A socialist hell on earth

[Slade3200]

[Q

The concept of social responsibility just doesn't even register with you does it?

The concept of personal responsibility just doesn't even register with you, does it?

I am quite capable of making my own determination of "social responsibility". I don't need the filthy ass government shoving it down my throat. I don't need corrupt government assholes, elected by greedy special interest groups, stealing my money to use for their stupid selfish ideas of social responsibility.

I don't mind being taxed for legitimate government functions like defense, courts, police, etc and I don't mind paying user fees (like gasoline tax) for roads because after all their ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

However, when you use the force of government to take money away from me to give it some shithead then that is nothing more than slavery.

Look at what you want the government to spend on "defense, courts, police, etc." All are protections and incrimination that are focused around crime which is mostly caused by low education, poverty, and desperation. This is where you old schoolers fall short, you have no vision for the future or on how to improve a situation... I'm not one for frivolous spending and certainly don't think that the government has all the answers, but I do know that efforts need to be made to improve education, jobs, poverty, and mental illness, if we want to have a positive effect on crime.

Crime exists because lazy assholes think they are entitled to your stuff. Morality has decreased, families falling apart, self absorbed entitlement is becoming the norm. That's where you young fucks fall apart. Too stupid and spineless to make you own way so you want to attach yourself to another's earnings.

True in some cases, I won't deny that this is an issue but also very untrue for many. There is much we need to do to better reform our programs away from dependency and more towards promoting self sufficiency. But pulling funding and support is just plain wrong and will only make the problems worse

 

[Iceweasel]

[Q

The concept of social responsibility just doesn't even register with you does it?

The concept of personal responsibility just doesn't even register with you, does it?

I am quite capable of making my own determination of "social responsibility". I don't need the filthy ass government shoving it down my throat. I don't need corrupt government assholes, elected by greedy special interest groups, stealing my money to use for their stupid selfish ideas of social responsibility.

I don't mind being taxed for legitimate government functions like defense, courts, police, etc and I don't mind paying user fees (like gasoline tax) for roads because after all their ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

However, when you use the force of government to take money away from me to give it some shithead then that is nothing more than slavery.

Look at what you want the government to spend on "defense, courts, police, etc." All are protections and incrimination that are focused around crime which is mostly caused by low education, poverty, and desperation. This is where you old schoolers fall short, you have no vision for the future or on how to improve a situation... I'm not one for frivolous spending and certainly don't think that the government has all the answers, but I do know that efforts need to be made to improve education, jobs, poverty, and mental illness, if we want to have a positive effect on crime.

Crime exists because lazy assholes think they are entitled to your stuff. Morality has decreased, families falling apart, self absorbed entitlement is becoming the norm. That's where you young fucks fall apart. Too stupid and spineless to make you own way so you want to attach yourself to another's earnings.

True in some cases, I won't deny that this is an issue but also very untrue for many. There is much we need to do to better reform our programs away from dependency and more towards promoting self sufficiency. But pulling funding and support is just plain wrong and will only make the problems worse

Funding and support? You sound like a toddler in a crib.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Before that, it was a plutocrat hell on Earth lol. Hugo DID halve poverty and illiteracy. And was never a dictator or the other crappe GOPers were brainwashed into believing. Its problems are mainly due to low oil prices and plutocrat sabotage...

oh yeah Hugo was such a great socialist leader.......btw did they ever figure out that toilet paper problem.....?

Go read some Wiki or something, brainwashed functional moron. lol

the absence of TP is the essence of socialism....think about it halfwit....

BS- Sabotage by RWSers can be. BTW, you're confusing it with communism AGAIN.

socialism is a centrally planned economy and that always leads to shortages of goods....

Yup, that's communism, dupe. DUH.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

oh yeah Hugo was such a great socialist leader.......btw did they ever figure out that toilet paper problem.....?

Go read some Wiki or something, brainwashed functional moron. lol

the absence of TP is the essence of socialism....think about it halfwit....

BS- Sabotage by RWSers can be. BTW, you're confusing it with communism AGAIN.

socialism is a centrally planned economy and that always leads to shortages of goods....

Yup, that's communism, dupe. DUH.

government/state control is what you would call a centrally planned economy....

Full Definition of socialism

1. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
   
   
2. 2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private propertyb : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
   
   
3. 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Definition of SOCIALISM

 

[Slade3200]

Bernies plans are nothing like the type of Socialism instituted in Venezuela. Ditch the pointless labels and look at the policy ideas... If you must use a label then at least use the correct one... The term is "Democratic Socialist"

A spade is a spade.

