Socialism: Friend or foe?

[Timmy]

I started a socialism thread and it got moved .

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is socialism evil when it helps hurricane victims?

Was Al Capone evil even though he ran soup kitchens?

Was Hitler evil even though he gave German citizens free everything?

How about you answer the question .

I think I've made my point.

The issue is not whether or not you help "those in need"

The issue is doing it to give yourself legitimacy vs. giving from your heart.

If the former, odds are you are corrupt beyond measure.

So how corrupt does one have to become before they become "evil"?

What say you?

Ok. I’ll simplify the question. Do you think we should eliminate FEMA because it is a socialist type of program ?

 

[Votto]

I started a socialism thread and it got moved .

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is socialism evil when it helps hurricane victims?

Was Al Capone evil even though he ran soup kitchens?

Was Hitler evil even though he gave German citizens free everything?

I’ll answer yours

1. What does AL’s soup kitchens have to do wh socialist programs .

2. Hitler was a dictator. And giving Germans stuff doesn’t compare to all that bad shit he did .

Al Capone started those soup kitchens to give him legitimacy within the community. I think that is pretty obvious.

As for Hitler, he was terrified of a German uprising that happened during WW 1 because of poor living conditions.

As a result, the average German had a higher standard of living than in the US and UK.

Shrug, it worked. Hitler bought off a war weary nation steeped in genocide.

 

[Votto]

I started a socialism thread and it got moved .

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is socialism evil when it helps hurricane victims?

Was Al Capone evil even though he ran soup kitchens?

Was Hitler evil even though he gave German citizens free everything?

How about you answer the question .

I think I've made my point.

The issue is not whether or not you help "those in need"

The issue is doing it to give yourself legitimacy vs. giving from your heart.

If the former, odds are you are corrupt beyond measure.

So how corrupt does one have to become before they become "evil"?

What say you?

Ok. I’ll simplify the question. Do you think we should eliminate FEMA because it is a socialist type of program ?

No one cares what I think, that is up to society.

And as a society, we must ask what the primary role of government is?

What should the primary role of government be? I think we can both agree it is not FEMA.

 

[initforme]

Please explain the reason for the idiotic poll since we have no presence of socialism in america. Ahhh we have capitalism. Need for you.

 

[initforme]

Fema has no semblance of socialism. Who is dumb enough to think this?

 

[Lesh]

We ARE a blend of capitalism and socialism as we should be.

We NEED social programs to mitigate the "evils" of capitalism...and unfettered capitalism can be VERY evil.

right wingers (who are acting on behalf of the ultra rich and don't even know it) ignore the fact that social security/medicare/medicaid are social programs.

And even THEY want them for the most part. they just don't like the name "socialism" because they have been indoctrinated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh not to

 

[sparky]

And as a society, we must ask what the primary role of government is?

anyone?

~S~

 

[Lesh]

Promote the general welfare

Done in many ways.

 

[initforme]

Rush simply wants more money in the pockets of the wealthy and less money for the poor. It's easy to figure that out.

 

[Tehon]

And as a society, we must ask what the primary role of government is?

anyone?

~S~

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Votto]

Promote the general welfare

Done in many ways.

As we all know, the General Welfare is in the Constitution.

And as we all know, James Madison is considered to be the father of the Constitution.

Here is what Madison said about the General Welfare clause:

James Madison, (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

 

[Timmy]

Fema has no semblance of socialism. Who is dumb enough to think this?

Sure it does . It’s a safety net program .

 

[Timmy]

I started a socialism thread and it got moved .

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is socialism evil when it helps hurricane victims?

Was Al Capone evil even though he ran soup kitchens?

Was Hitler evil even though he gave German citizens free everything?

How about you answer the question .

I think I've made my point.

The issue is not whether or not you help "those in need"

The issue is doing it to give yourself legitimacy vs. giving from your heart.

If the former, odds are you are corrupt beyond measure.

So how corrupt does one have to become before they become "evil"?

What say you?

Ok. I’ll simplify the question. Do you think we should eliminate FEMA because it is a socialist type of program ?

No one cares what I think, that is up to society.

And as a society, we must ask what the primary role of government is?

What should the primary role of government be? I think we can both agree it is not FEMA.

I don’t agree .

Helping fellow country in times of need it why we have gov. Every state has natural disasters looming .

 

[gipper]

Was Al Capone evil even though he ran soup kitchens?

Was Hitler evil even though he gave German citizens free everything?

How about you answer the question .

I think I've made my point.

The issue is not whether or not you help "those in need"

The issue is doing it to give yourself legitimacy vs. giving from your heart.

If the former, odds are you are corrupt beyond measure.

So how corrupt does one have to become before they become "evil"?

