Communism v Socialism

[antagon]

frank, you contend that american policy for the last hundred years is anti-american. could that make you and your anti-progress colleagues anti-american? the founding priciples of this country gave deference to the right and obligation for elected officials to shape our policy. not only do you criticize that in your appraisal of the last century of american politics, but you are dead wrong with respect to the proceeds of american policy inasmuch time.

could your examination of reaganomics avail you to the fact that the public finance shift away from the discipline of tax burden, to the spend-thrift borrowing mechanics of virtually every administration following his, is the reason why we have a public finance crisis looming in the future? have you considered that reagan oversaw the biggest swelling of welfare rolls in the history of the program? i argue that that is the direct result of regressing government's investment in industry and infrastructure, leaving welfare or abject poverty as the two alternatives for those who were displaced. i further argue that we are modern americans and dont tolerate americans in abject poverty, unlike you and those who revel in the 19th century way. overall, the aggregate result of a high average income, even if subsidized by the government, results in greater creation of wealth than did exist in the 19th century and before. welcome to the 21st century. many many nations operate as you propose, and they are the least stable countries with the poorest constituents.

the application of income tax, rather than our archaic tariff and debt system, which was catastrophically failing the country's public finances at the turn of the 20th century was the single most sensible public finance move in our history. while you think that states have the wherewithal to defend or promote the wealth of the US, i feel that the direct opposite is the case. instead, our wealth is based on the reality that our coast to coast cooperation has positioned the US as a superpower which anything remotely confederate would preclude. states dont impress me, but i am impressed by the US.

in 1900, the US and mexico were neck and neck, geopolitically. the decisive evolution of our public finances and our willingness to invest the proceeds in the infrastructure of the country, including our social infrastructure, constitute the government's contribution to the fact of the matter today - where mexico pales in comparison to our international influence and domestic wealth, despite sharing much of the same economic factors which we posses.

i could see a case for conservatism, however, those who qualify conservatism as a digression to the 19th century when our odds of survival as a nation were up in the air are just out of touch with history and the way the country and the world works today.

 

[Barb]

Government doesn't provide Capital - it seizes income and wealth from some taxpayers in order to pay off other taxpayers.

this is the extent of your understanding of how government works in an economy?

It is.

 

[topspin]

a lot of anti big gov clowns on this board work for the government.

 

[Barb]

They're the same thing. Communists around the world also call themselves Socialists. So it's easy to understand why so many get confused about the two terms. Socialism is Communism and Communism is Socialism. Some just like to shy away from the term Communism and instead use the term Socialism. They are the same thing in the end though.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know what you're talking about. Socialism is an economic theory. Communism is a form of government.

Finally!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

frank, you contend that american policy for the last hundred years is anti-american. could that make you and your anti-progress colleagues anti-american? the founding priciples of this country gave deference to the right and obligation for elected officials to shape our policy. not only do you criticize that in your appraisal of the last century of american politics, but you are dead wrong with respect to the proceeds of american policy inasmuch time.

could your examination of reaganomics avail you to the fact that the public finance shift away from the discipline of tax burden, to the spend-thrift borrowing mechanics of virtually every administration following his, is the reason why we have a public finance crisis looming in the future? have you considered that reagan oversaw the biggest swelling of welfare rolls in the history of the program? i argue that that is the direct result of regressing government's investment in industry and infrastructure, leaving welfare or abject poverty as the two alternatives for those who were displaced. i further argue that we are modern americans and dont tolerate americans in abject poverty, unlike you and those who revel in the 19th century way. overall, the aggregate result of a high average income, even if subsidized by the government, results in greater creation of wealth than did exist in the 19th century and before. welcome to the 21st century. many many nations operate as you propose, and they are the least stable countries with the poorest constituents.

the application of income tax, rather than our archaic tariff and debt system, which was catastrophically failing the country's public finances at the turn of the 20th century was the single most sensible public finance move in our history. while you think that states have the wherewithal to defend or promote the wealth of the US, i feel that the direct opposite is the case. instead, our wealth is based on the reality that our coast to coast cooperation has positioned the US as a superpower which anything remotely confederate would preclude. states dont impress me, but i am impressed by the US.

in 1900, the US and mexico were neck and neck, geopolitically. the decisive evolution of our public finances and our willingness to invest the proceeds in the infrastructure of the country, including our social infrastructure, constitute the government's contribution to the fact of the matter today - where mexico pales in comparison to our international influence and domestic wealth, despite sharing much of the same economic factors which we posses.

i could see a case for conservatism, however, those who qualify conservatism as a digression to the 19th century when our odds of survival as a nation were up in the air are just out of touch with history and the way the country and the world works today.

