and China is... well... where should I begin? A deplorable human rights record, currency manipulation giving them an unfair advantage over free nations, zero environmental protections, etc.

                1. recommend1 profile image70
                  recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You are out of date twosheds - their human rights are ahead of the US if you include the sl;aughter and mayhem that you engage in around the world.  Environmentally they had a huge clean up 20 years ago that continues now, while you still have not paid out for the mess you made in  Bhupal with Union Carbide.   And the latest outcry over Chinese working conditions is at factories owned by Apple and several other American companies - who still have not fixed the situation.

                  Currency manipulation big_smile   the dollar has been the biggest manipulated currency in the world for so long it is institutionalised.

                  And China is bailing out you guys with trillions in loans.

                  Don't be embarrassed to praise china, there is a long way to go until they have their whole population (one quarter of the words population by the way) up to speed, however if you want to criticise all the real things wrong here then there is a big issue - because on almost every count you guys are doing worse.

                  1. 0
                    rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    recommend1 how much is the Communist government paying you, to be a China apologist.

                  2. twosheds1 profile image61
                    twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Human rights ahead of the US? How many unions are there in China? How are Christians doing in China? Um, do we really want to start talking about Tibet? How about Ai Weiwei? Or Liu Xia? Gao Zhisheng? When you go to the doctor, do you pay someone to stand in line for you? How much of Hub Pages is censored? Can you even view this web site: http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/wo … 2012-china

                    I am well aware of the suffering the US has caused, and I strongly and vocally oppose it, but using the tu quoque logical fallacy doesn't change the fact that China's human rights record is deplorable and indefensible.

          2. undermyhat profile image61
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            China is constructed behind a screen and what we see is the shadow that the central committe of the communist party wants us to see.  The cracks in China's economy are begining to show.  The central purpose of business in China is to produce sufficient prosperity to protect the central committee from potential revolution. 

            It is only a matter of time before the slow down in China's economy is finally obvious.

        2. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hard to argue with a declining America scenario except to identify the cause.  As the Federal government over stepped its responsibility and stripped from the individual the responsibility for his own well being, the decline started.  It is the cost of establishing a government preserve for the millionis of state wards who must be fed, housed, clothed, educated and maintained removing from them their own responsibilty to do these things.

          As the welfare state, in all its iteration - including Obamacare - grows freedom must contract.  The decline of America will continue as long as Americans believe that they have a legitimate right to have the Federal government confiscate the private property of one citizen to award it to them.  It is the divorce of work from survival that is destrooying America.  But that is the ultimate goal of collectivists like Obama.  People who dwell on the Federal preserve are much easier to control.

          1. Brother Shannon profile image60
            Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Bravo, couldn't have said it better.

      3. Niteriter profile image78
        Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm a little confused as to why you would urge caution against socialism when your supporting examples are of countries that experimented with communism.

        1. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Was Marx a socialist?  or a Communist?  Was Lenin, Mao, Castro Marxist or Socialist or Communist?  Not much difference - centrally direct economies don't work for long.

          1. Niteriter profile image78
            Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think right now is a great time for you folks who sing "America the Beautiful" with such gusto to be criticizing the economic systems of other countries. Not to mention that you're exhibiting a poor understanding of socialism's concept and aims.

            1. undermyhat profile image61
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Wow, that's it.  The EU is a basket case held up only by inertia and Germany.  The cracks are starting to show in the Chinese screen.  Japan has been limping for decades.  The Vilnius 11 are suffering because the Euro is proving to be an over valued Deutsche Mark.  Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain and now Belgium are in so much trouble they can't afford to buy the letters to spell trouble.  Italy will crash the Euro.  Greece will go back on the Drachma. 

              And all you have is that.

              Socialism is good in its theories and aims(though I do not agree) but how is it in practice? Why do you think the EU is a basket case?  Too much or too little socialism?  Or could it be that the EU is too dependent on a handful of counties for it prosperity, not the least of which is the US.  And our problem is too much socialism - just to get that out there.

              1. Niteriter profile image78
                Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think the problem in the US is too much capitalism. Your country is not in trouble because too many poor people got a few tax dollars to but food or medicine. It's in trouble because big corporations are gobbling up tax dollars as blackmail to retain domestic jobs or as bailout funds when the realities of capitalism aren't going in their favor.  Not to mention that your leaders, even one of the contenders for the Presidency, are playing dirty tricks to avoid making tax contributions to the very economy from which they are obtaining their riches.

                I don't mean to be mean-spirited. After reading my previous comment it seems that I may have come across that way. If I did, sorry. I see a lot of value in a mixed economy, a mixture of capitalism and socialism. It is my belief that those who are at the top of the capitalist system are preventing any form of socialism to get a fair shot at proving its value. Capitalism alone certainly has its blemishes.

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Tell me about what has happened in Canada in the last few years.  Isn't it a shift away from old more socialist priorities that is driving a good economy?

                  By the way, I do not take things as mean spirited on here - it is just talk.  Besides, I have yet to meet a genuinely mean Canadian - I suspect you only let them out for hockey games. 

                  Just to butter you up a little.  Canada is about the best neighbor a country could ask for, the US is lucky.  I am not sure enough Americans or American politicians appreciate it.

                  There is a major difference between "capitalism" and socialism.  One is a system, defined and designed.  The other is an organism.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The problem here is you don't know what socialism is. Canada is not socialist, hail the great aid to debate, the dictionary:

                    so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
                    Noun:   

                        A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
                        (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.


                    we are looking at the top definition and there we can see very clearly that neither Canada nor the vast majority of Europe is actually socialist they are just liberal. (Belarus is communist/socialist).

                    For countries that are actually socialist/communist we should look at how they are growing.
                    Let's see:

                    Mongolia (communist) 2011 real GDP growth: 11.5%
                    Argentina (semi socialist and rapidly becoming fully socialist) 2011 real GDP: 8.5%
                    Turkmenistan (socialist) 2011 real GDP growth: 9.9%
                    Laos (communist) 2011 real GDP growth: 8.3%

                    just to list a few, in the modern era socialist and communist states are succeeding economically the vast majority of the time and in impressive fashion.

                2. Brother Shannon profile image60
                  Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The problem based on old economics is CRONY capitalism.  If the government got out of the way and its Representatives actually did their job we would not be in the mess we are in.   A free economy with fair across the board regulations is the way of old, (real old). It didn't take the government long to relies that once we were , as a country in debt, we the people were screwed. and basically slaves to the body politic.  Again read history, it is loaded with instances of a failed economic system followed by a collapse, and most started with manipulation of the currency. We Americans were dong just fine before the advent of the FED, or central bank. The same problem is now happening in Canada. The fox has the keys to the hen house.

                  1. Niteriter profile image78
                    Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There you go, now you're on to something with a little substance. Now, I should point out before there's any confusion, we're not talking about Fox News. I think, Brother Shannon, that you are in desperate need of information from sources other than those funded by the organizations that are taking your money. Oh, I almost forgot; they're also the folks who are infringing on your freedom.

              2. Brother Shannon profile image60
                Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Margret Thacher said " socialism is good until you run out of other peoples money"  Seems like it is so true.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You know except that socialism does not run on other peoples money but details right? Who needs them.

                  1. undermyhat profile image61
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What is money and from where does it come?  Is value created or ascribed?  From where does a socialist state derive its "money?'

                  2. StegToDiffer profile image62
                    StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What does socialism run on, then? (Aside from brute government force, of course.)

                2. Niteriter profile image78
                  Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Brother Shannon, please accept these thoughts as an encouraging word toward a better life for you. Try to upgrade your education just enough to allow you to spell people's names... oh yeah, and maybe a little punctuation as well.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    OUCH, that hurts!

                  2. undermyhat profile image61
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Stop straining at gnats. Is the idea cogent?

                  3. Brother Shannon profile image60
                    Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    THAT IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO?  HA HA HA HA HA HA. Where is your argument? Any kind of retort?  You make me sick. Did I spell that right ?    TROLL.

