jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (160 posts)

Socialism creates slaves to the State.

  1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
    StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago

    Republicans are having a hard time garnering the Minority Vote, specifically because the Democrats have spent decades hammering home the idea that Minorities cannot (or should not have to) stand on their own, and MUST rely on Government Handouts to survive.

    Man has been domesticating animals with that same paradigm, for eons. We supply all their needs: Food, shelter, healthcare... All we require in return is that they only behave as we direct, work as we demand, and we get to EAT THEM, if the mood strikes.

    Man should not do that to his fellow man. Slavery, particularly this sly, insidious kind, is evil. Who would wish that on his worst enemy?

    The new Plantation is the Democrat Party. The new Whip is fear of Republicans (who will take away all we have forced the Evil Rich to "share"). The new Crop is voter turnout.


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6278281_f248.jpg

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe it's cause Santorum calls then blaaaaahhhh people. And Mormons aren't exactly minority friendly..and well, you know Paul's troubles with his newsletter...and oh yah...a white nationalist spoke at CPAC!!!


      ooooops, forgot this one by Newt: food stamp president.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Reagan was a sellout. Most of his policies were socialist in nature.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image61
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You forgot to add vote Ron Paul, but why would anyone want to waste their vote?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Vote Ron Paul" should have been in quotation marks.

          Semantics aside, enjoy your tyranny.

    3. tammybarnette profile image61
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The republican party is the party building an elite class and a slave class. Eight years of Bush drove this country into a hole so deep that we can barely crawl out but of course let's keep letting the wealthy pay less taxes than the rest of us so they can keep creating those jobs? Where are those jobs by the way? Making the wealthy pay their fair share is not socialism. It will increase revenues, which we must have because of our decade of war debt! I am so sick of people blaming the poor and homeless for the crumbs they get for the government as if that's whats breaking our backs! Give me a break. Programs need better regulations to be sure, but corporate welfare is where the revenues lie. Being a socially responsible government is not being a socialist government!

      1. American View profile image61
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        History shows when taxes get raised, revenues go down. Obama came into office, he raised taxes, the revenues tanked. Bush 1 raised taxes, revenues tanked, Clinton raised taxes, revenues tanked. Bush 2 lowered taxes, and btw, take time to read the actual bush tax cuts and you will see that there are not many tax cuts for the wealthy in there it was mostly for the poor and middle class, and the revenues went up to levels that have not been seen since he left office. The problem is Congress went on a spending binge and out spent what was coming in.

        http://thebushtaxcuts.blogspot.com/

        1. tammybarnette profile image61
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually Clinton raised taxes to a fair level for the wealthy and we enjoyed the best economy of my lifetime and he left office with a surplus, Bush stole that money from everyone who paid in and gave huge tax breaks to the wealthy with the usual Republican trickle down crap and guess what it trickled into the billionaires pockets, go figure.

          1. American View profile image61
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually Clinton raised taxes and the economy tanked, it did not flourish till he later cuts taxes, then the economy began to grow. With Congress he also reformed Welfare, something no one wants to do now.

            Bush did not steal anything from anyone, the huge tax breaks for the wealthy simply is a Dem Talking point. I gave you the link to read, there are two other links in the article that takes you to the actual tax cuts bills. You can read them for yourself and see for yourself.

            Take for example the Jet tax Obama blames on the Bush tax cuts. You will see they do not exist. But if you go read the Obama stimulus, WHALA, there it is. He is the one who gave the jet tax break. The best is it had a sunset clause for 2010. So not only does Obama mislead everyone about the origins of the tax credit, he wants to eliminate a credit that does not even exist anymore.

            You really need to research the revenues by years and budget spending by years. Its an eye opener.

            I am sure you did not go read the link I left you. There was a calculator link there where you could put in your information and see how much your taxes will increase just as soon as Obama eliminates them. I think that would interest you.

            1. tammybarnette profile image61
              tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this
              1. tammybarnette profile image61
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I forgot to mention, the calculator was a cool tool, the best for my family is the compromise, which I thought to be fitting since I believe compromise is the best way for us to achieve results:) thanks for the link

                1. American View profile image61
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Tammy,

                  I agree that that compromise is a good way to go, unfortunately, Washington cannot compromise on anything. In fact they cannot agree if it was raining outside while they under an umbrella that was protecting them from the rain.

                  I may not agree with you but at least I respect your viewpoint and we civilly discuss the issue. It is long past time for Washington to do the same. There is plenty of blame to go around for what both sides have done that brought us to where we are now.

                  I am not against raising taxes on the top 1%, but, I am against raising anyones taxes until the waste and unauthorized spending is cut first. We also need to overhaul the tax codes. If after that has honestly been accomplished and we are still running deficits, then raise taxes on the top 1% and if that is not enough, then raise them on all of us.

              2. American View profile image61
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Tammy,

                I followed your link and I know the site fact check. I am not sure why you posted it, I guess there was something you wanted me to read on taxes but I did not see an article about taxes on the page.

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  American View, I used that sight to research Clinton's Presidency, it's been awhile so I'm not sure where I used for the search, I apologize, What I had found was about the 1993 Economic Plan, that Clinton had cut taxes on low income families and made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, he raised taxes on the top 1%, 7.7 million new jobs were created in the first 2 and ahlf years of his presidency, unemployment fell from 7% to 5.6% and real GDP growth in 1994 as the highest in over a decade. I just think the man was a financial whiz kid. Now I know technologies were booming in the 90"s, but they still are today, we are just not funding and fostering education the way we did in the 90's. I agree with you about taxes, I actually the idea of a flat tax, maybe some breaks for small business, and I know what your saying about waste and corruption, without getting rid of the crooks no good measures will ever matter; crooks on both sides. We may disagree on how to get there to some degree but its obvious we both love our country and want to see things in Washington change. We have also proven that an intelligent conversation between a conservative and a liberal can happen,lol, good for us:)

            2. Janze profile image74
              Janzeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your interpretation of the damage that Bush has created is conveniently benign. Bush did not only ravage the sound economic conditions and more than a trillion dollar budgetary surplus that were handed to him by the outgoing democratic president, but he has shattered America's good standing in the eyes of the world and and became with killing people. when he left office, his legacy was the worst recession in 80 years, a financial and banking structure that were on the verge of collapse and an economy that was loosing 500,000 jobs, a month.

