It's Official!! Liberal Democrats are Socialists!!

[ThomasPaine]

As Howard the Dean said this Sunday morning on Meet The Press. When asked by Tim Russert if he would support Bernie Sanders' run for Senate in Vermont, Dean replied he would. When Tim Russert countered that Sanders was a self avowed Socialist; Quote from Sanders "I will be running as an independent," Sanders said in a telephone interview. "But if you're asking my philosophy, yes, I am a Democratic socialist", Dean smiled and said "Bernie is a liberal Democrat". So there you have it.. Dean has confirmed what most knew all along. Liberal Democrats are Socialists...

 

[freeandfun1]

As Howard the Dean said this Sunday morning on Meet The Press. When asked by Tim Russert if he would support Bernie Sanders' run for Senate in Vermont, Dean replied he would. When Tim Russert countered that Sanders was a self avowed Socialist; Quote from Sanders "I will be running as an independent," Sanders said in a telephone interview. "But if you're asking my philosophy, yes, I am a Democratic socialist", Dean smiled and said "Bernie is a liberal Democrat". So there you have it.. Dean has confirmed what most knew all along. Liberal Democrats are Socialists...

It's nice to see that these socialists are finally emerging "out of the closet". I hope they are feeling better about themselves now! They can't help it, they were born that way....

 

[IControlThePast]

Nope, we can't . Honestly what's so bad about Democratic Socialism? It supports a very broadly capitalist system with only a few minor social elements to make the system more humanitarian, and even advocates that we should cut some taxes and cut some welfare programs.

Edit: Read through the entire thread before you post about this, because it is likely you have many misconceptions about Democratic Socialism like thinking it supports a Welfare State.

 

[Annie]

Nope, we can't . Honestly what's so bad about Democratic socialism? It supports a very broadly capitalist system with only a few minor social elements to make the system more humanitarian, and even advocates that we should cut some taxes and cut some welfare programs.

Honestly, because redistribution of wealth just does not work. I will be the first to agree with JPII that capitalism tends to be rough on many. It is. It also is the reason that nearly everyone from the working poor up work so hard here, they know they can do better or help their children do so.

I wouldn't want to be in Germany right now, well ever, but especially right now.

 

[IControlThePast]

Honestly, because redistribution of wealth just does not work. I will be the first to agree with JPII that capitalism tends to be rough on many. It is. It also is the reason that nearly everyone from the working poor up work so hard here, they know they can do better or help their children do so.

I wouldn't want to be in Germany right now, well ever, but especially right now.

Ah, but social democrats are against the welfare programs that allow people to be lazy. Like how Clinton eliminated welfare handouts, but supported using government money to provide transportation to work for people who would be otherwise unable to afford it, and who need that transportation to work. Sweden has a socialist system and manages to have a higher standard of living than the US.

An extreme distribution of wealth, such as the top 1% own 99% doesn't work out either, because it creates a whole host of social and stability problems. Where does that leave systems that create that kind of wealth distribution? The redistribution works out if it doesn't support programs that make people lazy, as Sweden can show.

 

[Annie]

Ah, but social democrats are against the welfare programs that allow people to be lazy. Like how Clinton eliminated welfare handouts, but supported using government money to provide transportation to work for people who would be otherwise unable to afford it, and who need that transportation to work. Sweden has a socialist system and manages to have a higher standard of living than the US.

An extreme distribution of wealth, such as the top 1% own 99% doesn't work out either, because it creates a whole host of social and stability problems. Where does that leave systems that create that kind of wealth distribution? The redistribution works out if it doesn't support programs that make people lazy, as Sweden can show.

Sweden is more of a 'everyone is at the same level' than here. It also has a relatively homogeneous population, which is by any definition, small. World leader, no!

