Socialism guarantees that everyone will live in which house?

[Mac1958]

.

It's fascinating -- lefties always bristle and complain when they're compared to socialists; yet every time there is a thread on socialism we have a few lefties who jump in to defend it and promote its virtues.

Every single time.

I wonder why that is.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Blah blah blah Socialism blah blah Oblahma blah blah Capitalism blah blah blah.......

The right-wing never gets tired of being wrong.

95% of financial gains going to the richest 1% of the population since 2009 means that Obama is not a Socialist and Liberals do not control the media.

Making up statistics is the best skill libturds have.

And the right-wing loves to be wrong.

Again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/top-1-getting-95-income-gains-washington-responsible-151332783.html
Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1% - Sep. 15, 2013
95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider

Your belief that links to a bunch of leftist blowhards prove your case shows why you should avoid trying to commit logic.

 

[Manchester]

.

It's fascinating -- lefties always bristle and complain when they're compared to socialists; yet every time there is a thread on socialism we have a few lefties who jump in to defend it and promote its virtues.

Every single time.

I wonder why that is.

.

Maybe because the whole spectrum of the left, from moderately centre left liberals right the way through to Marxist-Leninists who believe in Communist revolution, is made up of individuals who all have different views views and opinions and are not one single entitity that a really feeble mind would make them up to be in order to suit his particularly simple worldview?

 

[bripat9643]

Tell that to Norway, the socialist country with a better quality of life than the US.

really, and what do you pay in taxes to your masters in government, for that free and wonderful life? they leave anything to spend on yourself?

Do you realize that in an democracy a government is by the people, for the people and of the people and if by paying tax you ensure that not just you but everybody gets a better quality of life then and you're paying in tax what you would be paying to a company then it comes cheaper because governments don't have a mandate to make a profit?.

So it would be more expensive if a private corporation robbed my money and gave it to someone else? How is paying for stuff I don't want "cheaper" than not paying for it? Now there's a stunning case of liber logic.

It's an idealized view I realize but when it's done right like in then Norway it works. They also have businesses that do well. A socialist and capitalist country in which people are healthier and happier than people in the US.

Norway is sitting on an ocean of oil. It's wealthy for the same reason that Saudi Arabia is wealthy, not because it has a great economic system. Despite that, Norwegians have a lower standard of living than Americans. Most of their income goes to the government.

 

[bripat9643]

.

It's fascinating -- lefties always bristle and complain when they're compared to socialists; yet every time there is a thread on socialism we have a few lefties who jump in to defend it and promote its virtues.

Every single time.

I wonder why that is.

.

Maybe because the whole spectrum of the left, from moderately centre left liberals right the way through to Marxist-Leninists who believe in Communist revolution, is made up of individuals who all have different views views and opinions and are not one single entitity that a really feeble mind would make them up to be in order to suit his particularly simple worldview?

Yeah, well some of them like plain chocolate ice-cream, and some of them like Rocky Road. That's about the extent of the "differences" in what they believe.

 

[Mac1958]

.

It's fascinating -- lefties always bristle and complain when they're compared to socialists; yet every time there is a thread on socialism we have a few lefties who jump in to defend it and promote its virtues.

Every single time.

I wonder why that is.

.

Maybe because the whole spectrum of the left, from moderately centre left liberals right the way through to Marxist-Leninists who believe in Communist revolution, is made up of individuals who all have different views views and opinions and are not one single entitity that a really feeble mind would make them up to be in order to suit his particularly simple worldview?

There are "spectrums" on both ends of the political landscape.

And evidently that was a personal insult - funny, it takes a "really feeble mind" to assume that I was referring to all liberals.

Partisan ideologues aren't very good at looking in the mirror, are they?

.

 

[Manchester]

.

It's fascinating -- lefties always bristle and complain when they're compared to socialists; yet every time there is a thread on socialism we have a few lefties who jump in to defend it and promote its virtues.

Every single time.

I wonder why that is.

.

Maybe because the whole spectrum of the left, from moderately centre left liberals right the way through to Marxist-Leninists who believe in Communist revolution, is made up of individuals who all have different views views and opinions and are not one single entitity that a really feeble mind would make them up to be in order to suit his particularly simple worldview?