              No enemy of America has done more harm to the American nation and the American brand than George Bush.

              And in that situation, there is no glory for anyone, republicans or democrats. America and Americans have been the losers as a result of the Bush debacle.

              1. American View profile image61
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                JANZE,

                First the obvious, even the CBO has admitted there was no surplus under Clinton. He "achieved it" with phony numbers. He counted the funds piad to SS trust fund and to the federal retirement system as income when they truly were not. He was the only President to ever do that.

                Even if you still do not believe that, show me where the national debt either fell or did not go up one penny under Clinton. I will save you the trouble but you can still look it up, NEVER. The national debt rose every year under Clinton. So, if we had a surplus, which we all know means we had enough money to pay the bills with funds left over, then why did the national debt continue to rise? The national debt is the accumulation of the shortages the yearly budget yields and we had to borrow to pay all the bills. So again, why borrow money to pay the bills if you have a surplus of money? Answer, because we did not have a surplus.BTW, even the best spinning economists never even said there was a trillion dollar surplus.

                You blame Bush for the Banking and Financial issue. Who was it that passed the regulations that allowed it to happen? A Democratic controlled congress under Clinton and he signed those laws and regulations. Who was it the kept testifying to Congress that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound and told everyone to "invest heavily in Fannie stock?" Barney Frank(D) And who repeatedly questioned and warned that Fannie, Freddie and the banks were on course to financial ruin? The Republicans.

                You claim Bush ravaged the economy, then why was the revenues the highest in history after the Bush tax cuts and have not been there since? Look Bush's major failure was not hitting the Veto button or stopping the out of control spending of Congress. That has to fall on Bush's shoulders and no one elses.

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  AV and Janze, I found the link to this question, www.factcheck.org :the budget and deficit under Bill Clinton; there is a difference between the deficit and the debt and I think folks just mix up the terminology, yes their was a surplus and yes the deficit shrunk every year under Clinton, the national debt is another can of worms all together,lol, Even after taking into account social security it has since been proven we were still running a surplus. The government does nor use GAAP accounting principles however, never have, go figure, I think they should and would be held accountable in the same way corporations are suppose to be.

                  1. American View profile image61
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You are right, there is a difference between budget deficit and national debt, but, a budget deficit adds to the total national debt. When the budget comes up short, we borrow the money to pay the bills, therefore adding to the national debt. So as I said earlier, if there was a surplus, there was no reason to add to the national debt, yet it went up every year under Clinton.

                  2. American View profile image61
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Here is something I just found

                    Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

                    Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

                    How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

                    For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
                    $152.3B from Social Security
                    $30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
                    $18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
                    $15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
                    $9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
                    $8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
                    $3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
                    $1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
                    $7.0B from others

                    Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
                    ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

                    If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


                    the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.

        2. Thinking Allowed profile image61
          Thinking Allowedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          When did Obama raise taxes?

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Bravo!

        "Lots of you seem hell bent on turning a blind eye to the suffering of their people!"

        Due to the impossible cost of living....a result of un-ending supply of the profit for the top....whether it be gained by wages or gvt largess.

        Socialism for the Rich is what we have in America.

        "Almost every American over the age of 18 years is in debt to a school, a financial institution or some corporation. The reasoning for the republicans seems to be you be a slave to a corporation, but not the state."

    4. Janze profile image74
      Janzeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Of course, republicans do not take government handouts.

      It is always amazing to me that people who claim to be republicans continue to say that they believe in less taxes and smaller governments. And while the speak that kind nonsense, the American government has grown bigger under republicans than under democrats.

      Ignorance is not always bliss.

      On the issue of socialism making people the slaves to the government has to be a joke.

      Almost every American over the age of 18 years is in debt to a school, a financial institution or some corporation. The reasoning for the republicans seems to be you be a slave to a corporation, but not the state.

      I sorry, whether you are slave to corporation or any other institution, you are still a slave.

      I am not socialistic in my outlook, but I do not know of any population in the world that is more beholden to corporations than Americans.

      Capitalism is a system that places more value on profit than on the human beings who make the profit possible. Does that seem like a system that is worthy of the praise of any rational being?

    5. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Man has been domesticating animals with that same paradigm, for eons. We supply all their needs: Food, shelter, healthcare... All we require in return is that they only behave as we direct, work as we demand, and we get to EAT THEM, if the mood strikes."

      This sounds like capitalism, aside from the eating part.  Give me your cheap labor, and I will feed you enough to survive.  Though health care isn't guaranteed either...It actually sounds like we treat our animals better than our people.

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There are a few interesting perspectives on this, two that come to mind are a section in "The Ragged trousered Philanthropists" and an essay called "Envy the slave" the premise of both being that if you own a slave or an animal you will care for it because if it gets injured or sick or dies you lose property and money on the other hand if an employee dies he can be easily replaced, in the current economy usually at a lower price, furthermore remember that for most high powered positions companies take out life insurance on their employees and so actually benefit greatly from the death of their employees, so in a truly free capitalist system with no government intervention it would certainly be better to be a slave (or an animal as far as treatment) in our current somewhat restricted capitalist society it's debatable who is better off, after all most wages are not sufficient to completely provide for a family.