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Sweden:
Background:
A military power during the 17th century, Sweden has not participated in any war in almost two centuries. An armed neutrality was preserved in both World Wars. Sweden's long-successful economic formula of a capitalist system interlarded with substantial welfare elements was challenged in the 1990s by high unemployment and in 2000-02 by the global economic downturn, but fiscal discipline over the past several years has allowed the country to weather economic vagaries. Indecision over the country's role in the political and economic integration of Europe delayed Sweden's entry into the EU until 1995, and waived the introduction of the euro in 1999.

Population:
9,001,774 (July 2005 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 17.1% (male 791,215/female 747,621)
15-64 years: 65.5% (male 2,990,436/female 2,904,873)
65 years and over: 17.4% (male 677,161/female 890,468) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 40.6 years
male: 39.49 years
female: 41.75 years (2005 est.)
Population growth rate:
0.17% (2005 est.)
Ethnic groups:
indigenous population: Swedes and Finnish and Sami minorities; foreign-born or first-generation immigrants: Finns, Yugoslavs, Danes, Norwegians, Greeks, Turks
Religions:
Lutheran 87%, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist
Languages:
Swedish, small Sami- and Finnish-speaking minorities
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99% (1979 est.)
male: NA%
female: NA%

Economy - overview:
Aided by peace and neutrality for the whole 20th century, Sweden has achieved an enviable standard of living under a mixed system of high-tech capitalism and extensive welfare benefits. It has a modern distribution system, excellent internal and external communications, and a skilled labor force. Timber, hydropower, and iron ore constitute the resource base of an economy heavily oriented toward foreign trade. Privately owned firms account for about 90% of industrial output, of which the engineering sector accounts for 50% of output and exports. Agriculture accounts for only 2% of GDP and 2% of the jobs. The government's commitment to fiscal discipline resulted in a substantial budgetary surplus in 2001, which was cut by more than half in 2002, due to the global economic slowdown, declining revenue, and increased spending. The Swedish central bank (the Riksbank) focuses on price stability with its inflation target of 2%. Growth remained sluggish in 2003, but picked up in 2004. Presumably because of generous sicktime benefits, Swedish workers report in sick more often than other Europeans. On 14 September 2003, Swedish voters turned down entry into the euro system, concerned about the impact on democracy and sovereignty.
GDP:
purchasing power parity - $255.4 billion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
3.6% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $28,400 (2004 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 2%
industry: 29%
services: 69% (2001)
Investment (gross fixed):
15.8% of GDP (2004 est.)
Population below poverty line:
NA
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 3.7%
highest 10%: 20.1% (1992)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
25 (1992)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
0.7% (2004 est.)
Labor force:
4.46 million (2004 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture 2%, industry 24%, services 74% (2000 est.)
Unemployment rate:
5.6% (2004 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $201.3 billion
expenditures: $199.6 billion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)
Public debt:
51.6% of GDP (2004 est.)

-------------------------------------------------------

US:

Background:
Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. The two most traumatic experiences in the nation's history were the Civil War (1861-65) and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Buoyed by victories in World Wars I and II and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US remains the world's most powerful nation state. The economy is marked by steady growth, low unemployment and inflation, and rapid advances in technology.


Population:
295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 20.6% (male 31,095,725/female 29,703,997)
15-64 years: 67% (male 98,914,382/female 99,324,126)
65 years and over: 12.4% (male 15,298,676/female 21,397,228) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 36.27 years
male: 34.94 years
female: 37.6 years (2005 est.)
Population growth rate:
0.92% (2005 est.)
Birth rate:
14.14 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Death rate:
8.25 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Net migration rate:
3.31 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.72 male(s)/female
total population: 0.97 male(s)/female (2005 est.)

