The Evils of Socialism Explained

[Jauronimo]

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?

Do they need an analogous term? I thought the constant labeling of republicans and conservatives as racist, war mongering, elitists who eat babies and kill poor people for sport was good enough.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Jauronimo

[Alaska Darin]

Do you read anything into the fact that liberals have no analogous derogatory term for conservatives?

I'm not sure what's more sad, the fact that you think that's true or that you're dumb enough to actually post it.

[KD in CA]

What exactly is a typical lefty? Would you recognize one on the street?

 

The backpack is usually a dead giveaway.

[3rdnlng]

The backpack is usually a dead giveaway.

 

At least it's not a fanny pack anymore.

[birdog1960]

i haven't had a backpack since i was a boy scout. most of the liberals i know carry briefcases or portfolios.

[Chef Jim]

Would you recognize one on the street?

 

Abso!@#$inglutely! But then again I live in SF.

[....lybob]

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?

You don't because you're a nice guy- I use cuntservatives, repulicunts, retardicans, rethugicans, right-wing nutjobs , Randian Sociopaths, or repulsivecans.

[Juror#8]

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.

 

What about Obama makes him a socialist? This WH didn't get my vote, but still, I want to be intellectually honest. Decidedly liberal? Yes. Socialist? No.

 

Please marry the rhetoric with the record and don't forget to factor in your Brady evidence.

 

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?

 

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.

 

To say that welfare "fails entire families" is profoundly myopic.

 

What is the articulated goal of welfare? Without looking at any federal policy definition, it's to provide financial assistance and a basic level of social support until the recipient can independently care for themselves or their family. You think that welfare fails in that regard?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you judge welfare by justaposing the huge federal expenditure with anecdotes about mothers having additional babies as frequently as they receive welfare checks.

 

That, sir, is myopic. There are more folks who use welfare as a bridge between poverty and self-sufficiency, and who generate an income so that they can subsidize the system that allowed for their resurgence.

 

Is welfare a perfect system? Hardly. Are there plenty of folks who use welfare checks to get their nails done, or buy Everclear, or pay their Hummer payment? Sure. Did the system, as originally envisioned, likely contemplate people using welfare checks to buy Hummers? Probably not. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. Unfortunately, though, when those "exceptions" can be counted into the millions, it's difficult not to be skeptical. But to say that the system, as a whole, failed, is articulating a characterization on the strength of the minority circumstance and entirely an appeal to emotion.

 

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.

 

Thankfully, it's not 1935, and mini-States in Europe are not paralyzed by fear of international aggression.

 

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.

 

Very good military analogy. I usually find flaws with logic. No complaints and I'm in agreement with your points above.

 

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.

 

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?

 

As much as the country likes order, when 25,000,000 feel that they have been completely debased and that there is an institutionalized effort to do so, there will be bedlam. This is even distinct from segregation because with segregation there was a century long sociological trend to uproot the various symptoms of slavery beginning in the 1860s. It was a slow process, but a conspicuously changing one.

 

In the instance of welfare and food, and eating, and shelter, you're dealing with issues that implicate basic human survival. You think 30 million people will just sit around and not eat? Natural selection may punk a few mil, but what about the 20 million able-bodied, resourceful, strong, young, stallions who can't find a job and now have been told to fend for themselves? Before they had an interim option. Now the only response is: don't eat and !@#$ off. They will fend for themselves and if you think some theoretical concept of "order" will intervene, you must not understand what a !@#$ing sympathetic nervous system is.

 

You're talking about Leviathan state of nature ****. In the social compact, the government is obliged to provide for the general well-being of its folks. When that doesn't happen, the compact is broken and people return to their state of nature. People will respond like dogs trapped in a corner who has been abandoned and haven't eaten.

 

Cut welfare. It will be !@#$ing Gotham City.

[3rdnlng]

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?