And an idiot is an idiot. This is a very stimulating conversation

 

[Slade3200]

[Q

The concept of social responsibility just doesn't even register with you does it?

The concept of personal responsibility just doesn't even register with you, does it?

I am quite capable of making my own determination of "social responsibility". I don't need the filthy ass government shoving it down my throat. I don't need corrupt government assholes, elected by greedy special interest groups, stealing my money to use for their stupid selfish ideas of social responsibility.

I don't mind being taxed for legitimate government functions like defense, courts, police, etc and I don't mind paying user fees (like gasoline tax) for roads because after all their ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

However, when you use the force of government to take money away from me to give it some shithead then that is nothing more than slavery.

Look at what you want the government to spend on "defense, courts, police, etc." All are protections and incrimination that are focused around crime which is mostly caused by low education, poverty, and desperation. This is where you old schoolers fall short, you have no vision for the future or on how to improve a situation... I'm not one for frivolous spending and certainly don't think that the government has all the answers, but I do know that efforts need to be made to improve education, jobs, poverty, and mental illness, if we want to have a positive effect on crime.

Crime exists because lazy assholes think they are entitled to your stuff. Morality has decreased, families falling apart, self absorbed entitlement is becoming the norm. That's where you young fucks fall apart. Too stupid and spineless to make you own way so you want to attach yourself to another's earnings.

True in some cases, I won't deny that this is an issue but also very untrue for many. There is much we need to do to better reform our programs away from dependency and more towards promoting self sufficiency. But pulling funding and support is just plain wrong and will only make the problems worse

Funding and support? You sound like a toddler in a crib.

Apologies mommy, what would you like to do?Enlighten us please

 

[bripat9643]

No one is paying for their own retirement with social security. There is no trust fun. The money was spent as it was brought in, nothing was left to us by our parents. Zero. So here's what you're saying:

1) General revenue: Government spends money, taxes my generation for the bills. that is not a trust fun

2) Social security: Government spends money, taxes my generation for the bills. that is a trust fun.

That's ridiculous.

Social security is pure redistribution of money. I'm paying for my parents, they saved zero. Doing the same thing to my kids isn't me saving money either. I don't want to do that to them even though my parents did it to me

Wrong, as usual. The Trust Fund is invested. It draws interest. It holds bonds.

What is the Trust Fund "invested" in?

Essentially the same thing your money market mutual fund is invested in. US treasuries.

In other words, the government loaned the money to itself. Only a terminally gullible dipstick like you would think that's an actual "investment."

The vast majority of our Debt is a composition of investments through the lending process and sale of Treasury bonds. Separate discussion but do some homework on the economics of a sovereign nation and effects of our national debt. I've heard a lot of misconceptions thrown out on this thread, as its a whole different ballgame then how we understand our personal economics.

Do some homework on fraud and Ponzi schemes. Even Obama admitted that the "trust fund" was worthless when he claimed the government couldn't pay Social Security benefits if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling. Please explain why he couldn't pay the benefits by cashing in those treasury bonds.

 

[bripat9643]

Being a socialist is like being a pedophile.

The idea of personal responsibility is just as alien to a socialist as to why you shouldn't have sex with a child is alien to a pedophile.

If you have to explain to somebody what is wrong with socialism then you are probably just wasting your time. They will never understand.

Do they have a section in this forum for complete morons? I nominate Flash as the captain

Like I said. If you don't understand what is wrong with the filthy ass government taking your money by force and giving it to the welfare queens then you are incapable of ever being able to pull your head out of your ass.

The government doesn't take that much of my money and if they did then I'd make more... It's not that hard if your head isn't stuck up your ass. Is this the cause of your problems? I'll send you some vasoline

So why don't you tell those people on welfare to just go out and make more money? If it's so easy for you, then it should be just as easy for them, right? So what's their excuse for sitting on their asses and collecting a check from the man?

 

[Slade3200]

Wrong, as usual. The Trust Fund is invested. It draws interest. It holds bonds.

What is the Trust Fund "invested" in?

Essentially the same thing your money market mutual fund is invested in. US treasuries.

In other words, the government loaned the money to itself. Only a terminally gullible dipstick like you would think that's an actual "investment."

