The Evils of Socialism Explained

[Juror#8]

How long do you think the post that does what your asking is?(To: DC_Tom From: OCinBuffalo....Merry Christmas!) If we go back to 2003 and study the behavior of the Democrats from there until today, it's practically impossible not to conclude that their intention was to make changes in this country that are modeled on European Socialism. Impossible not to conclude. Now, you want me to go through and cite every single example? Why? What purpose does that serve? Why separate Obama from this agenda? He most certainly was a part of it.

 

Don't fool yourself, I can do what you want, but, before I spend 4 hours writing that post, and pissing everyone off due to its length, I want to know why this is necessary. What do any of us stand to gain from me exhaustively documenting something we already know? Why can't we just cut to the chase and say what we all know, regardless of whether we choose to admit it?

 

I don't think of myself as a conservative as much as I try to be about results. Ultimately party/ideology matters not. In my lifetime, the people who have gotten them(Reagan and Clinton) have pursued government reduction policies. The people who have failed(Cater, Bush 2 and Obama) have pursued government increases. It's as simple as that. And, I already have eaten plenty of DC sweetie pies alive. Plenty. Last one was an Admiral's daughter who I should probably call next time I'm there because she's much better than I am.

 

Look who doesn't know the difference between social security and welfare . Wait, don't you work for the government? Then why do I know which programs apply to whom better than you do? There are programs for the helpless. Welfare, on the other hand was purposely designed for the clueless, and my simple point is that it's keeping them that way.

 

Able bodied, sound minded people, who could be working, are being handed money for doing nothing, and you think that has 0 effect on them? You think that 60 years of this has no effect on a family? Like I said, you are defending a ridiculous position based on nothing more than emotion and/or nostalgia. It's the same thing with the people who think drugs should be illegal. There's no logic to your position at all: all we hear is threats about the boogeymen that will appear if we don't go along with your delusions, and ignore the facts you don't like.

 

Speaking of delusions: What happened to your "interim period" idea? Not so good when put into the context of Welfare being a 180 year program, is it now?

 

Buddy, you aren't winning this argument. You can throw around some more useless paragraphs that contain the irrelevant, but it's not going to make welfare any less of a psychological disease that is purposely being spread by the government. It's not going to suddenly, magically, produce the results LBJ promised. And, it's not going to stop producing the unintended consequences he didn't consider back in 1965 either.

 

I understand your motives, and in most cases I not only agree, I also share them. However, your methods suck ass, and it's far past time to get new ones. Since when should we be treating anything that came from LBJ, who sucked so bad he had to quit, as though it's sacred? Why is the guy who was obviously inept as a leader, suddenly a genius only when we talk about Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare, but goes right back to idiot again when anything else comes up?

 

This is retarded. We should have cleaned out all of the LBJ mess in the late 1990s, when we had the money/time and replaced it with programs that work. Now, we are paying for that indecision.

 

It took you 5 days to respond and this is what you've come up with?

 

Your first construction is telling me why I should just accept your contention sight unseen.

 

Your second construction is trying to tell me about the dangers of confusing welfare and social security. Where, oh where, did I EVER mention social security or reference the numbers 6 or 2 or 5 or 1/2 in a close enough arrangement for your confusion to be justified?

 

Oh....I get it...you're trying to be cute, by referencing the infinitesimally small amount of folks [comparatively speaking] who qualify for Social Security's disability provision.

 

What you don't seem to comprehend though (since you don't have as thorough an understanding of the Act as me legislatively ;-)) is that even the disability provision requires recent and sufficient work history for qualification.

 

So...what does that have to do with the posts of mine that you quoted so confidently? When did I say that the hungry "disabled" folks, whom I referenced in my last post, after 5 years of faithful service lost their Subway gig within the last couple of years because they fell off a ladder? Or maybe you had a different reason for your social security reference?

 

Lastly, the "180 year" thing is somewhat fallacious because it doesn't take into account someone's individual circumstances. There are PLENTY of people who used welfare as an interim condition to get back on solid footing. Just because welfare conceptually has been in existence for ____ years, doesn't mean that it has failed in the execution of it's goals for individuals.

 

Your "180 year" thing presumes no natural matriculation or life cycle of any thing or any one.

