Socialism stifles individual achievement. That the old Soviet Union had to introduce incentives to performance and create an element of self-interest to get anything to work should tell you something.

(07-06-2012 08:33 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Socialism stifles individual achievement. That the old Soviet Union had to introduce incentives to performance and create an element of self-interest to get anything to work should tell you all you need to know.

Absolutely, but there are also aspects of socialism that are absolutely positive for societies as a whole. Public education isn't perfect, but it's far better than not having it.

I'll state it again, the best society is likely a mixture of all political leanings, with each decision made with only the best interest of keeping a balance between society/personal rights and without any concern on what ideology the idea comes from. Discounting a policy simply because of what ideology it comes from is shortsighted and childish, it should should dismissed due to rational reasons.

I can't wait for you to get out in the real world.

(07-06-2012 04:31 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 08:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For one it doesn't prove, or even attempt to prove, quantitatively that its central premise is even true. It's just some political theorist who has a hard-on for bashing socialism who is making claims without trying to prove them. It's lazy, and it only really appeals to those people who already believe its central premise.

As opposed to this post

Quote:no

, which isn't at all lazy and did a fantastic job of rebutting what was argued.

By the way, nice job with the "word of the day" use of quantitatively. It fit in ever so swimmingly with your sentence.

The fact is, socialism or more specifically socialized health care, DOES NOT WORK in a non-homogeneous population with hundreds of millions of people with a litany of health problems. Obesity/diabetes, heart disease, cancer, AIDS/HIV, strokes etc. will absolutely bankrupt this country if we have to pay for everyone to get health care on the governments dime.

It may work in smaller European countries like Sweden where the population is healthy and even when it is sick, suffers from similar ailments as opposed to American which has a multitude of expensive health problems that vary across race, gender and ethnicity. A bunch of fit white people in a country that can afford socialized medicine should NOT be the basis for the United States of America and only a complete moron would make this case.

So that brings us to the Democratic party. We could also get into the fact that socialism/communism in and of itself is a flawed idea because if everyone could be equal or near equal, the world would no longer have doctors or lawyers because who the hell would take the risk of going to school or taking on loans if you could just make a similar amount of money digging ditches or working at McDonald's.

The sad thing is, I actually do agree there is a sickening gulf in wage disparity in this country. The "have-not's" ARE forced to survive on nearly nothing which is why so many people choose to stay on government housing and food stamps because if you make too much to qualify, your quality of life is going to be miserable so you might as well just avoid any and all debt by letting the government pay for everything.

But coming up with a solution to wage disparity isn't what the Democrats REALLY want. They don't want to install incentive programs to give people who do work an extra check every month to increase their quality of life and reward them for working.

If they wanted to do that, they absolutely could have with that disgusting bailout they gave Wall Street/GM......I could be here all day. They don't want to reward hard workers......instead, Democrats want more people suckling at the government teat so that they have a voting block for life.

I think if you asked any Republican you've ever met if they would support a program that rewards poor people for working hard and gives them extra money to help improve their lives, a good majority would support something like that as opposed to straight welfare/food stamps/government housing.

But again, Democrats have offered NOTHING other than "increasing the minimum wage" which puts the burdens on Private Business to take care of the poor and thus kills off any potential job creation which could end up helping to create a better job in the future.

The Democrats want the government to be as big as it possibly can be. How can anyone with even a double digit number of TOTAL brain cells support the United States government INCREASING in size at this point after seeing how poorly it has been run the last 3+ years (and really, FAR longer than that)?

Are you honestly that slow on the uptake that you do not understand that an increase in the power and authority of a slow, corrupt, ineffective organism like the Federal Government is a bad thing for people in this country?

Cut the bureaucrazy (yes I misspelled it on purpose), cut the government waste and entitlement programs and INSTEAD, sink that money into rewarding those who play by the rules, who are poor but who want to make something of themselves.

The government is wasting TRILLIONS of dollars on complete and utter garbage. Just the worst kind of excess and spending you can possibly imagine while poor people are forced to scrape by and choose to go out on their own and barely eek out an existence while working their arse off or just say screw it and let the government pay for everything and not have to raise a finger. Of course people choose the latter.

But again, Democrats don't want to reward the hard working in this country because they prefer to keep their votes in line. The welfare line.

+2...well done

(07-06-2012 08:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 08:33 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Socialism stifles individual achievement. That the old Soviet Union had to introduce incentives to performance and create an element of self-interest to get anything to work should tell you all you need to know.

Absolutely, but there are also aspects of socialism that are absolutely positive for societies as a whole. Public education isn't perfect, but it's far better than not having it.

I'll state it again, the best society is likely a mixture of all political leanings, with each decision made with only the best interest of keeping a balance between society/personal rights and without any concern on what ideology the idea comes from. Discounting a policy simply because of what ideology it comes from is shortsighted and childish, it should should dismissed due to rational reasons.