What say you?

Ok. I’ll simplify the question. Do you think we should eliminate FEMA because it is a socialist type of program ?

No one cares what I think, that is up to society.

And as a society, we must ask what the primary role of government is?

What should the primary role of government be? I think we can both agree it is not FEMA.

I don’t agree .

Helping fellow country in times of need it why we have gov. Every state has natural disasters looming .

The problem is government at best is a corrupt inefficient enterprise and at worst, an evil unsurpassed by any other.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Always need to ask: Are we talking about Venezuelan socialism or Germany socialism? The word means anything, or nothing, at this point.

Which is what democrats want. The dumbest thing ever was allowing Nazi Germany to be labeled anything other than socialism. It was.

I'm talking about the Euro-socialism of today.
.

There’s no real difference. It all ends up in the same place.

 

[francoHFW]

How about you answer the question .

I think I've made my point.

The issue is not whether or not you help "those in need"

The issue is doing it to give yourself legitimacy vs. giving from your heart.

If the former, odds are you are corrupt beyond measure.

So how corrupt does one have to become before they become "evil"?

What say you?

Ok. I’ll simplify the question. Do you think we should eliminate FEMA because it is a socialist type of program ?

No one cares what I think, that is up to society.

And as a society, we must ask what the primary role of government is?

What should the primary role of government be? I think we can both agree it is not FEMA.

I don’t agree .

Helping fellow country in times of need it why we have gov. Every state has natural disasters looming .

The problem is government at best is a corrupt inefficient enterprise and at worst, an evil unsurpassed by any other.

GOP government you mean...

 

[MindWars]

Anyone who thinks socialism is a good thing is an idiot who watche to much tv Jim Carey included.

1) It kills economic growth: Strong economic growth is what produces jobs, tax revenue and a better standard of living for everyone, including the poor and middle class. That's what John F. Kennedy was driving at when he said, "A rising tide (in the economy) lifts all boats." Socialism strangles economic growth in the crib by penalizing success and rewarding failure. When you loot the successful people in a society to give it to the less successful, you quite naturally reduce the number of successful people and encourage more people to fail. This leads to a never-ending cycle. The more people in need there are, the more the successful must be penalized to pay for them. The more the successful are penalized, the fewer successful people there are. This causes wealth to concentrate in fewer hands, the economy slows down, and even more people need help. It goes on and on until you get a slow economy that can't produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself. That's exactly what killed the Soviet Union, it's killing Greece right now and sadly, the United States and most of Western Europe is on exactly the same path.

John Hawkins - 5 Ways Socialism Destroys Societies

 

[Votto]

Was Al Capone evil even though he ran soup kitchens?

Was Hitler evil even though he gave German citizens free everything?

How about you answer the question .

I think I've made my point.

The issue is not whether or not you help "those in need"

The issue is doing it to give yourself legitimacy vs. giving from your heart.

If the former, odds are you are corrupt beyond measure.

So how corrupt does one have to become before they become "evil"?

What say you?

Ok. I’ll simplify the question. Do you think we should eliminate FEMA because it is a socialist type of program ?

No one cares what I think, that is up to society.

And as a society, we must ask what the primary role of government is?

What should the primary role of government be? I think we can both agree it is not FEMA.

I don’t agree .

Helping fellow country in times of need it why we have gov. Every state has natural disasters looming .

As was mentioned earlier, Friedrich Hayek wrote, the road to Serfdom. In it, he outlines the poison that is socialism.

What is promised by central planners is a "road to freedom", but is in fact, a road to slavery.

In a democracy, the goal of centralized planning is always described as some vague term as "the general welfare". However, I have already shown that the General Welfare clause in the Constitution was something other than the subversion of a limited government and nanny state we see today. At least according to the author of the Constitution.

We are then promised a collective freedom or collective salvation we often heard Obama talk about. However, collective freedom is not the freedom of the members of a society, but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society that which he pleases. Socialized health care is but one example. There are no promises for treating a particular medical condition. Instead, we have access to medical care which may or may not decide to treat a particular condition. Also, we are not told how long such access to medical care will take.

In effect, we sign a blank check by giving health care to the government. The recent scandal with the VA should tell us this much. Veterans who were sick and expensive to treat were simply ignored while they cooked the books by lying about them being treated as they sat alone to die. If government treats our veterans in such a way, why on earth do we think they will treat us any better?

The most frightening thing of all is that we almost did not hear of this scandal. John McCain threw the whistleblowers under the bus and had it not been for a Congressmen in Florida, the scandal would never have seen the light of day.

 

[WEATHER53]

Foe because it rewards effort over outcome

 

[Clementine]

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude

Alexis de Tocqueville

Is this correct?

