Yes, You're A Communist

[koshergrl]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

Wrong. Socialism didn't create the middle class. Capitalism did. Capitalism created all the cars, houses, refrigerators, radios and TVs that define middle class life. Capitalism provided the jobs that allowed people to pay for these things.

Socialism did nothing to improve the material welfare of the average person. Nothing.

And not just in the us. In England the.middle class flourished and.prospered when the crown released its death grip on commerce and cut the.serfs loose, so.to.speak, to make their own fortunes should they endeavor.to.do.so.

 

[Moonglow]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

Wrong. Socialism didn't create the middle class. Capitalism did. Capitalism created all the cars, houses, refrigerators, radios and TVs that define middle class life. Capitalism provided the jobs that allowed people to pay for these things.

Socialism did nothing to improve the material welfare of the average person. Nothing.

And not just in the us. In England the.middle class flourished and.prospered when the crown released its death grip on commerce and cut the.serfs loose, so.to.speak, to make their own fortunes should they endeavor.to.do.so.

Feudalism ended in England before the Black Death of the 13th century, because of the cost of keeping the serfs feed, housed, clothed and medical cost, verses the idea of what they would spend on a freeman..The next step in making a middle class is the industrial revolution and the opening of new lands in the new world.....So how are we today living, going to do what those in the beginning of the industrial age did?

 

[koshergrl]

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

Er, no. When we functioned more purely as a capitalistic society, before welfare and unions and federally run schools and oppressive.land use policies, the.middle.class exploded, flourished, and expanded. It is only since the advent of commie social engineering programs and policies that it has diminished. It has nothing to do with capitalism, aside from the fact that it is now under attack by commies.

Not true, as what was seen in Britain around 1850, when liberal free trade philosophy was tried and the Corn Law was dropped which dropped tariffs on imports, making it a free trade nation, much like what has happened in the USA with free trade deals....Also Britain was losing manufacturing production to other nations, notably the US and Germany were out producing...Which is what is happening now, the US has other nations, China, which are outproducing and undercharging to take over markets....The American businessman takes the profits, in effect what has happened has undercut the middles class and stagnated white birth rates..same thing that happened in Britain...

All as a result of a massive increase in production/industrialization and removal of historic restrictions on and taxation of production.

 

[Moonglow]

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

Er, no. When we functioned more purely as a capitalistic society, before welfare and unions and federally run schools and oppressive.land use policies, the.middle.class exploded, flourished, and expanded. It is only since the advent of commie social engineering programs and policies that it has diminished. It has nothing to do with capitalism, aside from the fact that it is now under attack by commies.

Not true, as what was seen in Britain around 1850, when liberal free trade philosophy was tried and the Corn Law was dropped which dropped tariffs on imports, making it a free trade nation, much like what has happened in the USA with free trade deals....Also Britain was losing manufacturing production to other nations, notably the US and Germany were out producing...Which is what is happening now, the US has other nations, China, which are outproducing and undercharging to take over markets....The American businessman takes the profits, in effect what has happened has undercut the middles class and stagnated white birth rates..same thing that happened in Britain...

All as a result of a massive increase in production/industrialization and removal of historic restrictions on and taxation of production.

No there was taxation just like in the USA on produced goods...

 

[koshergrl]

Final Context Report

 

[koshergrl]

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

Er, no. When we functioned more purely as a capitalistic society, before welfare and unions and federally run schools and oppressive.land use policies, the.middle.class exploded, flourished, and expanded. It is only since the advent of commie social engineering programs and policies that it has diminished. It has nothing to do with capitalism, aside from the fact that it is now under attack by commies.

Not true, as what was seen in Britain around 1850, when liberal free trade philosophy was tried and the Corn Law was dropped which dropped tariffs on imports, making it a free trade nation, much like what has happened in the USA with free trade deals....Also Britain was losing manufacturing production to other nations, notably the US and Germany were out producing...Which is what is happening now, the US has other nations, China, which are outproducing and undercharging to take over markets....The American businessman takes the profits, in effect what has happened has undercut the middles class and stagnated white birth rates..same thing that happened in Britain...