Ethnic groups:
white 77.1%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1.5%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.3%, other 4% (2000)
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)
Religions:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)
Languages:
English, Spanish (spoken by a sizable minority)
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 97%
male: 97%
female: 97% (1999 est.)
Economy - overview:
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $40,100. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. The rise in GDP in 2004 was undergirded by substantial gains in labor productivity. The economy suffered from a sharp increase in energy prices in the second half of 2004. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
GDP:
purchasing power parity - $11.75 trillion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
4.4% (2004 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $40,100 (2004 est.)
GDP - composition by sector:
agriculture: 0.9%
industry: 19.7%
services: 79.4% (2004 est.)
Investment (gross fixed):
15.7% of GDP (2004 est.)
Population below poverty line:
12% (2004 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 1.8%
highest 10%: 30.5% (1997)
Distribution of family income - Gini index:
45 (2004)
Inflation rate (consumer prices):
2.5% (2004 est.)
Labor force:
147.4 million (includes unemployed) (2004 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:
farming, forestry, and fishing 0.7%, manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts 22.7%, managerial, professional, and technical 34.9%, sales and office 25.5%, other services 16.3%
note: figures exclude the unemployed (2004)
Unemployment rate:
5.5% (2004 est.)
Budget:
revenues: $1.862 trillion
expenditures: $2.338 trillion, including capital expenditures of NA (2004 est.)
Public debt:
65% of GDP (2004 est.)

 

[IControlThePast]

I happen to think the larger the economy, the less efficient socialism is. Some of the welfare concepts that work elsewhere will not work here. However, if we create programs that don't diminish motivation from wealth redistribution funding sources, which operate largely under a free market framework, we won't have a problem. I think that hard work is integral to success for many people, but monetary success is achieved through a combination of work and luck. If you create programs for people who work hard yet whose income falls in a certain low range (because of luck), then if all success needs is hard work, nobody will be on the programs and you can cut them out after several years .

What is more likely though is that these programs provide a security for people to go and create business ventures from their personal funding, and if they work hard and fail they need not fear starving to death. These programs would help increase upward mobility because people would have the means to take risks, and innovation and social mobility are key to a free market system. The programs would be a transitional phase, able to help people go from "if at first you don't succeed, you're screwed" to being able to "try, try again."

 

[gaffer]

Hitler was a socialist

Stalin was a socialist

Moa was a socialist

Mussolini was a socialist

Tito was a socialist

Pol Pot was a socialist

Ho Chi Minh was a socialist

Castro is a socialist

lil kim is a socialist

Capitalism is always looking for a profit, socialism is always lookingto control.

 

[IControlThePast]

Hitler was a socialist

Stalin was a socialist

Moa was a socialist

Mussolini was a socialist

Tito was a socialist

Pol Pot was a socialist

Ho Chi Minh was a socialist

Castro is a socialist

lil kim is a socialist

Capitalism is always looking for a profit, socialism is always lookingto control.

Hitler fascist

Stalin communist

Moa communist

Mussolini fascist

Tito communist

Pol Pot communist

Ho Chi Minh communist

Castri communist

Kim Jong-il communist

Communism is much different than Democratic Socialism. In Communism the state controls the means of power, and nothing is privately owned. Individuals control the means of power in Democratic Socialism.

 

[ThomasPaine]

is "if we create programs that don't diminish motivation from wealth redistribution funding sources". There's the rub isn't it. Socialism invites diminished motivation. Why take that somewhat low paying job that will probably lead to a potential career if the welfare state's entitlement "pays" better? Socialism is the growth killer. Both for the person and the nation. Your next statement "I think that hard work is integral to success for many people, but monetary success is achieved through a combination of work and luck" is just complete balderdash. The only people I've heard of getting "lucky" to achieve wealth are those that hit the lottery.. Hard work and perserverance are the cornerstones of success. Luck has nothing to do with it. It's the Socialists beliefs, coupled with their backing the losing side in the culture war coming out ot the 60's, that are killing the Democratic Party. If the Dem's wish to return to majority status, a condition I do not forsee in the near future, they had better moderate their Socialism and dump completely the hedonistic nihilism that dominates their cultural perspective.

 

[ThomasPaine]

Hitler fascist

Stalin communist

Moa communist

Mussolini fascist

Tito communist

Pol Pot communist

Ho Chi Minh communist

Castri communist

Kim Jong-il communist

Communism is much different than Democratic Socialism. In Communism the state controls the means of power, and nothing is privately owned. Individuals control the means of power in Democratic Socialism.