            2. prettydarkhorse profile image63
              prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              OMG! Niteriter is back and with wisdom as usual!

      4. dragonflyfla profile image57
        dragonflyflaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really! The comic doesn't point out that they are failed systems and those that were screaming socialism were right to do so. You can also look at Greece.

        The biggest problem is that even when we know they are failed systems - we can't take them back or stop them. It is like taking candy from a baby. Screams and tantums. :-)

        1. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I suppose you are mostly referring to the last sentence about the USSR and China.  That was sarcasm.  I think socialism is an unqualified disaster.

          1. dragonflyfla profile image57
            dragonflyflaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was agreeing.

      5. Doc Snow profile image95
        Doc Snowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No.  A single-payer system--at least the variant in Canada--takes something from *everyone who pays* to benefit *everyone who pays.*

        The difference is that everyone GETS to pay--no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no insurers changing the rules post hoc.

        1. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There are severe limitations to the Canadian system - one big one is technology available for diagnosis.  There are more MRIs, Cat and PET scanners in Michigan than in all of Canada.  There are also regular bus runs from the Canadian border to American health facilities.  These things happen for a reason.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            the US receives 60 000 medical tourists yearly. Cuba receives 20 to 30 thousand, Costa Rica receives a further 20 to 30 thousand, Canada gets tens of thousands. The US is not a popular medical tourism spot unless you are very rich, Cuba a tiny island which people from the US aren't even allowed to go to gets half the medical tourism we do.

            Additionally the US healthcare system is ranked very low #37 I believe and we rank horribly behind in almost all stats except cancer, things largely unaffected by environment like Maternal Mortality rate America is below 50th in the world etc etc.

            1. undermyhat profile image61
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I was not offering an explanation.  I was offering a course of inquiry.  Indian receives health tourists also.  It is an interesting phenomenon sure to disappear if the whole world is made equal in the great Panglossian Utopia.

      6. 59
        kdawsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Our health system is a shambles because it is run for profit .  I am amused and despair all at once when someone runs down public health for low quality of care.  It's better than nothing.  This is another pompous stance.  I get my care from the VA, a public health system.  Maybe not the best but it will do.

        1. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why is over 47cents of very health care dollar a taxpayer dollar if it is for profit medicine that is the disaster?  Market forces have been driven out of medicine by government and insurance pools.  if market forces were available for insurance the cost would be driven down.  This hasn't been the case in decades - perhaps it is time to unwind the governemtn - state and federal - from medicine and see what would actually happen

      7. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, so the poor should rely on philanthropic giving from those who can afford. Why then, do those who can afford, oppose any form giving to the needy which does not rely on the rich? I'm sure it has nothing to do with tax avoidance schemes.

    4. 0
      rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Socialism had not been invented until the 1860s so only in the last two could people have cried socialism.
      Just inserting some historical accuracy.

      1. Angie497 profile image87
        Angie497posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Historical accuracy? Not so much.

        The term socialism was coined in the 1830s, but this was simply a description of an ideal that had existed for quite some time. Many of the philosophers and intellectuals of the 1700s, such as François-Noël Babeuf, espoused ideas that were definitely socialist.

        1. 0
          rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          if you say so

      2. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The term hadn't been invented but socialism dates back to ancient Persia.

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just on a side note - I am finding that a great many things date back to ancient Persia from noodles to spaghetti, belly dance to Latin American dance, Pizza, to various modes of formal behaviour, political manners and devices, farm and ornamental gardening practices and much more - I am beginning to realise that Alexander was the barbarian letting in the flood of 'us' and possibly setting back the progress of civilization a thousand years.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In many ways quite true.

        2. twosheds1 profile image61
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As a system for a larger society, yes, but the family is a socialist society. Think about it: the parents control all the resources, but distribute them according to need, all the while providing the children with the tools they need to succeed as they grow older and more self-sufficient. Ideally, of course. To apply capitalist thinking to a family would be to expect a baby to get a job to support himself. (Though I suppose a baby could get a job as a model)

        3. 59
          kdawsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, a good argument can be made that socialism is THE original form of human society.  The vast majority of 'primitive' societies, hunters and gatherers, included the very few that remain, practiced a vital and real socialism where personal possessions were limited and most assets were spread throughout the group.

          1. undermyhat profile image61
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Until a surplus was created by the better hunters.  once that happened everything changes.  socialism may work best when humans are close to starvation - the USSR proves that.

            1. 59
              kdawsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Better hunters got more prestige but little else.  Europeans never did understand Native American society and interpreted it with Old World notions of class and royalty.  In most cases, the chiefs were only those people who had stood out with their abilities, but they couldn't order anyone to do anything.  Their prestige enabled them to influence and convince others to do things, but obedience was the individual's choice, not the ruling class.

      3. Brother Shannon profile image60
        Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well the word socialism wasn't, but the practice was around much longer and farther back than that.

    5. JimMiles profile image82
      JimMilesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mighty Mom asked for this; does that make it self-promoting? I guess we'll find out...
      http://jimmiles.hubpages.com/hub/Single … are-Please

    6. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You can get your answer to all of this when we start figuring out how to pay for the added $600 billion in insurance premium subsidy debt which will either come to you in the form of a debt load at the state level via Medicaid or at the national level when the federal government steps in to cover those thoses who opt do not institute Obamacare.  Penalty to the state or not, by continuing we are certainly penalizing those who currently carry the tax burden in America.  The wealthy will not suffer nor will the poor....look out middle class, Obama cares most about you! WB

      1. 59
        kdawsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, no.  It's much better to spend our tax money enriching bad actors like Romney and the rest of the elite, including congress, in waging wars than can't be won by combat and taking all our frustration out on the weakest of our citizens.  This makes sense.

    7. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Pure evil isn't it Mighty Mom :p

    8. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      hehe, nice one!

      this is what you get when you live in a society - if not we can go to the mountains and live like Tarzan, no society and all

      Whether socialism and capitalism (difficult to define), man is above all a by product of himself, society and culture he/she is in and a little bit of the economic system!

      I do believe men tend to be more selfish in an economy which pretends to be a capitalist economy.

      1. Niteriter profile image78
        Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Maita, if you don't soon beak down and tell me that I am the most generous socialist liar you have ever met, I'm going to give it all up and start pretending to be a capitalist.

        Hey, how are ya?

        1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
          prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, you are the most generous Canuck socialist (next to Austin Powers)!!

          I am good BTW and good to see you here again!

    9. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://loopyloo305.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/obama-communism.jpg

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your poster very much resembles the propaganda posters I saw at the holocaust museum last year.  Strangely looks Nazi like.  I guess we have come full circle.  If you show it enough people just may believe it to be true.

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/486394_10150919555146275_1562088999_n.jpg

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Is it just me or does that look an awful look like a young Ronnnie Reagan?
            lol

            1. Jane Bovary profile image89
              Jane Bovaryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hahaha...

          2. undermyhat profile image61
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6913415_f248.jpg

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Crying communism at everything you disagree with to push an extreme right wing agenda? Yeah it's not surprising they seem the same. I guess the right will be choosing illegals as the evil people responsible for all the problems alongside the communists and they will be done.

        3. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, Josak, the answer is more war. Give more to the uber-wealthy, don't enforce taxes on them. The solution lies in more arms, more war and tax breaks. History teaches us this, we know from experience that tax breaks, arms manufacture and unnecessary wars create employment and a very stable world in which we are all happy and all free. smile

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Of course smile

    10. SportsBetter profile image61
      SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The American people have been taught that Socialism is Capitalism.  If we had real Capitalism the system would not be the mess it is today.  We are a product of socialism, most people don't realize.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yet another person who does not know what socialism is....

        I recommend a dictionary.

        1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
          Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The sad irony is that these deluded folks think an oligarchy is pure capitalism.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Fundamentally true unfortunately.

