LiberalDevil has inspired me

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Too many act as if socialism is an on/off switch, that we either have it or we don't.

The reality is it's a continuum, and unles someone wants to live in a country very unlike anything the US has ever been, the real question is "how much socialism".

Taxes, highways, the military, many fire departments & hospitals, public schools, boarder patrols, dams/leveys, etc., are all socialistic. I acknowledge there are some who would eliminate all these, but I think most sane people would rather discuss how much and what the rules/processes are. We are almost all socialists to some degree, just a question of what the degree is.

Of course we need some government services. I don't know of anyone that wants to get rid of the military, fire departments, border agents, etc. You're using a strawman arguement.

What conservatives believe in is limited government. The federal government should be limited in its actions by the enumerated powers in the constitution; all of our elected representatives are sworn to do precisely that. If the states want to do more they are allowed to.

The federal government is bankrupt because we have abandoned the constitution. We don't need to shut down all government services but we do need to live within our means. The federal government takes in 2.5 trillion dollars per year and spends 3.8 trillion dollars. As a point of reference, the federal budget was 2.8 trillion dollars in 2006. Government services should be limited to what we can afford for 2.5 trillion dollars. You can buy a whole lot of services for that much money.

[nevergaveitathought]

socialism necessarily levels people to the lowest common denominator, except those in control who live lives of excess.

it inhibits discovery, risk taking, economic growth and progress, removing incentives for success.

it is coercive and requires law upon law and enforcer upon enforcer.

it creates black markets.

it feeds off non socialistic states.

it, in the words of ronald reagan, spreads misery equally.

it is against the natural order of things.

socialism finds that there ultimately is no wealth to draw upon to help those who it wishes to help

people are not created equally, not in health, looks, height, intelligence, athletic ability, dexterity, inquisitiveness, inventiveness, or ambition. socialism must not reward any of these differences no matter the contributions to community. it therefore separates that which it ostensibly proposes to unite.

just as financial reward for individual contribution must be limited, i think it was kurt vonnegut who wrote a book about these socialistic societies which, in an effort to maintain all things equal and keep the community together, had police enforcers who would operate on the brains of the brightest to reduce their IQ's, mar the faces of the beautiful, or cut tendons on the best athletes so all could compete etc. sort of like liberals today who want all to receive a gold star and there are no winners or losers, no score is kept etc.

if there were no poor people, there would be no rich people as these terms are only terms of comparison. so in a true socialistic society (except for the rulers, of course, and those they favor) another word would need to be coined. i think the french used the word "citizen", and the soviets used "comrade", maybe in america we would ultimately use democrat for direct democracy seems to be their goal and the birth of that future society would have had its genesis in that movement, and maybe in the darkest of rooms, in whispers between husbands and wives, in rare moments of feeling safe, the word could be "obama-ite?

[Don't Be Daft!]

CuteOldGuy: LiberalDevil, I meant what I posted, and I don't know what question you have about it. With all due respect, because you are obviously an intelligent man, the main reason there is a United States is that we didn't want to be like you. Just sayin'.

*That's fine mate. Although, I am now a citizen of this country the UK is "still" and always will be my country of choice. That doesn't mean I don't really like America or want good things for it. But, differences in this world is exactly what makes life so interesting. And, I dare say "most" of us Brits are happy being the way we are. And, believing what we believe. I can't speak for Essence really(I think he's British--or, did he just live there? No, bother) I can only speak for myself. I think its brilliant that we can have a bit of banter between each other--even if it is on a "hooker" board that nobody really gives a toss about.

On a side note: Its St. Paddy's. I thought I'd share this bit of humorous fun with you lot. So, one of me mates is a Northern Irish International who is a colleague of mine invited me out for a few pints. I decided to go against my gut feelings that this holiday is amateur night. Just as New Year's is. Its always a bloody drama fest when I've gone out on these nights. But, back to the funny bit. Me mate is going to wear a green jacket with the Northern Irish cross on it. Now being I live in a not very populated city with, not many internationals I doubt we'll get any stick. But back in the UK(Manchester, London, Glasgow) we'd be in for a night of muggings! My previous home was Chicago and I'd even say it would be a rather dangerous affair there to don such a garment. If we went out in Lincoln Park, Gold coast, or God forbid south Chicago he'd be asking for a fight. Not much love lost between the Ulster Irish supporting loyalists and the southern Irish ya know.

