The Evils of Socialism Explained

[Juror#8]

Job searches create jobs. That's brilliant.

 

Number eight.

 

I didn't say that. Booooooo!

 

Just saying that searching for a job results in acquiring a job (in time) so that the welfare system can be made whole.

[DC Tom]

Just saying that searching for a job results in acquiring a job (in time)

 

The only way that works is of job searches create jobs.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Job searches create jobs. That's brilliant.

 

Number eight.

 

 

What he was was Job searches eventually bring job procurment. Procurment is ataining a job not creating a job. Though I agree that ataining a job does not create jobs directly remember that putting someone to work is going to create more demand now that they can afford to buy product and services. The more people find jobs the more demand for goods and services the more jobs have to be created to keep up with demand. Thats idea behind keeping people afloat during hard times.

[Jauronimo]

What he was was Job searches eventually bring job procurment. Procurment is ataining a job not creating a job. Though I agree that ataining a job does not create jobs directly remember that putting someone to work is going to create more demand now that they can afford to buy product and services. The more people find jobs the more demand for goods and services the more jobs have to be created to keep up with demand. Thats idea behind keeping people afloat during hard times.

You're going to have to explain how employed consumers, spending money, increases aggregate demand, because that theory sounds pretty far fetched. Call me old fashioned, but I subscribe to Donner economics whereby anyone who can't keep up is ground into meat to support those of us who can still hack, and that's the way it'll be until someone can put something else out there that makes a shred of sense.

 

But seriously, thanks for that eloquent explanation. It will be very useful for those of us that missed the first day of remedial economics.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Jauronimo

[Juror#8]

You're going to have to explain how employed consumers, spending money, increases aggregate demand, because that theory sounds pretty far fetched. Call me old fashioned, but I subscribe to Donner economics whereby anyone who can't keep up is ground into meat to support those of us who can still hack, and that's the way it'll be until someone can put something else out there that makes a shred of sense.

 

But seriously, thanks for that eloquent explanation. It will be very useful for those of us that missed the first day of remedial economics.

 

I'll acknowledge your economic argument and raise a sociological one: if you don't provide nary a social welfare program to the 28,000,000 million abjectly impoverished in this country (on the books), there will be public looting, disarray, and vigilantism.

 

Charitable organizations are stretched thin NOW with billions annually in federal dollars going to public welfare programs. What are they gonna do when the fed money FULL STOPS?

 

Sure, some will get jobs. But then how about the fundamentally unskilled, the developmentally challenged, the mentally ill, the handicapped, the profoundly un-motivated? Will they just not eat? Are they gonna just recede into society politely after they've been told that they, and no one else, have to rejoin the conceptual "state of nature"?

 

No, it will result in mobocracy and lawlessness and bedlam the extent of which can only be conjectured.

 

You think that there are enough state law enforcement resources to handle 25 million desperate, hungry, debased people?

 

Enter vigilantism. Vigilantism begets martial law. Martial law maintains stability while the corresponding governmental institutionalized action (over-reach) - to ensure that such mobocracy forever remains in check - is conceived, developed and implemented.

 

In effect, you create the monster that you aimed to destroy.

 

Again, some folks are gonna get there hair did on your dollar. Suck it up and read some Thomas Hobbes.

 

Given the sociological realities, subsidizing public welfare programs is better than the alternative.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Juror#8

[Jauronimo]

I'll acknowledge your economic argument and raise a sociological one: if you don't provide nary a social welfare program to the 28,000,000 million abjectly impoverished in this country (on the books), there will be public looting, disarray, and vigilantism.

 

Charitable organizations are stretched thin NOW with billions annually in federal dollars going to public welfare programs. What are they gonna do when the fed money FULL STOPS?

 

Sure, some will get jobs. But then how about the fundamentally unskilled, the developmentally challenged, the mentally ill, the handicapped, the profoundly un-motivated? Will they just not eat? Are they gonna just recede into society politely after they've been told that they, and no one else, have to rejoin the conceptual "state of nature"?

 

No, it will result in mobocracy and lawlessness and bedlam the extent of which can only be conjectured.