Not surprisingly, like other Progressives you intentionally distort and pervert the role of the federal government in American society. The Founders did not...ah you know what fuck it...it's pointless, its useless. Progressives will merrily keep trying to march us to their Fascist Marxist Utopia and we're starting to fight back.

You have made fundamental changes to America and we have a $1.5 Trillion deficit, whole states as de facto bankrupts and a federal government running car companies, banks and our health care system to show for it.

I hope you're proud of your accomplishments.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fascist Marxist Utopia?

 

[antagon]

a couple jabs with non-sequiturs is all the frank can put forward. that's all good by me, just don't perpetrate that you know what you are talking about or are in a position to dictate what is american or not. you shouldn't even bother conjecting your opinions of the founder's feelings of the role of government. they dont line up with the history of the country from washington's first state of the union address to our most recent. its a real joke considering you harken back to the 19th century with your nostalgia, as if the public largess wasn't its most corrupted in that age.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

a couple jabs with non-sequiturs is all the frank can put forward. that's all good by me, just don't perpetrate that you know what you are talking about or are in a position to dictate what is american or not. you shouldn't even bother conjecting your opinions of the founder's feelings of the role of government. they dont line up with the history of the country from washington's first state of the union address to our most recent. its a real joke considering you harken back to the 19th century with your nostalgia, as if the public largess wasn't its most corrupted in that age.

A $1.5 TRILLION Annual deficit is a "non-sequitur"?

it must be great to be a Progressive and have absolutely no respect whatsoever for how people work and earn a living

Are we supposed to ignore the effect of Progressivism, that as a direct result of the Federal government taking more and more control, we have bankrupt states and federal programs?

Are those "non-sequiturs"?

 

[antagon]

yeah, non-sequitur perhaps merely through ignorance. logic more directly relates our $1.5T deficit spending to the current economic climate combining government tax revenue declines with stimulus expenditure. there hasn't been a massive great society initiative to blame, sorry.

 

[georgephillip]

It has recently been claimed that if US corporations paid taxes at the same rate as Warren Buffett (17.7%), our $1.5T deficit would vanish.

Even if that's accurate, $1.5T pales in comparison to the amount Harry Dent claims as the total US debt burden of $102T. In his May 11, 2010 video Harry makes the argument that of all categories of debt, including individual, small business, all levels of government, manufacturing, industry...the largest single component of our debt overhead belongs to Finance.

$17T from those most responsible for our current Great Recession stemming directly from scandals like the AIG bailout.

Until the titans of our FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) confront the same level of justice as crack cocaine dealers, American liberty may be the last non-sequitur this country produces.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

yeah, non-sequitur perhaps merely through ignorance. logic more directly relates our $1.5T deficit spending to the current economic climate combining government tax revenue declines with stimulus expenditure. there hasn't been a massive great society initiative to blame, sorry.

The combined weight of the New Deal, Great Society and now Obamanomics has finally swamped the US economy.

I hope you're proud

 

[hipeter924]

yeah, non-sequitur perhaps merely through ignorance. logic more directly relates our $1.5T deficit spending to the current economic climate combining government tax revenue declines with stimulus expenditure. there hasn't been a massive great society initiative to blame, sorry.

The combined weight of the New Deal, Great Society and now Obamanomics has finally swamped the US economy.

I hope you're proud

Yep, he still believes that Obama will 'save America', apparently he has never seen how France is and how it treats its illegals. Mexicans are treated far better than France's African illegals which it puts in ghettos with conditions like in Nazi Germany's Jewish ghettos (they had massive riots across France a few years back too). But of course the left doesn't want you to hear that, France and the mess called Europe is the perfect place for America to become.