I say potahtoe. Communist Socialist.. one and the same. Democrat Socialist sounds like someone who would like to be elected then institute state control of the means of production. Then state control of the press, your mind, religion, reproduction. A workers paradise, my mind waxes dreamily of the potential bliss..

 

[IControlThePast]

is "if we create programs that don't diminish motivation from wealth redistribution funding sources". There's the rub isn't it. Socialism invites diminished motivation. Why take that somewhat low paying job that will probably lead to a potential career if the welfare state's entitlement "pays" better? Socialism is the growth killer. Both for the person and the nation. Your next statement "I think that hard work is integral to success for many people, but monetary success is achieved through a combination of work and luck" is just complete balderdash. The only people I've heard of getting "lucky" to achieve wealth are those that hit the lottery.. Hard work and perserverance are the cornerstones of success. Luck has nothing to do with it. It's the Socialists beliefs, coupled with their backing the losing side in the culture war coming out ot the 60's, that are killing the Democratic Party. If the Dem's wish to return to majority status, a condition I do not forsee in the near future, they had better moderate their Socialism and dump completely the hedonistic nihilism that dominates their cultural perspective.

Not always. There are programs that don't diminish motivation, like the transportation to work program I mentioned earlier. Socialists aren't for handouts: the transportation program requires the worker has a job in the first place. Look at other Third Way programs, because in recent years many socialists have moved away from the welfare state for large economies. If luck has nothing to do with success then nobody will qualify for the programs and we can dump them after four years . Luck does have to do with success. Some people hit the lottery because they're born to rich parents, or parents who will help them do well in school, or parents who can help them afford a good college. There are business breaks, stocks, good deals through connections, and a bunch of other ways luck figures in.

I say potahtoe. Communist Socialist.. one and the same. Democrat Socialist sounds like someone who would like to be elected then institute state control of the means of production. Then state control of the press, your mind, religion, reproduction. A workers paradise, my mind waxes dreamily of the potential bliss..

Ah, I see you've adopted Dan Quale spellings . The two systems are actually quite different. Orwell was a supporter of Social Democracy while being blantantly anti-Communist. Communism is very authoritarian, which is why many people object to it. The state controls of power are examples of that philosophy. Democratic Socialism or Social Democracy are bitter enemies of Communism, because they reject its authoritarian nature. Look into it a little more; not everything is as it sounds. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was neither Democratic or a Republic .

 

[Annie]

I happen to think the larger the economy, the less efficient socialism is. Some of the welfare concepts that work elsewhere will not work here.

and in all fairness, perhaps other systems will not reward hard work the way it is here.

However, if we create programs that don't diminish motivation from wealth redistribution funding sources, which operate largely under a free market framework, we won't have a problem. I think that hard work is integral to success for many people, but monetary success is achieved through a combination of work and luck.

I am tempted to agree with the 'luck' of whom one is born to, yet as a practical matter, that's true where ever. Maybe genes, but if one is unlucky enough to have a functional deficit, they'll probably never know. Some of our most successful individuals were probably not that high on the IQ charts, yet hard work and 'street smarts', 'cunning', if you will made them rich.

If you create programs for people who work hard yet whose income falls in a certain low range (because of luck),

You really do need to define 'luck.'

then if all success needs is hard work, nobody will be on the programs and you can cut them out after several years .

What is more likely though is that these programs provide a security for people to go and create business ventures from their personal funding, and if they work hard and fail they need not fear starving to death.

Where in the US is anyone 'starving to death?' If they hit the private or public troughs?

These programs would help increase upward mobility because people would have the means to take risks, and innovation and social mobility are key to a free market system. The programs would be a transitional phase, able to help people go from "if at first you don't succeed, you're screwed" to being able to "try, try again."

Sorry ICTP, if there is one lesson learned in the US, those with grit, some kind of smarts, and a plan do not need any help to take risks.

