Socialism is evil

[thereisnospoon]

Yes make each parent pay the full cost of their childs education.
Darn evil socialism.

Not at all,

one could achieve that same goal with school vouchers for everyone

which is still socialism.
Most parents school taxes paid do not come near to the actual const of educating their child. If they did people without children would not have to pay any school tax.

That is incorrect...Take out the frills like school sports and other extra-curricular activities, over paid administrators who contribute NOTHING towards the education of the children, elaborately constructed school buildings with campuses covering large tracts of land and other non-essentials and school taxes could be used to pay for necessities such as paper ,textbooks, libraries and other educationally focused items.
School taxes in some areas are out of control. Homeowners burdened with tens of thousands of dollars per year in property taxes...For what? So teacher's unions can demand high wages and virtual job security through tenure? So administrators who already make huge salaries can also have virtual job security?.....So Superintendants can be paid in excess of $300,000 per year plus expense account and housing allowances?
Property owners are heavily burdened with high taxes while school boards allow school administrations to throw the taxpayers money away and demand more each year.
Don't you dare sit there and imply we don't pay enough for schools. Fact is we pay too much.

 

[shintao]

The socialist countries of Europe have always maintained higher unemployment rates than the US... In fact, their norm has
been around 10 percent. It is only recently that the US finds itself "catching" up to Europe on this number

I think you are wrong. The US caught up when America began using "honest" numbers to represent the unemployed, and extended the length of time one could be considered unemployed. Now you are seeing the honest numbers. We used to hide our unemployed under a variety of lables: disabled, not looking, homeless, part-time worker, welfare, only 52 weeks, etc. Obama is counting actually people unemployed for years, and that is why you are getting a higher N & accuracy for the 10% stat.

Kidding, right?

No Kat, other countries like germany count their unemployed regardless of circumstance, so naturally they have had higher numbers. Say ten years ago, you could take our welfare, disabled, homeless and non working and arrive at around 10% unemployed as well. I think that is a standard N for unemployed. But extending unemployment benefits keeps more people on our roles, instead of moving them off unemployed to welfare or homeless etc. That doubles your N for unemployment and gives this 10% stat we are seeing, that we actually had all along.

I find it interesting we have a category for "No longer looking". LMAO!!! What the hell is that??

 

[rdean]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

And why does the right provide such massive support for China?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

And why does the right provide such massive support for China?

Hey, it could be worse; they could bow before them

 

[thereisnospoon]

When private property is eliminated, all men are slaves to the state.

When public power is eliminated, all people are slaves to the corporation

Public power is inexorably tied to private property rights.
Without the right to own property, we are nothing.
BTW, any attempt by any of you class any lilly livered libs to take what is mine will be dispatched swiftly with extreme prejudice.

 

[shintao]

So teacher's unions can demand high wages and virtual job security through tenure?

So what is your real problem with Capitalism? Should workers be paid what they think they are worth or not? Or do you just pick and chose who should make a living wage?

How about you go into tomorrow and notify the boss you want your wages cut in half, because you aren't worth what they are paying if they can get a Mexican for less pesos. How about that??

 

[thereisnospoon]

All republicans are black is stupid .. and has nothing to do with your question.

Come with me to skip through time and history.

At one time, nearly ALL African-Americans were republicans. The Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party.

At one time the Republican Party sort of made sense .. even up to the day of Dr. King.

One of my civil rights heroes was a conservative Senator from Illinois, Everett Dirksen .. at one time.

But that's all ancient history, altered by Nixon's southern strategy.

We return you now to the present .. where the Republican Party is a mere shadow of its former self.

So MLK was right then but he would be wrong now to be a Republican?

Did you know before 1960 Blacks had a lower illegitimate rate than whites, a higher employment rate than whites and a lower divorce rate than whites


But, yeah sure is a good thing they joined the Democrats

Who said he was right?

Did you know that by 1960 African-Americans began to move into every career endeavor that had been denied to them for almost 400 years?

Did you know that by 1970 African-Americans had more democratic representation in Congress than ALL African-American republican representation from 1970 - 2010 COMBINED.

When was the last time you had THREE .. Reconstruction?

Perhaps you should go play this game with someone else .. someone white who doesn't know history .. like another right-winger like you.

your post has no no point. it is angry racist rhetoric. I dismiss it out of hand.
Come back when you've calmed down. And leave the racist commentary at the door.

 

[rdean]

When private property is eliminated, all men are slaves to the state.