        To give an example if I have a work horse and I work him too hard and he gets sick I have to pay for his treatment and suffer losses while he is unable to work, if an employee gets sick then he is just fired and replaced with someone else, there is a lot more incentive to take care of my horse than my employees.

      2. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There are a few interesting perspectives on this, two that come to mind are a section in "The Ragged trousered Philanthropists" and an essay called "Envy the slave" the premise of both being that if you own a slave or an animal you will care for it because if it gets injured or sick or dies you lose property and money on the other hand if an employee dies he can be easily replaced, in the current economy usually at a lower price, furthermore remember that for most high powered positions companies take out life insurance on their employees and so actually benefit greatly from the death of their employees, so in a truly free capitalist system with no government intervention it would certainly be better to be a slave (or an animal as far as treatment) in our current somewhat restricted capitalist society it's debatable who is better off, after all most wages are not sufficient to completely provide for a family.

        To give an example if I have a work horse and I work him too hard and he gets sick I have to pay for his treatment and suffer losses while he is unable to work, if an employee gets sick then he is just fired and replaced with someone else, there is a lot more incentive to take care of my horse than my employees.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is really interesting.  It sounds like something Marx would've said.  Some early socialists thinkers also argued slavery was better than the wage system.  Back in their day, there was no unemployment insurance or anything like that.  Many people starved to death if they lost their job.  With slavery, theoretically, you are guaranteed a house and a minimal amount of food.  With wage labor, you aren't even guaranteed that.

          I also didn't know the whole thing about life insurance.  Why can't we just have cooperation instead of competition?  Humankind can work together for the common good, rather than everyone working for their own private interest.  Wouldn't it be incredible if everyone in the world decided to work together to provide for basic needs?

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes it would, I truly hope we will see it as a reality some day, if you have an interest in these matters there are two books you must read. The a fore mentioned "The Ragged trousered Philanthropists" which can be read here since the copyright expired 70 years ago or so: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3608 its a critique f capitalism coming from someone who truly experienced it before government regulation as a worker in the industrial revolution, as well as being interesting it's a great story as it is written in a novel form.

            The other is called Walden Two it is written by B F Skinner one of the leading behavioral psychologists of all time, he can speak with authority about what human nature truly is and what people will accept or not with this knowledge in mind he creates a Utopian society that he believes would conform to human nature (and he is pretty much THE expert on it.)

            I think I should give you a follow, if you do ever get round to reading either of those (or if you already have) I would love to hear what you thought, good or bad.

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I will definitely check those out!

    6. Thinking Allowed profile image61
      Thinking Allowedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Um...no. ACTUAL slavery and other events after that, you might've heard of'em: segregation, a denial or education, jobs, housing, dignity, rights, etc... etc... kinda led to minorities, blacks in particular, being in worse of a situation than they would have been in if they were just allowed to do for themselves in the first place. So wanting someone to stand on their own 2 is a great sentiment, but you don't get to say it AFTER YOU BREAK SOMEONE'S FUCKING LEGS. Under normal circumstances, of course everyone should do for themselves, but conservatives, as always, conveniently forget what led to people needing the help in the first place. It's not a handout or socialism to repair damage that YOU caused. That's called personal responsibility. Ironic isn't it? Calling on others to shoulder a burden that, a good portion, was handed to them by you?

      You don't get to first chain someone to the starting line, then let them run on a track when you've thrown obstacles in their way, then say they shouldn't complain or that you have no further responsibility because you're currently not throwing anymore obstacles on the track. The old ones are still there. Their responsibility is to keep running forward, yours is to clear out the obstacles that you put down in the first place. Of course that's too much to ask though.

      1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
        StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thinking Allowed, but damned little research, evidently.

        Prior to the Great Society, the New Deal, and the creation of the Welfare State, black families all across the Nation were moving steadily up through the Middle and Upper Classes. Margarete Sanger found that very concept despicable, and created a lasting institution bent on eliminating them from the gene pool.

        The first Black congressmen were all Republican, whereas the segregationist knuckle-dragging Jim Crow Laws advocates were all Democrats.

        One of the best, and least known points to recommend the Constitution, is that when slavery was abolished, not one word of it had to be changed.

        Here's a little test for ya, Thinking (or anyone else who cares to answer): What was the point behind the "Three Fifths of a Person" language?

        1. Thinking Allowed profile image61
          Thinking Allowedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Given that I am a black person growing up in these communities seeing the economic, social, and, most importantly, psychological damage up close, inside and out, I think I've done more than enough research. The damage done in these communities is real. The cycles created in these communities are still going. The problem is not even how these problems are addressed, the problem, from your side, is a refusal to acknowledge where these problems even stem from or that they even exist. You don't get it and you don't attempt to. You sit around wondering why we wont vote for your nutjob candidates, making excuses as to what our reasons are (this forum being an example), instead of listening to what the people you're talking ABOUT are telling you when they're talking TO you.

          Please don't try to pass off dems and repubs of today as being the same as those of the past. They may have the same label but they are not the same people. Damned little research or just damned dishonest? Those dixiecrats are your republicans today.

          What's the point of bringing up 3/5's? People who couldn't vote and couldn't control their own destiny where used as pawns to beef up numbers to give sway to slave-holding states. Regardless of what amazing enlightening tid-bit you'll respond with about it, these people were not treated as people. That's really all I need to know.

    7. StripedCrunchy profile image61
      StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      For all those Lock-Step Liberal Lemmings who just KNOW Socialism is the Best Thing Ever...

      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6302014_f248.jpg

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And I thought it was capitalist America that destroyed Cuba!

        Or don't embargoes count?