        2. SportsBetter profile image61
          SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What am I not understanding? Social security isn't socialism? Medicare Medicaid?

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No it's not. Look at it this way. If a state were very leftist but had a tough on immigration policy (like say Australia) would that make it conservative? No it would make it a country with one conservative policy.

            But as I said I recommend a dictionary, here I'll do it for you.

            so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
            Noun:   

               #1  A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the state and the public.
              #2  (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

            Since the government does not own the means of production, distribution or exchange it is obviously not socialist and as such this is a capitalist country. Simple.

            PS. socialists oppose social security payments.

            1. SportsBetter profile image61
              SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What about the government distributing education and healthcare? I'm pretty sure the government regulates many areas of the economy.  What about the government producing solar  and wind energies that failed?

            2. SportsBetter profile image61
              SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know how you can say social security isn't a socialist policy.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Because it's not, I have a hub on the subject, the socialist rallying cry for many revolutions was "he who does not work neither shall he eat"  socialism is a workers movement, socialists believe that the state has a duty to provide everyone with the opportunity for a job but if they don't want to work the they do not support any social security for those people. See what I mean? This is the flag of a group I am involved in:
                P.S. people who don't work is a literal definition in a socialist perspective, owning a company that makes you money while you play golf all day is not working etc.

                http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6914186_f248.jpg

                1. SportsBetter profile image61
                  SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  They shouldn't provide any social security at all.  Actually, there is no money in it anymore, it is bankrupt, they spent the money on war.

                  Just because people who don't work, and don't receive social security doesn't mean it isn't a socialized program.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Your statement doesn't really make sense, simply put socialists do not support social security or unemployment benefits, it is not a socialist idea and America is a capitalist state with all the issues of a declining capitalist economy.

            3. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy"

              Oxford dictionary

              Social democracies are also socialist.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Many things have been mislabeled. Let me make it clear that I fully support social democracy it's a great system but it's not really socialist it simply uses many socialist policies I think that produces a far more moral and ethical state than a purely capitalist one but it again does not make it socialist.

                This causes fundamental problems, many of the socialist ideas are based on the premise of publicly owned industry, we want better workers treatment but that can't happen through legislating private businesses or for a salient example: socialists don't support giving to those who do not want to work but social democracies have massive unemployment programs because under a capitalist system that is the best alternative, between letting people who can't find work go hungry and rewarding those who don't want to work we must go with the lesser of two evils and give people unemployment benefits, that puts a huge strain on the economy, in a socialist system everyone is offered work and those who don't want it don't receive unemployment. There are many such examples, fundamentally socialism is an economic system that allows the people to help the people and to own the industry of their country, that isn't what social democracy is.

      2. undermyhat profile image61
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +

    11. SportsBetter profile image61
      SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Public schools, poor education and expensive

      Pulic Water system, infected with chemicals and fluoride.

      Public Highways, may have interfered with a better solution by the free market

      Public Parks, expensive to maintain and workers steal revenue

      Public healthcare, Expensive because government created Medicare and Medicaid and inflated the cost, and because of this they are creating complete control of healthcare when they should leave it it to the free market

      1. SportsBetter profile image61
        SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "If the people let government decide
        what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
        their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
        as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."  Thomas Jefferson

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Walmart, McDonalds, Home Depot all rely on the government picking up the slack where they refuse to care for their own. Corporate socialism is the term that is used to describe it.  The purists claim it does not exist.

        "Ours is a system of corporate socialism, where companies capitalize their profits and socialize their losses...in effect, they tax you for their accidents, bungling, boondoggles, and mismanagement, just like a government. We should be able to dis-elect them."
        Ralph Nader

        "Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class"
        Al Capone

      3. 59
        kdawsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The reason why government does these things is that no one else would and never have.

    12. SportsBetter profile image61
      SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No matter what the system is, they are all controlled by their credit and debt.  Every monetary system prints money until they collapse.

      Our day is coming.

    13. phion profile image60
      phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The picture is right. We believers in the value of the constitution as a living masterpiece of civilization have the same OMG face every time more government is used to fix a problem. Are people so blind to believe that a/the federal government at this point can help the situation? The social programs of puppeteers should be the last place you should hold hope in.

      Socialism= Bigger Government= I need you to tell me what to do & how to do it= you suck at life

      Anyone out there that thinks they need the government to survive/thrive, don’t worry I’ll help you out when you really need it, if you can find me.

  2. Hendrika profile image72
    Hendrikaposted 4 years ago

    It does not matter how you look at it, socialism in its pure sense has failed, but a degree of socialism in every country is necessary for certain basics the market system can not take care of.

    1. undermyhat profile image61
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What can socialism do that market economics cannot.  I have yet to discover one thing.

      1. twosheds1 profile image61
        twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Redistribute wealth in a more equitable fashion. But to be clear, I am NOT talking about handouts.

      2. Charles James profile image86
        Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        One fairly obvious example is that the National Health service in the UK provides a huge amount of health education because it makes financial sense to educate the people into good health. In the USA you do not have the same financial incentives for health education.

        We also provide free contraception because contraception is cheaper for the Health Service and for society than unwanted babies.

        1. twosheds1 profile image61
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Of course, your doctors and other health workers live in abject poverty, don't they? </sarcasm>

          Ironically, my insurance wouldn't pay for a weight-loss drug for my wife, but they were happy to pay for diabetes treatment, knee replacement sugery, etc., if she had needed it.

          But more to the point, pretty much EVERY public amenity is "socialist:" public schools, roads, libraries, housing, transit, etc. Everyone contributes to the public good, with those more able to contribute, contributing more.

        2. SportsBetter profile image61
          SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As you will see above,
          "If the people let government decide
          what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
          their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state
          as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."  Thomas Jefferson

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Convincing in theory, until you see that the US healthcare system costs more and achieves less than comparable socialized systems.

            1. SportsBetter profile image61
              SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well government is already controlling this with the FDA and Medicare and Medicaid actually pushed the prices of medical care up by inflation.  Before the government was involved in healthcare prices weren't high, there was competition and people weren't without healthcare.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yet more governemnt involvement through single payer care produces better and cheaper results.

                1. SportsBetter profile image61
                  SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How is better results without competition?

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Simply put the healthcare is better and it costs much less that our system here which has less governemnt involvement.

              2. undermyhat profile image61
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There was a time when the neighborhoods and small towns that cry out for doctors now had a local doctor.  The coming change in health care is likely to further reduce the number of doctors.

              3. undermyhat profile image61
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Over 40 cents of ever health care dollar in America is a taxpayer funded dollar.  With Obamacare it would exceed 50 cents and 20 of those will be borrowed from China.  Unless we unwind the socialist and proto-socialist garbage from our economy and politics the whole country will be a basket case like California, Illinois, Maryland, Greece, Spain, etc....

      3. StegToDiffer profile image62
        StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am against welfare.  However, an example of something that the free market cannot provide is a national defense.  Also, a dam to prevent flooding.  The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property.  National defense protects people from foreign intruders, and things like dams protect people from natural disasters.  I do agree with undermyhat that people should not be protected from being poor.

        1. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          \Free markets are where well planned government projects get their jobs done.  NASA hired out, the DOD hires out, bridges, roads, dams are frequently built by private contractors.  The government acts as the customer.  Populating the defense structure is still not a socialist endeavor.  A first sergeant is paid considerably less than a first lieutenant.  Officers often have to purchase their own uniforms.  Around large bases service people rent apartments and eat at local restaurants - with only a limited stipend defraying only part of those expenses.

        2. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +1!

        3. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We are still doing this... *sigh* socialism is not welfare, in socialist systems there is no welfare except for the sick/crippled and the elderly.
          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6963107_f248.jpg

        4. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          People don't have protection from being poor.
          Between the high unemployment rate, jobs being outsourced and whole industries disappearing, the mortgage lending crisis combined with deflated real estate values and the outrageous cost of health insurance, it's very easy to become poor in the U.S.
          And many formerly middle-class Americans have!
          Glad to know you approve of this trend!
          smile

        5. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Obviously they aren't since over 15% of our population and about 20% of our children live in situations where they can't afford shelter and or food.