 

You think that there are enough state law enforcement resources to handle 25 million desperate, hungry, debased people?

 

Enter vigilantism. Vigilantism begets martial law. Martial law maintains stability while the corresponding governmental institutionalized action (over-reach) - to ensure that such mobocracy forever remains in check - is conceived, developed and implemented.

 

In effect, you create the monster that you aimed to destroy.

 

Again, some folks are gonna get there hair did on your dollar. Suck it up and read some Thomas Hobbes.

 

Given the sociological realities, subsidizing public welfare programs is better than the alternative.

You'll have to remind me as to what economic argument I made that you're acknowledging, as I don't recall offering one. Or were you just waiting for any opportunity to post that rant?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

You're going to have to explain how employed consumers, spending money, increases aggregate demand, because that theory sounds pretty far fetched. Call me old fashioned, but I subscribe to Donner economics whereby anyone who can't keep up is ground into meat to support those of us who can still hack, and that's the way it'll be until someone can put something else out there that makes a shred of sense.

 

But seriously, thanks for that eloquent explanation. It will be very useful for those of us that missed the first day of remedial economics.

 

I'm not quite sure where AD locks into job creation. If your point is that with more people working with buying power will increas prices and keep demand static I don't think that will work.

If we produce more demand there will have to be more production so even if prices rise the rise in buying power will off set it.

[Jauronimo]

I'm not quite sure where AD locks into job creation. If your point is that with more people working with buying power will increas prices and keep demand static I don't think that will work.

If we produce more demand there will have to be more production so even if prices rise the rise in buying power will off set it.

I was very sarcastically replying to your implication that all participants in this thread must be illiterate morons of the highest degree. Why else would you have bothered to explain the tricky distinctions between everyday words like attain and create, or provided us with an 8th grade interpretation of how higher employment levels may affect aggregate demand? I thought the last sentence, especially the part about remedial economics, was sort of a giveaway as to what I was going for. Not sure how much clearer I could have made that without pulling a page out the DC Tom playbook. Sorry for the subtlety, but its the holiday season and those royalties are killing my budget.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Jauronimo

[Bigfatbillsfan]

I was very sarcastically replying to your implication that all participants in this thread must be illiterate morons of the highest degree. Why else would you have bothered to explain the tricky distinctions between everyday words like attain and create, or provided us with an 8th grade interpretation of how higher employment levels may affect aggregate demand? I thought the last sentence, especially the part about remedial economics, was sort of a giveaway as to what I was going for. Not sure how much clearer I could have made that without pulling a page out the DC Tom playbook. Sorry for the subtlety, but its the holiday season and those royalties are killing my budget.

 

I'm sorry, you must not have seen the post were DC claimed that job searches create jobs after J8 used the work procure. To me that says that he doesn't understand what the word procure means. I make no implication that you or anyone here was a moron.

[3rdnlng]

I'm sorry, you must not have seen the post were DC claimed that job searches create jobs after J8 used the work procure. To me that says that he doesn't understand what the word procure means. I make no implication that you or anyone here was a moron.

 

What's the difference between "atain" and obtain? I often imply that people here are morons, just not !@#$ing morons.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

What's the difference between "atain" and obtain? I often imply that people here are morons, just not !@#$ing morons.

 

There isn't a difference between attain and obtain they mean the same thing. There is a difference between procure and create. You can look them up in any dictionary.

[OCinBuffalo]

#1: This entire thread is predicated on the existence of a college professor, that would not only acknowledge the failure that is socialism, but would also be willing to debunk it in a public setting? I ask you: even if said professor existed, wouldn't they be immediately attacked by the rest of the faculty(see: Duke Rape Case) such that this experiment would end immediately?

 

#2. Communists are for eventually reaching it. In the meantime, they espouse socialism, until the day true Communism can be attained. So, attempting to make the distinction is silly. As if the socialist, when his society is on the brink of attaining Communism, would say "Stop, I'm a socialist, not a Communist, so we have to stop right here".

2. No nationally relevant politician has advocated any full-bore or wholesale political socialism in the last few election cycles.