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Cuba with a longer life expectancy than the US? the Cuba with total free healthcare? The Cuba that provides heating for hundreds of thousands of families in the US? The Cuba with a lower infant mortality rate than the US? The Cuba with free higher education? The Cuba with a literacy rate three times what it was before the revolution? The Cuba with three times the average GDP per person than before the revolution? Cuba is a million times better off now than it was under capitalist patronage, go read some statistics. Those casinos were built by Mafia money shipped in and the island was under the control of of a dictator who the year before the revolution killed 30 000 of his own citizens and strung their limbs up from light posts and trees to discourage people questioning his government, oh yeah Cuba was much better off before socialism...

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It's OK, I was just having a dig at Striped.

      2. Janze profile image74
        Janzeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No one has claimed or is claiming that Socialism is the best system. the issue is that that worshipful adoration of capitalism that Americans seem to have for capitalism belies the shattering reality of it.

        1. Thinking Allowed profile image61
          Thinking Allowedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly! Conservatives most of all seem enamored with this idea of capitalism that exists on paper and only works there as well. This idea works great when no people are living under it.

          The best system is the one that works. I couldn't care less what you call it. Ralph Deeds below put it like this and I agree:

          "Fair taxation and sufficient government revenues to support good public schools, public libraries, public transportation, repair roads and bridges, and sufficient regulation to provide a reasonable assurance that banks and businesses deliver fairly on their promise of prosperity in a market economy. This is not socialism. It's merely common sense."

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Common sense is severely lacking today.   Suddenly, the EPA has turned into some kind of mythological evil monster that is out to destroy the economy, and any government spending is seen as wasteful, even if it's on something like roads, bridges, or teachers.

  2. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    http://media-worlds.theotaku.com/20773-805572-20110217214214.jpg

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LOL.  I love this!

  3. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    State controlled socialism has not yet been acheived. The Soviet Union wasn't a true socialist state, socialism is a bottom up thing, not a top down thing. It starts with two people being socialble to each other in every way, and then, random acts of kindness can take over, and through 6 degrees of separation, it can spread...until everyone is being sociable. Socialism is better than Anti-socialism.

    1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
      StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks Dude. You at least attempted to address the issue I posted. I wish fervently that what you described was what socialism is, but that's just not the case.

      These other glittering jewels of colossal ignorance simply bleated "Two legs bad, four legs good!!" Never speaking to the larger issues I brought to the table.

      1. Greek One profile image78
        Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh Snap Even, he told you!

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I adhere to the definition of the root word, Social. Social programs are those labeled socialist, therefore, the finished product of a socialist state has to begin with the weakest of us. Linking the ability to have a meal to eat should not be determined by how much one can pay. Nor should the ability to get medical help. Or a roof over your head.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How evil, putting food into a hungry man's belly and putting a roof over a tired man's head!

            1. Druid Dude profile image60
              Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Means , dare I say it? SHARING THE WEALTH EQUALLY.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, no, how would I afford to fly my Lear Jet!

                1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
                  StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You might ask Queen Michelle that very question. 22 assistants (20 more than any previous first lady), full security compliment, friends and attendants, ALL get to fly with her on her various, exorbitant vacations. ALL on the American Taxpayer's dime. And a puny little Lear Jet? Heaven forbid!

                  Elite Socialist Propagandists are only about spending OTHER people's money.

                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6278849_f248.jpg

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ron Paul on the other hand refuses Secret Security protection, and will voluntarily take a 90% pay cut if elected President.

              2. Disturbia profile image59
                Disturbiaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                With whom do you share your wealth, and do you share it equally?  You all miss the point of what StripedCrunchy is trying to say.  When you take away a person's incentive to make their own living, you turn them into nothing more than a house pet... it's the old give a man a fish vs. teach him how to fish deal.  I don't mind sharing with those who HAVE not, but I'm not so thrilled about sharing with those who WILL not.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course there is nothing in socialism that says "equally".
                  To each according to need, from each according to ability.

            2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
              StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

              ~Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766~

            3. StripedCrunchy profile image61
              StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.

              ~Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson, May 9, 1753~

              1. Cassie Smith profile image75
                Cassie Smithposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ben Franklin is so right.  It's really hard to find that balance though.  I think a lot of social services to help the poor have just enabled some of them to stay on benefits for generations.  It might be too late for the black lower class and unfortunately, the Mexican lower class seem to be following in their wake.

          2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
            StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Being Sociable is a far cry from being a Socialist. To quote George Carlin, "By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth."

            The Left has a long and checkered past, where using dumbed-down weasel words to fool the incurious, are concerned. "Murdering the Unborn" became Abortion became Choice.

            I am all for human kindness, socializing, society, Charity (a word derived from Christian Giving, BTW) and the constant improvement of the Human condition. When people are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their OWN labors, Creativity and Wealth pour forth like water from a geyser.

            When you hold a gun to them, and FORCE them to give more and more of the product of their own labors to an ever growing "dependent" class (while taking a healthy cut off the top for Administrative Purposes, don't ya know), you effectively cap the well. Choking off all incentive to innovate and produce.

            I don't care what nice words you come up with to title it; a dung-heap, by any other name, would smell as foul.

            1. Druid Dude profile image60
              Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Good point...maybe that is how socialist became one of George's dirty words. Socialism still trumps anti-socialism. Don't try to re-define the word simply to foster misconception.

            2. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But you are describing capitalism where people are definitely not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their own labours, there are too many sponging off them to have enough left to enjoy!

              1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
                StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "Sponging" like the dependent  class our Democrat SlaveMasters encourage, John? So they can garner votes from the plantation? By telling them the Evil Rich aren't paying their Fair Share, and so must be sponged off more, at the point of the government's guns?

                Again you're using conservative arguments to make a liberal case, John. You ARE a mole, aren't you.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know about that, all I know is that if you work for a capitalist you can expect to be paid anything from one sixth to one quarter of what you earn. Unless of course you live in the third world where they are nothing like as generous.

                  Would you really like a debate about slavery?

                  1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
                    StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    LOVE one, John.