Who's rationale?

(07-06-2012 08:45 AM)maximus Wrote:  I can't wait for you to get out in the real world.

I've been in the real world, and left a successful career to go back to school to do something more personally rewarding. Nice try though.

Quote:Who's rationale?

Societies, who elses?

great posts RR and Creb.

(07-06-2012 09:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 08:45 AM)maximus Wrote:  I can't wait for you to get out in the real world.

I've been in the real world, and left a successful career to go back to school to do something more personally rewarding. Nice try though.

Quote:Who's rationale?

Societies, who elses?

meaning you couldnt hack it

(07-06-2012 09:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 08:45 AM)maximus Wrote:  I can't wait for you to get out in the real world.

I've been in the real world, and left a successful career to go back to school to do something more personally rewarding. Nice try though.

Quote:Who's rationale?

Societies, who elses?

Society? Really?

(07-06-2012 09:37 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 09:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 08:45 AM)maximus Wrote:  I can't wait for you to get out in the real world.

I've been in the real world, and left a successful career to go back to school to do something more personally rewarding. Nice try though.

Quote:Who's rationale?

Societies, who elses?

meaning you couldnt hack it

I made enough to put a nice downpayment on a house, and pay for my return trip to school. Considering I was 25, I'd say I wasn't doing all that badly.

(07-06-2012 08:25 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 08:18 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I still subscribe to the silly notion that if I outperforn the guy one office over, when things get tight, he's the one who gets the axe.

I believe that I should not be made to feel shame for the things I have because I earned them, by people who didn't.

Poor in America ain't like poor in the rest of the world. Everybody who's not at death's door has roof over their head, a cell phone, and a friggin' facebook page.

Know who put me through college? I did.

Worked two jobs and fed 4 people while I did it.

This country used to reward the guy with the bright idea. The guy who innovated. The guy who made something of himself.

Govermnent should get the hell out of that guy's way.

Instead, it's turned us all into f''n victims, which is just the way they like it.

Funny, I'm back in college and I have yet to meet one of these victims, nor do I know a single person who thinks differently on pretty much any of your ideas. Are they out there? I'm sure they are, but the overwhelming majority of all ideologies agree with your statements. I mean hell, even communist russia tried to incentivise production by setting goals and awarding those who met them. And that was in the worst of all situations (totalitarian regime masquerading as a communist society).

I just don't see where any of your points are at all applicable to the modern socialist movement.

I actually agree that 100% capitalism is not the way to go with no regulation - too many greedy people figure out ways to create monopolies and cheat within the system.

However, the further along the socialist path a country goes, the more omnipotent the government becomes......all that does is transfer the "winnings" from the entrepreneur/achiever to some damn government weenie because he gets to now pick the winners and losers. When he is doing the picking of winners he makes sure he is one of them & he didn't do squat.

Look, lots & lots of people in the free market are greedy cheaters, but to pretend that those in government aren't just as bad is naive.

Let individuals figure out how to build a better mouse trap and have government oversight to make sure the system retains it's fairness.

(07-06-2012 08:17 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  The issue is that you're all conflating 'SOCIALISM!' into meaning everything about a possible socialist society that is negative. Just like pure capitalism is doomed to fail, pure socialism itself isn't likely to succeed either but that alone is not indicative of it's success when used rationally and when countered with non-socialist policies to offset its legitimate shortcomings. The best society is likely a mixture of all political leanings, with each decision made with only the best interest of keeping a balance between society/personal rights and without any concern on what ideology the idea comes from.

But that's not a sexy answer.

I will not debate that under our current paradigm that socialism is fully at play in America. It is and it has been growing slowly for decades due to the policies of BOTH parties.

Just far are you willing to allow it to grow? From what I see from our current POTUS....there is NO limit. He already has ushered in the second largest socialist program in US history and honesty...I see it being number ONE eventually.

Personally...I want us to move eventually to a more voluntary paradigm and further away from governmental management. What we have going on now is in the direct opposite direction. There is NOTHING to lead me to believe that we are not eventually heading for our demise with an extremely centralized government structure that controls our lives from the cradle to the grave. I hope I am dead by that time. I don't want to live in that country.

(07-06-2012 08:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 08:17 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  The issue is that you're all conflating 'SOCIALISM!' into meaning everything about a possible socialist society that is negative. Just like pure capitalism is doomed to fail, pure socialism itself isn't likely to succeed either but that alone is not indicative of it's success when used rationally and when countered with non-socialist policies to offset its legitimate shortcomings. The best society is likely a mixture of all political leanings, with each decision made with only the best interest of keeping a balance between society/personal rights and without any concern on what ideology the idea comes from.

But that's not a sexy answer.

I will not debate that under our current paradigm that socialism is fully at play in America. It is and it has been growing slowly for decades due to the policies of BOTH parties.