That's only because no nationally relevant politician wants to get their ass kicked at the polls. There were plenty of clowns trying to catch some of Obama's socialist fire, until the recent object lesson in "why socialism, never mind Keynesian economics, has no hope of fixing any problem, never mind structural employment economic issues".

 

Now, the only Democrats out saying that socialism is a good idea....are the ones sitting next to Obama in the bunker. They are just as done as he is, so they have nothing to lose.

 

Edit: I am watching Bill Clinton prove my point for me right now on O'Reilly. And why? Hillary still has something to gain.

3. Some politicians have advocated a taxpayer subsidy for certain public welfare programs.

 

4. Many on the fringes of society believe that those welfare programs represent a socialist ideology (either in prinicipal or a burgeoning socialist state).

You don't have to be on the fringe of society to know failure when you see it. Long term failure. Welfare fails entire families. They become FAIL. But, of course, if you can claim that you are "helping" people, by passing a bill 6 months before the next election, it solves your short term political goals...so...F these families, right?

5. Those fringe folks would have liked Joseph McCarthy, live in Michigan, and stockpile Spam, bread and water.

Yes, the same target demographics have seen either 0 improvement in their condition since 1965, or worsening of their position, but I am Joe McCarthy because I tell you the truth.

6. Full-bore Socialism seems to work in small, European mini-states. The U.S., though, is not a small European mini-state.

Neither Big or Small European states pay for their own defense, and, as we see today in Spain's election: even with that, socialism doesn't F'ing work. If the NATO plan was for Sweden to actually hold their ground for 2 weeks on their own, until we could reinforce, that would be the end of Sweden's socialism, immediately.

 

Think I'm wrong? Have your guy introduce a bill on the floor that only suggests a mere review of our deployments in Europe, and/or NATO financial commitments, and watch your inbox fill up. Sure there will be our defense contractors...but there will also be a buttload of lobbyists from European companies.

7. The folks who complain about socialism the most, in my expeirence, seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of Federal Student Loans - incidentally one of the biggest social welfare programs in the country.

 

7 a. They usually justify their hypocracy by pointing out that with student loans, they have to pay it back. What they don't realize is, is that many of the welfare programs (as governed by states) limit total time an individual can be on welfare and mandate job searches. Job searches, ostensibly, brings job procurement which leads to income generation which results in replenishment of the system via good ole 26 U.S.C. 1.

Yes, and isn't it funny that the people who complain about US militarism the most are also the people who benefit the most by it. If militarism = spending our tax money on defending foreign countries from obvious threats...yeah, that's "militarism". The irony of the "free marketeers"....who apparently think those markets are that way because...they just are....is hysterical as well. Edit: to clarify, markets always exist, regardless of government. Whether they are free or not is dependent on a government.

8. I'm conservative, but I'm also pragmatic and a realist (the glass is not half-empty or half-full; there is just water in the damn glass). I feel that it's not the public welfare programs that are the problem principally, it's the inefficiency and implementation of them.

 

9. Without social programs and "welfare," we'd have anarchy, public looting, and vigilantism.

 

10. The resulting political state would be one of absolutist government power (after the country ascended out of some weird hue of martial law) - which would position us way to the left on the political spectrum.

Actually? I think it's far past time to call that bluff. It's one thing for the LA riots to occur: they were unexpected because the verdict was unexpected. It's quite another if people know the scumbags are coming today, just like they did yesterday. History has proven: sooner or later the farmer always beats the hunter. People demand order, and history has also shown the lengths they will go to get it. And, this is America. You think that riots occurring, because the Federal government has been incapable of governing itself, will lead to people thinking its a good idea to give you MORE power, and not choose to handle it themselves instead? Ridiculous.

Nobody wants that. Fix the system. Give people bread, and cookies, and canned pineapples. Unfortunately, a few folks will get their nails done on your dollar. Thankfully, more than that will have a meal because of your [unintended] generosity. Deal with it. The alternative is much worse.