When public power is eliminated, all people are slaves to the corporation

Public power is inexorably tied to private property rights.
Without the right to own property, we are nothing.
BTW, any attempt by any of you class any lilly livered libs to take what is mine will be dispatched swiftly with extreme prejudice.

You don't have anything anyone wants.

 

[shintao]

When private property is eliminated, all men are slaves to the state.

When public power is eliminated, all people are slaves to the corporation

Public power is inexorably tied to private property rights.
Without the right to own property, we are nothing.
BTW, any attempt by any of you class any lilly livered libs to take what is mine will be dispatched swiftly with extreme prejudice.

What property are we talking about here? Government can take anything you think you own now, and at best rent it to your use. When you don't pay the tax-rent, your ass is out and your property is on the public auction block, along with the Title. Does that make you nothing?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So teacher's unions can demand high wages and virtual job security through tenure?

So what is your real problem with Capitalism? Should workers be paid what they think they are worth or not? Or do you just pick and chose who should make a living wage?

How about you go into tomorrow and notify the boss you want your wages cut in half, because you aren't worth what they are paying if they can get a Mexican for less pesos. How about that??

ok cut the crap...
Look, when I see 50% of the teachers in my school district back home who are unionized and protected by tenure being paid well over $100,000 per year(http://www.nj.com/news/bythenumbers/..........................Northern Valley Regional District )while teachers who are very bit as good at their their jobs in other states which do not permit collective bargaining by public employees, but earn a more realistic salary that allows them to make a good living, I must question the disparity. Especially in light of the fact that the teachers above work in NJ which has some the highest property taxes in the US while states without burdensome unions have as high or higher graduation rates while property taxes are reasonable....Fact, there is no direct evidence or correlation between high taxes/ high per pupil spending and graduation rates
Washington DC spends more money per student than any other school district in the US yet has one of the worst graduation rates in the US. Teachers are unionized and tenured. Property taxes are extreme......
Public worker wages should be in line with the prevailing market wage for similar work.
I reject the liberal tactic of all or nothing.....

 

[MajinLink]

So teacher's unions can demand high wages and virtual job security through tenure?

So what is your real problem with Capitalism? Should workers be paid what they think they are worth or not? Or do you just pick and chose who should make a living wage?

How about you go into tomorrow and notify the boss you want your wages cut in half, because you aren't worth what they are paying if they can get a Mexican for less pesos. How about that??

everyone should make a living wage

 

[Jroc]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

Well, according to the OP, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and of course, the worst, Thomas Paine were theives.

You don't like paying taxes, huh? Motivated by single-minded greed?

You live in a soceity, and everything that you own is because of the hardwork and sacrifices of the people in that soceity and only in accordance with that soceity's rules. One of which is: you have to pay taxes.

If you don't like it, you are free to move into the deep amazon or perhaps to Antartica. Let's see how much wealth you accumulate there!

Wake up an smell the reality, idiot!

our taxes are supposed to be used to fund the essental functions of government not to fund all these liberal social programs, thats not supposed to be the role of OUR Federal government.

 

[Jroc]

So teacher's unions can demand high wages and virtual job security through tenure?

So what is your real problem with Capitalism? Should workers be paid what they think they are worth or not? Or do you just pick and chose who should make a living wage?

How about you go into tomorrow and notify the boss you want your wages cut in half, because you aren't worth what they are paying if they can get a Mexican for less pesos. How about that??

everyone should make a living wage

Everyone in this country can make a living wage as long as they work. Pay should be based on merit not some stupid government mandate or some union seniority rules. I never really understood what the teachers union has against merit pay? They do a good job, they make more money. The way it is now good teachers and bad teachers make the same money. What kind of sense does that make?

 

[Jroc]

I'd like someone to tell me what socialist countries have done for the advancement of the human race? What inventions? Technologies? Capitalism and the potential to make a profit is the driving force behind most of the advancements made at least in the last couple of hundred years Russian, China ect… Have stolen the bulk of their technology from us

 

[shintao]

So teacher's unions can demand high wages and virtual job security through tenure?

So what is your real problem with Capitalism? Should workers be paid what they think they are worth or not? Or do you just pick and chose who should make a living wage?