All as a result of a massive increase in production/industrialization and removal of historic restrictions on and taxation of production.

No there was taxation just like in the USA on produced goods...

Yes but it was reduced.

JQPublic1 makes Conty, bripat, koshergrl, and the such relentlessly stupid look just so . . . relentlessly stupid.

Any butt who writes, "Social Security itself is cheating and stealing on a vast scale" simply loses any claim to expect respect in discussion.

No they don't. Lots of people.say that and are respected plenty. And you're an idiot, so your take on it counts for.nothing.

 

[JQPublic1]

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

Er, no. When we functioned more purely as a capitalistic society, before welfare and unions and federally run schools and oppressive.land use policies, the.middle.class exploded, flourished, and expanded. It is only since the advent of commie social engineering programs and policies that it has diminished. It has nothing to do with capitalism, aside from the fact that it is now under attack by commies.

If everything was so lovely before welfare, unions and federally run schools how did those things come to be? There must have been considerable discontent and public anger involved for such radical changes to be embraced by a large number of Americans. Do we really want to turn back the hands of time to the days of labor abuses by wealthy capitalists? Be careful about what you ask for, you just might get it.

Today, the middle class is losing ground due to the reasons explained above. Capitalism, the ideology, nay not directly be responsible for the declining middle class but Capitalists ARE directly responsible because they can find cheaper labor and management off shore, ironically, in Communist countries.

 

[JQPublic1]

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

The main reason is imported labor from third world countries that is willing to work for a fraction of what Americans are used to making.

Agreed ;and ,also because of offshoring where there is no EPA to prevent heavy industrial pollution or unions to demand living wages. Yes, capitalists have no conscience or scruples. They would rather manufacture their products in the communist countries you hate so much than to pay US taxes to help America. They would rather relocate to 3rd world countries where there are few if any restrictions on how much pollution their operations send into the air.

But wait…Didn't the GOP talking heads say that Bush's tax cuts for the rich were supposed to create jobs? Well, it did…they just happen to be offshore.

 

[Stephanie]

45 of them at the site. has any of them been achieved ? what do you think?

snip:
The Communist Takeover of America: 45 Declared Goals (Congressional Record, 1963)





[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.


all of it here:
Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record

 

[there4eyeM]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

Government control of resources is not evidence of humanity. It is unamerican to claim that it is. This is.not a communist country, but that is certainly a commie comment.

Resources? Human resources? What are you talking about?
The statement is about needs, not resources. The U.S. has ample resources for the needs of everyone.
The only possible way one could interpret the statement as 'commie' would also judge Jesus as such. Feed the starving and care for the poor predates Marx by many centuries.
Knee jerk accusations of 'commie' for the most innocent of remarks totally discredits the accuser.
These threads seem to exist only for participants to toss out their clichés in the most gratuitous, self satisfied ways.

The "resources" you refer to are may labor and time. The government doesn't own these. I do. Government doesn't have squat that it doesn't take from me first. Claiming what I produce is a U.S. "resource" is a commie comment.

Since that wasn't claimed, you show yourself paranoid and imagining boogie men.
More importantly, what are you doing about these needs so that collective/government programs are not necessary? Or, are you so calous that you don't care about your fellow humanity? "And crown thy good with brotherhood...". Remember that? America the beautiful is a 'commie' song?

 

[koshergrl]

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

I don't understand that because it isn't true. I'm funny that way.

Then ponder this:

At the current rate, it does seem like the middle class will continue to dissolve in America, while the wealthy continue to get richer. Incomes have stagnated, and America has become a service economy. This is partly because of outsourcing, but more importantly because of automation. Technological innovation has destroyed jobs faster than it has created them. While productivity has increased since the turn of the century, employment has stagnated. Our GDP has grown, but household incomes have remained the same.