There are "spectrums" on both ends of the political landscape.

And evidently that was a personal insult - funny, it takes a "really feeble mind" to assume that I was referring to all liberals.

Partisan ideologues aren't very good at looking in the mirror, are they?

.

In what manner is it evident? I reference idiotic people such as that steve fella who happily lumps everybody he disagrees with as "the left" and then tells us what "they" say and why "they" are so stupid. If you wish to identify yourself with such a standing then feel free to take my feeble mind comment as an insult.

 

[Stephanie]

this will be your government housing AFTER you come home from your government assigned job of digging ditches...

 

[Geaux4it]

this will be your government housing AFTER you come home from your government assigned job of digging ditches...

Looks like the projects in anytown USA

-Geaux

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Tell that to Norway, the socialist country with a better quality of life than the US.

really, and what do you pay in taxes to your masters in government, for that free and wonderful life? they leave anything to spend on yourself?

Do you realize that in an democracy a government is by the people, for the people and of the people and if by paying tax you ensure that not just you but everybody gets a better quality of life then and you're paying in tax what you would be paying to a company then it comes cheaper because governments don't have a mandate to make a profit?

It's an idealized view I realize but when it's done right like in then Norway it works. They also have businesses that do well. A socialist and capitalist country in which people are healthier and happier than people in the US.

6. Scandinavians aren’t as happy as Americans

Liberals (and Scandinavians) love to claim that Scandinavian countries top various “happiness indexes.” They say that Scandinavians are so much happier and more content than Americans for a variety of reasons.

Let’s just ignore all the problems that come with trying to assign a number to “happiness.” Let’s ignore that there is no single definition for happiness. Let’s also ignore how easy it is for left-leaning organizations to manipulate these studies to show what they want to show. Let’s just forget all of that.

Instead, let’s look at suicide rates. Suicide rates are cold, hard numbers not subject to interpretation. You’re either dead by your own hand or not.

Every single Scandinavian country ranks higher than the United States in suicide rates. Every single country. Finland ranks 5th in the world for suicides per 100,000 people. By comparison, the United States ranks 18th.

Suicide rankings compared:

Finland: 5th in the world
Denmark: 11th in the world
Sweden: 12th in the world
Norway: 13th in the world
Iceland: 15th in the world
United States: 18th in the world

I posted this earlier in this thread, but like a moronic cock sucking piece of shit you seem to have missed it or you or just too fucking stupid to understand what I wrote.

Either way now that you have been impeached again take your shit somewhere else!!

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Maybe because the whole spectrum of the left, from moderately centre left liberals right the way through to Marxist-Leninists who believe in Communist revolution, is made up of individuals who all have different views views and opinions and are not one single entitity that a really feeble mind would make them up to be in order to suit his particularly simple worldview?

There are "spectrums" on both ends of the political landscape.

And evidently that was a personal insult - funny, it takes a "really feeble mind" to assume that I was referring to all liberals.

Partisan ideologues aren't very good at looking in the mirror, are they?

.

In what manner is it evident? I reference idiotic people such as that steve fella who happily lumps everybody he disagrees with as "the left" and then tells us what "they" say and why "they" are so stupid. If you wish to identify yourself with such a standing then feel free to take my feeble mind comment as an insult.

I specifically highlighted your ignorant ass and pointed out exactly why it is so, I am so fucking tired of you little nasty pieces of shit !!

 

[Manchester]

Quiet now sonny, the adults are talking.

 

[jasonnfree]

Yep.. they don't want to realize the true tax burden in those socialist utopias they always bring up.. it is ridiculous..

People of Norway are included in the 10 happiest countries on earth. Here's the list of 10. Notice all these countries are have strong socialist programs.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-visit/

 

[jasonnfree]

.

It's fascinating -- lefties always bristle and complain when they're compared to socialists; yet every time there is a thread on socialism we have a few lefties who jump in to defend it and promote its virtues.

Every single time.

I wonder why that is.

.

