America will never be a socialist country

  
Via:  make-america-great-again  •  3 months ago  •  84 comments

America will never be a socialist country
In America, we know that true freedom and prosperity do not come from the clumsy hand of the government. They come from empowering people to live their own lives and control their own destinies through the dignity that is born of hard work. As I’ve said before, that’s why we celebrate the 4th of July and not April 15th, because in America we celebrate our independence from the government and our dependence on it.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


“Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free.”
— President Donald Trump, State of the Union Address February 5, 2019

Venezuela is a real-time example of the failure of socialism. Promises of prosperity frequently lead to poverty for the masses and all-too-often opens the door to brutal dictators.

Nicolas Maduro is such a ruler and we sadly see daily reminders of how far he is willing to go to maintain his power. More than 3 million people are part of the exodus from Venezuela, with another 2 million expected to leave by the end of the year.

Once one of the most prosperous countries in this hemisphere, Venezuela’s economy is falling apart. The socialism promoted by Mr. Maduro is hurting the people of his country. More than 9 out of 10 people live in poverty and the average citizen there has lost more than 20 pounds through malnutrition and deprivation.

Defenders of socialism dismiss Venezuela as an anomaly, but there are plenty of other examples: Cuba, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe and North Korea to name a few. And who can forget the collapse of the Soviet Union or the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Where is the similar list of failed democratic republics supporting free enterprise?

Sadly, many liberal politicians still embrace socialism. Bernie Sanders was for socialism before it became cool on the left as it is today, and many of his advisers view Venezuela as a model. Scary.

Socialism has failed over and over again. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said it best, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

She was right then and even more so now. No matter how much the government taxes the “wealthy,” there will never be enough to cover all of the costs connected with socialism.

Take the so-called Green New Deal. One group estimates the cost of the plan over a decade to be between $51 trillion and $93 trillion.

That would be on top of the federal government debt that already exceeds $22 trillion. The share of that debt for a child born today in America is $67,000 (more than double the average amount of student loan debt). Our kids and grandkids will pay the bills, and they will not have enough money to cover the costs of those bills.

Plus, socialism is not fair.

Again, Prime Minister Thatcher summed it up well when responding to a member of Parliament complain about “income inequality” saying, “The honorable Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.”

She was right — yet again.

It increasingly seems that socialists and liberals (Democrats) are not so concerned about improving the lives of the poor as they are in taking from the presumed rich. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is a prime example. She doesn’t just want to impose a tax on income. She wants to tax again what many saved up after being taxed on income.

That would be like telling a straight-A student that she has to share her grades with the other students. Most would agree that is not fair. So, instead of stealing her high grades, we should be focused on how we can help the other students improve their own education and get good grades.

Rather than imposing policies that weaken and shrink the economy, what about doing things that strengthen and grow it? Then, we can help people improve themselves with the education and skills that they need to succeed. That will help them get and then keep good-paying, family-supporting jobs.

President Ronald Reagan said it well on June 29, 1981:

“It’s time that we found ways to make the American economic pie bigger instead of just cutting an ever smaller pie into more but smaller slices. It’s time we welcomed those Americans into the circle of prosperity to let them share in the wonders of our society, and it’s time to break the cycle of dependency that has become the legacy of so many federal programs that no longer work — indeed, some of which never did work.”

In America, we know that true freedom and prosperity do not come from the clumsy hand of the government. They come from empowering people to live their own lives and control their own destinies through the dignity that is born of hard work. As I’ve said before, that’s why we celebrate the 4th of July and not April 15th, because in America we celebrate our independence from the government and our dependence on it.

That’s why we, the United States of America, will never be a socialist country.

• Scott Walker was the 45th governor of Wisconsin. You can contact him at swalker@washingtontimes.com or follow him @ScottWalker.

Article is Locked by Moderator

Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    3 months ago

“Socialism has failed over and over again. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said it best, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

She was right then and even more so now. No matter how much the government taxes the “wealthy,” there will never be enough to cover all of the costs connected with socialism.

Take the so-called Green New Deal. One group estimates the cost of the plan over a decade to be between $51 trillion and $93 trillion.

That would be on top of the federal government debt that already exceeds $22 trillion. The share of that debt for a child born today in America is $67,000 (more than double the average amount of student loan debt). Our kids and grandkids will pay the bills, and they will not have enough money to cover the costs of those bills.

Plus, socialism is not fair.

Again, Prime Minister Thatcher summed it up well when responding to a member of Parliament complain about “income inequality” saying, “The honorable Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.”

She was right — yet again.

It increasingly seems that socialists and liberals (Democrats) are not so concerned about improving the lives of the poor as they are in taking from the presumed rich. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is a prime example. She doesn’t just want to impose a tax on income. She wants to tax again what many saved up after being taxed on income.

