Spin this with your number of people who have dropped out!

[CuteOldGuy]

Explain the socialistic parts of our economy in the late 1700's and 1800's. That would be interesting. Since day one, eh? Ok, let's see it.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Explain the socialistic parts of our economy in the late 1700's and 1800's. That would be interesting. Since day one, eh? Ok, let's see it.

The nation pooled funds and resources to fight a war of independence

Militias were the forerunners to the Army, the Navy and Marine Corps

Armament Manufacturers

Fire brigades

Postal riders were forerunners to the Pony Express

Local and regional cooperatives built buildings, helped grow food, dug ponds and canals, erected fortifications, constructed meeting rooms and outdoor pavilions and any number of things that were undertaken for the common good.

There are dozens more examples of "cooperatives or socialistic entities" that were already established long before we even declared independence and many others that endured long after we won independence.

Paul Revere was a coppersmith/silversmith long before Sarah Palin ever tapped him to warn the British not to trample our second amendment rights - LOL. The Teapublicans are such historians.

Actually, Revere was captured during his ride but a cooperative effort between him and two other Colonists. All three took separate routes to help insure success. Their splitting up allowed one to get through to warn people that the British were coming.

[Texas Contrarian]

There, now that's a lot better! If you can engage in discussion without gratuitously insulting the intelligence of those with whom you disagree, I'm most happy to participate.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Capitalism cannot succeed without a social conscience and and neither could Socialism succeed without a its own components of capitalistic concepts.

I think the question here is just what type of "social conscience" we want to achieve; in other words , how much of what we generally refer to as "social democracy" we want, and who's going to pay for it. In recent years, we've traveled a long way down that road. But you can't pay for more than a very tiny percentage of the costs of such government programs and entitlements by raising taxes only on the affluent. Those who support expanded social democracy also must support a VAT and vastly higher levels of taxation on the middle class. That's likely to be a tough sale in America today.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Failure of those who are unwilling to protect the infrastructure rather than dismember it for short term profits will eventually plunge this nation into chaos and collapse.

I agree with you there, and support needed infrastructure development and maintenance, with emphasis on the word needed.

Unfortunately, what passes for "infrastructure" has all too often merely involved useless pork projects awarded to politically-connected constituents or donors. We are paying a very high price for this malfeasance, and I'm afraid we'll be continuing to do so for a long time.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

...It also forgets that revenue could also be added to pay for spending if we weren't controlled by interests who are still trying to sell a fundamentally crippled theory of supply-side economics.

Unfortunately, we are going to have to try to raise additional revenue, since it's obviously impossible to cut spending by enough to meaningfully decrease the deficit. But Obama's proposals for doing so are limited to disingenuous, ridiculous nonsense such as the "Buffett Rule", which would raise very little incremental revenue and would simply load the already bloated tax code with even more junk. I think we need fundamental tax reform of the sort that keeps rates moderate, but eliminates loopholes and what are called "tax expenditures", thus broadening the base.

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

The answer does NOT lie in continuing the Status Quo with huge Super PACS and a K Street army that has bought 90% of all politicians.

I strongly agree with you there!

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

It may be the lamest but those policies also stopped the threat of the largest global depression since the 1929 crash (or WORSE).

But here I agree with you only to the extent that you may be (at least partially) referring to the monetary policy response. It is certainly the case that liquidity provision was crucial during the depths of the September 2008 panic. The Federal Reserve stepped in quickly and decisively, unlike in the Great Depression when it let the money supply contract by about one-third in the early 1930s. Still, I'm not sure that multiple rounds of QE won't end up being a net negative for the economy. There's a healthy debate over that.

But if you are referring to the $800 billion fiscal "stimulus package", then I couldn't disagree more. It was largely squandered on gimmicky tax cuts and refundable tax credits of the sort that virtually never do very much to boost the economy, extentions of unemployment insurance (which we could have done as a stand-alone), payments to states with no accountability (which simply let many of them kick the can down the road with regards to making politically tough decisions; it has been suggested that if we wanted to aid the states, we should have loaned money to the states on the condition that they effect pension and other reforms), and various pork projects that were claimed to be "infrastructure" projects. Not very many of them involved useful infrastructure; almost the whole package was wasted.

At the very least, the Obama administration should not have farmed out the entire design of the bill to Pelosi's congress. The fact that the goodies were all simply handed out to favored constituents and donors should surprise no one. Consequently, the failure of the ARRA to create many jobs, alter sustained patterns of production in any meaningful way, or offer any other significant benefits to the economy should surprise no one.

We have really serious needs as a country, and very little fiscal space to tolerate simply throwing hundreds of billions of dollars down ratholes.