The vast majority of our Debt is a composition of investments through the lending process and sale of Treasury bonds. Separate discussion but do some homework on the economics of a sovereign nation and effects of our national debt. I've heard a lot of misconceptions thrown out on this thread, as its a whole different ballgame then how we understand our personal economics.

Do some homework on fraud and Ponzi schemes. Even Obama admitted that the "trust fund" was worthless when he claimed the government couldn't pay Social Security benefits if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling. Please explain why he couldn't pay the benefits by cashing in those treasury bonds.

Because we don't operate with a fixed amount of currency. New money is added into our economy through debit, credit and investment and is then removed from the economy through taxation. It doesn't operate like a business or personal finances as we create currency and are not dependent on income. You need to do some homework

 

[Grizz]

Bernies plans are nothing like the type of Socialism instituted in Venezuela. Ditch the pointless labels and look at the policy ideas... If you must use a label then at least use the correct one... The term is "Democratic Socialist"

A spade is a spade.

And an idiot is an idiot. This is a very stimulating conversation

It doesn't work, it never works and yes if you think it does you ARE an idiot.

 

[Flash]

[Q

So why don't you tell those people on welfare to just go out and make more money? If it's so easy for you, then it should be just as easy for them, right? So what's their excuse for sitting on their asses and collecting a check from the man?

Actually they "earn" their money.

They vote for Democrats and that is how they earn their welfare check and free cell phone.

Every couple of years they go and vote for somebody that steals money from others on their behalf and then they can sit back and collect their welfare check and drink all they Colt Malt Liquor they want.

 

[bripat9643]

What is the Trust Fund "invested" in?

Essentially the same thing your money market mutual fund is invested in. US treasuries.

In other words, the government loaned the money to itself. Only a terminally gullible dipstick like you would think that's an actual "investment."

The vast majority of our Debt is a composition of investments through the lending process and sale of Treasury bonds. Separate discussion but do some homework on the economics of a sovereign nation and effects of our national debt. I've heard a lot of misconceptions thrown out on this thread, as its a whole different ballgame then how we understand our personal economics.

Do some homework on fraud and Ponzi schemes. Even Obama admitted that the "trust fund" was worthless when he claimed the government couldn't pay Social Security benefits if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling. Please explain why he couldn't pay the benefits by cashing in those treasury bonds.

Because we don't operate with a fixed amount of currency. New money is added into our economy through debit, credit and investment and is then removed from the economy through taxation. It doesn't operate like a business or personal finances as we create currency and are not dependent on income. You need to do some homework

What does any of that have to do with the Social Security Trust Fund? Is there actual money in there or not? If there is, then the government should be able to spend it to pay SS benefits. If it can't do that, then it's a colossal fraud. It's really quite simple. There's no need to invoke all your Keynesian abracadabra to answer the question.

What you need to do is learn some actual economics and basic business accounting so you don't sound like an idiot and a pompous ass to boot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bernies plans are nothing like the type of Socialism instituted in Venezuela.

Bullshit!

All the Socialist dickheads say that. They claim that they can somehow make socialism work this time but it always fails.

This stupid idea that a nation is somehow more prosperous when you take money from those that earned it and give it to those that didn't earn it is one of the great scams of mankind.

"Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Libtards have a very difficult time understanding that simple concept, even when it is explained to them.

How many countries in the world who gave free tuition to college students are now Venezuleas?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, I think that's a perfectly valid point, and I share the concern that they would go too far, the slippery slope argument. We often tend to knee-jerk and overshoot.

So whether you want to either reverse this course or at least mitigate it, you'll need to offer a clear, strong alternative argument. But I definitely don't think the word "socialism" is going to scare anyone any more.
.

Euphemisms aren't going to win the day either though. Democrats are socialists. Social security and medicare are socialism. Describing things correctly isn't necessarily about winning an election

I have no doubt that the Democrats would love nothing more than to have you call such popular programs socialism, and argue against them.

That's what I've been saying. People will hear Social Security and Medicare called "socialism", and they'll say "well, I guess I like socialism".

Is that what you want? Or do you really think you're going to talk people out of their Social Security and Medicare?
.

So I couldn't call socialism socialism and I shouldn't oppose dependency programs like social security and medicare because people don't want to hear it? Why? That's ridiculous. I'll speak up for what I believe. Think about a country that follows your standards, everyone goes along with what is popular and doesn't speak up. Yeah, that's a good outcome.