It is servitude. That is why our founding fathers rejected that and other oppressive forms of government. Limited government is key to the survival of America. Liberals know that, which is why they lie their asses off about what socialism does.

The more government we have, the less power the people have. Liberals do not want government kept in check and restricted in what they can do. That is why they want to stock the Supreme Court with activist liberal judges who loathe the constitution. They are against Kavanaugh because he abides by the constitution. They make up lies to try and turn the useful idiots against him but it's all about stopping those who believe in the constitution. They want it destroyed.

In order for the left to fulfill all the promises they make, government would have to be huge. You can't give people free stuff unless government gives itself the authority to take whatever they want from others. Warren is already talking about government taking control of the biggest businesses. That would just be the start. The left specializes in confiscating money. They know little about creating it. Socialism fails every time because it kills the golden goose. Once the money runs out, it won't be created in a socialist country. Just ask Greece or Venezuela, not to mention countless others.

Some people are instant slaves of government. Others like it at first because they are on the receiving end. Once resources run out, everyone but the leaders are miserable and living in poverty.

When I see the left rallying against wealthy people, trying to take our guns and promising their ignorant little followers that they'll give them so much for nothing, I worry. Too many people have failed to learn about history, or anything else for that matter. All some know is that they are somehow "entitled" to everything and they get more demanding each day. These are the useful idiots that the left needs to gain power. These stupid people are selling us all out and don't understand the big picture.

Whoever wants to disarm you wants to control you. This has been true of every dictator in history. And yet some are stupid enough to believe it has something to do with public safety. No, it's about the rise of an evil regime that cannot tolerate the people fighting them as they seize control of the country and strip us of our rights. It's always been about that and always will be.

Our forefathers, who understood the evils of government, were careful when they wrote the constitution. It's not a living document. Socialism doesn't change, despite the claims of the left. We are not and should never be anything other than a Constitutional Republic. Our forefathers got it right. The constitution was written to stop people like Hillary, Obama, Cortez, Pelosi, and Warren. People like them were the very reason our forefathers committed treason. They did what they had to do so that future generations here would not have to endure the hardships of Oligarchies and other dictatorships. And now some ignorant and greedy people are willing to throw it away so they can have free shit and no responsibility.

The left has had one meltdown after another since seeing their dreams of socialism die when Trump defeated that evil bitch. They continue to show their desperation as everything slips away. They need the Supreme Court. They use it as a means of bypassing congress. The left doesn't give a shit about fairness or due process. They want power and they alone will benefit if they get it, not the people.



----------------

It's Our Constitution -- Not Kavanaugh
By Walter E.Williams September 11, 2018

One of the best statements of how the Framers saw the role of the federal government is found in Federalist Paper 45, written by James Madison, who is known as the "Father of the Constitution": "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Today's reality is the polar opposite of that vision. The powers of the federal government are numerous and indefinite, and those of state governments are few and defined.

If confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh will bring to the U.S. Supreme Court a vision closer to that of the Framers than the vision of those who believe that the Constitution is a "living document." Those Americans rallying against Kavanaugh's confirmation are really against the U.S. Constitution rather than the man — Judge Kavanaugh — whom I believe would take seriously his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Was Madison misinformed or just plain ignorant about the powers delegated to Congress? Before we answer, let's examine statements of other possibly "misinformed" Americans. In 1796, on the floor of the House of Representatives, William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying the purpose and the right of Congress is to attend to not what generosity and humanity require but instead what their duty requires. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, writing to the Senate, "I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity." He added that to approve such spending would "be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." President Grover Cleveland out-vetoed his predecessors by vetoing 584 acts of Congress, including many congressional spending bills, during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often-given veto message was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." By the way, President Cleveland was a Democrat.

Were the Founding Fathers, previous congressmen and previous presidents who could not find constitutional authority for today's massive federal government intervention just plain stupid, ignorant, callous and uncaring? Article 1 of the Constitution defines the role of Congress. Its Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress. I examined our Constitution, looking to see whether an Article 5 amendment had been enacted authorizing Congress to spend money for business bailouts, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of other spending measures in today's federal budget. I found no such amendment. Contrary to what our Constitution permits, Congress taxes and spends for anything upon which it can muster a majority vote.

But I found a constitutional loophole that many congressmen use as a blank check, as well as justification to control most aspects of our lives — namely, the general welfare clause. The Constitution's preamble contains the phrase "promote the general Welfare," and Article 1, Section 8 contains the phrase "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." What did the Framers mean by "general Welfare"? In 1817, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated." Madison wrote: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Case closed: It's our Constitution that's the problem for leftist interventionists — not Brett Kavanaugh.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.