Though being a sane individual, last I checked America was founded to be different and better than Europe and not return to being it, its clear that Democrats hate the founders of America more than ever before by voting in Obama.

 

[georgephillip]

yeah, non-sequitur perhaps merely through ignorance. logic more directly relates our $1.5T deficit spending to the current economic climate combining government tax revenue declines with stimulus expenditure. there hasn't been a massive great society initiative to blame, sorry.

The combined weight of the New Deal, Great Society and now Obamanomics has finally swamped the US economy.

I hope you're proud

Frank:

Why do you think the gap between the richest 1% of Americans and all the rest continues to widen regardless of which party controls the White House or Congress?

 

[hipeter924]

yeah, non-sequitur perhaps merely through ignorance. logic more directly relates our $1.5T deficit spending to the current economic climate combining government tax revenue declines with stimulus expenditure. there hasn't been a massive great society initiative to blame, sorry.

The combined weight of the New Deal, Great Society and now Obamanomics has finally swamped the US economy.

I hope you're proud

Frank:

Why do you think the gap between the richest 1% of Americans and all the rest continues to widen regardless of which party controls the White House or Congress?

You are one of those inequality = failure people.

Total income equality would mean poverty for everyone, rather than extreme wealth for a few, reasonable wealth for many, and poverty for a few.

Capitalism is a system that allows failure and success upon individual initiative, and has a wealthy elite that can step in to help people and the country based on compassion rather than altruism. Big corporations and wealthy individuals donate money to charity, build infrastructure (especially railways in the case of the US) and create jobs by expanding their companies. If we didn't tax businesses, kept personal taxes very low and worked hard (through non-government organizations) to ensure everyone was well educated and employed in something, then poverty and unemployment would be a thing of the past.

Socialism is a system that desires total equality and forces the smart kids to shut down their brains so they are the same level as the stupid ones. Then it forces the rich to give their money to the govt to support people too lazy to work (only a tiny minority are disabled beyond the ability to work) rather than spend it on expanding their companies, giving money to their employees and creating economic growth.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Some modern Capitalist nations seem to be ashamed of their wealth and are now actually in favor of being called Socialist. That seems to be the fad at this point. It's all about guilt for many of these rich Capitalist nations. It is kind of ironic huh? The current fad is to not call yourself Capitalist. All countries are Capitalist though. The Socialism/Communism fad will fade eventually. Those systems just don't work in the end. That's my take anyway.

You are, once again, wrong... Not that I am surprised. It has nothing to do with fads. These wealthy countries have common sense social safety nets - and almost all of their citizenry agree to it- because it is important to them to have a stable society where everyone has opportunity to thrive - and almost all do. Ask any person, in the nordic states especially, and they will tell you this. They make a commitment to ALL in their society in order to better every aspect of their country - including their amassing of wealth. And hell, they are outperforming us in growth...

The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology: Scientific American

 

[code1211]

There are also Conservative Nanny State entitlements in play here.

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

It seems to me government's response to the recent Wall Street implosion proves conclusively how little faith conservatives and liberals have in market outcomes.

Is it possible American Capitalism is at a stage where there will never be enough private jobs to prevent stubborn unemployment and shrinking economic growth?

American regulated free market capitalism is based on the idea that the pie is always growing. This can only occur when the risk takers and the investors do what they do.

As long as government tells them that the return on their effort will be little or nothing, their efforts will not be expended. The pie will not grow and the dream of the marxists will come true. A pie of stable size that must be divided into smaller and smaller pieces.

No wealth creation and no increased opportunity for those who just work hard and follow the rules. Growing the economy is a dangerous task and can cost a person his entire fortune so most of us are fairly reserved when rolling the dice in that game.

It takes a special person to do this and our current government is trying mightily to scare them out of the game.

If it's true one of the original talking points on behalf of the Industrial Revolution was that the machine would free humanity from the wage-slavery of daily toil, that day has come and gone for millions of blue-collar US workers.

If the price of post-industrial America includes making subsistence a human right and that entails a corresponding decline in the number of billionaires and millionaires, do you think that's a price most Americans are ready to pay?

What are the alternatives in the absence of millions of middle-class manufacturing jobs already given to India and China?