  3. knolyourself profile image62
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Government is by nature socialist, as the pooling of resources like taxes. This idea of socialism as something new, must have meant maybe, government for the people instead of the monarchs. Since capitalism is sooner or later monarchy, long live the king.

  4. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." -JUSTICE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6906786_f520.jpg

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/602627_10150948108681275_1845203380_n.jpg

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/576226_443306522358720_629594621_n.jpg

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That chart is a fantasy. The military budget is only around 19%, the bulk of government spending is entitlement programs. 

      This one is a little more accurate.
      http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/Misc%20for%20Blog/FederalBudgetFY_2010.jpg

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        According to the taxation department 28 cents out of every dollar taxed this year will go to the defense budget.

      2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Fantasy?  Really?  The chart I provided is of OBama's 2013 discretionary projections and you compare it to 2010 figures of the entire budget—and I'm in a "fantasy" and your's is "more accurate?"
        Moreover,  Liberals are going crazy because Obama's is so high. 

        FYI Department:

        Discretionary spending is that part of the U.S. Federal Budget that is negotiated between the President and Congress each year as part of the budget process. It includes everything that is not in the mandatory budget, which are programs required by law to provide certain benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare.

        Mandatory spending is that part of the U.S. Federal budget that has been mandated by Federal law outside of the annual budget process. A great example is the Social Security Act of 1935, which set up the Social Security retirement program. The Federal government must, by law, pay retirees their benefits. Other Federal laws require the government to provide benefits to people with disabilities, people under a certain income level, and the unemployed. The mandatory portion of the budget simply estimates how much it will cost to fulfill these Federal laws.

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          there you go again quoting facts and other irrelevant stuff to someone who thinks it is ok to carry a gun in one hand and a bible in the other.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My Bad! hmm

          2. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Better than carrying guns in both hands.
            Or bibles in both hands.
            ... maybe not.

            1. 0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Both are equally dangerous to the public tongue.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Now, now.
                We all know:
                Guns don't kill people.
                And bibles don't make people intolerant religious fanatics.
                tongue

                1. 0
                  Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yeah.  My mistake.  I'm just so dense sometimes!

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't be so hard on yourself, sooner.
                    Nothing picking up a good bible AND a glock can't fix!
                    tongue

              2. undermyhat profile image61
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Tolerance is a beautiful thinK. (misspell intended)

        2. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Mandatory spending is only that because Congress has decided not to restructure that spending.  It is not enshrined in the Constitution and so is subject to change by any Congress at anytime.  it is only manditory in so far as the Executive is required to spend it.  We have seen, time and again, this Executive uses the ignorance of its supporters drawing Soc. Sec. and Medicare to manipulate the budget and debt debates.  Time and again the threat of Soc. Sec. checks not arriving has been used to frighten those solely dependent on SS for their well being. 

          It may be mandated by a law that could be undone at any time but it is used as a scare tactic by Obama anytime real discussion of how to address the National Debt begins.

          1. Angie497 profile image87
            Angie497posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, a couple of points.

            It's probably only fair to point out that Social Security & Medicare aren't being funded out of the general budget as such - millions and millions of people are paying for those programs with each and every paycheck. (Which is also why I object to the sneer with which conservatives refer to them as entitlement programs, as though there's something wrong with feeling entitled to someday qualifying for programs that they've been paying into for years.)

            But if you'd like to refer to ignorance regarding those programs, you might like to also acknowledge that while employees pay for the funding of SSN & Medicare, it's NOT fear-mongering  to suggest that those checks won't go out if the government is shut down. A government shutdown means that the money to pay the federal employees that process those payments is frozen, which in turn means that those payments will not go out to their intended recipients.

            1. undermyhat profile image61
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              1)  A government shut down does not shut all the government down.  It does shut down non-critical functions.  why are we funding non-critical functions.  The government is required - again by a law that it continually renews by inaction - to gurantee those checks.

              2) Social Secutiry receipts have been folded into the general fund since the 1960s.  All else is book keeping. Also, dollars are perfectly fungible. Unless the actual money taxed from each employee is placed in an actual account for that employee it goes to the general fund. - there is no lock box.

              3)No one is receiving anything for which they have paid.  They are receiving that which others are paying for them.  That is how it has worked from the beginning.  How is that not welfare?

              4)Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in.  The funds in Social Security do not  accrue interest even at the low rate of savings bonds.  If we wanted a genuine retirement program a payroll savings plan would be a better choice.


              5)No one owns anything in Social Security.  It can disappear at anytime.  The benefits received can be reduced or cut at anytime.  It cannot be inherited, used by ones children as a means of accumulating wealth for later generations - in short it is a welfare program not an investment.

              6)It is a means for pulling the old into the Federal preserve rather than encourage a real plan in which the accumulated proceeds of principle and interest are available to the individual upon retirement.  If one dies one day after reaching retirement age under Social Security all value of that "retirement fund" is lost to the family of the individual.  If one owns a retirement plan, that has a pre-set retirement age, and dies the day after reaching retirement age his widow and family inherit his property.  HOW CAN THAT BE INFERIOR TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW?

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Lots of theory with no practical applicable standards.  The problem is that you are so booksmart about this you can't fathom the application of it.

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Let me know how that works for you when America starts looking more like Greece - ooops, too late.

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    We looked like Greece way back before they did.  The problem is that you want the regulations to end and a free for all atmosphere that has no rules to run the system.  Keep govermnent out of it and when the Glass/Steagel act was repealed in 1999 the banking industry went wild with speculation.  Something that was somewhat in check since 1933 when the Great Depression ruled the banking industry.  I agree that untamed spending is at the heart of the issue for a recovery but there are other things that need to be addressed also and legislation to ensure it happens.

              2. 59
                kdawsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Long winded with little sense.  Social security is a payroll savings plan fool.  The problem with voluntary plans is that weak old man, many if not most, wouldn't do it.  We'd forget or delay or blow it all on the latest, biggest ego-wagon.  The ONLY practical way to can get people to save is by legislating it.  Social security wouldn't be so troubled if Congress and everyone one else with the pin number weren't dipping into it constantly for their sub rosa projects.  I see no problem with my children paying my social security.  In the end it's family taking care of their elders.  Pretty traditional, that.

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wrong and insulting - and you have decided that because some one is stupid and weak that we should all bail them out.  Why not let them fall flat on their face?  Since when is it the job of the federal government to FORCE everyone to rescue people who decide not to take care of themselves?

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The government didn't decide; the people decided.  The people elected those who enacted the law.  The social security program is overwhelmingly popular.  I guess the people were compassionate and dismayed by the number of elderly and disabled who were suffering in poverty. 

                    Imagine the nerve of a people seeing a problem and supporting a solution through government.  Ballsy, weren't they?

          2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, of course—millionaires and corporations could care less about their income and the GOP would never use scare tactics because they're truly loyal to the precepts of democracy and have no problem with paying taxes. 

            https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/376465_446922585328339_1728262634_n.jpg

            1. undermyhat profile image61
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Non Sequitor

              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's how to answer one.

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's a compare and contrast deal, undermyhat. Still, you knew that anyway...

            2. StegToDiffer profile image62
              StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I do not identify with Romney, but isn't this whole bit about unreleased tax returns a little similar to the bit about Obama's unreleased birth certificate?  And liberals said conservatives were being paranoid...

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's looking for something to attack the other side about. Left does it to the right, Right does it to the left.

      3. undermyhat profile image61
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am perplexed by the implications of the big MILITARY called out on the first pie chart.  Are we indciting the military spending the United States does so that Europe, Canada, Japan and other developed countries, who want military power to protect them but prefer it be American made, staffed and purchased, don't have to?