Just far are you willing to allow it to grow? From what I see from our current POTUS....there is NO limit. He already has ushered in the second largest socialist program in US history and honesty...I see it being number ONE eventually.

Personally...I want us to move eventually to a more voluntary paradigm and further away from governmental management. What we have going on now is in the direct opposite direction. There is NOTHING to lead me to believe that we are not eventually heading for our demise with an extremely centralized government structure that controls our lives from the cradle to the grave. I hope I am dead by that time. I don't want to live in that country.

Good. You can start by voluntarily entering yourself into a mental facility.

By the way, if socialism in it's purest form ruled the land, we would no longer have competitive sports because every single game would end in a tie, lest someone be better than someone else, then the other team should simply just be rewarded enough points to tie things up so everyone is equal.

Even at it's very core socialism is a stupid, stupid idea that doesn't work in the real world. The execution by its corrupt tenants is usually even worse than the "theory".

(07-07-2012 12:21 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 08:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 08:17 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  The issue is that you're all conflating 'SOCIALISM!' into meaning everything about a possible socialist society that is negative. Just like pure capitalism is doomed to fail, pure socialism itself isn't likely to succeed either but that alone is not indicative of it's success when used rationally and when countered with non-socialist policies to offset its legitimate shortcomings. The best society is likely a mixture of all political leanings, with each decision made with only the best interest of keeping a balance between society/personal rights and without any concern on what ideology the idea comes from.

But that's not a sexy answer.

I will not debate that under our current paradigm that socialism is fully at play in America. It is and it has been growing slowly for decades due to the policies of BOTH parties.

Just far are you willing to allow it to grow? From what I see from our current POTUS....there is NO limit. He already has ushered in the second largest socialist program in US history and honesty...I see it being number ONE eventually.

Personally...I want us to move eventually to a more voluntary paradigm and further away from governmental management. What we have going on now is in the direct opposite direction. There is NOTHING to lead me to believe that we are not eventually heading for our demise with an extremely centralized government structure that controls our lives from the cradle to the grave. I hope I am dead by that time. I don't want to live in that country.

Good. You can start by voluntarily entering yourself into a mental facility.

Post 24,915 of the same shtick. Don't you think it is time to get some new material?

(07-07-2012 12:34 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  By the way, if socialism in it's purest form ruled the land, we would no longer have competitive sports because every single game would end in a tie, lest someone be better than someone else, then the other team should simply just be rewarded enough points to tie things up so everyone is equal.

Even at it's very core socialism is a stupid, stupid idea that doesn't work in the real world. The execution by its corrupt tenants is usually even worse than the "theory".

It doesn't even work on a small scale for very long. That is why communes don't last long. People get tired of the lazy members reaping the benefits of those that are productive.

Also you inevitably run out of other peoples money.

(07-07-2012 07:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Also you inevitably run out of other peoples money.

We already have. Even so, Progs think we should be spending more.

(07-07-2012 12:34 AM)Razor Ramon Monarch Wrote:  By the way, if socialism in it's purest form ruled the land, we would no longer have competitive sports because every single game would end in a tie, lest someone be better than someone else, then the other team should simply just be rewarded enough points to tie things up so everyone is equal.

Even at it's very core socialism is a stupid, stupid idea that doesn't work in the real world. The execution by its corrupt tenants is usually even worse than the "theory".

No, that's what you believe socialism is at it's core, because it makes it easier for you to summarily dismiss anything that can be viewed as 'socialist' without having to come up with any legitimate arguments based on actual facts.

I don't know of a single person who doesn't want those who are successful to earn more money and have more things than those who don't. They might differ on how great that divide should ideally be, but there is not a single person I know who has ever once even implied that those who are successful should have the exact same as those who aren't. Never. Are there those people out there? I'm sure there are, somewhere, but to ascribe that belief to the overarching socialist movement, especially how it has historically been represented in the US, is laughable and intellectually lazy on your part. If you want to attack specific policies, then attack those policies and provide data to support your complaints. But sitting here, convincing each other that you know what socialists think and their ultimate desires while spewing nonsense isn't productive nor is it anything but a way in which you can further convince yourselves that you know better without actually searching for the truth. It summarizes the major problem with our absurdly partisan system and the cheerleaders behind it; you all would rather be 'right' than truly correct.

Not that I suspect this will stop any of this though.

(07-06-2012 02:08 AM)TomorrowHerd Wrote:  I think the quote in Jugnaut's post is unequivocally correct. The socialism that was spread throughout this country in the 50' and 60's has finally had the desired effect. We have lost, America has lost, Freedom has lost. It is now just a matter of time until the death of this once great republic.

We've been going down the long, slow path to socialism for many years. What we have is unsustainable. Eventually, the federal government will collapse upon itself or there will be a revolution.

I thought "the end" would occur in the 22nd or 23rd century, but we probably won't last that long.