 

Ok, my New Year's resolution is to not use any insults while debating. My original post was considerably more piquant, but I amended it to be more in line with the new and improved Juror#8. S

 

Some of my post will not read as fluidly because it was originally constructed with an occassional nippy insult (and subsequently amended). Hopefully the bright, sunny, optimistic context rings through.

[Juror#8]

You're right, there are some SERIOUSLY smart and well-educated people on this message board. And looking back on past threads I've seen them take apart and collapse your arguments pretty thoroughly while you call them retarded and stupid. If I'm at the back of the class here, you're sitting right next to me.

 

Don't take things too personally. There are some wolves in here who know their stuff. Interestingly enough, it's the ones who insult the most who seem to stand on strong intellectual footing. I use to think that that idea was in conflict, but here it's not. Folks here want you to prove that you have something to offer to the community and don't give two ***** about you if you can't demonstrate that in a meaningful way. Once you prove that you're not a charlatan, or a dolt, they seem to back off....some - at least enough to make your stay here not feel so uncomfortable.

 

I was able to understand this point, despite my racial handicap. I believe that you can too.

 

I think that the perspective that you offer is refreshing and helpful to advance the debate, even if it doesn't necessarily line up with mine. I'm one for the dialectic so we'll always be on good terms no matter what you think politically.

 

Some very good advice that I received when I began posting here (please ignore the timestamps):

 

Still waiting for my response juror8. You are new here, so perhaps I can help you out:

 

I don't want to get into a debate with Magox over the methods of markets, as that's what he does, and you shouldn't either. We can talk about results, but you should stay away from the inner workings.

Same thing goes for arguing with a business owner, LABillz, over what constitutes a sound budget. (The same goes for a lot of us. I suggest you stop telling us to unknow what we know, and do, every day.)

You sure as hell don't want to argue with DC_Tom about science or history(or in Tom's mind, anything )

Actually, the best rule is stay away from history in general unless you really know it = "have read primary sources". Fair warning. Post some dopey conclusion based on some non-historian who's not even good enough to be called a "revisionist" saying, for example, that Lincoln would be a Democrat today, and you will be destroyed.

Same rule for economics. We have highly educated, both didactically and practically, people here. Slip up once and you will be hearing it for weeks, for the exact reason that we like to antagonize people because we can. This is the high school locker room, and you are the new kid.

 

Having said that, my response above is playing on your home field: Politics. This is something you say you know. So, let's hear it.

 

 

Anyway, I'm going to assume you are truly new to the board. The intercourse you have had with Magox and LA is pretty standard as far as tone goes here. Busting balls and getting them busted for you is a prerequisite for gaining any gravitas on PPP. I've heard seen read a poster on the Stadium Wall swear that they would never come here due to the rough and tumble nature. (I think he was actually a closet Patriot* fan)Back up your schit with more good schit and you won't be called an idiot and !@#$ing moron too often. Oh, and anything containing "mudgeon" belongs to me.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Juror#8

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Don't take things too personally. There are some wolves in here who know their stuff. Interestingly enough, it's the ones who insult the most who seem to stand on strong intellectual footing. I use to think that that idea was in conflict, but here it's not. Folks here want you to prove that you have something to offer to the community and don't give two ***** about you if you can't demonstrate that in a meaningful way. Once you prove that you're not a charlatan, or a dolt, they seem to back off....some - at least enough to make your stay here not feel so uncomfortable.

 

I was able to understand this point, despite my racial handicap. I believe that you can too.

 

I think that the perspective that you offer is refreshing and helpful to advance the debate, even if it doesn't necessarily line up with mine. I'm one for the dialectic so we'll always be on good terms no matter what you think politically.

 

Some very good advice that I received when I began posting here (please ignore the timestamps):

 

Thank you for the advice. I wouldn't continue to post in here if mudslinging made me feel uncomfortable.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Obviously a decent mix of both capitalism and socialism is a good thing

[Chef Jim]

Obviously a decent mix of both capitalism and socialism is a good thing

 

You're right. I'm thinking 90/10 is pretty decent.

[Rob's House]

This started off as a somewhat reasonable list and then began to descend into absurdity right about here:

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.

This comparison is flawed on so many levels I could write an entire thesis on it, but I'll stick to 3 bullet points for the sake of brevity:

-There is a fundamental difference between borrowing money you're going to pay back with interest, and getting a handout.