 

 

Would I recognize a liberal on the street? That's a stupid question, but typical of a liberal. You guys rarely ever pin yourself down and speak in platitudes often. The well-to-do liberals have a sense of superiority and entitlement. The poor liberals just have a sense of entitlement. Let me make it clear I am not saying one hundred percent of you guys are like this but it is a liberal trait. Your philosophy is based more on academic assumptions than reality or the test of time. You would rather rewrite history than learn from it. You guys are also mean spirited and are dogmatic in you adherence to the message given you by your liberal leaders. That's just a small slice of it today, doc. And oh, did you ever hear of teabagger?

[birdog1960]

Abso!@#$inglutely! But then again I live in SF.

and how many guys in brooks brothers suits have you misidentified? or conversly, guys in carhartt that are conservatives? west virginia went for bush when he was reelected

[Chef Jim]

and how many guys in brooks brothers suits have you misidentified? or conversly, guys in carhartt that are conservatives? west virginia went for bush when he was reelected

 

Great sense of humor there buddy.

 

And even if I was serious it's not like I walk through town going "liberal....liberal....liberal...conservative....liberal....liberal....liberal."

 

But on a serious note it is pretty !@#$ing easy here to figure out who is liberal seeing 99.9% of them are. Just as it was easy to figure out who was conservative in Orange county.

 

And my wife was at their building Christmas party (or probably their Diversity Awareness Party ) and they were talking about unemployment. My wife said the reason why many companies weren't hiring is because of the incertainty in DC. A woman at her table said "This conversation needs to stop right now before I throw you out the window!!" Yikes....liberals are so thin skinned.

 

You don't because you're a nice guy- I use cuntservatives, repulicunts, retardicans, rethugicans, right-wing nutjobs , Randian Sociopaths, or repulsivecans.

 

You're one classy guy.

[3rdnlng]

and how many guys in brooks brothers suits have you misidentified? or conversly, guys in carhartt that are conservatives? west virginia went for bush when he was reelected

 

So, what does that say about their sexual orientation? They're flip floppers? One day they are liberal and the next day they are straight?

[birdog1960]

What about Obama makes him a socialist? This WH didn't get my vote, but still, I want to be intellectually honest. Decidedly liberal? Yes. Socialist? No.

 

Please marry the rhetoric with the record and don't forget to factor in your Brady evidence.

 

 

 

To say that welfare "fails entire families" is profoundly myopic.

 

What is the articulated goal of welfare? Without looking at any federal policy definition, it's to provide financial assistance and a basic level of social support until the recipient can independently care for themselves or their family. You think that welfare fails in that regard?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that you judge welfare by justaposing the huge federal expenditure with anecdotes about mothers having additional babies as frequently as they receive welfare checks.

 

That, sir, is myopic. There are more folks who use welfare as a bridge between poverty and self-sufficiency, and who generate an income so that they can subsidize the system that allowed for their resurgence.

 

Is welfare a perfect system? Hardly. Are there plenty of folks who use welfare checks to get their nails done, or buy Everclear, or pay their Hummer payment? Sure. Did the system, as originally envisioned, likely contemplate people using welfare checks to buy Hummers? Probably not. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. Unfortunately, though, when those "exceptions" can be counted into the millions, it's difficult not to be skeptical. But to say that the system, as a whole, failed, is articulating a characterization on the strength of the minority circumstance and entirely an appeal to emotion.

 

 

 

Thankfully, it's not 1935, and mini-States in Europe are not paralyzed by fear of international aggression.

 

 

 

Very good military analogy. I usually find flaws with logic. No complaints and I'm in agreement with your points above.

 

 

 

As much as the country likes order, when 25,000,000 feel that they have been completely debased and that there is an institutionalized effort to do so, there will be bedlam. This is even distinct from segregation because with segregation there was a century long sociological trend to uproot the various symptoms of slavery beginning in the 1860s. It was a slow process, but a conspicuously changing one.

