The Long, Gentle Slide To American Socialism

[SAYIT]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002

Yep...we really must continue socialism for the 1% and special interests, the rest of the populace gets hugged free market capitalism.

Trickle down economics works...LMFAO.

Nothing works for bitter, petulant, leftarded crybabies, Comrade G … grow up.

The author's point (18 yrs ago) was that big, fat, corrupt central govt's - even those that begin with noble intentions - don't work for the people because they are operated by imperfect, often self-serving people.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

I’m not a leftard, you silly rightard. Acton is right. It’s what we have now, but you can’t see it. You are brainwashed.

I'm painfully aware that America's system is not perfect - the national debt makes that abundantly clear - but even most idiots understand it is foolhardy to toss the baby, the bathwater, the bathtub, the plumbing and then set the house on fire by instituting socialism because you are a loser.

One more time: you can't get a little pregnant and socialism is not the answer.

 

[gipper]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002

Yep...we really must continue socialism for the 1% and special interests, the rest of the populace gets hugged free market capitalism.

Trickle down economics works...LMFAO.

Nothing works for bitter, petulant, leftarded crybabies, Comrade G … grow up.

The author's point (18 yrs ago) was that big, fat, corrupt central govt's - even those that begin with noble intentions - don't work for the people because they are operated by imperfect, often self-serving people.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

I’m not a leftard, you silly rightard. Acton is right. It’s what we have now, but you can’t see it. You are brainwashed.

I'm painfully aware that America's system is not perfect - the national debt makes that abundantly clear - but even most idiots understand it is foolhardy to toss the baby, the bathwater, the bathtub, the plumbing and then set the house on fire by instituting socialism because you are a loser.

One more time: you can't get a little pregnant and socialism is not the answer.

You think socialism is only okay when given to the extreme wealthy. You support this.

At the same time, you think socialism for the poor is communism. Why can’t you see how dumb this is?

 

[dblack]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002

Yep...we really must continue socialism for the 1% and special interests, the rest of the populace gets hugged free market capitalism.

Nope.

Nope. No socialism at all.

Too late.

Not really. If your beef is corporate welfare, we can fix that. No need to double down on stupid with "Welfare for All".

 

[gipper]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002

Yep...we really must continue socialism for the 1% and special interests, the rest of the populace gets hugged free market capitalism.

Nope.

Nope. No socialism at all.

Too late.

Not really. If your beef is corporate welfare, we can fix that. No need to double down on stupid with "Welfare for All".

Oh well then, we’ll just keep giving to the rich then.

 

[dblack]

Sometimes the past is the best predictor of the future. Those who extrapolate events to form conclusions about the future are easy to mock & ridicule but if they keep their focus narrow their voices are often prescient:

IT is difficult to understand the long-range implications of current events. This is to say, it is difficult to know whether a current event is part of a historical sidetrack, a cultural fad or a mainstream trend.

Smart people have called our attention to this reality. For example, the late Ayn Rand described the insidious process which takes a society, inch by unremarkable inch, to socialism: "The goal of the 'liberals' -- as it emerges from the record of the past decades -- was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot -- by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the 'conservative' was only to retard that process.)"

When the federal government took over the task of inspecting luggage at airports and terminals, it added more than 30,000 new employees to its payroll. Most of them will become dues-paying members of government unions. They will become unremovable, overpaid wards of a government monopoly. They will become predictably dependent upon and grateful to the advocates of big government and higher taxes. They will become Democrats.

Surely there can no longer be any doubt that America is well on its way down the slippery slope to socialism. The government continues to grow in size, power and arrogance as it asserts increasing sovereignty over the lives and behavior of its subjects. The noose tightens, and the rabble wear it like a badge of honor.

Linda Bowles - Jan 8, 2002

Yep...we really must continue socialism for the 1% and special interests, the rest of the populace gets hugged free market capitalism.

Nope.

Nope. No socialism at all.

Too late.

Not really. If your beef is corporate welfare, we can fix that. No need to double down on stupid with "Welfare for All".

Oh well then, we’ll just keep giving to the rich then.

Why would you want that?

 

[gipper]

Yep...we really must continue socialism for the 1% and special interests, the rest of the populace gets hugged free market capitalism.

Nope.

Nope. No socialism at all.

Too late.

Not really. If your beef is corporate welfare, we can fix that. No need to double down on stupid with "Welfare for All".

Oh well then, we’ll just keep giving to the rich then.

Why would you want that?

Why do you want the rich protected by Uncle?

 

[dblack]

Nope.

Nope. No socialism at all.

Too late.

Not really. If your beef is corporate welfare, we can fix that. No need to double down on stupid with "Welfare for All".