Yet we've been doing that for a whole decade, and we're simply hurtling toward a crisis. We're not fixing anything. The problems we face are essentially structural in nature. They can't be papered over or camouflaged with more poorly-considered "stimulus" packages and more debt. That will not work and cannot work.

Obama was "hired" by the electorate to fix problems, not exacerbate existing ones while creating new ones of his own.

As I've stated before, I think that as a nation we're adrift with no effective leadership.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

The nation pooled funds and resources to fight a war of independence

Militias were the forerunners to the Army, the Navy and Marine Corps

Armament Manufacturers

Fire brigades

Postal riders were forerunners to the Pony Express

Local and regional cooperatives built buildings, helped grow food, dug ponds and canals, erected fortifications, constructed meeting rooms and outdoor pavilions and any number of things that were undertaken for the common good.

There are dozens more examples of "cooperatives or socialistic entities" that were already established long before we even declared independence and many others that endured long after we won independence.

Paul Revere was a coppersmith/silversmith long before Sarah Palin ever tapped him to warn the British not to trample our second amendment rights - LOL. The Teapublicans are such historians.

Actually, Revere was captured during his ride but a cooperative effort between him and two other Colonists. All three took separate routes to help insure success. Their splitting up allowed one to get through to warn people that the British were coming.

You must be joking. A cooperative is not socialist. It is an agreement freely entered into by people with a common goal. You know nothing of our founding, or what went on. Cooperatives? Bucket brigades? Give me a break.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

There, now that's a lot better! If you can engage in discussion without gratuitously insulting the intelligence of those with whom you disagree, I'm most happy to participate.



I think the question here is just what type of "social conscience" we want to achieve; in other words , how much of what we generally refer to as "social democracy" we want, and who's going to pay for it. In recent years, we've traveled a long way down that road. But you can't pay for more than a very tiny percentage of the costs of such government programs and entitlements by raising taxes only on the affluent. Those who support expanded social democracy also must support a VAT and vastly higher levels of taxation on the middle class. That's likely to be a tough sale in America today.




I agree with you there, and support needed infrastructure development and maintenance, with emphasis on the word needed.

Unfortunately, what passes for "infrastructure" has all too often merely involved useless pork projects awarded to politically-connected constituents or donors. We are paying a very high price for this malfeasance, and I'm afraid we'll be continuing to do so for a long time.



Unfortunately, we are going to have to try to raise additional revenue, since it's obviously impossible to cut spending by enough to meaningfully decrease the deficit. But Obama's proposals for doing so are limited to disingenuous, ridiculous nonsense such as the "Buffett Rule", which would raise very little incremental revenue and would simply load the already bloated tax code with even more junk. I think we need fundamental tax reform of the sort that keeps rates moderate, but eliminates loopholes and what are called "tax expenditures", thus broadening the base.



I strongly agree with you there!



But here I agree with you only to the extent that you may be (at least partially) referring to the monetary policy response. It is certainly the case that liquidity provision was crucial during the depths of the September 2008 panic. The Federal Reserve stepped in quickly and decisively, unlike in the Great Depression when it let the money supply contract by about one-third in the early 1930s. Still, I'm not sure that multiple rounds of QE won't end up being a net negative for the economy. There's a healthy debate over that.

But if you are referring to the $800 billion fiscal "stimulus package", then I couldn't disagree more. It was largely squandered on gimmicky tax cuts and refundable tax credits of the sort that virtually never do very much to boost the economy, extentions of unemployment insurance (which we could have done as a stand-alone), payments to states with no accountability (which simply let many of them kick the can down the road with regards to making politically tough decisions; it has been suggested that if we wanted to aid the states, we should have loaned money to the states on the condition that they effect pension and other reforms), and various pork projects that were claimed to be "infrastructure" projects. Not very many of them involved useful infrastructure; almost the whole package was wasted.

At the very least, the Obama administration should not have farmed out the entire design of the bill to Pelosi's congress. The fact that the goodies were all simply handed out to favored constituents and donors should surprise no one. Consequently, the failure of the ARRA to create many jobs, alter sustained patterns of production in any meaningful way, or offer any other significant benefits to the economy should surprise no one.

We have really serious needs as a country, and very little fiscal space to tolerate simply throwing hundreds of billions of dollars down ratholes.

Yet we've been doing that for a whole decade, and we're simply hurtling toward a crisis. We're not fixing anything. The problems we face are essentially structural in nature. They can't be papered over or camouflaged with more poorly-considered "stimulus" packages and more debt. That will not work and cannot work.

Obama was "hired" by the electorate to fix problems, not exacerbate existing ones while creating new ones of his own.

As I've stated before, I think that as a nation we're adrift with no effective leadership.