Not everybody. I'm for a European type socialism. USA, the formerly greatest country on earth, has given in to profits for corporations and multibillionaires at all cost, and the people can go pound sand if they can't survive. I vote democrat because it does have some policies that help the ordinary citizen in trouble. Republicans don't. They can't. They're for the wealthiest among us, period.

 

[Duped]

Just in case here is a clue..
do a google on the phrase:"obama i am my brother's keeper" and there are 155,000 results.
Doesn't it just seem a tad bit hypocritical that the millionaire president that reported $662,076 income in 2013
and deducted gifts of $150,000 couldn't donate a little to help HIS OWN BROTHER live in something other then a $12/year hut?

Obama " Fuck That ****** "

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Quiet now sonny, the adults are talking.

I got your sonny hanging bitch!!

 

[Vandalshandle]

The spectrum of the Right gets more radical as their net worth increases. I won't go in to the Koch Brothers, but does anyone remember H.L. Hunt, the Dallas billionaire that died in about 1974? This guy lived at White Rock Lake in a house that was a duplicate of Mt. Vernon, but, of course, at least 3 times larger. He was in to oil, and was making a profit of one million dollars a week in the late 1940's. He bragged that he never gave a single dime to charity. He was a radical Right Wing nut, who helped fuel the hatred of JFK in 1963 in Dallas. He hated the supreme court, unions, and the oil depletion allowance. He wrote a novel, "Alpaca", in which he advocated that the amount of votes one has should be directly proportional to his taxes he pays. That would have made him the most powerful man in America, as well as the richest. His children grew up rich, and tried to corner the silver market, which scheme collapsed, causing huge losses to the whole market. This scheme was another form of greed. it had absolutely nothing to do with creating jobs, or even products. I guess that I am surprised that the Right didn't run H.L., or one of his kids for president.

 

[auditor0007]

Socialism is bad for America because it results in large, intrusive and controlling government that diminishes the role and value of individual citizens; it is largely based on “false compassion” that promotes victimhood and big government solutions; and it offers a false hope of utopian brotherhood and equality, resulting in the loss of freedom and the rise of governmental tyranny.

It's the reason that the middle class is being destroyed.

Socialism results in large, intrusive and controlling government that diminishes the role and value of individual citizens. It is a form of statism, which sees the state as all-powerful, all-wise, and more capable of determining and supplying the needs of its citizens than the citizens themselves. Socialism empowers government, through its bureaucrats, to act as a great benevolent mother caring for her people by appropriating and redistributing the fruits of the people’s labor, as it sees fit, through high taxation and generous social welfare programs.

Socialists believe that all the ills and inequities of society can be remedied by government programs that require ever more tax dollars to fund them. Professor Arndt stated that the belief that government intervention was needed to correct “market failure” and protect the weak resulted in “big government, widespread government failures, excessive bureaucratic regulation of business and the lives of citizens, and a ‘political market’ which dispenses protection, subsidies and welfare expenditures in response to organized lobbying.” He contended that such ambitious spending and redistribution triggered inflation, increased unemployment and enlarged the government.

Ever-increasing levels of taxation, social welfare programs, and restrictions on business result in numerous unsustainable consequences, such as deep national debt, unfunded liabilities, wasted capital and loss of productivity, creativity, innovation and consumer choices. F.A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944), showed that “soft socialism–social democratism-will in the long run produce the same results as hard, fundamentalist socialism, namely the bankruptcy of government and enormous opportunity costs: the prosperity that society misses out on as compared to a genuine free market order.

Ever-increasing levels of taxation, social welfare programs, and restrictions on business result in numerous unsustainable consequences, such as deep national debt, unfunded liabilities, wasted capital and loss of productivity, creativity, innovation and consumer choices. F.A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom (1944), showed that “soft socialism–social democratism-will in the long run produce the same results as hard, fundamentalist socialism, namely the bankruptcy of government and enormous opportunity costs: the prosperity that society misses out on as compared to a genuine free market order.”

Why Socialism is Bad for America | Todd Weber's Random Thoughts

Radnitzky noted that redistributing wealth from the productive segments of society (industry, commerce, etc.) to the non-productive (the political class, bureaucracy, social welfare recipients, etc.) “reduces the rewards for enterprise and production and cuts innovation and employment.”