  4. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    How do you murder something that's unborn?

    sheeeesh, that's about as silly as saying forcing women to give birth is less gvt intrusion! smile

    "When you hold a gun to them, and FORCE them"....eggs-actly.

    and yup..it does smell. smile

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How can you murder something that is inherently alive? Abortion: a good excuse for promiscuity and unreserved sexual abandon.

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Perfect solution: Home Abortion Kits "No one need ever know!"

      2. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "All we require in return is that they only behave as we direct"

        Yes, we know...you've been trying to do it forever, under the guise of "freedom"

    2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
      StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Forcing ME to pay for your sex, particularly if you're not giving any to me... Is that fair?

      Two legs bad, you say?? Four legs good, is it?

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No--I'm asking you to let ME pay for it.You won't even do that. Churches run this gvt!--And they get a free ride!!!

        Socialism for Religion is what we have in America.

    3. StripedCrunchy profile image61
      StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Churches run this Government??

      Lovemychris? I tried very hard to believe that your insistence that "up is down, sweet is sour, rough is soft and fish have fur" was somehow an attempt on your part at seeming provocative.

      Sadly, I'm now beginning to believe you're committed to spouting whatever nonsense you feel might add credence to your cause. Statements like "A baby isn't alive before it's born" also make you out to be callous and without feeling.

      Therefor, I'm afraid I can no longer read another word you write without picturing you as Shalob, and giving your words little weight and less thought.

      By all means, feel free to ignore me right back.

      1. American View profile image61
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are right

  5. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Sounds more capitalist than socialist to me, kind of like the lifestyles of the capitalist elites.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wish that abortion was retro-active!

      1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
        StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Amen, Dude.

        The people who argue FOR abortion, as it stands, come off as Poster Children for the Retroactive Abortion movement.

        None of them having been aborted themselves, it only seems fair.

        We KNOW how important fairness is, and that people who are not a minority or protected social class cannot possibly speak on a subject, having never been through it.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not getting uncomfortable and trying to change the subject are we?

          1. Druid Dude profile image60
            Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry. I'll stay on subject. I promise!smile

    2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
      StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Free Market Capitalism, as discussed by Benjamin Franklin in the two quotes I posted, has a long history of creating jobs, wealth and unalloyed prosperity.

      I'm not sure I see your point, Knol. Unless you have an argument that refutes Benjamin Franklin's?

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It creates inequality, and bubbles in the ecomomies which burst with catastrophic effects. Capitalism leaves the least capable among us from reaping the benefits which should be shared by all.

        1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
          StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Crony Capitalism, where the Government gets to choose the winners and losers by virtue of Patronage, is what you're describing. Fanny Mae. Freddy Mac, Solyndra, the friggen Volt. The list of Government failures, just this decade, is staggering.

          The Buggy Whip industry tanked, because Free Market Capitalism allowed Henry Ford to produce affordable cars for the masses, which changed the face of our entire planet for the betterment of all mankind. Ambulances and Firetrucks can reach their destinations in minutes, not hours.

          Or do you believe the State could have come up with something better and cheaper, without the Private Sector and Capitalism?

          Did you not read, or simply not believe, the Benjamin Franklin quotes about the consequences of "giving" to the poor?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Benjamin Franklin was living in cloud cuckoo land, or at least at a time when capitalists didn't demand unemployment to keep wages down.

            1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
              StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "...a time when capitalists didn't demand unemployment to keep wages down."?
              WHAT??

              You've just fallen out of the Realm of Reality, John. NO idea what that sentence was supposed to communicate.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's quite simple really, unemployment is a great depressant of wages,those bosses who scream against the minimum wage like unemployment because it keeps man prepared to work for any wage.
                I know in your warped world view you will claim that only socialists like unemployment but you'd be wrong.

                1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
                  StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have to remind myself you live in Europe, which has been stagnating under the auspices of Socialism for the better part of a century, and forgive your less than firm grasp of Economics and History, John. Educators cannot teach what they do not know.

                  I own a business. I have a service to sell. I CANNOT sell my service to the Unemployed or the Poor. Free Market Capitalism recognizes that every business is in the Sales business, and the better off your client base, target market, customer pool or demographic, the better off your Business will be. I cannot get rich, if everyone is too poor to buy from me. *I* know that. Rich people know that. EVERYONE seems to know that, except you.

                  I've read where you wrote greed defines Capitalism, and Capitalists rob from the poor and their employees. I would assume you also feel guns cause violence, poverty causes crime, buying oil causes terrorism, man causes the Globe to Warm (or the Climate to Change), keyboards cause misspelled words and forks cause fatness. Because none of those things are true, either.

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry it's really your frankly atrocious understanding of political systems that needs to be forgiven/corrected. You see Socialism is where the state owns most of them means of production at the current time that is not the case in any European country. Capitalism is when most of the means of production are privately owned, that is how all of the Major European countries function (actually I believe it is all full stop but there are some very small ones I am unsure about)

                    Socialism:
                    A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


                    cap·i·tal·ism/ˈkapətlˌizəm/
                    Noun:   
                    An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

                    Definitions learn them and love them.

                    #2 I would remind you that with the exception of Greece and possibly Ireland every major European economy is in a better state than the American one and that the collapse of the American economy occurred under the very capitalist conservative George Bush after he received it in good condition from the previous Democrat and progressive president.

                    Facts are facts.

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If you truly own a business and not some one man enterprise you will know that when you want to employ somebody new, you would rather have a choice of applicants who were more concerned with getting work than with money than one applicant (if you are lucky) with ten options for work and the only chance of getting him to come and work for you is to offer him more money than any of the others can.

                    Rich people understand better than you do that there is a balance between those that can afford their product and those who can't.
                    Look at, say, Rolls Royce cars, there are millions who can't afford one. Do the bosses at RR have sleepless nights worrying about this? I very much doubt it. Do they care that none of their workers can afford one? Nope.