Oh well then, we’ll just keep giving to the rich then.

Why would you want that?

Why do you want the rich protected by Uncle?

Ok, I think you missed my post, or misread it or something. I'm saying we should get rid of corporate welfare.

 

[gipper]

Too late.

Not really. If your beef is corporate welfare, we can fix that. No need to double down on stupid with "Welfare for All".

Oh well then, we’ll just keep giving to the rich then.

Why would you want that?

Why do you want the rich protected by Uncle?

Ok, I think you missed my post, or misread it or something. I'm saying we should get rid of corporate welfare.

Agreed but you are dreaming if you think that possible. The rich run the show, we’re just along for the ride.

 

[dblack]

Not really. If your beef is corporate welfare, we can fix that. No need to double down on stupid with "Welfare for All".

Oh well then, we’ll just keep giving to the rich then.

Why would you want that?

Why do you want the rich protected by Uncle?

Ok, I think you missed my post, or misread it or something. I'm saying we should get rid of corporate welfare.

Agreed but you are dreaming if you think that possible. The rich run the show, we’re just along for the ride.

So what's the point of trying to change anything for the better then? If I really looked at it your way, if I accepted the premise that we can't change anything for the better, I'd certainly not waste my time voting or even discussing politics much.

Fortunately, I don't look at it that way. I know the odds are often against positive change. But if we don't try, the odds are nil.

 

[gipper]

Oh well then, we’ll just keep giving to the rich then.

Why would you want that?

Why do you want the rich protected by Uncle?

Ok, I think you missed my post, or misread it or something. I'm saying we should get rid of corporate welfare.

Agreed but you are dreaming if you think that possible. The rich run the show, we’re just along for the ride.

So what's the point of trying to change anything for the better then? If I really looked at it your way, if I accepted the premise that we can't change anything for the better, I'd certainly not waste my time voting or even discussing politics much.

Fortunately, I don't look at it that way. I know the odds are often against positive change. But if we don't try, the odds are nil.

I do believe real change is nearly impossible. The deck is stacked against by powerful forces. However we do know if Don is re-elected, no change is forthcoming.

 

[Votto]

Why would you want that?

Why do you want the rich protected by Uncle?

Ok, I think you missed my post, or misread it or something. I'm saying we should get rid of corporate welfare.

Agreed but you are dreaming if you think that possible. The rich run the show, we’re just along for the ride.

So what's the point of trying to change anything for the better then? If I really looked at it your way, if I accepted the premise that we can't change anything for the better, I'd certainly not waste my time voting or even discussing politics much.

Fortunately, I don't look at it that way. I know the odds are often against positive change. But if we don't try, the odds are nil.

I do believe real change is nearly impossible. The deck is stacked against by powerful forces. However we do know if Don is re-elected, no change is forthcoming.

And sometimes no change is better than change, if you catch my drift.

Speaking of drifting, I don't want to feel like my odds are better on an inner tube floating to another country than not trying like we have seen many Cubans do.

 

[basquebromance]

Trump gives Americans the free stuff that a free country deserves: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of owning guns!

 

[dblack]

Why would you want that?

Why do you want the rich protected by Uncle?

Ok, I think you missed my post, or misread it or something. I'm saying we should get rid of corporate welfare.

Agreed but you are dreaming if you think that possible. The rich run the show, we’re just along for the ride.

So what's the point of trying to change anything for the better then? If I really looked at it your way, if I accepted the premise that we can't change anything for the better, I'd certainly not waste my time voting or even discussing politics much.

Fortunately, I don't look at it that way. I know the odds are often against positive change. But if we don't try, the odds are nil.

I do believe real change is nearly impossible. The deck is stacked against by powerful forces. However we do know if Don is re-elected, no change is forthcoming.

LOL - you're just side-stepping. But that's ok. I was hoping we could get some agreement on getting rid of corporate welfare. But it seems you are only interested in using it as an excuse for "Welfare for All".

 

[gipper]

Why do you want the rich protected by Uncle?

Ok, I think you missed my post, or misread it or something. I'm saying we should get rid of corporate welfare.

Agreed but you are dreaming if you think that possible. The rich run the show, we’re just along for the ride.

So what's the point of trying to change anything for the better then? If I really looked at it your way, if I accepted the premise that we can't change anything for the better, I'd certainly not waste my time voting or even discussing politics much.

Fortunately, I don't look at it that way. I know the odds are often against positive change. But if we don't try, the odds are nil.

I do believe real change is nearly impossible. The deck is stacked against by powerful forces. However we do know if Don is re-elected, no change is forthcoming.