The same thing that our Founders knew and was against.

Another reason why socialism is bad for America is that socialism is largely based on false compassion, which results in a host of serious, though unintended, consequences. The term “false compassion” is used for two reasons. First, because socialism takes the care of those in need out of the willing hearts and hands of truly compassionate individuals, and places it in the hands of the impersonal bureaucracy of government, which then takes by force from those who have, via taxation, and redistributes it, often with great inefficiency and waste, to others who have not, the recipients have no connection to the source of such benefits (the taxpayer). Secondly, this involuntary benevolence often results, not in good will, gratitude, and a sense of community, but rather resentment among those who are taxed, and a sense of entitlement and continuing dependency among those who benefit. This false compassion is seen in the socialist obsession with equality and fairness accompanied by the conviction that capitalism and those who espouse it are inherently unfair, insensitive and cruel.

It promotes big Government elites who have it all, while the rest of us have little or nothing.

Socialists consider inequality in wealth and incomes as injustice; and the greater the disparity, the greater the injustice. Mises observed that this view then justifies the confiscation of wealth from the rich in order to provide for the poor, presumably resulting in a more equitable situation. However, this always proves to be a slippery slope of never-ending redistribution. Mises noted:

The history of the taxation of profits, incomes, and estates in all countries clearly shows that once the principle of equalization is adopted, there is no point at which the further progress of the policy of equalization can be checked…As long as any degree of inequality is left, there will always be people whom envy impels to press for a continuation of the equalization policy.

In the end, socialist efforts toward economic equalization result in universal poverty, except perhaps among the ruling class. Rather than achieving a higher quality of life for all, the forces of socialism invariably push everyone down to equal impoverishment and misery. This has been demonstrated everywhere that all-out socialism has been practiced, most notably in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China, among many others. Muravchik astutely observed, “There is no escape from inequality, except through uniform poverty.”

The final reason we will note as to why socialism is bad for America is that it offers false and empty hope in an idealistic fantasy that has never succeeded in practice, and which has repeatedly resulted in tyranny and terrible human suffering. Those who would implement socialist or quasi-socialist policies in the United States of America are either unaware of the bleak history of socialism and have not considered the long-term consequences of their aims, or they are so enamored of their ideology that they don’t care. Ludwig von Mises wrote that politicians who recommend socialist policies while claiming that they want to preserve the market economy and economic freedom are “either hypocrites who want to bring about socialism by deceiving the people about their real intentions, or they are ignoramuses who do not know what they are talking about.”

Socialism is not costing the US its middle class. This is the nonsense they have you believing and you have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[bripat9643]

Yep.. they don't want to realize the true tax burden in those socialist utopias they always bring up.. it is ridiculous..

People of Norway are included in the 10 happiest countries on earth. Here's the list of 10. Notice all these countries are have strong socialist programs.


Get happy in the world's happiest countries - CNN.com

What are the units of happiness and how are they measured?

 

[bripat9643]

The spectrum of the Right gets more radical as their net worth increases. I won't go in to the Koch Brothers, but does anyone remember H.L. Hunt, the Dallas billionaire that died in about 1974? This guy lived at White Rock Lake in a house that was a duplicate of Mt. Vernon, but, of course, at least 3 times larger. He was in to oil, and was making a profit of one million dollars a week in the late 1940's. He bragged that he never gave a single dime to charity. He was a radical Right Wing nut, who helped fuel the hatred of JFK in 1963 in Dallas. He hated the supreme court, unions, and the oil depletion allowance. He wrote a novel, "Alpaca", in which he advocated that the amount of votes one has should be directly proportional to his taxes he pays. That would have made him the most powerful man in America, as well as the richest. His children grew up rich, and tried to corner the silver market, which scheme collapsed, causing huge losses to the whole market. This scheme was another form of greed. it had absolutely nothing to do with creating jobs, or even products. I guess that I am surprised that the Right didn't run H.L., or one of his kids for president.

Did you have a point of some kind?