  6. Eric Newland profile image59
    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago

    I kind of feel like socialism abdicates social responsibility rather than enforces it. You don't need to be kind to your neighbor anymore; the government takes any excess you might produce and is kind to your neighbor for you. You see someone in need? Meh, the government will get around to it eventually. That's their job, not mine.

    Conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals. They also volunteer more time and give more blood (incidentally, conservatives also earn less on average than liberals; surprised?). And I might as well quote this directly: "People who reject the idea that 'government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality' give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition." To me that's the difference between talking about helping the poor and actually helping them.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … l_giv.html

    I do believe that is a conservative site so it's probably not immune to bias. But an understandably dismayed liberal columnist also confirmed the facts:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini … istof.html

    I kind of agree with Druid Dude's definition of "socialism." It needs to come from the bottom up. That means the top needs to get out of the way.

    But as I've said in other threads, I'm all for government programs that "equip" rather than "enable." I'll vote for a school or mental health levy practically sight unseen. Welfare needs to be replaced with a comprehensive job training and placement program, with just enough cash to get people by until they can stand on their own feet. Disability still needs to exist, of course; there will always be people who will abuse it, but there does need to be a provision who simply can't provide for themselves.

  7. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Capitalism can't do social well. Those at the top of the ladder are too busy trying to stay there, and there isn't much room at the top 'o the ladder. It's to elevated  a pedestal to look down from. The heights make you dizzy....and besides, the only thing beneath you is all the ones who helped elevate you to that lofty place....those same ones you had to exploit (USE) and wlk over to get to where you are. The biggest hog with the most slop.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But it can do a very good job of pulling the wool over peoples eyes!

      As William Blake said -

      What is the price of experience? do men buy it for a song?
      Or wisdom for a dance in the street? no, it is bought with the price
      Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children
      Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy
      And in the wither’d field where the farmer plows for bread in vain
      It is an easy thing to triumph in the summer’s sun
      And in the vintage and to sing on the waggon loaded with corn
      It is an easy thing to talk of patience to the afflicted
      To speak the laws of prudence to the houseless wanderer
      To listen to the hungry raven’s cry in wintry season
      When the red blood is fill’d with wine and with the marrow of lambs

      It is an easy thing to laugh at wrathful elements
      To hear the dog howl at the wintry door, the ox in the slaughter house moan;
      To see a God on every wind and a blessing on every blast
      To hear sounds of love in the thunder storm that destroys our enemies’ house;
      To rejoice in the blight that covers his field
      And the sickness that cuts off his children

      While our olive and vine sing and laugh round our door
      And our children bring fruits and flowers

      Then the groan and the dolor are quite forgotten
      And the slave grinding at the mill
      And the captive in chains and the poor in the prison

      And the soldier in the field
      When the shatter’d bone hath laid him groaning among the happier dead
      It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tents of prosperity:
      Thus could I sing and thus rejoice: but it is not so with me

    2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
      StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dude. You're assumptions about Capitalism make your premises wrong. Hogs do not feed themselves, nor do they produce what they eat.

      Hogs (domesticated, that is) await the farmer to come and fill the trough. The hogs in your analogy would be the dependent class I speak of. The Capitalist Producers would be the Farmers, making the food for the hogs to eat. Nor are they very likely to leave a trough that is constantly being filled. Hogs Are DEPENDENT AND DOMESTICATED.

      Why on earth do you want to make Hogs of Men?

      Capitalism creates Opportunity, which Socialism stifles at every turn. Yes, sadly, there will be winners and losers. You learn far more from your failures than you ever do from your successes. Socialism holds you down and keeps you down, telling you that you cannot succeed, so why even try? Just sponge off the State!

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Men make hogs of themselves. Greed. Everything belongs to everyone. One gets too much, some go without. The more the few take, the less that is left for anyone else. Should everything be first come, first served. I think it should be share and share alike, according to need....like we're rationing, because we are rationing....except for the hoarders. Haven't you heard? Hoarding is an illness.

        1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
          StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Druid, this answer is easily the least informed synopsis on the creation of wealth I have ever read. It completely ignores and disregards 1000s of years of trial and error on man's part. That particular train of thought almost destroyed the first settlers to land here in the new world. Everything does so very NOT belong to everyone. If it did, very little would actually BE.

          I'll put it to your this way: Nobody pees in their own doorway. It is only when an individual OWNS a thing, that he truly values and respects it.

          The motive for profit gave us such silly things as the Cotton Gin. Eli Whitney didn't invent it so we could all wear comfortable T-shirts. He made it so Eli Whitney could amass a tidy sum. Yet, "greedy" ol' Eli revolutionized the fabric industry, clothing millions of millions for less money than they had ever needed to spend, and generating great paying jobs all along the way.

          Bill Gates didn't make Windows happen because he wanted Striped Crunchy to preach conservatism to a wider audience. He did it to enrich Bill Gates. And look how many lives have been enriched because of it. How many fortunes have been created. How much larger the Global Pie has become.

          When one man wins, it doesn't mean another man has to lose. The economy is NOT a Zero Sum Game. Growth happens, wealth increases, the mind of Man invents better ways of building and growing and doing, and everyone benefits, because a single human has an idea to make himself rich.

          You cannot share wealth that has not been created. You cannot force a man to give up that which he owns, most notably the products of his labors and his mind, so that you might "spread it around" without his permission or approval, without it being a robbery. no matter what name you put on it, stealing is stealing.

          I mourn for the unicorn your ride in your dreams, Dude.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But can't you see, capitalism does everything that you list there. The working man creates the wealth and is forced to give it up where it is spread around without his permission or approval.

            Yes indeed, stealing is stealing, even when your precious capitalists do it.