That would be like telling a straight-A student that she has to share her grades with the other students. Most would agree that is not fair. So, instead of stealing her high grades, we should be focused on how we can help the other students improve their own education and get good grades.

Rather than imposing policies that weaken and shrink the economy, what about doing things that strengthen and grow it? Then, we can help people improve themselves with the education and skills that they need to succeed. That will help them get and then keep good-paying, family-supporting jobs.

President Ronald Reagan said it well on June 29, 1981:

“It’s time that we found ways to make the American economic pie bigger instead of just cutting an ever smaller pie into more but smaller slices. It’s time we welcomed those Americans into the circle of prosperity to let them share in the wonders of our society, and it’s time to break the cycle of dependency that has become the legacy of so many federal programs that no longer work — indeed, some of which never did work.””

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1    3 months ago

Define 'socialism' as you use it.

Socialism is an economic system wherein _________________________________________.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.1  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    3 months ago

I have seen several people here pushing Austrian School economics.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @1.1.1    3 months ago

I have seen more who cannot define what they mean by the term 'socialism'.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.3  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    3 months ago

Reading about it (Austrian School) makes my head spin. It seems contradictory.

Believing in the individual yet imo socialism believes that as well. Ie the individual being a part of the process.

Anyway, a lot to take in. No wonder people study these things for years.

Let's just say, so far I am not a fan of AS.

(edit) I also think that this (AS) is what is being pushed with these articles.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.4  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Ender @1.1.1    3 months ago

So have I and I generally agree with them.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    3 months ago

There is no form of or definition of socialism that would be acceptable to us.  America will never be a socialist country no matter how utopian it’s made to sound or appear.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.5    3 months ago
There is no form of or definition of socialism that would be acceptable to us.  America will never be a socialist country no matter how utopian it’s made to sound or appear.

LOL.   What a perfect illustration that you are simply opposing a wordjrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Know what you are talking about.   Anyone who pays attention should realize that the word 'socialism' is overloaded to the point of being nonsensical.   Some refer to the USA military, the USPS, etc. as 'socialism'.   Are you against those public services KAG?    

Unpack the word into your specific issues.   It is so much better to be clear.   Name your enemy.   

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.6    3 months ago
Anyone who pays attention should realize that the word 'socialism' is overloaded to the point of being nonsensical.

The latest dog whistle. It certainly gets the pavlovian response intended whenever uttered. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.2    3 months ago
I have seen more who cannot define what they mean by the term 'socialism'.

In your own words....what does the term mean to you ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.8    3 months ago

Really, you have never read me describe socialism?   

See here @3 to find this (for example):  "a theoretical system wherein the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and not by a minority such as aristocracy or state officials".   It is a category of systems whose objective is distributed (democratic) control of the economy.   Basically:  the people are in control - not a minority.

I wrote an article on the topic last year:  What is Socialism?

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.9    3 months ago
It is a category of systems whose objective is distributed (democratic) control of the economy.   Basically:  the people are in control - not a minority.

But, there are so many Political Theories, movements and and forms of "Socialism".

Was your "Thesis" the ONLY Right way to think of "Socialism" ?

Did you cover "ALL", including the "Warped" versions ?

I'll say .............. NO ...............on ALL Counts. You don't have that kind of time, Nor the funding !

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.10    3 months ago

Try to distinguish the popular slogan-level description of socialism (which is so contradictory it has no real meaning) from contemporary theories rooted in historical principles. 

Do some research and then maybe I will take your comments seriously.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2  Nerm_L    3 months ago

Citing Margret Thatcher as a counter argument to socialism is nothing more than circular logic.  Globalization and socialism both provide the same result; loss of individual economic freedoms, subservience to an oligarchy, and dominance by the state.

Both the Reagan-Thatcher ideas rooted in Austrian economic theory and socialist economic theory focus attention on the supply-side (or greed-side) of the economy.  Both Austrian economics and socialist economics are about concentrating capital and economic influence that is controlled by a few.  The only difference between the two greed-side theories of economics is whether society will be subservient to (and dependent upon) an oligarchy of monetary monopolists or to a government of power hungry elites.   

Supply-side economics is not a pathway to liberty or individual freedom.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Nerm_L @2    3 months ago

Supply side economics and globalism are not the same thing at all.  Supply side economics is actual individual liberty and individual freedom both political and economic.  

 
 
 
luther28
2.1.1  luther28  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    3 months ago
Supply side economics is actual individual liberty

It has been proved flawed, did not work for Reagan, will not work this time. The only thing that manages to trickle down to the masses is yellow ( poor hydration I suppose) and it is not rain.

Umbrella anyone?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    3 months ago
Supply side economics and globalism are not the same thing at all.