If what I cared about was having popular views, I wouldn't be a libertarian, I'd be a Republican. Then again they're losing too because even the tiniest bit of personal responsibility isn't popular, so let's all just be Democrats. Otherwise we have to advocate things that no one wants to hear, which isn't popular. Shouldn't be done

Oh, I'm the last person here to say someone shouldn't say something.

I'll try to make my point one last time: When you call programs like Medicare and Social Security "socialism", most people are going to say "well, I like those programs, I think they're good for the country, so maybe socialism ain't that bad".

And this is happening right now, before our eyes. Screaming "socialism!" is simply no longer working, and in fact, may be pushing us there faster. Conservatives have been doing liberals a great favor - they're just screaming "socialism" and the liberals are making a case for it.

You're certainly welcome to do that.
.

I'm not a conservative, i'm a libertarian. And I understand what you are saying just fine, and I directly addressed it. If you like socialist programs like social security and medicare that's fine, if everyone likes them that's fine. But they are socialism. I don't see what's gained by not calling socialism what it is.

If people like socialism and just don't want to call it that, are they really going to be swayed from other socialist policies just because we call socialist policies they like socialist?

This country is well on it's way to European socialism. I'm in Europe writing this now actually in the Netherlands. I don't see any word game dissuading anyone from that. The majority of Americans are socialist now. Whether or not they get used to the word isn't going to change their policies.

Public education is socialism. You got a plan to get rid of it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Free college is like free public education K - 12. You've just added some years to it. How hard is that?

Germany has one of the highest standards of living in the world. If you want to argue that Germany could improve itself as a nation if it would get rid of that free college,

by all means, go ahead, make that argument.

College is very expensive these days, and where do you get the Germany has a higher standard of living shit from? Have you ever lived there? How many Germans live in huge houses with three car garages filled up?

If you want to fund someone's college who is stopping you? Libs want to make their pet projects the law of the land.

As far as trade school, well they used to start them out in shop class but it's more important to teach them gender irrelevance I guess. You bet corporations would help fund them though, it can be handled with private funds, no need to rape the people for something Johnny may not even want.

Germany has one of the highest standards of living in the world.

No one can tell us, I take it, how Germany would get better if they ended free college.

Would their kids better educated? Would the opportunity to even go to college improve?

If you can't make an argument as to how the countries WITH free college would get better without it,

then you lose the argument as to why the US would be worse off with it.

 

[bripat9643]

Euphemisms aren't going to win the day either though. Democrats are socialists. Social security and medicare are socialism. Describing things correctly isn't necessarily about winning an election

I have no doubt that the Democrats would love nothing more than to have you call such popular programs socialism, and argue against them.

That's what I've been saying. People will hear Social Security and Medicare called "socialism", and they'll say "well, I guess I like socialism".

Is that what you want? Or do you really think you're going to talk people out of their Social Security and Medicare?
.

So I couldn't call socialism socialism and I shouldn't oppose dependency programs like social security and medicare because people don't want to hear it? Why? That's ridiculous. I'll speak up for what I believe. Think about a country that follows your standards, everyone goes along with what is popular and doesn't speak up. Yeah, that's a good outcome.

If what I cared about was having popular views, I wouldn't be a libertarian, I'd be a Republican. Then again they're losing too because even the tiniest bit of personal responsibility isn't popular, so let's all just be Democrats. Otherwise we have to advocate things that no one wants to hear, which isn't popular. Shouldn't be done

Oh, I'm the last person here to say someone shouldn't say something.

I'll try to make my point one last time: When you call programs like Medicare and Social Security "socialism", most people are going to say "well, I like those programs, I think they're good for the country, so maybe socialism ain't that bad".

And this is happening right now, before our eyes. Screaming "socialism!" is simply no longer working, and in fact, may be pushing us there faster. Conservatives have been doing liberals a great favor - they're just screaming "socialism" and the liberals are making a case for it.

You're certainly welcome to do that.
.

I'm not a conservative, i'm a libertarian. And I understand what you are saying just fine, and I directly addressed it. If you like socialist programs like social security and medicare that's fine, if everyone likes them that's fine. But they are socialism. I don't see what's gained by not calling socialism what it is.

If people like socialism and just don't want to call it that, are they really going to be swayed from other socialist policies just because we call socialist policies they like socialist?

This country is well on it's way to European socialism. I'm in Europe writing this now actually in the Netherlands. I don't see any word game dissuading anyone from that. The majority of Americans are socialist now. Whether or not they get used to the word isn't going to change their policies.