-Mandated "job searches" are about as productive as the Bills pass rush.

-Federal government has perverted the entire college/student loan system to a point that you cannot make a reasonable comparison between the existing system and one that would exist otherwise.

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.

This implies that the problem is disorganization and inadequate administration, but for the sake of 'realism' ignores the overwhelming evidence that government welfare programs are fundamentally flawed by their very nature.

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

This is little more than a broad sweeping statement based on your own speculation. I would argue that with fewer and more narrowly tailored social programs there would be less of the things you mentioned. People don't have time to engage in those activities when they have to go to work in the morning.

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.

So without the "social safety net", or hammock as it has become, we would end up with absolutist government power? How do you get there?

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.

You miss the point completely here. If the concern was just that a few people would abuse the perks it wouldn't be that great of a concern. But when roughly half the federal budget goes to pensions and health care (private needs), millions are on an ever extended unemployment payment plan, and entire subcultures exist on the backs of those who have the audacity to work, it becomes a problem. I know you guys don't like to do the math, because it's scary.

 

But we're drowning in a river of debt, taxation absolutely cannot cover the cost (it's a fact, deal with it), and the people in charge who we entrust to fix these problems keep writing checks they can't cash to buy votes from an idiotic public who are only concerned about getting theirs, believe the government makes the money so they should get some, and thinks the bill is never going to come due. So apparently pragmatism is burying your head in the sand and pretending the sand isn't a problem until it suffocates you.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Rob's House

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

You're right. I'm thinking 90/10 is pretty decent.

With all these old people? No way to cover all the elderly with great health care. And socialism is necessary in a consumer driven economy, it makes sure people have buying power so the corporations can sell them stuff

[Chef Jim]

With all these old people? No way to cover all the elderly with great health care. And socialism is necessary in a consumer driven economy, it makes sure people have buying power so the corporations can sell them stuff

 

These "old people" is where the highest concentration of wealth is. Do you have any idea how much money is going to be transferred to the baby boomers when their parents die?

[3rdnlng]

With all these old people? No way to cover all the elderly with great health care. And socialism is necessary in a consumer driven economy, it makes sure people have buying power so the corporations can sell them stuff

 

 

So, under socialism people are going to have all this money to buy stuff from the capitalists? Where are the socialists going to get this money again?

[Rob's House]

So, under socialism people are going to have all this money to buy stuff from the capitalists? Where are the socialists going to get this money again?

The government makes it. Duh.

[Juror#8]

This started off as a somewhat reasonable list and then began to descend into absurdity right about here:

 

This comparison is flawed on so many levels I could write an entire thesis on it, but I'll stick to 3 bullet points for the sake of brevity:

-There is a fundamental difference between borrowing money you're going to pay back with interest, and getting a handout.

-Mandated "job searches" are about as productive as the Bills pass rush.

-Federal government has perverted the entire college/student loan system to a point that you cannot make a reasonable comparison between the existing system and one that would exist otherwise.

 

This implies that the problem is disorganization and inadequate administration, but for the sake of 'realism' ignores the overwhelming evidence that government welfare programs are fundamentally flawed by their very nature.

 

This is little more than a broad sweeping statement based on your own speculation. I would argue that with fewer and more narrowly tailored social programs there would be less of the things you mentioned. People don't have time to engage in those activities when they have to go to work in the morning.

 

So without the "social safety net", or hammock as it has become, we would end up with absolutist government power? How do you get there?

 

You miss the point completely here. If the concern was just that a few people would abuse the perks it wouldn't be that great of a concern. But when roughly half the federal budget goes to pensions and health care (private needs), millions are on an ever extended unemployment payment plan, and entire subcultures exist on the backs of those who have the audacity to work, it becomes a problem. I know you guys don't like to do the math, because it's scary.

 

But we're drowning in a river of debt, taxation absolutely cannot cover the cost (it's a fact, deal with it), and the people in charge who we entrust to fix these problems keep writing checks they can't cash to buy votes from an idiotic public who are only concerned about getting theirs, believe the government makes the money so they should get some, and thinks the bill is never going to come due. So apparently pragmatism is burying your head in the sand and pretending the sand isn't a problem until it suffocates you.