Globalization has been about avoiding taxes and circumventing regulations.  That's the core emphasis of supply-side economics.

The most equitable system of economics is individual self-sufficiency.  But absolute self sufficiency is impossible to accomplish.  The impossibility of achieving absolute self sufficiency does not alter the basic principle that increasing individual freedom requires increasing individual self sufficiency.  What globalization does is decrease self sufficiency which diminishes individual freedom.

Supply side (or greed side) economics is about creating individual dependence upon supply controlled by monetary monopolists.  If the individual's survival and well being depends upon the supply chain then the individual has lost freedom.  Eliminating taxes and regulations on the supply side only establishes greater individual dependence upon the supply chain and further loss of individual freedom.  

Absolute individual freedom requires absolute individual self sufficiency.  Dependence upon a supply chain does not provide any more freedom than does dependence upon government.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    3 months ago

You know, for all the bitching I have ever heard about supply-side economics since Reagan, you would think one of the geniuses in the Democratic Party would have changed it instead of continuing it.

 
 
 
luther28
2.1.4  luther28  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    3 months ago

They did in 2008, it was Keynesian economics that bailed our collective asses out from the damage wrought by the economic policies of St. Reagan and Mr. Bush.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  luther28 @2.1.4    3 months ago

That's hilarious.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    3 months ago
You know, for all the bitching I have ever heard about supply-side economics since Reagan, you would think one of the geniuses in the Democratic Party would have changed it instead of continuing it.

That's a legacy of Bill Clinton and his support for globalization and unfettered free trade in hopes of establishing a one-world government.  Reagan established the possibility but it was Clinton that created the reality.  There isn't any substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats; they work together to create more dependence upon concentrated influence of finance.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  luther28 @2.1.1    3 months ago
The only thing that manages to trickle down to the masses is yellow

It appears you unaware that there is no such thing as trickle down economics.  I don't suppose we can get TiG to take on that semantical challenge.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.8  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.5    3 months ago

It is indeed.  The worst of the crisis was caused by Carter and Clinton administration housing policies and by democrats filibuster of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae reform. Bush did the heavy lifting to navigate us through the worst of the crisis before he left office. Obama’s policies only slowed economic growth and made the recovery the worst one ever.  His policies gutted the working and middle class, and killed wage increases and saving for 8 years.  

 
 
 
luther28
2.1.9  luther28  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.1.7    3 months ago

Trickle down is slang for the loftier term, Supply Side Economics. Lipstick on a pig as they say.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  luther28 @2.1.9    3 months ago
Trickle down is slang for the loftier term, Supply Side Economics. Lipstick on a pig as they say.

In the 1890s it was called the horse and sparrow theory of economics: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'

Supply-side economics is nothing new.  But the labels have changed because every time the theory has been used for monetary and fiscal policy the result has been economic panics and depressions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3  TᵢG    3 months ago

Governor Walker (the author) does a great job of illustrating the notion that 'socialism' is 'whatever I do not like'.    Walker is all over the map here.   This does nothing other than perpetuate ignorance.   It would be so much better if Walker were to point out in specific terms problems promoted by the so called 'socialists' in the D party rather than demonize a word that is already nothing more than a pejorative to most in the USA.

“Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free.”
— President Donald Trump, State of the Union Address February 5, 2019

Here we have Trump defining socialism as authoritarian rule ("government coercion, domination, and control").    A harsh form of statism.

Venezuela is a real-time example of the failure of socialism. Promises of prosperity frequently lead to poverty for the masses and all-too-often opens the door to brutal dictators.

Now Walker deems Venezuela an exemplar for socialism and thus defines socialism as authoritarian rule with expropriation of private industry, command economy and irresponsible levels of redistribution of wealth.

Defenders of socialism dismiss Venezuela as an anomaly, but there are plenty of other examples: Cuba, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe and North Korea to name a few. And who can forget the collapse of the Soviet Union or the fall of the Berlin Wall?

All results of authoritarian rule where the people are oppressed.  The exact opposite of economic freedom.

Where is the similar list of failed democratic republics supporting free enterprise?

Democratic republics operating with a free market is vastly superior to an oppressive authoritarian state.    A free market operating with representative democracy with a capitalist economic system is much closer to socialism than an oppressive authoritarian state which controls the economy.

Sadly, many liberal politicians still embrace socialism. Bernie Sanders was for socialism before it became cool on the left as it is today, and many of his advisers view Venezuela as a model. Scary.