Lots of agreement on all points but the last. While I still find concepts I can agree with there and blame about the way measures were initiated, I disagree with some of the conclusions. We'll talk later. I must deal with those post-o-holics who do not understand cooperatives, mutual benefit associations and other mechanisms that exhibit the essence of many "socialistic" concepts.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You must be joking. A cooperative is not socialist. It is an agreement freely entered into by people with a common goal. You know nothing of our founding, or what went on. Cooperatives? Bucket brigades? Give me a break.

It is you who does not understand mutual benefit concepts or cooperatives.

The MILITARY and all the other entities I mentioned are socialist manifestations filling a mutual need.

How would you field and compensate a "free market military"?

Never mind. I think I know - "Blackwater" nee "Xe"

Hell, we'd have fire departments setting fires to get pay raises.

COG - buy a book that doesn't require coloring and read it - preferably about history and the so-called "founding fathers".

[I B Hankering]

cooperative


Definition


Firm owned, controlled, and operated by a group of users for their own benefit. Each member contributes equity capital, and shares in the control of the firm on the basis of one-member, one-vote principle (and not in proportion to his or her equity contribution).

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...#ixzz1lfXYAKFN

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

It is you who does not understand mutual benefit concepts or cooperatives.

The MILITARY and all the other entities I mentioned are socialist manifestations filling a mutual need.

How would you field and compensate a "free market military"?

Never mind. I think I know - "Blackwater" nee "Xe"

Hell, we'd have fire departments setting fires to get pay raises.

COG - buy a book that doesn't require coloring and read it - preferably about history and the so-called "founding fathers".

Little Blind Boy, you need to revisit your history text books. Armies were free enterprise operations until the rise of nation-states in the 15th - 16th centuries. With the rise of nation-states, monarchs began to muster and maintain standing armies.

BTW, Paul Revere was warning British subjects. Revere and the other two you mentioned made their historic ride in April 1775. The Declaration of Independence was not adopted until July 4, 1776. From April 1775 until July 1776, the colonists were British subjects and not citizens of an independent nation.

[Little Stevie]

I.B., you are apparently either a moron or a disagreeable drunk. First using a 21st century definition of a business cooperative was REALLY IMPRESSIVE.

Here is a link to Wikipedia's explanation of part of the war effort in the colonies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonial_Marines

And lastly, who but the low intelligence posters were you attempting to fool with your twisting use of British "subjects"?

Did I SAY British SUBJECTS? Scurry off and write "I shouldn't post drunk" a hundred times on the chalkboard before you pass out.

You are a fool! STFU if you are going to use nonsense to attempt to impeach someone. A hand picked jury wouldn't buy your crap even if the opposing team hadn't participated in Voir Dire.

You have EARNED the "ignore" button with your stupid "British subjects" smokescreen.

Adios, dumb ass!

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah. Everyone knows the colonists and Founders were socialists.

You need to go back to the kids Kool Aid, you can't handle the adult stuff.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I.B., you are apparently either a moron or a disagreeable drunk. First using a 21st century definition of a business cooperative was REALLY IMPRESSIVE.

Here is a link to Wikipedia's explanation of part of the war effort in the colonies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonial_Marines

And lastly, who but the low intelligence posters were you attempting to fool with your twisting use of British "subjects"?

Did I SAY British SUBJECTS? Scurry off and write "I shouldn't post drunk" a hundred times on the chalkboard before you pass out.

You are a fool! STFU if you are going to use nonsense to attempt to impeach someone. A hand picked jury wouldn't buy your crap even if the opposing team hadn't participated in Voir Dire.

You have EARNED the "ignore" button with your stupid "British subjects" smokescreen.

Adios, dumb ass!

Run and hide you dumb fuck. You cannot deal with facts: British subjects are British.

Scurry away and hide in your dark little hole.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah. Everyone knows the colonists and Founders were socialists.

You need to go back to the kids Kool Aid, you can't handle the adult stuff.

So the military and the other socialist and cooperative efforts undertaken by the Colonists and those I listed in my other post were what, COG? Capitalistic? LMAO!

[CuteOldGuy]

Now, IB, he posted in PURPLE. That means he must be right. The use of multicolored fonts trumps facts anytime.

Must be grape Kool Aid.

[Little Stevie]

Hey, COG, go find me the Founding Fathers talking about founding for profit militias and post offices and all that stuff you and the drunk like to lie about.

[CuteOldGuy]

If you are stupid enough to believe that military, post offices and bucket brigades are socialist, which then in turn justifies this country's rapid decline into socialist/fascist tyranny, nothing I say will disabuse you. Have a nice time in your fantasy world.

Oops, I forgot, the font needs to be in color if I want win my argument.