      4. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "This one is a little more accurate" could you also make it a little more readable, please?

  5. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Yeah, New Zealand and Canada, what losers.  Clearly in chaos with their... um, well what about even more socialist place ike Iceland! That country is a total... success, generally speaking.

    You can either make people buy their own stuff, or collect tax and buy the stuff for them.  It isn't that big of a difference if a country is well governed.

    The US is actually a mixed model.  Rife with socialist roads, police, water etc.

    1. undermyhat profile image61
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Iceland had a brutal financial collapse that is continuing even now.  Besides how many people actually live in Iceland? Fort Wayne, Indiana is bigger.

      Canada has been through some major reforms beginning in the 1980s
      free trade
      privatization
      spending cuts
      sound money
      large corporate tax cuts
      personal tax reforms
      balanced federal budgets
      block grants
      decentralizing power by cutting the central government....

      Canadian federal spending was cut from 23.3 percent of GDP in 1993 to 16.5 percent by 2000.

      Canadian unemployment rate plunged from more than 11 percent to less than 7 percent...

      http://www.iea.org.uk/events/canada%E2% … for-the-uk

      If the US looks bad by comparison

      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/6910375_f248.jpg

    2. 0
      rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Actually Iceland refused to bailout its banks, which is the free market thing to do, while the U.S. bailed out corporations and even nationalized some.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        While nationalizing industry is indeed socialist bailing industry out is precisely anti socialist.

        1. 0
          rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see the difference either way the government is the one allocating capital.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There is a huge difference between owing industry and giving private companies public money.

            1. SportsBetter profile image61
              SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What happens if the industry goes bankrupt? Do they keep funding it or do they let it fail and move on?

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Who is they?

                1. SportsBetter profile image61
                  SportsBetterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  They is whoever is funding the socialist system.  Which is the public through the government.  Does the government keep funding that industry or do they let it fail?

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    In a socialist system? Well it would be up to the economic experts who would decide if it's likely to turn around and become profitable soon or if it should be closed.

            2. undermyhat profile image61
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So money comes sans-strings?

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry I don't understand the question, whose money is san strings?

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  When the Federal government was attempting to ameliorate the product of their incursion into mortgage lending, the CEOs of several major banks were called into a room and told, in no uncertain terms, that they would take a bail out.  Some, whose problems were manageable, wanted to refuse, they were told they could not.

                  Government money always comes with strings.  It isn't about money, ever.  It is about power, authority and control.  This is why socialism will always degenerate into tyranny.  Real liberty is a messy proposition and those vaunted economics experts must compel a predictable populace so that the numbers work.  It is necessary to render the individual worthless as an entry on a ledger page so that one cog in the great machine of equality can be swapped for another.

                  It doesn't take reading between the lines to know that ultimately socialism, like all centrally directed economic systems, degenerates into the tools of the state putting bullets in the heads of hundred and dumping their bodies in mass graves.  It is an essential part of a system designed by the Superior Man, the Soviet Man.

                  Rather than understanding that economics is the science of describing and understanding the natural allocation of scarcity, the liberal, leftist, socialist, communist, fascist, statist all believe that economics is about compelling a system - designed by them and forced, compelled, cajoled, cudgeled - on the individual.  The 300 million Americans individuals - that would be one, integrated, self contained unit - makes hundreds of conscious and unconscious decisions every day.  How can a centrally directed system ever account for all the date processed organically by all those self contained units.

                  The weakness of socialism is that it is unnatural and must be forced on an economy which ALWAYS results in irreparable disaster.  The socialist and liberal tend to ignore the natural value of destruction and creation.  It is the inexorable drive of the socialist to pursue stability - the enemy of dynamism.  Socialism is inherently elitist.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Complete poppycock, i have lived in several socialist systems and it is not at all the case, socialism is simply a different economic system it has no more to do with tyranny than does capitalism which has also many many times degenerated into tyranny. For the life of the average person a socialist system should change it very little, it should mean better workplace treatment, a higher wage and a lot more available jobs but fundamentally it should give no more powers to the state than the power to run the industry of the nation (the means of production) now that is slightly more power but obviously if the governemnt wanted to impose it's power on the populace it has a massive military and police force to do so and does not need mines and factories.

                    Socialism should in my opinion always be accompanied by a robust democracy and constitution which is where many states have gone wrong but socialism imposes no more restrictions on the lives of it's citizens than does capitalism and in some ways fewer. ideals of the soviet man etc. are outdated and abandoned and while I agree that hardcore communist systems do present many of the risks you mention the kind of socialism being portrayed in this forum is nothing like that.

                  2. 0
                    rickyliceaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    They're a lost cause undermyhat, Josak doesn't see that the only way that the state could seize control of the "means of production" and prevent any free market competition is through violence.
                    Josak remember that the Arab Spring was caused by the state prohibiting a man from freely engaging in commerce.
                    Also their self righteousness paves the way for the genocide of "capitalist roaders".
                    Soviet, Cambodian, Chinese genocide of their own people, millions of refugees from Cuba, and Vietnam, East Germany, etc.
                    Yet they're still deluded that this time will be different, that they will have "real communism", and achieve their fairy tail utopia

  6. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    Twosheds1 - and Sweden is a mixed economy

    Almost all countries now can be classified as how many percent capitalist and percent socialist, no pure capitalist and pure socialist.

    And I think the more socialist a country is the better it will be governed, with people still have degrees of freedom which can be compromised a bit because the reality is that you live in a society.

    1. twosheds1 profile image61
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.

  7. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6914176_f520.jpg

  8. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Something tells me that JSChams isn't familiar with the history of South America or the repression by the Argentine government in the 20th century.

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You have hippies and wannabe hippies wearing him on shirts.
      Now he had some good points before he went and inadvertently got Communism installed in Cuba.
      Maybe there should be another lees violent image of him......

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He is idolized throughout South America simply because it was pretty much the fist time someone from the upper class bothered to help the poor and fight for them because his reading programs taught millions to read because he led by example, when he was minister of agriculture he would spend all night doing the paperwork and all day cutting sugar cane with the laborers often not sleeping for three or four days he earned respect and that respect spread around the world.

  9. JSChams profile image60
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6938124_f248.jpg

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's kind of a dumb question isn't it let's put it this way. Before the Revolution the US had the third best quality of life in the world and Cuba had a quality of life around the 130 mark now Cuba is 53rd and the US is 31st so moving to the US means a better quality of life for now because improvement takes time.
      Question answered.

  10. Charles James profile image86
    Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago

    The Founding Fathers did not agree with each other on many many issues. The American Constitution and early amendments were a fudge.
    Like many Constitutions, it was a compromise.

    1. undermyhat profile image61
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Okay....
      "Revolutions come into the world like bastard children, half improvise - half compromise."
      Benjamin Franklin

  11. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599872_10150963499616275_1944011148_n.jpg

  12. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    I couldn't agree more with you....Undermyhat ,  revolution will come , mark my words ! But it will be of as Ben Frankin said ........messy , just like idealisms !  Right ....Left .....get your head out of your arses and think for yourself !  Your media .....and your congress and senate ......are playing you like fools!

  13. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Brother Shannon- Just for you . . .

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6939224_f1024.jpg

    1. Niteriter profile image78
      Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Wizard. I do believe you are correct in deducing that pictures will be more effective with this student. big_smile

    2. Brother Shannon profile image60
      Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Trolls, again, no argument nor a real thought.

      1. Niteriter profile image78
        Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There's a thought there, Brother Shannon; it does require, however, the capacity for reflection in order to recognize it. And you also need to read the words; don't simply look at the pictures.

        Besides, you have yet to acknowledge my very thorough reply to your tome from two hours or so ago. My, my, you also have the fault of negligence to add to your list of cerebral flaws. It's a very sad day in the land of scholars today.

