The Long, Gentle Slide To American Socialism

[dblack]

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.

I just don't get the inconsistency. Your excuse for not trying to get rid of corporate welfare is that government is corrupt. Yet you conveniently ignore that excuse when it comes to "doing something to help the poor". What gives? Honestly, it sounds like the corruption angle is just an excuse. It sounds like you're fine with corporate welfare, as long as the poor get theirs as well. Which seems to leave out the people in the middle.

 

[dblack]

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.

Because business colluding with government is not capitalism. It's an attack on capitalism, an attack on free markets.

 

[gipper]

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.

I just don't get the inconsistency. Your excuse for not trying to get rid of corporate welfare is that government is corrupt. Yet you conveniently ignore that excuse when it comes to "doing something to help the poor". What gives? Honestly, it sounds like the corruption angle is just an excuse. It sounds like you're fine with corporate welfare, as long as the poor get theirs as well. Which seems to leave out the people in the middle.

You’re not comprehending. Is this on purpose?

If you really think the politicians and government will get rid of corporate welfare, I have a freeway bridge I’ll sell you cheap.

 

[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.

Because business colluding with government is not capitalism. It's an attack on capitalism, an attack on free markets.

LOL. You must live in an unreal reality.

 

[dblack]

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.

I just don't get the inconsistency. Your excuse for not trying to get rid of corporate welfare is that government is corrupt. Yet you conveniently ignore that excuse when it comes to "doing something to help the poor". What gives? Honestly, it sounds like the corruption angle is just an excuse. It sounds like you're fine with corporate welfare, as long as the poor get theirs as well. Which seems to leave out the people in the middle.

You’re not comprehending. Is this on purpose?

If you really think the politicians and government will get rid of corporate welfare, I have a freeway bridge I’ll sell you cheap.

If you really think the politicians and government will do something that actually helps the poor, I have a freeway bridge I'll sell you cheap.

Your selective faith in government is a curiosity.

 

[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.

Because business colluding with government is not capitalism. It's an attack on capitalism, an attack on free markets.

That is backwards; it is rather government colluding with overpoweringly wealthy business. It is the logical extension of capitalism and is why capitalism must be under control for a democratic republic to avoid becoming merely an oligarchy. Capitalism can exist, it is simply that people come before materialism.

 

[dblack]

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.

Because business colluding with government is not capitalism. It's an attack on capitalism, an attack on free markets.

LOL. You must live in an unreal reality.

What do you mean? Anything about my statement you find inaccurate?

 

[dblack]

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.

Because business colluding with government is not capitalism. It's an attack on capitalism, an attack on free markets.

That is backwards; it is rather government colluding with overpoweringly wealthy business.

Collusion is a two way street. And yes, it is an attack on capitalism. When state power and economic power merge, the result isn't a free market. It's the state managed economy that you are advocating.

 

[gipper]

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.

I just don't get the inconsistency. Your excuse for not trying to get rid of corporate welfare is that government is corrupt. Yet you conveniently ignore that excuse when it comes to "doing something to help the poor". What gives? Honestly, it sounds like the corruption angle is just an excuse. It sounds like you're fine with corporate welfare, as long as the poor get theirs as well. Which seems to leave out the people in the middle.

You’re not comprehending. Is this on purpose?

If you really think the politicians and government will get rid of corporate welfare, I have a freeway bridge I’ll sell you cheap.

If you really think the politicians and government will do something that actually helps the poor, I have a freeway bridge I'll sell you cheap.

Your selective faith in government is a curiosity.

I have little faith in government. Unlike you, I think the chances of government doing the right thing, is very slim.

 

[dblack]

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.

I just don't get the inconsistency. Your excuse for not trying to get rid of corporate welfare is that government is corrupt. Yet you conveniently ignore that excuse when it comes to "doing something to help the poor". What gives? Honestly, it sounds like the corruption angle is just an excuse. It sounds like you're fine with corporate welfare, as long as the poor get theirs as well. Which seems to leave out the people in the middle.

You’re not comprehending. Is this on purpose?

If you really think the politicians and government will get rid of corporate welfare, I have a freeway bridge I’ll sell you cheap.

If you really think the politicians and government will do something that actually helps the poor, I have a freeway bridge I'll sell you cheap.

Your selective faith in government is a curiosity.

I have little faith in government. Unlike you, I think the chances of government doing the right thing, is very slim.

But why do you trust in one case, but not the other?

 

[gipper]

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

I just don't get the inconsistency. Your excuse for not trying to get rid of corporate welfare is that government is corrupt. Yet you conveniently ignore that excuse when it comes to "doing something to help the poor". What gives? Honestly, it sounds like the corruption angle is just an excuse. It sounds like you're fine with corporate welfare, as long as the poor get theirs as well. Which seems to leave out the people in the middle.

You’re not comprehending. Is this on purpose?

If you really think the politicians and government will get rid of corporate welfare, I have a freeway bridge I’ll sell you cheap.