Here Walker conflates authoritarian statism with social democracy.   These are profoundly different systems.   Social democracy (what Sanders is essentially promoting) is a variant of capitalism wherein a highly regulated capitalist economic engine is used to fund social programs (e.g. universal healthcare).   It is the dominant system in Europe ... the system of the Nordic nations which Sanders likes to reference.   To label Venezuela and Norway (for example) as two examples of socialism reveals the lack of understanding of what is taking place in those two profoundly different socio-economic/political systems.

Socialism has failed over and over again. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said it best, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

In the interview (from which this quote was mined) PM Thatcher starts off by indicating what she means by 'socialism':

Socialism started by saying it was going to tax the rich, very rapidly it was taxing the middle income groups. Now, it's taxing people quite highly with incomes way below average and pensioners with incomes way below average. You look at the figure on the beginning of a pay slip, sometimes it can look quite high, look along the slip to the other end, and see how many deductions you've had off, those deductions have increased enormously under Socialism …   .

Thatcher is referring to the social democrats (the Labour party) in Parliament.   Taxation is the key mechanism for generating funds for social programs.   In context, Thatcher is using 'socialism' to mean 'social democracy' - a highly regulated capitalist economy that redistributes wealth (via taxation) to fund public programs.

She was right then and even more so now. No matter how much the government taxes the “wealthy,” there will never be enough to cover all of the costs connected with socialism.

While I agree Thatcher is correct, the problem is that taxing the wealthy to fund social programs is not an economic system and is certainly not socialism (a theoretical system wherein the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and not by a minority such as aristocracy or state officials).   Thatcher was complaining about statism that redistributes wealth ... playing Robin Hood.   She was complaining about social democracy.

Take the so-called Green New Deal. One group estimates the cost of the plan over a decade to be between $51 trillion and $93 trillion.

Now Walker labels a classic liberal initiative based on renewable energy and very expansive public programs as 'socialism'.   This is social democracy (and an extreme form at that) wherein the state uses tax revenue (or, in the case of the USA, tax revenues stolen from future generations) to fund giveaways to the American people.   This is exactly the kind of crap that contributed heavily to the destruction of Venezuela - irresponsible levels of spending while removing the incentive of producers (who generate wealth in the first place).    But Walker stupidly just calls this 'socialism'.   Instead of educating his readers on the actual problems he simply demonizes an already demonized word so followers can run about hating 'socialism' without having a clue as to what that means.

Plus, socialism is not fair. Again, Prime Minister Thatcher summed it up well when responding to a member of Parliament complain about “income inequality” saying, “The honorable Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.”

This is egalitarian nonsense.   Any system that tries to produce equal ('fair') results will fail.  People necessarily have different talents, ambition, attitudes, etc. and will produce very different results.   It is essential for a functioning economy to have unequal results tied to individual contribution.   The 'fair' side of the equation would be equal opportunity.   Everyone should have the chance, for example, to higher education pursuant to their ambitions.   But this again is not 'socialism'.    This is referring to the consequences of irresponsible levels of redistribution of wealth.   When a system reduces the incentive of the producers by giving too much to those who produce less (or nothing at all) it is shooting itself in the foot.   Calling this 'socialism' hides the problem.

It increasingly seems that socialists and liberals (Democrats) are not so concerned about improving the lives of the poor as they are in taking from the presumed rich. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is a prime example. She doesn’t just want to impose a tax on income. She wants to tax again what many saved up after being taxed on income.

Statism and redistribution of wealth; not 'socialism'.

President Ronald Reagan said it well on June 29, 1981:

“It’s time that we found ways to make the American economic pie bigger instead of just cutting an ever smaller pie into more but smaller slices. It’s time we welcomed those Americans into the circle of prosperity to let them share in the wonders of our society, and it’s time to break the cycle of dependency that has become the legacy of so many federal programs that no longer work — indeed, some of which never did work.”

In America, we know that true freedom and prosperity do not come from the clumsy hand of the government. They come from empowering people to live their own lives and control their own destinies through the dignity that is born of hard work. As I’ve said before, that’s why we celebrate the 4th of July and not April 15th, because in America we celebrate our independence from the government and our dependence on it.

That’s why we, the United States of America, will never be a socialist country.

President Reagan is talking about statism ('the Government is the problem').   He equated 'statism' with 'socialism'.


If every problem is seen as 'socialism' we are all chasing an amorphous boogie man.   Know thy enemy.   The many problems in the world are not all lumped under the word: 'evil'.   We address terrorism, disease, rape, etc. individually.   We understand each of these 'evils' so as to effectively deal with them.    Unpack the overloaded label and look at the specific problems that are being presented.

Governor Walker has simply packaged a bunch of problems under the label 'socialism' and has done nothing to educate his readers.   Instead he has provided yet another talking-head article that people can now parrot to others to express the naive and pointless sentiment that 'socialism' is bad.    Brilliant.