I'll take stupid questions for 20, Alex.

I grew up in Duluth, MN. At that time the entire economic base was steel and lumber and shipping. Well, Minnesota sued Reserve Mining and forced it to leave. The trees were clear cut and now the Lumber industry is a paper industry. Shipping is still occurring. The government couldn't drain the Lake or they would have in order to stop that, too.

The good people of Duluth retrenched and made tourism and health care the bases of the economy to go along with shipping. It can be done. It just takes creativity.

If you had arrived here in 1607 and looked around and discovered that there were no infrastructure items and no hope of finding any, what would your reaction have been? The movers and the shakers saw a vacuum of achievement and a wealth of opportunity.

The rest of us are just drawn along in the wake of the leaders.

If you don't know how to do something, do you believe that it cannot be done?

The role of government in the USA is to clear the deck and then get the hell out of the way so the wealth creators can create wealth. I'm not one of those guys. I suspect that you are not, either.

Both of us are dependent on those that are. Marxists don't see the possibility. They see only the fact that some are richer than others. Marxists are out of step with history. In the 18th Century, it was a valid though limiting social construct. Today it's just stupid.

 

[georgephillip]

The combined weight of the New Deal, Great Society and now Obamanomics has finally swamped the US economy.

I hope you're proud

Frank:

Why do you think the gap between the richest 1% of Americans and all the rest continues to widen regardless of which party controls the White House or Congress?

You are one of those inequality = failure people.

Total income equality would mean poverty for everyone, rather than extreme wealth for a few, reasonable wealth for many, and poverty for a few.

Capitalism is a system that allows failure and success upon individual initiative, and has a wealthy elite that can step in to help people and the country based on compassion rather than altruism. Big corporations and wealthy individuals donate money to charity, build infrastructure (especially railways in the case of the US) and create jobs by expanding their companies. If we didn't tax businesses, kept personal taxes very low and worked hard (through non-government organizations) to ensure everyone was well educated and employed in something, then poverty and unemployment would be a thing of the past.

Socialism is a system that desires total equality and forces the smart kids to shut down their brains so they are the same level as the stupid ones. Then it forces the rich to give their money to the govt to support people too lazy to work (only a tiny minority are disabled beyond the ability to work) rather than spend it on expanding their companies, giving money to their employees and creating economic growth.

No. I am one of those inequality = corruption people.

Like the corruption displayed by Ehud Olmert and all those cash-stuffed envelopes he received from Morris Talansky. Or Bibi's posh hotel digs paid for by wealth individuals who naturally expected neither compassion nor altruism in return.

Uri Avnery: Olmert and the Jackals

Capitalism exists to exploit.
For nearly 300 years it has exploited labor and land unmercifully.
The payback is at hand.
And it will be a Bitch.

 

[georgephillip]

American regulated free market capitalism is based on the idea that the pie is always growing. This can only occur when the risk takers and the investors do what they do.

As long as government tells them that the return on their effort will be little or nothing, their efforts will not be expended. The pie will not grow and the dream of the marxists will come true. A pie of stable size that must be divided into smaller and smaller pieces.

No wealth creation and no increased opportunity for those who just work hard and follow the rules. Growing the economy is a dangerous task and can cost a person his entire fortune so most of us are fairly reserved when rolling the dice in that game.

It takes a special person to do this and our current government is trying mightily to scare them out of the game.

If it's true one of the original talking points on behalf of the Industrial Revolution was that the machine would free humanity from the wage-slavery of daily toil, that day has come and gone for millions of blue-collar US workers.

If the price of post-industrial America includes making subsistence a human right and that entails a corresponding decline in the number of billionaires and millionaires, do you think that's a price most Americans are ready to pay?

What are the alternatives in the absence of millions of middle-class manufacturing jobs already given to India and China?

I'll take stupid questions for 20, Alex.

I grew up in Duluth, MN. At that time the entire economic base was steel and lumber and shipping. Well, Minnesota sued Reserve Mining and forced it to leave. The trees were clear cut and now the Lumber industry is a paper industry. Shipping is still occurring. The government couldn't drain the Lake or they would have in order to stop that, too.