Public education is socialism. You got a plan to get rid of it?

I do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have no doubt that the Democrats would love nothing more than to have you call such popular programs socialism, and argue against them.

That's what I've been saying. People will hear Social Security and Medicare called "socialism", and they'll say "well, I guess I like socialism".

Is that what you want? Or do you really think you're going to talk people out of their Social Security and Medicare?
.

So I couldn't call socialism socialism and I shouldn't oppose dependency programs like social security and medicare because people don't want to hear it? Why? That's ridiculous. I'll speak up for what I believe. Think about a country that follows your standards, everyone goes along with what is popular and doesn't speak up. Yeah, that's a good outcome.

If what I cared about was having popular views, I wouldn't be a libertarian, I'd be a Republican. Then again they're losing too because even the tiniest bit of personal responsibility isn't popular, so let's all just be Democrats. Otherwise we have to advocate things that no one wants to hear, which isn't popular. Shouldn't be done

Oh, I'm the last person here to say someone shouldn't say something.

I'll try to make my point one last time: When you call programs like Medicare and Social Security "socialism", most people are going to say "well, I like those programs, I think they're good for the country, so maybe socialism ain't that bad".

And this is happening right now, before our eyes. Screaming "socialism!" is simply no longer working, and in fact, may be pushing us there faster. Conservatives have been doing liberals a great favor - they're just screaming "socialism" and the liberals are making a case for it.

You're certainly welcome to do that.
.

I'm not a conservative, i'm a libertarian. And I understand what you are saying just fine, and I directly addressed it. If you like socialist programs like social security and medicare that's fine, if everyone likes them that's fine. But they are socialism. I don't see what's gained by not calling socialism what it is.

If people like socialism and just don't want to call it that, are they really going to be swayed from other socialist policies just because we call socialist policies they like socialist?

This country is well on it's way to European socialism. I'm in Europe writing this now actually in the Netherlands. I don't see any word game dissuading anyone from that. The majority of Americans are socialist now. Whether or not they get used to the word isn't going to change their policies.

Public education is socialism. You got a plan to get rid of it?

I do.

You're a flat earth nutcase. Of course you do.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Bernies plans are nothing like the type of Socialism instituted in Venezuela. Ditch the pointless labels and look at the policy ideas... If you must use a label then at least use the correct one... The term is "Democratic Socialist"

So please give us the differences not some bs label you learned in college.

 

[Slade3200]

Essentially the same thing your money market mutual fund is invested in. US treasuries.

In other words, the government loaned the money to itself. Only a terminally gullible dipstick like you would think that's an actual "investment."

The vast majority of our Debt is a composition of investments through the lending process and sale of Treasury bonds. Separate discussion but do some homework on the economics of a sovereign nation and effects of our national debt. I've heard a lot of misconceptions thrown out on this thread, as its a whole different ballgame then how we understand our personal economics.

Do some homework on fraud and Ponzi schemes. Even Obama admitted that the "trust fund" was worthless when he claimed the government couldn't pay Social Security benefits if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling. Please explain why he couldn't pay the benefits by cashing in those treasury bonds.

Because we don't operate with a fixed amount of currency. New money is added into our economy through debit, credit and investment and is then removed from the economy through taxation. It doesn't operate like a business or personal finances as we create currency and are not dependent on income. You need to do some homework

What does any of that have to do with the Social Security Trust Fund? Is there actual money in there or not? If there is, then the government should be able to spend it to pay SS benefits. If it can't do that, then it's a colossal fraud. It's really quite simple. There's no need to invoke all your Keynesian abracadabra to answer the question.

What you need to do is learn some actual economics and basic business accounting so you don't sound like an idiot and a pompous ass to boot.

The government never has and never will miss a SS payment, we create our own currency so defaulting will not happen unless there is a huge economic callapse and the value of the dollar goes to shit. We are close to that despite what your friends at Fox try and make you believe. Study the economics

 

[Slade3200]

Bernies plans are nothing like the type of Socialism instituted in Venezuela. Ditch the pointless labels and look at the policy ideas... If you must use a label then at least use the correct one... The term is "Democratic Socialist"

So please give us the differences not some bs label you learned in college.

You want me to list the differences between Bernie sanders public policies that he wants to implement in a US economy mostly funded by taxing Wall Street speculation and the billionaire class versus Venezuelan socialism? Do I really need to spell it out for you?