Anyway, lads have a brilliant weekend!

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

socialism necessarily levels people to the lowest common denominator, except those in control who live lives of excess.

it inhibits discovery, risk taking, economic growth and progress, removing incentives for success.

it is coercive and requires law upon law and enforcer upon enforcer.

it creates black markets.

it feeds off non socialistic states.

it, in the words of ronald reagan, spreads misery equally.

it is against the natural order of things.

socialism finds that there ultimately is no wealth to draw upon to help those who it wishes to help

people are not created equally, not in health, looks, height, intelligence, athletic ability, dexterity, inquisitiveness, inventiveness, or ambition. socialism must not reward any of these differences no matter the contributions to community. it therefore separates that which it ostensibly proposes to unite.

just as financial reward for individual contribution must be limited, i think it was kurt vonnegut who wrote a book about these socialistic societies which, in an effort to maintain all things equal and keep the community together, had police enforcers who would operate on the brains of the brightest to reduce their IQ's, mar the faces of the beautiful, or cut tendons on the best athletes so all could compete etc. sort of like liberals today who want all to receive a gold star and there are no winners or losers, no score is kept etc.

if there were no poor people, there would be no rich people as these terms are only terms of comparison. so in a true socialistic society (except for the rulers, of course, and those they favor) another word would need to be coined. i think the french used the word "citizen", and the soviets used "comrade", maybe in america we would ultimately use democrat for direct democracy seems to be their goal and the birth of that future society would have had its genesis in that movement, and maybe in the darkest of rooms, in whispers between husbands and wives, in rare moments of feeling safe, the word could be "obama-ite?

Direct democracy is the goal of the Democrats. Direct democracy is socialism. They know that if everthing is put to a popular vote, the majority will vote for free stuff from the government payed for by their more successful neighbors. You end up with 51% of the people paying no taxes and living off of the other 49%.

This is why the founding fathers rejected democracy in favor of a constitutional republic which limits the actions of the federal government to those contained in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

Without the constitution we are left with mob rule (democracy).

[LovingKayla]

Socialism, at it's core, is a beautiful thing but it's just not possible. There is no such thing as a true socialistic society. I would argue that socialism produces more poor folk than capitalism ever could. In capitalism we have a fighting chance. You have to want to fight. It's hard and it sucks but I'd MUCH rather work my ass for my own family than hold my bowl up the government and say "please sir, I'd like some more. I'm not knocking the people that do, but they must be able to see that the hand outs really are keeping them down. If you make more money or get a car or a job, then the help is reduced or stops. I get wanting a safety net, but we are in serious trouble with debt. The ever present teet might just dry up... then where are you?

LiberalDevil does that makes sense to you? I mean to say too I agree that health care should be something everyone can have (not free, but not unreachable.) If I need a brain operation that costs 300k and die because I can't afford it... that's crap. There definitely needs to be reform on that BS. I'm still looking for a third option here. Do you guys not think we could pull together as a people and do it?

What about the dept of Energy (the most worthless dept we have.) Scrap that completely. When I find the numbers on that I'll post them, but it's nuts. It does nothing, I'm aware of, to justify it's funding. What about the Texas lotto? That money was to go for education. It doesn't. Where does it go?

We have really good plans in place to meet needs on both sides but there is a disconnect between the plan and the money actually going where it's supposed to.

If we can't give and take on these subjects, how in the world do we expect those in power to give and take for some middle ground?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Socialism, at it's core, is a beautiful thing but it's just not possible. There is no such thing as a true socialistic society. I would argue that socialism produces more poor folk than capitalism ever could. In capitalism we have a fighting chance. You have to want to fight. It's hard and it sucks but I'd MUCH rather work my ass for my own family than hold my bowl up the government and say "please sir, I'd like some more. I'm not knocking the people that do, but they must be able to see that the hand outs really are keeping them down. If you make more money or get a car or a job, then the help is reduced or stops. I get wanting a safety net, but we are in serious trouble with debt. The ever present teet might just dry up... then where are you?

LiberalDevil does that makes sense to you? I mean to say too I agree that health care should be something everyone can have (not free, but not unreachable.) If I need a brain operation that costs 300k and die because I can't afford it... that's crap. There definitely needs to be reform on that BS. I'm still looking for a third option here. Do you guys not think we could pull together as a people and do it?