The good people of Duluth retrenched and made tourism and health care the bases of the economy to go along with shipping. It can be done. It just takes creativity.

If you had arrived here in 1607 and looked around and discovered that there were no infrastructure items and no hope of finding any, what would your reaction have been? The movers and the shakers saw a vacuum of achievement and a wealth of opportunity.

The rest of us are just drawn along in the wake of the leaders.

If you don't know how to do something, do you believe that it cannot be done?

The role of government in the USA is to clear the deck and then get the hell out of the way so the wealth creators can create wealth. I'm not one of those guys. I suspect that you are not, either.

Both of us are dependent on those that are. Marxists don't see the possibility. They see only the fact that some are richer than others. Marxists are out of step with history. In the 18th Century, it was a valid though limiting social construct. Today it's just stupid.

Marxists were among the first to see the possibilities inherent in an eight hour work day. Were they out of step with history and stupid?

How do current pollution levels in the lake the government couldn't drain compare to levels in 1607? Any evidence Reserve Mining may have contributed to any increase in toxins?

I suppose it would be really stupid to ask who pays most of the cost for cleaning up Reserve's toxic residue.

You make the claim that "(t)he role of government in the USA is to 'clear the deck' and then get the hell out of the way so wealth creators can create wealth."

How did "clearing the deck" impact Native Americans in Minnesota? Were the Lakota drawn along on the "wake of the leaders?"

Or were they drowned by it?

Was there ever any cotton shipped across that lake than came from the hands of chattel slaves?

I would say stupid takes a back seat the your conception of government's role in the USA.

For thousands of years all governments primary role has been to socialize the cost and privatize the profit for the benefit of a very select few.

No government has ever done it better than this one.

 

[antagon]

yeah, non-sequitur perhaps merely through ignorance. logic more directly relates our $1.5T deficit spending to the current economic climate combining government tax revenue declines with stimulus expenditure. there hasn't been a massive great society initiative to blame, sorry.

The combined weight of the New Deal, Great Society and now Obamanomics has finally swamped the US economy.

I hope you're proud

weren't you the clown who claimed progressive marxists utopians were the cats who over-play the role of government in the wider economy? maybe you could explain how a budget deficit, one component of public finance, constitutes a swamping of the economy, then... or is that another jab in a long line of non-sequitur hypocrisy?

 

[hipeter924]

Frank:

Why do you think the gap between the richest 1% of Americans and all the rest continues to widen regardless of which party controls the White House or Congress?

You are one of those inequality = failure people.

Total income equality would mean poverty for everyone, rather than extreme wealth for a few, reasonable wealth for many, and poverty for a few.

Capitalism is a system that allows failure and success upon individual initiative, and has a wealthy elite that can step in to help people and the country based on compassion rather than altruism. Big corporations and wealthy individuals donate money to charity, build infrastructure (especially railways in the case of the US) and create jobs by expanding their companies. If we didn't tax businesses, kept personal taxes very low and worked hard (through non-government organizations) to ensure everyone was well educated and employed in something, then poverty and unemployment would be a thing of the past.

Socialism is a system that desires total equality and forces the smart kids to shut down their brains so they are the same level as the stupid ones. Then it forces the rich to give their money to the govt to support people too lazy to work (only a tiny minority are disabled beyond the ability to work) rather than spend it on expanding their companies, giving money to their employees and creating economic growth.

No. I am one of those inequality = corruption people.

Like the corruption displayed by Ehud Olmert and all those cash-stuffed envelopes he received from Morris Talansky. Or Bibi's posh hotel digs paid for by wealth individuals who naturally expected neither compassion nor altruism in return.

Uri Avnery: Olmert and the Jackals

Capitalism exists to exploit.
For nearly 300 years it has exploited labor and land unmercifully.
The payback is at hand.
And it will be a Bitch.

Who controls the military and the police? Not you. Next.

In fact if anything is happening its corporatism, a corporate police state, a theocracy or a fascist state. Communism and Socialism are dead as ideologies of equality and are the central ideologies of exploitation and control (set up a government elite that own everything), wake up and see reality.

Even your precious Soviet Union had an elite that controlled all the wealth and power. Come back when you design a system that creates total equality, till then...sulk in a corner for you.