A Capitalist Middle Class?

Er, no. When we functioned more purely as a capitalistic society, before welfare and unions and federally run schools and oppressive.land use policies, the.middle.class exploded, flourished, and expanded. It is only since the advent of commie social engineering programs and policies that it has diminished. It has nothing to do with capitalism, aside from the fact that it is now under attack by commies.

If everything was so lovely before welfare, unions and federally run schools how did those things come to be? There must have been considerable discontent and public anger involved for such radical changes to be embraced by a large number of Americans. Do we really want to turn back the hands of time to the days of labor abuses by wealthy capitalists? Be careful about what you ask for, you just might get it.

Today, the middle class is losing ground due to the reasons explained above. Capitalism, the ideology, nay not directly be responsible for the declining middle class but Capitalists ARE directly responsible because they can find cheaper labor and management off shore, ironically, in Communist countries.

Today the middle class.is.losing vround because communism.is.killing it.

 

[Stephanie]

 

[koshergrl]

Social programs are necessitated when social problems are not solved otherwise. Churches, mosques and synagogues are welcome to do what they should be doing. Charities invited to step in and take up the slack. Essential human needs must be met, especially in the richest country the world has ever known. If 'government' (collective action) has to do it, too bad, but so be it.
Those opposed to such humanity are, in essence, anti-American.

Government control of resources is not evidence of humanity. It is unamerican to claim that it is. This is.not a communist country, but that is certainly a commie comment.

Resources? Human resources? What are you talking about?
The statement is about needs, not resources. The U.S. has ample resources for the needs of everyone.
The only possible way one could interpret the statement as 'commie' would also judge Jesus as such. Feed the starving and care for the poor predates Marx by many centuries.
Knee jerk accusations of 'commie' for the most innocent of remarks totally discredits the accuser.
These threads seem to exist only for participants to toss out their clichés in the most gratuitous, self satisfied ways.

The "resources" you refer to are may labor and time. The government doesn't own these. I do. Government doesn't have squat that it doesn't take from me first. Claiming what I produce is a U.S. "resource" is a commie comment.

Since that wasn't claimed, you show yourself paranoid and imagining boogie men.
More importantly, what are you doing about these needs so that collective/government programs are not necessary? Or, are you so calous that you don't care about your fellow humanity? "And crown thy good with brotherhood...". Remember that? America the beautiful is a 'commie' song?

You just proved yourself an idiot, incapable of meaningful discussion.

Your post doesn't follow, logically. You got the premise wrong. huge logical fallacy, and gibberish besides.

 

[JQPublic1]

1. " Can you stop chattering long enough to consider how much WORSE off the poor would be today if welfare was eliminated during those years."

So....can I get one of those Magic 8-Balls that you use for the basis of your knowledge?

So you haven't considered how much worse off poor people would be today if welfare wasn't there to help them during the lean tmies that manifested under republican administrations? Your concession is accepted!

2. "I think starving to death is worse than any of the stigmas you associate with welfare! Considering the many socio-econoic upheavals."

Imagine how very different your posts would be if you had an actual education.
Let's take the wonderful job that Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did.....the guy who extended a recession, ended in a year and a half by Republican Harding, into a decade long debacle.

I think the choice of education is more relevant here. Yours apparently stems from an arcane outdated source, Mine is more objective and modern. You are obsessed with denigrating a president who was elected 4 times and b dong so you attack the Will of the People accordingly. You have to admit, some of those people who voted for Roosevelt were far smarter than you. why don't yo be reasonable and admit it.

Magical thinking. There is.of.course no way to verify that....we maintain that those programs you promote do nothing to alleviate hunger and in fact create the hungry welfare class....and creates dependence just to justify the constant resource leeching from the.middle class. In other words, communism.

You don't understand that there would be no middle class without socialism and that both conservative capitalism AND communism are anathemas to a middle class. There is no magic there, just call it empiricism.