If you really think the politicians and government will do something that actually helps the poor, I have a freeway bridge I'll sell you cheap.

Your selective faith in government is a curiosity.

I have little faith in government. Unlike you, I think the chances of government doing the right thing, is very slim.

But why do you trust in one case, but not the other?

I trust in neither case. You aren’t comprehending.

 

[dblack]

I just don't get the inconsistency. Your excuse for not trying to get rid of corporate welfare is that government is corrupt. Yet you conveniently ignore that excuse when it comes to "doing something to help the poor". What gives? Honestly, it sounds like the corruption angle is just an excuse. It sounds like you're fine with corporate welfare, as long as the poor get theirs as well. Which seems to leave out the people in the middle.

You’re not comprehending. Is this on purpose?

If you really think the politicians and government will get rid of corporate welfare, I have a freeway bridge I’ll sell you cheap.

If you really think the politicians and government will do something that actually helps the poor, I have a freeway bridge I'll sell you cheap.

Your selective faith in government is a curiosity.

I have little faith in government. Unlike you, I think the chances of government doing the right thing, is very slim.

But why do you trust in one case, but not the other?

I trust in neither case. You aren’t comprehending.

I'm comprehending that your views are irrational and inconsistent. What am I'm missing?

 

[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.

Because business colluding with government is not capitalism. It's an attack on capitalism, an attack on free markets.

LOL. You must live in an unreal reality.

What do you mean? Anything about my statement you find inaccurate?

Actually I agree with your post, but it’s funny. Because it is devoid of reality. We have a crony capitalist economy. Accept it.

 

[g5000]

So, what is your take on subsides to farmers and to the bailouts they have gotten over the last couple years from the conservatives in power right now?

Not to mention the $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures every year, of which Republicans are mostly responsible.

 

[dblack]

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.

Because business colluding with government is not capitalism. It's an attack on capitalism, an attack on free markets.

LOL. You must live in an unreal reality.

What do you mean? Anything about my statement you find inaccurate?

Actually I agree with your post, but it’s funny. Because it is devoid of reality. We have a crony capitalist economy. Accept it.

I'll pass.

But that still doesn't explain why you trust them in one case, but not the other? Your position doesn't sound pragmatic, it sounds arbitrary.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is definitely not a 'free market', it is a market rigged through the enormous power of unthinkable amounts of money manipulating the few governing agencies. We have a representative government, and it is blindingly evident whom the government represents.

 

[dblack]

It is definitely not a 'free market', it is a market rigged through the enormous power of unthinkable amounts of money manipulating the few governing agencies.

So let's fix that. If liberals proposed a frontal assault on eliminating collusion between financial interests and government, on getting rid of corporate welfare, instead of accepting it, they'd find many eager allies among conservatives and libertarians.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is definitely not a 'free market', it is a market rigged through the enormous power of unthinkable amounts of money manipulating the few governing agencies.

So let's fix that. If liberals proposed a frontal assault on eliminating collusion between financial interests and government, on getting rid of corporate welfare, instead of accepting it, they'd find many eager allies among conservatives and libertarians.

Any true conservative would be first in line to curb this corrupt and corrupting collusion. It has nothing to do with 'liberals' or being 'liberal' to see that the vast sums wielded by corporations subvert democracy.

 

[dblack]

It is definitely not a 'free market', it is a market rigged through the enormous power of unthinkable amounts of money manipulating the few governing agencies.

So let's fix that. If liberals proposed a frontal assault on eliminating collusion between financial interests and government, on getting rid of corporate welfare, instead of accepting it, they'd find many eager allies among conservatives and libertarians.

Any true conservative would be first in line to curb this corrupt and corrupting collusion. It has nothing to do with 'liberals' or being 'liberal' to see that the vast sums wielded by corporations subvert democracy.

Umkay - you seem to be steering around my point. Do you agree that our first priority should be to curb the collusion between wealthy interests and government? It's hard to put much faith in government until we tackle that, right?

 

[there4eyeM]

It is definitely not a 'free market', it is a market rigged through the enormous power of unthinkable amounts of money manipulating the few governing agencies.

So let's fix that. If liberals proposed a frontal assault on eliminating collusion between financial interests and government, on getting rid of corporate welfare, instead of accepting it, they'd find many eager allies among conservatives and libertarians.

Any true conservative would be first in line to curb this corrupt and corrupting collusion. It has nothing to do with 'liberals' or being 'liberal' to see that the vast sums wielded by corporations subvert democracy.

Umkay - you seem to be steering around my point. Do you agree that our first priority should be to curb the collusion between wealthy interests and government? It's hard to put much faith in government until we tackle that, right?

The first priority is to put humans first and money well after. We can have faith in any system that does not worship power and lucre. We can have faith in any government that represents the people. We cannot have faith in the present system that is totally corrupted to its very "soul" by avarice.