        2. Janze profile image74
          Janzeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Striped:

          From what you said, I take it that you have lived under socialism for many years and have experienced the stultifying nature of the system. And while you are so certain about the negations of socialism, perhaps, you would be kind enough to explain what system the Chinese used to bring more than 500,000,000 people out of poverty, about the populations of the US and western europe. And while you are doing that, perhaps, you would tell me which country owns the highest proportion of America's debt. I would appreciate your response.

          1. innersmiff profile image79
            innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            China - the country that has become more and more capitalist since Mao.

            1. Janze profile image74
              Janzeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Now, I have noticed that those who believe in the capitalistic religion, would go to extra-ordinary lengths to show that even in a socialist economy, capitalism is the prime reason for any success. The reverse argument is never made. How convenient!

              I think that it is reasonable to note that there has never been a pure system of any kind, be it economics or religion or politics, in operation at any time, in any country. The deceitful pomposity of western propagandists is that whatever is western is necessarily superior to anything else that comes from any other parts of the world. Of course, that idea is nonsensical and it has been the stated motivation for some western governments to inflict extreme hardships and death on millions of people across the globe.

              I suppose capitalism has its merits and I suppose that socialism has its merits. Yet, any system devised by man is inevitably flawed and does not deserve the kind of worshipful adoration that capitalism has continued to receive.

              Strictly speaking, capitalism has caused some outrageous hurt for many, many people because it was never designed to regard the unique value of human beings. Capitalism was designed to use human beings as consumables to be discarded when their functionality declines. I maintain that any system that considers human beings as only a means to an end, has little merit in my estimation.

              1. American View profile image61
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "capitalism has caused some outrageous hurt for many, many people"

                Tell me that the next time you use your cell phone, your microwave, pull up to a drive through at a fast food joint.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  All of those, not because of capitalism but despite it.

                  If you want to think about the suffering caused by capitalism,I could bring up slavery, but I won't this time, just look around you at every down and out.

                2. Janze profile image74
                  Janzeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  First, I do not accept the implied notion that capitalism is the initiator of innovation. The history of the world has not shown that theory to be is factual. However, I suppose that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions may produce some benefits, but nobody, in his right mind, would choose to experience those events with regular frequency.

              2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
                StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                DOWN with Corporations, too!

                I encourage all my delightfully Lefty friends to divest themselves of everything in their possession (forgetting that everyone owns everything, for a moment) which has a Corporate Logo on it. Starting, by all means, with the computers they're spouting their opinions from.

                Evil ol' Corporations, acting all Corporationee; creating jobs, careers, products and services we can all voluntarily buy or not, depending completely on our own whims. It's an OUTRAGE, I tell ya!

          2. StripedCrunchy profile image61
            StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Janze, when you set out to make poor points, you really go whole hog.

            First: China has by NO MEANS raised their populace out of poverty. Labor is so friggen cheap in China, they use manual labor to tear down buildings brink by brick, by hand, then knock off the mortar and use the bricks to build the new buildings. One of the major TV networks did a Hugh "Capitalist China" miniseries, discussing why international companies are looking at building factories in China, to take advantage of their dirt cheap labor.

            A country "dug out of poverty" will NOT be one known for it's "dirt cheap" labor. They also looked at Chinese farming communities where the average yearly wage was under a hundred dollars, the great gaping gap between the Rich and the Poor, their reluctance to give up the Bribe system the Chinese Government has had in place since Mao, and a dozen other hallmarks of Socialist Distopia.

            Second: Just exactly what Political/Economic system PUT those 500,000,000 Chinese INTO poverty, again? What was the "ism" which made Slaves of an entire population (excepting, of course, the Ruling Elite, that is), killed hundreds of thousands and brought the rest to the brink of nationwide starvation? Communism; The logical end result of Socialism.

            China, by beginning to embrace Capitalism, is slowly digging it's way out. They drill for their own oil and buy more from whoever will sell it to them. One of the key reasons they're on the road to outgrow even America is because they aren't bogged down by insipid Environmentalist Whackjobs, telling them they cannot tap their own resources.

            If it's any consolation to you, they ARE already the #1 Polluter on the planet. I know how much you wanted them to have a top slot Somewhere.

  8. UnnamedHarald profile image93
    UnnamedHaraldposted 4 years ago

    On the whole, and having to choose between two evils (which seems the only type of choice these days), I reckon I'd reather be a slave to the State than to the Corporations. Then again, it's becominig one and the same, so, meh.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      THAT's the problem! Fascism, not socialism.

      1. Janze profile image74
        Janzeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        We can choose to use all of the isms to categorize this form or that. The end result is that human beings suffer and that is the issue for all people and leaders, particularly.

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Striped and crunchy. Not talkin' bout the creation of wealth. Pride of ownership huh? Maybe that's why people don't respect and appreciate others....they can't own them. There is a lot which can't be owned...do we disrespect all ? When we waste and over-indulge while others are doing w/o, when we don't respect that which we don't own, that is exactly where the problems come in. There is no excuse for unbridled greed and ambition. It makes conquerors of some and oppression of others. Usually the majority. It suggests that might does make right.

  9. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago

    Two books that are suggested for the anti-socialist:

    The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek
    http://mises.org/store/Road-to-Serfdom-The-P252.aspx

    and

    Socialism, by Mises.
    http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

    Hayek shows how the state uses good-works projects to lead to fascism, and Mises shows how socialism is doomed to collapse.

  10. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Like I have a choice.

    1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
      StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Knol, you've just nailed the key difference between Private and Public sectors, and why our Founding Fathers were so adamant about keeping Government small.

      No business out there can FORCE me to give it a friggen dime, if I do not want its products or services.

      Whereas, the Government can tax, levy, lien, appropriate, confiscate or legislate away everything I have, including my freedom, without so much as a By Your Leave.