How about you go into tomorrow and notify the boss you want your wages cut in half, because you aren't worth what they are paying if they can get a Mexican for less pesos. How about that??

ok cut the crap...
Look, when I see 50% of the teachers in my school district back home who are unionized and protected by tenure being paid well over $100,000 per year(http://www.nj.com/news/bythenumbers/..........................Northern Valley Regional District )while teachers who are very bit as good at their their jobs in other states which do not permit collective bargaining by public employees, but earn a more realistic salary that allows them to make a good living, I must question the disparity. Especially in light of the fact that the teachers above work in NJ which has some the highest property taxes in the US while states without burdensome unions have as high or higher graduation rates while property taxes are reasonable....Fact, there is no direct evidence or correlation between high taxes/ high per pupil spending and graduation rates
Washington DC spends more money per student than any other school district in the US yet has one of the worst graduation rates in the US. Teachers are unionized and tenured. Property taxes are extreme......
Public worker wages should be in line with the prevailing market wage for similar work.
I reject the liberal tactic of all or nothing.....

Well you questioned it, and you are wrong, you are just trying to gut capitalism and the American dream for all Americans to make more money and profits and climb the ladders of success. You want everybody to be poor and miserable like you are, and earn a few pesos a month. Hell, if you got a problem, go to college and become a teacher!!! You want everyone to have the same wages, become a socialist!!!

 

[shintao]

So teacher's unions can demand high wages and virtual job security through tenure?

So what is your real problem with Capitalism? Should workers be paid what they think they are worth or not? Or do you just pick and chose who should make a living wage?

How about you go into tomorrow and notify the boss you want your wages cut in half, because you aren't worth what they are paying if they can get a Mexican for less pesos. How about that??

everyone should make a living wage

Yes, they should. You work so that you can have a living wage and the essentials of life, otherwise, what would you be working for? Cons seem to think that because they are weak, unorganized kiss-asses and dupes to ruthless corporations, everybody should be miserable like they are. Well union members aren't miserable with their negotiated contracts, salary & benefit packages, retirements, job security, and that is what these cons are jealous of. They think everybody should be poor and duped like they are. They made their bed, now lie in it.

 

[shintao]

Socialism is evil

Walter E. Williams


What is socialism? We miss the boat if we say it's the agenda of left-wingers and Democrats. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.




Socialism is evil

Well, according to the OP, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and of course, the worst, Thomas Paine were theives.

You don't like paying taxes, huh? Motivated by single-minded greed?

You live in a soceity, and everything that you own is because of the hardwork and sacrifices of the people in that soceity and only in accordance with that soceity's rules. One of which is: you have to pay taxes.

If you don't like it, you are free to move into the deep amazon or perhaps to Antartica. Let's see how much wealth you accumulate there!

Wake up an smell the reality, idiot!

our taxes are supposed to be used to fund the essental functions of government not to fund all these liberal social programs, thats not supposed to be the role of OUR Federal government.

So when you cut the over seas military budget, do let us know. And those social programs were considered and accepted by the founding fathers as general welfare, so get yourself a grip.

Alexander Hamilton, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific
section of the country over any other.

 

[Neotrotsky]

So what is your real problem with Capitalism? Should workers be paid what they think they are worth or not? Or do you just pick and chose who should make a living wage?

How about you go into tomorrow and notify the boss you want your wages cut in half, because you aren't worth what they are paying if they can get a Mexican for less pesos. How about that??

everyone should make a living wage

Yes, they should. You work so that you can have a living wage and the essentials of life, otherwise, what would you be working for? Cons seem to think that because they are weak, unorganized kiss-asses and dupes to ruthless corporations, everybody should be miserable like they are. Well union members aren't miserable with their negotiated contracts, salary & benefit packages, retirements, job security, and that is what these cons are jealous of. They think everybody should be poor and duped like they are. They made their bed, now lie in it.

Speaking of

How about those "secret deals" Papa Obama had with Big Pharma?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd like someone to tell me what socialist countries have done for the advancement of the human race? What inventions? Technologies? Capitalism and the potential to make a profit is the driving force behind most of the advancements made at least in the last couple of hundred years Russian, China ect… Have stolen the bulk of their technology from us

Public Education, the government providing access to an education to every child regardless of any ability to pay,

is Socialist.

Name me all the countries of the world without public education that have made major contributions above and beyond those that have come from countries with public education.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We don't have enough real jobs for those who need an income so we have invented positions to put people in. Job welfare. Half of them could be laid of and we would see no decrease in production. Technology had taken over as predicted. Some people can and never will be able to compete in the market place. What are we going to do with them ?
I think socialism thinks they have the answer. It just doesn't take human nature into consideration.

You forgot to tell us what your answer is. The Capitalist answer is to just ignore those who are poor or who can't find work or are sick and can't afford healthcare.

Capitalism widens the gap between rich and poor, socialism closes it. How much you support either of those depends on how large you want that gap to be.