This article does not discuss socialism.   But it does discuss quite a few bad practices that take place in socio-economic/political systems (ironically with capitalist economies).  Focus on the actual bad practices rather than run about with bumper-sticker level of understanding.

These are the factors ultimately at play in this article:

  • Statism
  • Redistribution of Wealth
  • Social democracy
  • Expropriation of private enterprise
  • Command economy
  • Irresponsible levels of public programs
  • Egalitarian results
  • Authoritarian rule

 
 
 
lib50
3.1  lib50  replied to  TᵢG @3    3 months ago

Thank you thank you thank you!  We may need to repeat this post a million times!

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @3    3 months ago
 It would be so much better if Walker were to point out in specific terms problems promoted by the so called 'socialists' in the D party rather than demonize a word that is already nothing more than a pejorative to most in the USA.

I saw some "Specifics". 

You didn't, or were you more worried about what you were going to write.

One example:

"It increasingly seems that socialists and liberals (Democrats) are not so concerned about improving the lives of the poor as they are in taking from the presumed rich. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax is a prime example. She doesn’t just want to impose a tax on income. She wants to tax again what many saved up after being taxed on income."

Citizen ownership of equity ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @3.2    3 months ago

My point (of course) is that the article should focus on specifics rather than lump all sorts of crap into the label 'socialism' and then decry 'socialism'.   

She doesn’t just want to impose a tax on income. She wants to tax again what many saved up after being taxed on income.

Do you consider double-taxation to be a defining characteristic of socialism?   If so, let's see your definition for socialism.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4  1stwarrior    3 months ago

320

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5  Freedom Warrior    3 months ago

There is no point in attempting to re-educate people on the precise application of the term socialism.  That's a waste of time.  The branding is sufficently apropos to take to take those factors you just listed and make them synonymous with socialism.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5    3 months ago

Yeah, but if they can continue to talk about the definition of socialism, then they don't have to provide any examples of it actually working anywhere.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    3 months ago

Nor do they have to confront the awful truth of the millions of people that have been murdered or died under the rule of socialist regimes.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    3 months ago

Because it never has and never will.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5    3 months ago
The branding is sufficently apropos to take to take those factors you just listed and make them synonymous with socialism.

You would then equate social democracy (note that the USA employs a weak social democracy) with authoritarian rule, expropriation of private industry and command economy?

If someone views the USA as socialist (or 'mixed') due to the presence of Social Security, Medicare, Military, etc. would you be able to discuss the problems with authoritarian rule if both simply used the word 'socialism'?

Do you find Venezuela and Norway to be the same socio-economic/political system?   

Why shy away from specifics and hide behind an overloaded term like 'socialism'?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2    3 months ago

You are changing the subject. It is not I who desires to avoid discussing the evils of socialism.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.1    3 months ago

First I am directly addressing your comments.   Second I am quite happy to discuss bad systems.  I am against:

  • Statism
  • Redistribution of Wealth (although some level of RDW is necessary / inevitable for any functioning socio-economic/political system)
  • Expropriation of private enterprise
  • Command economy
  • Irresponsible levels of public programs
  • Egalitarian results
  • Authoritarian rule

I think a moderate level of social democracy is sensible.   

So, third, you (and I am confident this was intentional) totally missed the point of my comment @3.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.2    3 months ago

Thanks for clarifying that.  However, the point I made relates to the use of the term socialism and why in an economically illiterate society (that is promoted by and large by many states and the US Government) it is utilitarian to associate those aforementioned evils with the term.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.3    3 months ago
... in an economically illiterate society (that is promoted by and large by many states and the US Government) it is utilitarian to associate those aforementioned evils with the term.

Deal with ignorance by feeding it?

I disagree.   

  • People should know the difference between a command economy and a market economy and why the former fails (today, but possibly not in the future) and the latter is so successful.
  • People should know why egalitarian results are impossible and why the pursuit of same would destroy the system.    But they should also know why egalitarian opportunities are healthy (e.g. everyone should have the means to pursue higher education as long as they prove their attitude and aptitude with actual performance).
  • People should know what statism is and the degree to which it exists in our nation and at what level it turns net bad.  
  • People should know what expropriation of private property means, why it is bad and how it differs from merely government owned/operated entities.
  • People should know that all governments offer public services and never be confused into thinking the presence of a military, postal system, public education system, etc. is 'socialization'.
  • People should know that all governments redistribute wealth via taxation (and/or debt ... stealing from future generations) and that a level of this is necessary for a functioning civil society.

People should be able to intelligently discuss these factors and the individual policies suggested by politicians.    They should be able to recognize a level of statism in the USA that is tolerable vs. that which is ultimately unhealthy to liberty.   They should neither reject nor accept a policy simply because it touches on one or more of the above factors but rather have sufficient understanding to discern the relevant factors of the proposed policy and determine if it is something they wish to support.