I am not sure. Really. I don't see how dehumanizing a set of people, by treating them like animals, herding them into lines, making them wait for hours while your bureaucrats determine their lives for them, forcing them to publicly embarrass themselves on a daily basis...makes them more likely to act: human.

 

I think it's quite possible that this is worst alternative. 50 years after LBJ, has anything gotten better for poor people? Really?

Edited December 21, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

There isn't a difference between attain and obtain they mean the same thing. There is a difference between procure and create. You can look them up in any dictionary.

 

Hey smartass, I know what I can look up in the dictionary. The difference between attain and obtain is minimal at best. The difference between "atain and obtain is great. Why mention procure and create? I certainly didn't address that and don't need someone who has a problem creating a coherent sentence lecturing me. You are playing in a different league now fatty, sharpen the skates.

[DC Tom]

I'm sorry, you must not have seen the post were DC claimed that job searches create jobs after J8 used the work procure. To me that says that he doesn't understand what the word procure means. I make no implication that you or anyone here was a moron.

 

Yeah, I didn't understand what "procure" meant.

 

I couldn't have possibly been pointing out that all the searching in the world isn't going to find a job IF THERE'S NO JOBS TO BE HAD.

 

Jesus Christ...is everyone a !@#$ing idiot today?

[Adam]

Yeah, I didn't understand what "procure" meant.

 

I couldn't have possibly been pointing out that all the searching in the world isn't going to find a job IF THERE'S NO JOBS TO BE HAD.

 

Jesus Christ...is everyone a !@#$ing idiot today?

No, but they will be tomorrow.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Hey smartass, I know what I can look up in the dictionary. The difference between attain and obtain is minimal at best. The difference between "atain and obtain is great. Why mention procure and create? I certainly didn't address that and don't need someone who has a problem creating a coherent sentence lecturing me. You are playing in a different league now fatty, sharpen the skates.

 

Oh my god... I'm so scared. I think I might have just crapped in my pants. (sarcasm included)

 

As far as I can tell atain isn't even a word.

 

Yeah I'm starting to realize I'm in a different league... with people that don't even have an argument, don't know what the hell they're talking about half the time, and when that is pointed out to them have nothing to offer but mindless insults.

 

Yeah, I didn't understand what "procure" meant.

 

I couldn't have possibly been pointing out that all the searching in the world isn't going to find a job IF THERE'S NO JOBS TO BE HAD.

Jesus Christ...is everyone a !@#$ing idiot today?

 

And the few jobs that are available will fall out of the sky and drop in your lap if you don't go out and look for them. That was J8's point.

[Adam]

Oh my god... I'm so scared. I think I might have just crapped in my pants. (sarcasm included)

 

As far as I can tell atain isn't even a word.

 

Yeah I'm starting to realize I'm in a different league... with people that don't even have an argument, don't know what the hell they're talking about half the time, and when that is pointed out to them have nothing to offer but mindless insults.

Such is the way when people mindlessly tie themselves to the party line instead being for their country.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Such is the way when people mindlessly tie themselves to the party line instead being for their country.

 

Even in other threads that I've looked at I haven't seen one of these guys put up an argument other than a weak straw man and then revert to insults when it doesn't work. It's hard not to feel sorry...

[3rdnlng]

Such is the way when people mindlessly tie themselves to the party line instead being for their country.

 

.[/b]

WTF adam, you're siding with a guy that can't spell, can't put a coherent thought together and condescendingly spouts his liberal bias? That's ok though, at least you're finally taking a stand. You think. Maybe

 

 

 

Even in other threads that I've looked at I haven't seen one of these guys put up an argument other than a weak straw man and then revert to insults when it doesn't work. It's hard not to feel sorry...

 

Typical leftie. You haven't said anything of substance to spark discussion. Next step------platitudes.

Edited December 21, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[birdog1960]

Typical leftie. You haven't said anything of substance to spark discussion. Next step------platitudes.

What exactly is atypical lefty? Would you recognize one on the street? You really don't advance your argument or reputation by using imaginary words like "libtard" in your post title. Do you read anything into the fact that liberals have no analogous derogatory term for conservatives?

Edited December 21, 2011 by birdog1960