        1. Brother Shannon profile image60
          Brother Shannonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am so sorry that you feel the need to snipe and insult instead of using your mind for more worth while endeavors, This will be my last post to anything you or your friend wizard comment on as I have stated before that you have no argument just rhetoric.  I will not insult you, just express my sorrow for your lack of civility and I do see what you and your friend have done on Hub pages, and I am sad you let any potential you may have slip away with such drivel. I am not following this so you can pontificate to your audience till your head explodes.  I just don't want to play your game anymore.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Amen Brother and go with "God!"

            http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/trollspray.jpg

          2. Niteriter profile image78
            Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Too late for that , Brother Shannon. It is you who displayed the lack of civility. (Does "you make me sick" sound like a civil comment?) Wiz and I were simply calling you out on your claim to have superior knowledge to ours. There is no gain in pretending to be something you aren't. Who you are will always rise to the surface when sufficient pressure is applied.

            No hard feelings, I'm sure you are a good person. Just be yourself and everything will be okay.

      2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Brother Shannon has been registered here for all of fifteen hours and he claims to know what I'm all about. 

        Methinks it takes a troll to recognize one and I wonder which reactionary cowboy-hatted hater he really is?

        http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/madcowboydisease.jpg

        1. Niteriter profile image78
          Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Don't worry, Wizard, your reputation is intact. Brother Shannon's powers of perception are noticeably frail. I think the next time we see him he'll be a Sock Puppet under another name. We'll know it's him when his idea tank runs empty and he starts moaning, "Troll!"

    3. undermyhat profile image61
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You missed the rest of the Jesus quote where he said empower Caesar to take the property of your neighbor and award it to you.  Do not concern yourself with gathering your meal from the fields, Caesar will make your neighbor feed you.  And if you decide to keep the product of your own work then Caesar should send his soldiers to compel your compliance.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Which is great since nobody says that.

        1. undermyhat profile image61
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What do liberals say through their actions?  It is okay, I don't expect an liberal to understand.  All liberal social justice is rooted in the force.

          1. Charles James profile image86
            Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So is social injustice!

            1. undermyhat profile image61
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Social injustice?  Usually poverty, ignorance, hunger, etc...are rooted in inaction by individuals.  the most successful way to eliminate these things is to act personally, indvidually, in the first person.  I will not be poor, hungry or ignorant.  And the second most effective is in the second person - I will do what I can to help you not be hungry, poor or ignorant.  Then third person, then first person plural and so forth.  Introducing government into real social justice is to remove the social and the justice.

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Actually this is a nice thought - unfortunately history clearly proves that only government has ever stopped wholesale abuse of human beings by others.  It would be nice if those apparent philanthropists that you appear to be so enamoured with gave away the trivial amounts of excess they earn off poor wages and child labour in foreign countries for good reasons rather than to promote their own egos and attempt to pay the ferryman.

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                   


                  Crime, violence, invasion, forced starvation have been both caused and prevented by governments.  Wholesale abuse gains its highest expression among governments - death camps, Slavery, forced relocation, genocide, mass starvation as a means of control have been used by governments to compel compliance.  What business or individual has that kind of reach and scope?

                  Admittedly, when government works properly it prevents abuse, when it doesn't it exemplifies it.



                  I am not talking about philanthropy, I am talking about personal, moral action - it does not require vast sums.  When one sees a hungry and homeless man on the street a spare blanket, a hot meal and the fulfillment of Christ's teachings does far more than some nameless, faceless, distant and dispassionate government bureaucracy.  More people turn their lives around as a consequence of personal contact with a compassionate individual than with a number cruncher behind a desk.

                  1. recommend1 profile image70
                    recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    History does not agree with you - these were all the normal means of controlling workers and slaves for a couple thousand years at least - not least in your South not much more than one hundred years ago, private privelaged citizens all.


                    Again nice thought but I am afraid the number of people doing that is miniscule while governments prevent this situation wholesale through benefit and other social schemes (that the right want to stop). 

                    Helping people is not fulfilling christ's teachings, it is done by people of all kinds and religious brands and just as many with no religion at all, in fact for right wing religion this kind of christ like help appears to be anathema.

              2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I meant to post the image with this comment . . .

                https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/554903_3416686464585_1228637336_n.jpg

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Tha t would make a better bumper sticker than a rebuttal.

              3. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Utter ideological nonsense rooted in resentment and contempt for the poor and government that aims at economic justice.

                Here is empirical information that if you are poor, ignorant and hungry you can't even find a place to live unless you work at more than two jobs . . .


                https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295007_10150624257156275_1813859712_n.jpg

                1. undermyhat profile image61
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe that is why recent illegal immigration is so vigorous.  Most illegals come here to work as much as they can, crowd into housing but do not languish(typically) for multiple generations on the public dole.  Liberals should fear illegal immigration more tha conservatives.  The second and third generations of illegals tend to be much more conservative because they have seen their parents work.

                  Oh no! Working two jobs is so bad.  Hardship and hard work do not build character but languishing in the government preserve is so much better.  Really, personally serving the poor is ideological - I bet all those catholic nuns in Calcutta would like to hear that.  Bet they didn't even know they were Republicans.

                  What is economic justice?  Is that redistributionist ideology?  There are plenty of people who work 80 hours a week - it is good for the spirit to earn one's way it is decaying to the spirit to expect others to give you a living.

                  It would be great if you could find a bumpersticker for that.

                  1. Charles James profile image86
                    Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How About
                    "The Rich Say The Poor should Work Harder"

                    or even "The Poor Should Work Harder"

                2. StegToDiffer profile image62
                  StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wizard, do you know why workers have to work so much to afford an apartment in those states?  It is actually because of government regulation that tried to help poor people out.  Rent pricing controls instituted by states like NY and California caused scarce availability of apartments and therefore high prices for rent. (In case you are unaware, rent controls are when government puts a price ceiling on rent.  They only do this for some apartments, not all or even most, so the poor will supposedly have somewhere affordable to live.)
                  Even though the short term effect of those regulations were good for the poor (prices couldn't rise too high,) the long-term effects were disastrous.  Because it would be expensive for someone to move out of a rent-controlled apartment, they would not move into another one (even one that is closer to work) because the people in the closer-to-work apartment would not want to move out of their rent-controlled apartment either.  So the market stagnates.
                  Furthermore, the owners of those apartments invest less in them because they yield less profit.  When they invest less  the quality of rooms decline.  Eventually, apartment complexes close because no one is buying new apartments and the rent that owners are currently receiving is so low that they cannot sustain some of the apartments that they already have.
                  So the supply of all apartments (even non-rent controlled) goes down.  And when supply goes down and demand goes up, you guessed it, prices skyrocket.  Do some research about those states on the map that have the most expensive apartments, you'll find that many either have rent control or have only recently rid themselves of it.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I would love an economists study or some other independent verification of that, I am skeptical of the effect and it's extent, besides you will note that the results are hopeless across the country not just in areas with rent control.

  14. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/552688_448858891803483_811228574_n.jpg

  15. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    The problem with the Idealism in Ghandi's opine?  if you are only divisive  or opposed for the sake of being opposed that makes you a fool ! And that is the plague that spreads across our culture today!  No? ........Maybe Ghandi was only testing liberal thought !.........Quote by Ahorseback....:-}

  16. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6896449_f520.jpg

    The kind of nation with citizens like undermyhat!

  17. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549551_449436678412371_1249487466_n.jpg

  18. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/409733_413497005354864_2038391473_n.jpg

    1. JSChams profile image60
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      More and more I see your posts as nothing more than glorified talking points.