      America became the Greatest Nation in the History of the World, precisely because we started with a small government and encouraged self reliance.

      Socialism discourages anything of the kind, and requires an ever growing Government maw, greedily sucking down every productive individual it can find in order to feed its burgeoning dependent class.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Where shall I get my electricity and heat from then??

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Want to bet?

        I was reading recently that if you buy a computer (new) and specifically don't have windows or any other MS garbage on it, MS still get a slice of your money.

        Or how about you want to boycott Shell gas so you buy only Texaco, but unbeknown to you, all the Texaco gas comes from Shell anyway.

        I could go on for hours but really can't be bothered trying to teach the terminally deluded anything.

  11. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Socialism gave you your national government, your states, universal money, highways, police, fire and water, state universities, local government and on.
    Bad government is when capitalist thieves take over the institution of all.

    1. StripedCrunchy profile image61
      StripedCrunchyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      WHAT?? Socialism made America?

      Seriously. Do you guys invent this crap as you go, or is there some Twisted History website you all access, to find such atrocious lies to post.

      Media Matters, Hufpo, Keith Oblermann, Michael Moore, MoveOn dot org, the Southern Poverty Law Center...

      Wait. I withdraw the question.

      Lock-step Liberal Lemmings. Trapped into the soft slavery of believing anyone who has achieved more than you, must have stolen it from you, and only the benevolent Nanny State can make it right. But even then, just barely.

      You're right: Never try, never think, never believe you're worth anything more than a common cockroach, never dream that you might innovate or matriculate. Rest somnambulently in the arms of mother government.

      The State will take care of you all. The Evil Rich will be made to suffer for the audacity of getting rich, everyone will be equally miserable and the loudest whiner will get the biggest dole. The unborn shall be murdered, the serial killer shall be set free, green energy will replace the last few gallons of Hydrocarbon based fuel left on Earth, terrorists will lay down their arms and no one will ever be angry or hungry or churchy again. Best of luck with that.

      In the meantime, me and those like me will be busy living in the Real world, too busy to pay your empty little heads any further attention.

      Bu-bye.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In other words;  My capitalist masters have taken me to task for spending too much time on myself and not enough making them money!

        There are many other forms of socialism than state socialism, just as there are  forms of capitalism other than state capitalism.

  12. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Every employer wants full employment to provide the maximum number of customers, has to certainly been proven untrue when they sent all the jobs overseas.
    They replaced the lost jobs with cheap credit, and that has worked out nicely.

  13. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    As an aside, I had a strong, rising surplus before I got married...

    but not I have a huge flaccid deficit that is no use to anyone

  14. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    Cuba is a quite successful socialist, communist, as you will, state.

  15. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Maybe you should stop this:

    "Slavery, particularly this sly, insidious kind, is evil. Who would wish that on his worst enemy?

    The new Plantation is the Democrat Party."

    Cause we all have kids too.

  16. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    John have an article you might be interested in:
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2 … -fall.html

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A bit of an eye opener but with nothing surprising in it, there are others on this thread who should read it.

      Thanks.

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The only reason why people think that socialism doesn't work is because they are unable to conceive of anything which isn't based on money. Socialism is about goods and services and making sure everything is distributed evenly, and Cuba is a really good example. There is no room for exploitation, and that is what capitalisms furnaces are fired with..

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, there is little room for improvement, either.  Few people will put out the extra effort to do a better job or to raise their productivity if there is nothing in it for them.

          You're right - there is no room for exploitation, even of yourself and your talents.

  17. Janze profile image74
    Janzeposted 4 years ago

    Some comments would seem to suggest that innovation is a function of the 236-year existence of the United States and its particular brand of capitalism. And by extension, advances in technology are reserved for the specific areas of the world where that particular style of commerce is deemed to exist.

    Well, I am sorry, but the world, human civilization and innovation are a little older than the United States of America and whatever systems of exploitation that it has adopted. And being called the greatest nation on earth is a title that has passed from nation to nation and shockingly, some of those greatest nations can only be found in the rubble of archaeological digs.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "the United States and its particular brand of capitalism" is actually a form of fascism.

  18. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Isn't Hong Kong polluted to high heaven?
    And doesn't Cuba have one of the best healthcare systems on the planet?

    Didn't they provide doctors for free, when the US health industry wouldn't?
    And doesn't Chavez provide oil for low-income families here in the US, because no American companies will?

    Good and bad in everything.The way some people worship Capitalism, you would think it's God.

    btw--do you think you could tone down your rhetoric a little?

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Socialism, depending on you you define it, is a dead issue. Cuba, and perhaps one or two other countries, is the only example of socialism left. And even Cuba has been edging toward free enterprise lately as Fidel is fading away. Russia, China, Vietnam and all the former USSR countries have moved toward market economies. Fair taxation and sufficient government revenues to support good public schools, public libraries, public transportation, repair roads and bridges, and sufficient regulation to provide a reasonable assurance that banks and businesses deliver fairly on their promise of prosperity in a market economy. This is not socialism. It's merely common sense.

    1. Janze profile image74
      Janzeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Most Americans and especially republican Americans seem to think that any socially beneficial consequence as a result of any commercial interaction is evidence of the goodness of capitalism. And that is the reason the 

      To apply the kind of rhetoric that republicans use as the attributes of capitalism is to imply that there were no commercial enterprise before the American version of capitalism existed.

      And when some people talk about market forces and the notions of supply and demand as if those factors are actually capitalistic features, misunderstood the nature and the character of capitalism.

      Long before America was a nation or even before anyone has presented the ideas of capitalism or socialism, certain ordinary factors influenced commercial exercises.

      Capitalism is driven by the idea of consume anything or anyone in order to produce the largest profit, for the fewest people. 

      Capitalism is driven by

 
working