Lumping all these factors and all the issues based on these factors into a single confused pot labeled 'socialism' is a perfect way to acquiesce to partisan political forces which thrive on manipulating ignorance.

Nah, I disagree with the notion of the public stupidly calling everything 'socialism'.   A voting calculus at the level of 'not gonna vote for anything someone labels as socialism' is part of the reason why we have such crap for political leaders and why our political system has devolved from what which sought good for the nation to one that dwells on the acquisition and retention of partisan power.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.5  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.4    3 months ago

 That and I suppose you believe in pissing up a rope as well. 

 The goal is to eliminate as many constructs of socialism as possible and to do so requires an approach that is totally different than what you suggest in today’s society. That’s the reality.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.5    3 months ago

 I’m willing to educate the ignorant and brainwashed such as those in our public school system but I’m not willing to wait until a generation deposits  itself on the trash heap of socialist douchebagisms.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.5    3 months ago
That and I suppose you believe in pissing up a rope as well. 

I think defeatist attitudes are destructive (and cowardly).   

The goal is to eliminate as many constructs of socialism as possible and to do so requires an approach that is totally different than what you suggest in today’s society. That’s the reality.

First, how do you eliminate a 'construct of socialism' if people do not even know what they are talking about when they say 'socialism'?    Second, some the factors I listed (and none of them are defining characteristics for socialism by the way) are necessary for a functioning nation.   One cannot just eliminate taxation or statism or redistribution of wealth because a level of this is part of every civil society.   So one must be aware of these factors and be able to recognize when we have a sufficient level of the poison but not too much.  Third, none of the factors I listed is a defining characteristic for socialism.

To wit, blindly trying to eliminate things that various people 'think' are part of 'socialism' is stupidity in action.

... requires an approach that is totally different than what you suggest in today’s society

Other than encouraging people to do research, what do you think I have suggested?    What is the totally different approach?   Vague claims are indistinguishable from bullshit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.6    3 months ago
... not willing to wait until a generation deposits  itself on the trash heap of socialist douchebagisms.

What is that supposed to mean?   Who is calling for a wait?   What specifically are you talking about?   

 
 
 
lib50
5.2.9  lib50  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.8    3 months ago

You will never get a coherent answer.  Notice how any mention of the authoritarianism is ignored.  Its impossible to even debate when they can't clearly name the parameters.   Not one specific definition of what they are talking about, just trying the buzz word fear tactic approach  this time - socialism.  It will be hard on them because the younger people understand socialism better than they do.  At least in the context of the concentration of wealth and power to the top and how its currently distributed. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  lib50 @5.2.9    3 months ago

I agree.   Rarely do I witness even attempts at honest, thoughtful debate - just stubborn repeats of slogans, feigned obtuseness, reinterpretation/misinterpretation of history and personal attacks.   It is interesting that even when handed analysis (e.g. breaking down the 'socialism' label into its constituent, well-defined factors) most still will not lift a finger to do any research on the topic.

Many listen to their talking heads who do things like note the disaster in Venezuela and deem that 'socialism'.   They then turn around and claim that this is what the D party is trying to impose on the USA.   No analysis is presented, just claims at this level of abstraction.  It is pathetic that talking heads think that this is all they must do to get head nods from their intended audience.   Yet, as we can observe, many in the audience are indeed all too happy to run about decrying 'socialism' without having clue one as to what they are talking about.

The level of ignorance in the USA electorate has bothered me for ages.   Given the stubborn refusal to do critical analysis and instead simply accept as truth the talking points of a political party I do not see this problem going away any time soon.


 The D party is at fault for not presenting a clear message.   The fact that Sanders, et. al. can go about labeling themselves 'socialist' when in reality they propose social democracy allows the R party opposition to easily paint them as nutcases.   'The D party wants to bring Venezuelan socialism to the USA'.    I just heard Huckabee claim the equivalent of this.   He even reached into the brutal murders of millions by Stalin and Mao for emphasis.    That is, he implicitly suggested that the D party is promoting the brutal authoritarian state-controlled system of the former USSR.

Partisan politics is disgusting.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.7    3 months ago

 You know you really don’t have much to go on other than these idiotic tropes about socialism. 

 You don’t even realize you’re arguing over the most trivial  aspects of socialism where the perception is really more the reality here.    Throwing out strawman arguments and caterwauling about a semantical interpretations as if  that is going to make any difference whatsoever ... [deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.11    3 months ago

So far I have seen you deliver nothing other than vague claims and juvenile insults.   

You don’t even realize you’re arguing over the most trivial  aspects of socialism where the perception is really more the reality here.   