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well how about this the GOP just finished blocking a measure that would have saved thousands of miners lives by granting them additional protection from black lung the incidence of which is increasing, Wizard is right the GOP obviously cares not at all for the American worker. Heartland American miners who keep this country running, literally: "Drop dead" regards: The GOP

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well let me tell you this.....
          Almost every time that happens you will find a rider has been attached to that bill which the Democrats know will trigger an action by the GOP.
          Gotta make em look like monsters you know.
          Even though there isn't a dimes worth of difference in the two parties.
          I know I have been around both of them.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They specifically blocked a measure all of which was focused on preventing black lung and suggested no alternative according to the relative bodies it will kill thousands over the next few years, simple as that. It's all ways been this way, i used to be a coal miner myself and the GOP is always claiming to be pro coal but they are quite happy to kill miners to save a few dollars.

            No lame excuses, it's lives for dollars. The lives of hard working Americans who often have little else in the way of employment in their towns. it's despicable pure and simple.

      2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
        Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You would, wouldn't you and I suspect it's because you can't make an accurate and cogent refutation of the facts.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's as opposed to sensationalistic pictures which regurgitate those talking points?
          That's all you ever do.

          1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
            Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I and many others have tried to get you to see reason and logic, but it seems that no one can pierce your unreasonable bias and cynical self-interest. 

            You aren't worth having a discussion with and so I use what gets under your skin instantly—if these images didn't, you would never be as upset by them as you evidently are.  The truth doesn't bother people . . . unless of course it should!

            My rule of thumb . . .

            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6227445_f520.jpg

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There's an old adage about their being only two certainties in life: death and taxes.
              It has recently been updated.
              And haters gonna hate.

              1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't want to believe that MM, it makes life hopeless. I want to believe Eckhart Tolle's advice—that is,  these folks are not to be blamed for their thinking because they are not truly conscious of their behavior.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                  Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I would agree with the "not fully conscious" part.

                  1. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
                    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  They are not truly conscious. Period.

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You don't discuss anything. You just post insipid posters and insult people's intelligence.

              1. recommend1 profile image70
                recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Such small insults.

  19. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    I am glad to see things haven't changed too radically on these forums...  Firstly, greeting to all of you, and I would like to jump right in the convo if you all don't mind.
    To my dear right leaning hubbers, I would like to let you know that I was using about four weeks of paid vacation time, to which I was legally entitled to by the 'socialist' system of this country i.e. France. It helped me blow off some steam and get back to work with enthusiasm and vigor.
    Now, since I also employ others I can state that if an employee is denied vacation time, the company will pay a penalty and will have to give the said employee that vacation time anyhow. If an employee chooses not to use his/her vacation days, they accrue as time progresses.   
    This is an example of a system in which the government and unions determine the maximum number of work hours per week, minimum wage, and a whole bunch of other socialist policies meant to protect the workers from exploitation. 
    And yet, France is only slightly less productive than the US and this is only if the measure of productivity does not take into account the number of hours worked per week. If the workweek is part of the calculation, France has a higher labor productivity than the US.
    I would much rather work, plan, and build a family in this system which enables me to have free time, healthcare, a pension etc. So you think people having these things is bad or what?

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      nice to see you back smile

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Of course it isn't. But you have to define socialism, as it truly is, to the brain washed minions. And, you'll need a higher PR ranking than Faux. smile to get the message out there.

  20. startupninja profile image61
    startupninjaposted 4 years ago

    Oh and I almost forgot... here's what young people on this side of the pond would like to see happen: http://europeansocialistalternative.blogspot.com/

  21. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/551093_10150974610761275_969247634_n.jpg

  22. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers!

  23. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers! What about a lesson of Art, since you used this drawing to reflect your thoughts (which ones are they? Who cares?), enlighten us? What is the name of the painting it is referred to and its painter? Let's see if mighty mom will surprise us?

  24. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers! What about a lesson of Art, since you used this drawing to reflect your thoughts (which ones are they?), enlighten us? What is the name of the painting it is referred to and its painter? Let's see if mighty mom will surprise us?

  25. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers! What about a lesson of Art, since you used this drawing to reflect your thoughts (which ones are they?), enlighten us? What is the name of the painting it is referred to and its painter? Let's see if mighty mom will surprise us?

  26. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Is there a reason you keep posting the same thing?

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      must be a glitch, the hub pages filter doesn't allow multiple posts of the same thing.

  27. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Oh, yours mighty mom! Most people on hubpages know nothing about socialism and still criticize, I guess you are part of them! I don't recall having read anything that relates to reason in your answers! What about a lesson of Art, since you used this drawing to reflect your thoughts (which ones are they?), enlighten us? What is the name of the painting it is referred to and its painter? Let's see if mighty mom will surprise us with her "knowledge"?

    1. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      1. One post would have sufficed.
      2. I didn't draw the cartoon, I just received it in my email from a friend and thought it might be controversial so reposted here on HP. It seems to be attracting a decent number of posts, so I guess my instincts were correct.
      3. Painting? I don't no nothin' 'bout no painting. roll
      But the artwork is reminiscent of the title character in a string of horror movie spoofs.
      Munch on that, maxomam!
      lol

  28. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    50% right. Did your friend sent you the reference? How can one know an artist without its title?

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes anonymity speaks volumes.

    2. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh for goodness' sake.
      Can't leave off the lol lol lol or the slow learners in the crowd will not recognize the sarcasm.
      roll
      Along with the Mona Lisa and American Gothic, that painting is in the top three most recognizable in the world.

  29. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295007_10150624257156275_1813859712_n.jpg

    Ok... So it takes 85 hours a week in AZ to be able to afford a 2-bedroom apartment?

    That's $33,800/year, $2800/month.

    You can get a 2-bedroom apartment in Phoenix for as low as $400/month. Lots of options at $600/month.

    You have got to be very bad at budgeting to need $2800/month to afford an apartment at $600, let alone $400.

    Minimum wage increases unemployment, especially among young and unskilled workers. Raising it would only increase that unemployment more.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Some people arn't that great at budgeting though. Some people, do not budget for stolen bus passes and enough food to feed their children. For example, there was a poster on hubpages who had their bus pass stolen, but had not budgeted for an incident like this. They had to starve their child for a whole week to get to work.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So, it's the job of the government to force businesses to pay more money to individuals who can't budget?

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know, you tell me. I can budget and I've never starved my child. I'm all ears when it comes to another perspective.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ok, I'll tell you. It's not the government's job to set price floors or ceilings. Minimum wage is a price floor. All it does is exclude jobs that would exist if the price floor weren't there.

            Budgeting should be taught by parents, and in school. It's a simple thing to learn, and could have saved a lot of heartache during the housing crash.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So what happened with you and your parents then, when you starved your daughter?

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ? This again?

                I do credit my parents for teaching me about financial responsibility. I'm glad to never have gone without food, and now I'm lucky enough to be starting my own business.

              2. StegToDiffer profile image62
                StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hollie, life is rough.  Nobody is saying that it isn't tragic that the parent in the poster couldn't feed her child.  But what we're saying is that it isn't the job of the wealthy to pay for that child's food, it is still the mother's no matter whether her pass got stolen or not.  If the mother is getting money from the rich for her own needs, isn't she doing (although indirectly and not intentionally or maliciously) the same thing as the thief who took her bus pass for his own needs?

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I wasn't talking about the parent in the poster. I was addressing a man who is pontificating about budgeting, blaming the poor for their lot, and who, starved their own child because his bus pass was stolen. Did he not tell you about this?. But he doesn't want to talk about that now. I'm calling out hypocracy..

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, you claimed this before. Apparently I starved my daughter before she was born...

                    When you can't actually make an argument about the topic, result to anything else.

                2. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Why not, why don't we as a country have a responsibility to care for our fellow citizen, after all we pay taxes so that everyone can be protected by say the police, so why should we not care for people more directly.

                  "It's greed that ails us and a good example is the case of the child, if a child is nurtured, loved, well fed and educated he will usually grow to become an asset to his community, to help them and to obey the law of the people. Starve a child, expose him to violence and poor education and leave him in want and he will usually grow to prey on his community, he will turn to violence crime and bring misery to all. Caring for a child of our community is not only a moral right it's a sound investment in our own prosperity."