LOL - you're just side-stepping. But that's ok. I was hoping we could get some agreement on getting rid of corporate welfare. But it seems you are only interested in using it as an excuse for "Welfare for All".

I’m all for getting rid of corporate welfare, but I’m a realist. I know with the massively corrupt government we have, it’s not possible.

 

[dblack]

Ok, I think you missed my post, or misread it or something. I'm saying we should get rid of corporate welfare.

Agreed but you are dreaming if you think that possible. The rich run the show, we’re just along for the ride.

So what's the point of trying to change anything for the better then? If I really looked at it your way, if I accepted the premise that we can't change anything for the better, I'd certainly not waste my time voting or even discussing politics much.

Fortunately, I don't look at it that way. I know the odds are often against positive change. But if we don't try, the odds are nil.

I do believe real change is nearly impossible. The deck is stacked against by powerful forces. However we do know if Don is re-elected, no change is forthcoming.

LOL - you're just side-stepping. But that's ok. I was hoping we could get some agreement on getting rid of corporate welfare. But it seems you are only interested in using it as an excuse for "Welfare for All".

I’m all for getting rid of corporate welfare, but I’m a realist. I know with the massively corrupt government we have, it’s not possible.

Yet you want to put that massively corrupt government in charge of health care, and who knows what else. How does that add up?

 

[DustyInfinity]

It's been a bipartisan effort- so that makes it all better.

One thing that has been proven true over time is that both sides have their versions of socialism they will fight to keep

True socialism does not exist in any sector of american life today. social security and medicare are always mentioned as being socialistic, they aren't. We pay into them our entire working lives, the are a prepaid retirement benefit for those who live long enough. Welfare and food stamps are a form of charity managed by the government, not true socialism either.

socialism means that the government controls the means of production of everything we need or use. that has never worked anyplace. if you can give examples where its worked, bring them.

Those who would continue the slide into socialism often try to sell the old "but America is already a socialist state so let's just accept the inevitability!"

Just think, that thing is coming for your wallet and your red meat, and your straws, and anything else it can grab.

 

[SAYIT]

It's been a bipartisan effort- so that makes it all better.

One thing that has been proven true over time is that both sides have their versions of socialism they will fight to keep

True socialism does not exist in any sector of american life today. social security and medicare are always mentioned as being socialistic, they aren't. We pay into them our entire working lives, the are a prepaid retirement benefit for those who live long enough. Welfare and food stamps are a form of charity managed by the government, not true socialism either.

socialism means that the government controls the means of production of everything we need or use. that has never worked anyplace. if you can give examples where its worked, bring them.

Those who would continue the slide into socialism often try to sell the old "but America is already a socialist state so let's just accept the inevitability!"

Just think, that thing is coming for your wallet and your red meat, and your straws, and anything else it can grab.

Unless we just say "no."

 

[there4eyeM]

Looking at the evolution of central government in the U.S. and the infiltration of business representatives into government positions, it is impossible to see how capitalists can complain that they are under attack. Congress does as megabucks dictates, even bailing out the entire American capitalist game when it was run into the ground by the grossly criminal banks and investment houses.
Worries about 'socialism', especially by those who display dismally little about it, are a laughable exercise.

 

[gipper]

Agreed but you are dreaming if you think that possible. The rich run the show, we’re just along for the ride.

So what's the point of trying to change anything for the better then? If I really looked at it your way, if I accepted the premise that we can't change anything for the better, I'd certainly not waste my time voting or even discussing politics much.

Fortunately, I don't look at it that way. I know the odds are often against positive change. But if we don't try, the odds are nil.

I do believe real change is nearly impossible. The deck is stacked against by powerful forces. However we do know if Don is re-elected, no change is forthcoming.

LOL - you're just side-stepping. But that's ok. I was hoping we could get some agreement on getting rid of corporate welfare. But it seems you are only interested in using it as an excuse for "Welfare for All".

I’m all for getting rid of corporate welfare, but I’m a realist. I know with the massively corrupt government we have, it’s not possible.

Yet you want to put that massively corrupt government in charge of health care, and who knows what else. How does that add up?

I want this massive corrupt government doing something to help the poor. I guess in America today, I’m considered a communist for this.

 

[gipper]

Looking at the evolution of central government in the U.S. and the infiltration of business representatives into government positions, it is impossible to see how capitalists can complain that they are under attack. Congress does as megabucks dictates, even bailing out the entire American capitalist game when it was run into the ground by the grossly criminal banks and investment houses.
Worries about 'socialism', especially by those who display dismally little about it, are a laughable exercise.

Agreed. It’s amazing how ignorant and blind many Americans are to the game the elites are playing. These same fools condemn anyone who wants fairness in government.