Wrong. Socialism didn't create the middle class. Capitalism did. Capitalism created all the cars, houses, refrigerators, radios and TVs that define middle class life. Capitalism provided the jobs that allowed people to pay for these things.

Socialism did nothing to improve the material welfare of the average person. Nothing.

Where did I say socialism created the middle class? I do think the socialist concept of collective bargaining played a huge part in getting capitalist to pay living wages. without THAT there would be no middle class, even amidst flourishing capitalism. Unions, according the RW rhetoric are based on socialist principle. But the reality of unions and their track records clearly dispels your notion that socialism has done nothing to to improve the material welfare of the average person.

 

[Searcher44]

Up here in Canada we're not so afraid of words. For instance, if we had a chance to vote for a guy like Bernie Sanders, with his record of commitment to fellow human beings, his non-wavering belief in equality for all, and his demand that politicians should work for the votes of citizens and not sell themselves to the highest bidder, well he could call his party the communist nazi kooks of canada and we'd line up to vote for him for days anyhow. But you go kid, you've got a lot of mileage out of "Communist". I'm sure there's a few more kilometers on that old nag yet.

 

[koshergrl]

Up here in Canada we're not so afraid of words. For instance, if we had a chance to vote for a guy like Bernie Sanders, with his record of commitment to fellow human beings, his non-wavering belief in equality for all, and his demand that politicians should work for the votes of citizens and not sell themselves to the highest bidder, well he could call his party the communist nazi kooks of canada and we'd line up to vote for him for days anyhow. But you go kid, you've got a lot of mileage out of "Communist". I'm sure there's a few more kilometers on that old nag yet.

yes canada is full of communists. tell us something we don't know, and who cares..

 

[Searcher44]

Up here in Canada we're not so afraid of words. For instance, if we had a chance to vote for a guy like Bernie Sanders, with his record of commitment to fellow human beings, his non-wavering belief in equality for all, and his demand that politicians should work for the votes of citizens and not sell themselves to the highest bidder, well he could call his party the communist nazi kooks of canada and we'd line up to vote for him for days anyhow. But you go kid, you've got a lot of mileage out of "Communist". I'm sure there's a few more kilometers on that old nag yet.

yes canada is full of communists. tell us something we don't know, and who cares..

I'm over sixty, I don't have time to tell you a teeny tiny bit of what you don't know.

 

[there4eyeM]

Up here in Canada we're not so afraid of words. For instance, if we had a chance to vote for a guy like Bernie Sanders, with his record of commitment to fellow human beings, his non-wavering belief in equality for all, and his demand that politicians should work for the votes of citizens and not sell themselves to the highest bidder, well he could call his party the communist nazi kooks of canada and we'd line up to vote for him for days anyhow. But you go kid, you've got a lot of mileage out of "Communist". I'm sure there's a few more kilometers on that old nag yet.

yes canada is full of communists. tell us something we don't know, and who cares..

Yes, that is doubtless why we have to build a northern wall as well, to keep out all those suffering Canadians streaming south to avoid their government. Every Canadian dreams of getting into the U.S. and the capitalist paradise.

 

[koshergrl]

Up here in Canada we're not so afraid of words. For instance, if we had a chance to vote for a guy like Bernie Sanders, with his record of commitment to fellow human beings, his non-wavering belief in equality for all, and his demand that politicians should work for the votes of citizens and not sell themselves to the highest bidder, well he could call his party the communist nazi kooks of canada and we'd line up to vote for him for days anyhow. But you go kid, you've got a lot of mileage out of "Communist". I'm sure there's a few more kilometers on that old nag yet.

yes canada is full of communists. tell us something we don't know, and who cares..

I'm over sixty, I don't have time to tell you a teeny tiny bit of what you don't know.

I'm over.fifty, and know a statist know-nothing when I see one.

 

[koshergrl]

One.of the saddest things about communism is that the nature of the brainwashing leads to the complete.eradication of age.related wisdom in the population.