 

[ThomasPaine]

Ah, I see you've adopted Dan Quale spellings . The two systems are actually quite different. Orwell was a supporter of Social Democracy while being blantantly anti-Communist. Communism is very authoritarian, which is why many people object to it. The state controls of power are examples of that philosophy. Democratic Socialism or Social Democracy are bitter enemies of Communism, because they reject its authoritarian nature. Look into it a little more;

or the song "let's call the whole thing off"..Bit of an arrogant liberal aren't you? 'Member the nazi's were the National Socialist Party. Anywhoo Socialism and Communism are different only in the respect of whom's calling themselves what. The USSR was without doubt communist but the name was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics afterall. Socialism and communism what's in a name. Socialists are commies with patience. Both believe the state should control the means of production. Either directly, through state ownership, or indirectly, through state planning. Either belief can't hold a candle to good ole capitalism as far as efficiency or overall productivity. 'Sides the US will NEVER be a socialist nation. Just ain't in the old yankee blood ya see. But keep wishing and hoping and you might get "lucky" and live in a socialist nation one day. But of course you'd have to emigrate.

 

[IControlThePast]

and in all fairness, perhaps other systems will not reward hard work the way it is here. I am tempted to agree with the 'luck' of whom one is born to, yet as a practical matter, that's true where ever. Maybe genes, but if one is unlucky enough to have a functional deficit, they'll probably never know. Some of our most successful individuals were probably not that high on the IQ charts, yet hard work and 'street smarts', 'cunning', if you will made them rich. You really do need to define 'luck.' Where in the US is anyone 'starving to death?' If they hit the private or public troughs?

Sorry ICTP, if there is one lesson learned in the US, those with grit, some kind of smarts, and a plan do not need any help to take risks.

The luck part is true wherever you're born, but it is not proper to believe that all the people who qualified for the programs are there because it is their fault, and they will not advance, so we should let them go in a survival of the fittest manner. Luck is simply anything outside of a persons control which has made their situation worse. Who you are born to, how smart you naturally are, how much money your family has, how much people who are giving scholarships like your personality, how many connections you have, etc.

Sometimes, in all fairness, all you do need is hard work. But that is not true the majority of the time.

My parents literally starved going through college, unable to pay for food, but not to the point where they died. The malnutrition was severe enough to give my mom anemia.

I would be inclined to agree with you about the risks, and from normal observation I drew the same conclusions as you, but our social mobility statistics convinced me otherwise. Most people from less well off families are not taking risks.

 

[IControlThePast]

or the song "let's call the whole thing off"..Bit of an arrogant liberal aren't you? 'Member the nazi's were the National Socialist Party. Anywhoo Socialism and Communism are different only in the respect of whom's calling themselves what. The USSR was without doubt communist but the name was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics afterall. Socialism and communism what's in a name. Socialists are commies with patience. Both believe the state should control the means of production. Either directly, through state ownership, or indirectly, through state planning. Either belief can't hold a candle to good ole capitalism as far as efficiency or overall productivity. 'Sides the US will NEVER be a socialist nation. Just ain't in the old yankee blood ya see. But keep wishing and hoping and you might get "lucky" and live in a socialist nation one day. But of course you'd have to emigrate.

Relax man, it's a joke, I know where it came from :tng: :chillpill

And the Democratic Repulic of the Congo is not Democratic or a Republic. What's in a name? Not always the truth. Hitler was Socialist in name only. He blamed the Reichstag fire on the Socialists. He liquidated many socialists, basically declared war on their party, and allowed many capitalists to thrive. Look at the Night of the Long Knives where he purged his party of socialists.

Democratic Socialism is a branch of Socialism, as is Communism. They are two completely different branches though, Communism being extreme. Think of it as Communism is the extreme authoritarian version of Socialism, like Fascism is the extreme authoritarian version of the right-wing. Just because Communism is bad doesn't mean Socialism is too, and just because Fascism is bad doesn't mean the right-wing is too.