 

In the interest of setting ground rules before I respond to the rest of your post, who are the "you guys" to whom you refer?

 

Secondly..."narrowly tailored" huh? Taking it back to L1. That's cool, we can plug into that.

[GG]

Obviously a decent mix of both capitalism and socialism is a good thing

 

You're an idiot.

 

Happy New Year everyone.

[Rob's House]

In the interest of setting ground rules before I respond to the rest of your post, who are the "you guys" to whom you refer?

 

Secondly..."narrowly tailored" huh? Taking it back to L1. That's cool, we can plug into that.

"You guys" are people who defend the perpetuation of the current incarnation of the welfare state and refuse to see that it is not sustainable and that raising taxes can't fix it.

 

As to "narrowly tailored" think of the Bush Medicare expansion bill. About 3% of old people who couldn't afford their medication needed assistance. So instead of creating a "narrowly tailored" approach to help that slight minority in need, they enacted a massive bill by which the government assumes responsibility for all prescription drugs for everyone over 65.

[DC Tom]

You're an idiot.

 

Happy New Year everyone.

 

Technically, you're infringing my trademark.

 

In this case, however, I'll let it slide, on the grounds that calling DIN an idiot constitutes "fair use".

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Technically, you're infringing my trademark.

 

In this case, however, I'll let it slide, on the grounds that calling DIN an idiot constitutes "fair use".

Oh look, the brown nose brothers are reaching out and attacking me together. What would you losers do without each other? Run and hide for fear of not being able to back each other up?

 

So, under socialism people are going to have all this money to buy stuff from the capitalists? Where are the socialists going to get this money again?

Where do the capitalists get their money you complete ignoramus?

 

These "old people" is where the highest concentration of wealth is. Do you have any idea how much money is going to be transferred to the baby boomers when their parents die?

Can you back up this assertion with any sort of facts?

 

 

 

And there wouldn't be much of a transfere of wealth if socialized medicine didn't exist to protect that wealth.

 

Socialism rocks!

[Chef Jim]

 

 

Can you back up this assertion with any sort of facts?

 

 

 

And there wouldn't be much of a transfere of wealth if socialized medicine didn't exist to protect that wealth.

 

Socialism rocks!

 

You want to argue retatta with me too.

[3rdnlng]

Oh look, the brown nose brothers are reaching out and attacking me together. What would you losers do without each other? Run and hide for fear of not being able to back each other up?

 

 

Where do the capitalists get their money you complete ignoramus?

 

Can you back up this assertion with any sort of facts?

 

 

 

And there wouldn't be much of a transfere of wealth if socialized medicine didn't exist to protect that wealth.

 

Socialism rocks!

 

I forgot, it comes from the government.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

You want to argue retatta with me too.

I knew you couldn't back it up

[GG]

Oh look, the brown nose brothers are reaching out and attacking me together. What would you losers do without each other? Run and hide for fear of not being able to back each other up?

 

Still doesn't negate that you're an utter idiot.

 

Where do the capitalists get their money you complete ignoramus?

 

By selling lobotomy home kits. BTW, you're due for the monthly refill.

 

 

Can you back up this assertion with any sort of facts?

 

Can you dispute it?

 

Chew on this. Most of individual wealth in US is tied to equity in real estate. Now, which age group do you think has the highest home equity values?

 

Imbecile.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Still doesn't negate that you're an utter idiot.

 

 

 

By selling lobotomy home kits. BTW, you're due for the monthly refill.

 

 

 

 

Can you dispute it?

 

Chew on this. Most of individual wealth in US is tied to equity in real estate. Now, which age group do you think has the highest home equity values?

 

Imbecile.

This is so you, just like pointing out how every tax cut has seen the economy grow afterwords--it would have grown anyway. But more to this stupid point of yours. It is totally meaningless. Old people do not constitute a single economic block like rich people do. Old people might own a lot of real estate, or they might own nothing. You are so stupid to try and make this point, and what your craven need to make them out to be wealthly is driven by is your desire to take away their health care. And real estate? Really? Not exactlythehealthyiest sector these days, but hey, they should mortgage their house to pay for that hip replacement surgery, right? That's evil, and stupid all rolled into one.

 

 

You better keep calling me names, because it is all you got little boy