 

In the instance of welfare and food, and eating, and shelter, you're dealing with issues that implicate basic human survival. You think 30 million people will just sit around and not eat? Natural selection may punk a few mil, but what about the 20 million able-bodied, resourceful, strong, young, stallions who can't find a job and now have been told to fend for themselves? Before they had an interim option. Now the only response is: don't eat and !@#$ off. They will fend for themselves and if you think some theoretical concept of "order" will intervene, you must not understand what a !@#$ing sympathetic nervous system is.

 

You're talking about Leviathan state of nature ****. In the social compact, the government is obliged to provide for the general well-being of its folks. When that doesn't happen, the compact is broken and people return to their state of nature. People will respond like dogs trapped in a corner who has been abandoned and haven't eaten.

 

Cut welfare. It will be !@#$ing Gotham City.

i agree with Hobbes and you that without some form of societal support for the have nots, anarchy will result. it's entirely consistent with what i understand of conservative philosophy to support welfare programs to the degree needed to avioid anarchy. it's the least expensive solution. far cheaper but far less moral, for example, than mandating a living wage.

[Chef Jim]

i agree with Hobbes and you that without some form of societal support for the have nots, anarchy will result. it's entirely consistent with what i understand of conservative philosophy to support welfare programs to the degree needed to avioid anarchy. it's the least expensive solution. far cheaper but far less moral, for example, than mandating a living wage.

 

Yeah because all that anarchy before the social support systems were put in place really sucked.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Chef Jim

[birdog1960]

Yeah because all that anarchy before the social support systems were put in place really sucked.

do you remember the recent riots in london?

[Alaska Darin]

do you remember the recent riots in london?

[3rdnlng]

do you remember the recent riots in london?

 

 

What were the recent riots in London about?

[Juror#8]

Yeah because all that anarchy before the social support systems were put in place really sucked.

 

Somebody like DC Tom may be able to check my historical reference here, but I beleive that one of the driving forces behind the establishment of welfare in the 1930s was an effort to curb the violence associated with people trying to eat during The Great Depression. Gangs had began forming in big cities that were jacking food from bread lines and there was fear that the loathing towards those who didn't lose everything in '29 would turn from percolating to violent.

 

Not saying that that was the only impetus for welfare establishment; but it was one of them. And that was in a time before technology, and television, and huge megatropolises.

 

Edit: This is by no means exhaustive, but a simple search yields all types of anecdotes about the violence during the Great Depression owing to people unable to eat: Violent hunger riots in Detroit, Toledo, NYC, etc.; farm protests; significant increase in the crime rate. The trend was increasing until the New Deal policies.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Juror#8

[Chef Jim]

do you remember the recent riots in london?

 

First off do you not understand the definition of the word before? And secondly I don't live in England. And thirdly, thanks for making part of my point.

 

Somebody like DC Tom may be able to check my historical reference here, but I beleive that one of the driving forces behind the establishment of welfare in the 1930s was an effort to curb the violence associated with people trying to eat during The Great Depression. Gangs had began forming in big cities that were jacking food from bread lines and there was fear that the loathing towards those who didn't lose everything in '29 would turn from percolating to violent.

 

Not saying that that was the only impetus for welfare establishment; but it was one of them. And that was in a time before technology, and television, and huge megatropolises.

 

So we enacted this whole welfare state due to a 10 year period in our history? Go government!!!!!

Edited December 21, 2011 by Chef Jim

[3rdnlng]

Somebody like DC Tom may be able to check my historical reference here, but I beleive that one of the driving forces behind the establishment of welfare in the 1930s was an effort to curb the violence associated with people trying to eat during The Great Depression. Gangs had began forming in big cities that were jacking food from bread lines and there was fear that the loathing towards those who didn't lose everything in '29 would turn from percolating to violent.

 

Not saying that that was the only impetus for welfare establishment; but it was one of them. And that was in a time before technology, and television, and huge megatropolises.

 

Edit: This is by no means exhaustive, but a simple search yields all types of anecdotes about the violence during the Great Depression owing to people unable to eat: Violent hunger riots in Detroit, Toledo, NYC, etc.; farm protests; significant increase in the crime rate. The trend was increasing until the New Deal policies.

 

Here's a short version

 

http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/