What about the dept of Energy (the most worthless dept we have.) Scrap that completely. When I find the numbers on that I'll post them, but it's nuts. It does nothing, I'm aware of, to justify it's funding. What about the Texas lotto? That money was to go for education. It doesn't. Where does it go?

We have really good plans in place to meet needs on both sides but there is a disconnect between the plan and the money actually going where it's supposed to.

If we can't give and take on these subjects, how in the world do we expect those in power to give and take for some middle ground?

Socialism is basically grounded in the idea of "from each according to abilities, to each according to need". This a principal that works within a family. The family members who are able to work provide for the family members who can't because they love each other. But this practice doesn't work at the level of government. The human race is not one big happy family.

Human nature is such that people are not willing to work and have the fruit of their labor confiscated and given to strangers.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Direct democracy is the goal of the Democrats. Direct democracy is socialism. They know that if everthing is put to a popular vote, the majority will vote for free stuff from the government payed for by their more successful neighbors. You end up with 51% of the people paying no taxes and living off of the other 49%.

This is why the founding fathers rejected democracy in favor of a constitutional republic which limits the actions of the federal government to those contained in the enumerated powers in the constitution.

Without the constitution we are left with mob rule (democracy).

they do wish to remove all the protections afforded under the constitution, first by redefining words, second by expanding application through novel theories and third by, if all else fails, disregard.

they have developed a great distaste both for the electoral college, and the fact we do not have a national election for president but 50 individual elections for president because of the protections from roughshodism those things afford.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Socialism is basically grounded in the idea of "from each according to abilities, to each according to need". This a principal that works within a family. The family members who are able to work provide for the family members who can't because they love each other. But this practice doesn't work at the level of government. The human race is not one big happy family.

Human nature is such that people are not willing to work and have the fruit of their labor confiscated and given to strangers.

most importantly and quite paradoxically, capitalism and socialism have the exact opposite societal effects than their outward intents.

inequality of income comes from a production of worthwhileness and creates a largess and bounty from which society can benefit while equality of income has no such power and sets in motion a downhill spiral to misery.

[Don't Be Daft!]

Kayla: As a socialist I'll admit one flaw is I'm an idealist. A bit unreal I know. But, nothing wrong with striving daily for the greater good(even if I'm doing it on a hobby website lmfao!) As an idealist and a realist one must admit their goals are never going to be bloody achieved. But, that doesn't stop one from trying.

Kayla: LiberalDevil does that makes sense to you? I mean to say too I agree that health care should be something everyone can have (not free, but not unreachable.) If I need a brain operation that costs 300k and die because I can't afford it... that's crap. There definitely needs to be reform on that BS. I'm still looking for a third option here. Do you guys not think we could pull together as a people and do it?

Pulling together as a people you say? Erm, yes "me" thinks so. Its called universal government run healthcare. Spot on. I know, I know we've already beaten this to a bloody pulp. I have read all the reasons why those of you don't want it. And, I respect your opinions. Even if I don't agree on any level. Pulling together as a people? What people? Who's going to pay for it? Are you suggesting the government taxes the population to fund such a healthcare system? Isn't that a bit like what's already on the table? Maybe, I'm a wee bit lost on your question...

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

most importantly and quite paradoxically, capitalism and socialism have the exact opposite societal effects than their outward intents.

inequality of income comes from a production of worthwhileness and creates a largess and bounty from which society can benefit while equality of income has no such power and sets in motion a downhill spiral to misery.

Capitalism has been the most successful system for providing a high standard of living because it allows its best and brightest members to get rich. If Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Bill Gates had lived in a system that did not allow for their acheivements to produce wealth there would been have no achievements; and the world would have been poorer.

Oliver Stone used his movie Wall Street as a criticism of capitalism. His character Gordon Gecco said that "greed is good" as a way defending capitalism. Of course that's just Stone making a strawman argument. It isn't necessary to defend greed in order to defend capitalism. It isn't greed that's good; its the profit motive that's good. They are not the same thing. Greed is wanting more than what is fair. Being compensated directly proportionate to your contribution isn't unfair; its perfectly fair.

[CuteOldGuy]

+1