You think the difference between government sponsored social programs and authoritarian rule with a command economy is a trivial distinction?    Maybe this is why you shy away from making an actual argument.

... the perception is really more the reality here.   

At least you are correct on this point.   It is most definitely perception over truth.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.11    3 months ago
You know you really don’t have much to go on other than these idiotic tropes about socialism. 

Actually FW, you are the one using tropes. TiG is citing factors that effect people's perception of how socialism effects our economy. 

 You don’t even realize you’re arguing over the most trivial  aspects of socialism where the perception is really more the reality here.  

Judging from your comments, you pretend to desire to educate yet characterize any 'drilling down' into the subject as 'trivial'. That's disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. 

 Throwing out strawman arguments and caterwauling about a semantical interpretations as if  that is going to make any difference whatsoever ...

You claimed that the term 'socialism' was 'utilitarian' in an 'economically illiterate society.

TiG argued that rather than acquiescing to that illiteracy, he preferred educating our society about what the term socialism actually means. 

Tig's is NOT a strawman argument since he directly addressed your posit. 

dude or no wait a minute you can’t be a fucking dude can you because nobody dude would really argue like that would they.

That comment illustrates a decidedly misogynistic perspective of the many of the members here and that won't fly on this forum. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.14  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.11    3 months ago

So very well said.  I couldn’t have said it any better and I completely agree with you.  Socialism no matter how it’s dressed up has no clothes and has never done anything besides cause human misery and suffering. And calling basic services that government exists to provide that had been happening before anyone thought of socialism in modern terms such as a military, postal service, law enforcement, fire departments, and primary and secondary public school is simply ridiculous.

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.2.15  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @5.2.13    3 months ago

The more economically illiterate a population is, the more appealing socialism is to them as even in good times, demagogues engaging in demagoguery can persuade some that they are being treated unfairly and get them to bring out the pitch forks to kill the goose laying the golden egg of capitalism.  

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.15    3 months ago

So despite your agreement with FW, you actually support Tig's effort to encourage economic literacy. Good. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @5.2.14    3 months ago
And calling basic services that government exists to provide that had been happening before anyone thought of socialism in modern terms such as a military, postal service, law enforcement, fire departments, and primary and secondary public school is simply ridiculous.

Yes that is ridiculous.   At least you got that part right.    Or, (LOL), do you think that I was arguing that public services = socialism?   

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @5.2.16    3 months ago

Thanks Dulay.

I doubt that KAG could even correctly state the point I have been making.    From what I have seen I suspect the level of reading taking place is at best a skimming cherry-pick.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.12    3 months ago

See the point is you can't get even those well versed in such topics such as this long term financial professional to agree with you even when you largely agree with on the desired outcome.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.19    3 months ago
... even when you largely agree with [____] on the desired outcome.

You might want to try that again; this time with coherent grammar and clarity (e.g. specify the 'outcome'(s) you have in mind).   

( Or not )

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.21  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @5.2.13    3 months ago

I obviously disagree with all of that for the reasons previously mentioned.   KAG echoes those sentiments. [deleted] claims to agree with the bulk of the factors in play here.  I doubt you do. [deleted

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.21    3 months ago

Nothing but vague claims.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.23  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @5.2.16    3 months ago

KAG has been very supportive of my efforts to advance financial and economic literacy.  I can't imagine TiG getting anywhere if (fill in the blank) can't get anywhere with me.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.24  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.22    3 months ago

 There’s nothing vauge about you being unable to convince a financially sophisticated individual like myself of anything here.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.25  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.20    3 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.21    3 months ago
TiG (comment removed for context [ph])  claims to agree with the bulk of the factors in play here. 

As I sited, you've been misinterpreting TiG's comments quite a bit. 

I doubt you do. 

My comments aren't about the factors, they are about your misinterpretation of comments. 

So you really don't have any point to your comments other than to argue over trivial semantical matters.

That's ironic FW, since this whole discussion you've been arguing semantics. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.27  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.23    3 months ago
KAG has been very supportive of my efforts to advance financial and economic literacy. 

If this:

You don’t even realize you’re arguing over the most trivial aspects of socialism where the perception is really more the reality here.

Is your idea of advancing economic literacy, there's no wonder that you have Xx's support. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.28  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @5.2.27    3 months ago

 [deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.29  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @5.2.26    3 months ago

 So then that would’ve been your cue to address the evils of socialism so are you going to do it or are you just going to stick with the irrelevant personal attacks.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.24    3 months ago
... a financially sophisticated individual like myself ...