                  Robert Tressel 1901

            2. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's weird to me that people don't seem to realize that we tried that and it was so bad that we changed it, not just here but all throughout the developed world, people wee being paid nothing at all, barely enough to eat and the situation was untenable which is why all those states and their people passed minimum wage laws.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There are laws that existed in the past that aren't needed anymore. With globalization of information, we have nationwide and worldwide competition in the free market. Only something like 1% of jobs are minimum wage, the rest are all set by the market.

                ~25% of young adults are unemployed. They don't have experience, they don't have jobs. It would be better to allow them to work at $5/hr than say they can't work at all. At least that way they could earn money and gain experience for a better future.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2009.htm

                  5% of employees are minimum wage or below.

                  More to the point as you well know, minimum wage sets a base wage and many many employers pay just a bit above minimum wage to avoid the stigma of it being a minimum wage job.

                  I am all for dispensations for lower wage for first time jobs and jobs below 21 which i believe exist in several states but it's simply not correct to not pay an adult many of whom are trying to support a family any less than the current minimum wage (which is low as it is).

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What about employers that can't afford higher paying jobs?

                    Price floors and price ceilings are not a good thing. They always have negative consequences.

                    Look at the energy sector, for example. The government has set price ceilings on energy costs through public energy, and our infrastructure needs billions and billions of dollars worth of updating, because they haven't been charging what it costs to provide the energy.

                  2. StegToDiffer profile image62
                    StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Those who promote government interference with the economy always fail to consider long term consequences...oh, except for Keynes infamous "In the long term, we'll all be dead."

              2. StegToDiffer profile image62
                StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And even if companies don't need to hire any more people, their products will be cheaper for everyone (including those who can't currently pay for food.)

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  that's the falsest logic one can imagine.

                  Look at this.


                  For food especially labor is a tiny part of the cost of production, the BLS consumer expenditure survey found that total farm labor costs, cost each household $38 a year which means we could give every farm worker in the country a 33.3% wage raise for an extra $12.66 a year per household. On the other hand people who can't afford food would be very well represented in the minimum wage bracket if we raise their wages by just $2.50 (about a third)  for example then multiply that by a full time job we get ($2.50X40) X 52 = $5200 extra for them yearly at the cost of $12.66 in food costs per household yearly.

                  Basically wages play a very small part in food prices but minimum wage plays a very large part in people not being able to afford food. Now read this comment because it took me work to put it together tongue

                  http://www.bls.gov/cex/
                  http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 … ld-workers

                  1. StegToDiffer profile image62
                    StegToDifferposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Josak, in the future, use more periods.  But I did read your comment and I also read the New York Times article on which it is based. True, with minimum wage we are raising the wages of the farm worker.  That much is true.  And I am not saying that every minimum wage worker would be able to suddenly feed themselves because of a 5 cent decrease in the price of carrots.
                         But once again, you are only considering immediate, short-term effects.
                         Let's say you're a farmer.  You want to grow as much as you can to earn enough profit as possible.  You have plenty of land, all you need is someone to cultivate it for you.  You have to hire some workers, but you can't hire enough.  The money you are making doesn't allow you to hire very many people because the minimum wage is too high.  Therefore, you need to scale back production.  Instead of producing 100 pounds of carrots an hour, now you're only producing 80.
                         Because of this drop in production, supply is low.  Demand for carrots stays constant.  Now carrot prices really begin to rise.
                         In addition to that unintended effect, here's another: farmers hire immigrants to secretly work for less than minimum wage.  Jobs, essentially, are being outsourced.  Farmers have been forced to resort to an alternative market, or the "black market" if you will. (Btw-I don't think immigration is a big deal.)
                         Now, you're not a farmer anymore.  You're a citizen who cannot find work as a farmhand but still must pay taxes.  You would rather work for 5 bucks an hour than for nothing at all, but the government won't let you.  The government won't let you make a trade that you want to make, your labor for an employers money.
                         That is what minimum wage legislation comes down to.

  30. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
    Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago

    Right Wing Billionaires Shudder as PolitiFact Confirms Bernie

    It's a fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders has seen his statements about wealth inequality come under vicious attack from the right. Today, PolitiFact confirmed that Sen. Sanders’ statement about the Walton family having more wealth than the bottom 40% is true.

    A little over a week ago Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted that, “Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America.” Sanders also made this statement during his recent congressional testimony on Citizens United.

    Even though Sen. Sanders has been discussing the issues of wealth inequality and fighting for middle class and working Americans for years, it was his recent report about the impact of Citizens United and the 26 billionaires who are trying to buy the 2012 election that has raised the ire of the right.

    The Vermont senator’s recent statements about the Walton family caught the attention of PolitiFact, and the Pulitzer Prize winner fact checkers analyzed Sanders’ tweet.

    PolitiFact concluded that, “The statistic correctly compares the combined net worth of the bottom 41.5 percent of American families with the six Walton family members. We think the additional points — that many people with a negative net worth are not necessarily poor and that percentages about wealth distribution can be deceiving — are important and interesting. Nevertheless, Sanders’ claim is solid. We rate it True.”

    The right has been trying various tactics to undermine the message of Sen. Sanders. Their favorite one seems to be to complain that Sanders only goes after conservative billionaires. They frequently ask why Sanders doesn’t go after the liberal billionaires who are buying elections. The answer to that question is that liberal billionaires aren’t holding secret conferences to fundraise and strategize about how to purchase our elections.

    The answer is that left isn’t engaging in the same behavior to the same degree that the right is. There is a reason why Democrats support efforts to overturn Citizens United, and Republicans are opposed. The conservative billionaires have become the lifeblood of the Republican Party. They pick the candidates. The right wing billionaires buy the ads, and when their candidates are elected, they pass the legislation. Conservative billionaires own and operate the Republican Party.

    Bernie Sanders is dangerous to the interests of these billionaires, because as PolitiFact confirmed, he is telling the truth about their activities. In a political system where incumbents have been terrorized into silence by Citizens United empowered billionaires, Sen. Bernie Sanders stands alone.

    The only way that the billionaires will be defeated is if the American people stand together against wealth inequality, and demand their country back. Sen. Sanders has the message that can put the tools of our representative democracy back into the people’s hands.


    http://youtu.be/fKV2iJj9Quc

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Man I love Bernie Sanders, not only has he had good results and popularity but the guy has real backbone and intelligence.

  31. phion profile image60
    phionposted 4 years ago

    Why would they work for minimum wage or less, if their government will give them even more in exchange for votes?

    1. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Stegtodiffer:

      well first off don't look at me about welfare, I don't believe in welfare checks and if it was up to me I would change things to get rid of them entirely except for the disabled etc. you won't find me supporting paying people to do nothing. I believe in the dignity and reward of labor but equally you won't find me blaming people for not wanting to work in a field all day for a pittance, they deserve a better wage (not to mention treatment as most have no health insurance etc with their job).

      I don't in general think the poor are lazy doubtless there are lazy individuals. The point is both here are a problem, welfare checks without the knowledge of whether someone can't find work or won't work and a wage that is insufficient for people to want to work.

      My son did some harvesting work a few years back about a quarter of his wages went to fuel right off the bat, working a full time job for $250 a week is not an attractive prospect.

      As for things being cheaper in Mexico I know because I have been to Mexico one can easily live a week for less than $20 (groceries wise) minimum wage in Mexico is about $4 so things have to be cheaper to be affordable.

    2. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image61
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/421319_322210777826317_1486128387_n.jpg

      https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/582102_10151940877460363_941604024_n.jpg

  32. Charles James profile image86
    Charles Jamesposted 4 years ago

    Which leads to the interesting question "Why can't the farmers afford to pay even the minimum wage to agricultural workers?"

    Is it because the farmers are growing more crops than the market wants? What Marx described as cyclical overproduction or we normally call "boom and bust"?

 
working