What nonsense.  Self-aggrandizing often means the opposite is true.   To make that claim and not look foolish you would need to demonstrate your claimed financial sophistication.   Vague, emotive comments -and mostly meta- do not convey financial sophistication.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.31  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.30    3 months ago

Yeah that’s what we would expect somebody like you to say because the reality is I have an MBA in finance and I’ve been working professionally for over 40 years and am a recognized CFO plus I have taught an extended studies course in real estate finance for people that are looking to advance their careers. So when people pay you a couple hundred thousand dollars for your financial advice it’s speaks for itself. [deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.32  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.31    3 months ago

Maybe you did not understand my point.   An internet persona whose comment history is mostly juvenile snark and whose 'serious' content is typically vague (a smoke cloud in which to hide) has provided no evidence to suggest he is 'financially sophisticated' or 'sophisticated' in any particular way that one could detect.

Worse, one who engages in unsolicited self-aggrandizing offers rather good evidence that his claims are bullshit.

See Oliver?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.33  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.32    3 months ago

My name Chris.  Plus Now you know my areas of expertise.  And if you wanted to discuss my areas of expertise you would have to  show up with more than a simplistic textbook definition of socialism  and a hell of a lot more common sense. Meanwhile like I said before we still don’t know which pronoun to address you by.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.29    3 months ago
So then that would’ve been your cue to address the evils of socialism so are you going to do it or are you just going to stick with the irrelevant personal attacks.

I'll address what I wish to.

I've already addressed your posit that perception is more the reality than facts. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.35  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.33    3 months ago

You can offer your sophisticated expertise at any time.   

... more than a simplistic textbook definition of socialism ...

As if to emphasize my point, here you go with a vague comment that offers no critical analysis, shows no sophistication and pretends that you have never seen more from me other than a textbook definition. 

Sure, 'Chris', MBA, highly recognized CFO — you are doing wonders to support your claims.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.36  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.35    3 months ago

 It was pretty obvious that we left the whole analysis discussion behind when you started attacking me personally. 

Meanwhile If you want me to provide a critical analysis of you then I’m gonna need to know the proper pronoun to address you by.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.37  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @5.2.34    3 months ago

 Well it’s highly recommended that you address the topic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.36    3 months ago

No substance, just a new unsubstantiated claim - and projection at that.

You are going to have to do substantially better than that if you expect anyone to believe that you are currently an officer of a meaningfully sized corporation.   

And since we have known each other for quite a few years, pretending to not know my gender does wonders for your credibility.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.37    3 months ago

How about we start by you offering a thoughtful, intelligent (maybe even 'sophisticated') response to my @5.2.4?    (rhetorical)

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.40  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.37    3 months ago

I have. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
5.2.41  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @5.2.38    3 months ago

You clearly don’t know me and now  your buddies have decided to shut down this exchange so it’s over.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.2.42  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.41    3 months ago

Bye 'Chris'. 

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.43  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.21    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.2.44  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @5.2.31    3 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
luther28
6  luther28    3 months ago

America will never be a socialist country

For the second time in as many days I must agree with you (hmmmm), it is a highly unlikely event. Now I must ask, most already know that is the case, so why oh why must the right continue to use socialism (although undefined it would seem) as their bogeyman.

This perpetuating of nonsense has passed trite and gone to inane.

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  luther28 @6    3 months ago

Well certain new members of the new majority in the House of Representatives and certain democrat party candidates running for President are advocating for various forms of socialism so I see nothing wrong with us or President Trump advocating for the position that America will never become a socialist country. It’s not like we brought the issue up....

 
 
 
luther28
6.1.1  luther28  replied to  Heartland American @6.1    3 months ago
 It’s not like we brought the issue up....

Bullshit (no other way to say it), the right has been going on about the horrors of creeping Socialism, Communism and any other ism that does not fit their notion since the forties. Their paranoia has cost us trillions of dollars, millions of lives and allowed the Military Industrial Complex along with the Corporations to take essentially take over the reins of Government.

Well certain new members of the new majority in the House of Representatives and certain democrat party candidates running for President are advocating for various forms of socialism

A handful of folks and we already know that most of what they are espousing is going nowhere, so why make an issue out of nothing.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 months ago

Socialism is sold as the Utopian solution but history tells us it never comes to fruition. It always ends with the most ruthless Marxist with the most guns becoming dictator.

Our Constitution and form of government would need to be abandon. While some of our 2020 candidates advocate for socialism most are alluding to the European Social democracy which is also ripe with troubles.

 
 
 
Kavika
8  Kavika     3 months ago

Damn I was unaware that I'm a socialist. Our symbol is quite like the photo in the article. 

I threw that hook in 71 and can still throw it. 

deliveryService?id=NMAH-AHB2017q027032&m

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Heartland American
MUVA
arkpdx
igknorantzrulz
nightwalker
CB
Dignitatem Societatis


47 visitors