Democratic Socialists don't want a Socialist Nation or Welfare State. They want a Mixed Economy, which is what we have already, so we're already there . The disagreements vary on how much and where it should be mixed.

Now since you won't believe me, and try to tell me what I believe in, here are statements on what Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism is:

The terms "Democratic Socialism" and "Social Democracy" have often been used interchangeably, and, indeed, they could be considered synonymous. Social Democracy is more centrist and supports a broadly capitalist system, with just a few socialist elements intended to make it more equitable and humane...Social democrats [are] influenced by the Third Way. The "Third Way" of the US Senate centrists, following Bill Clinton's lead, emphasizes governmental fiscal conservatism, governmental action to cut and/or eliminate welfare and other social assistance programs, and a preference to allow free markets to determine outcomes when possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialism

 

[Annie]

The luck part is true wherever you're born, but it is not proper to believe that all the people who qualified for the programs are there because it is their fault, and they will not advance, so we should let them go in a survival of the fittest manner. Luck is simply anything outside of a persons control which has made their situation worse. Who you are born to, how smart you naturally are, how much money your family has, how much people who are giving scholarships like your personality, how many connections you have, etc.

and where are you seeing the 'walls' against this?

Sometimes, in all fairness, all you do need is hard work. But that is not true the majority of the time.

based on what? links or some input...

My parents literally starved going through college, unable to pay for food, but not to the point where they died. The malnutrition was severe enough to give my mom anemia.

and she did what?

I would be inclined to agree with you about the risks, and from normal observation I drew the same conclusions as you, but our social mobility statistics convinced me otherwise. Most people from less well off families are not taking risks.

Sure they are, they just don't know it. If they decide to sell coke instead of completing school, they are taking a risk. If they choose to apply for scholarship based on academics from their school, race, ethnicity, sex, they are taking risk.

 

[IControlThePast]

and where are you seeing the 'walls' against this? based on what? links or some input... and she did what?
Sure they are, they just don't know it. If they decide to sell coke instead of completing school, they are taking a risk. If they choose to apply for scholarship based on academics from their school, race, ethnicity, sex, they are taking risk.

There are quite a few here who think that only degenerates and lazy people are on welfare. They are walls against implementing social programs.

Based on upward mobility. http://economist.com/world/na/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3518560

She basically ate very little because she couldn't afford it, which created an iron deficiency and her anemica, but she turned out all right in the end. I don't think a person with only street smarts could have done that in her place. She is an exceptional person, and that is why she succeeded.

Most people aren't drug dealers. Applying for a scholarship is not a risk, you don't lose anything for not recieving it. Going to college without the scholarships and no accounted way to pay for some of it is a risk. Taking student loans and the like are a risk. Most people don't take the delayed gratification risk of just plain college either. You're my source on that one :tng:.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope, we can't . Honestly what's so bad about Democratic socialism? It supports a very broadly capitalist system with only a few minor social elements to make the system more humanitarian, and even advocates that we should cut some taxes and cut some welfare programs.

Because the system is evil. It cripples those who it claims to help, making them idle people and draining society of greater good those individuals could do with hard work and draining society of the greater good the hard working citizens could do if they weren't supporting those who are given no motivation of work.

It makes people ungrateful for gifts they are given. The services of the welfare state create a citizenship who believe they are entitled to benefits without working for them. And it makes those who are giving the benefits bitter because it is not a gift freely given and a gift not gratefully received, but received with demands for more.

It is evil because it unnecessarily allows government to intrude into individual lives and thus takes away their freedom. The more government is allowed to intrude in our lives, the less freedom we have.

 

[Shattered]

Because the system is evil. It cripples those who it claims to help, making them idle people and draining society of greater good those individuals could do with hard work and draining society of the greater good the hard working citizens could do if they weren't supporting those who are given no motivation of work.

It makes people ungrateful for gifts they are given. The services of the welfare state create a citizenship who believe they are entitled to benefits without working for them. And it makes those who are giving the benefits bitter because it is not a gift freely given and a gift not gratefully received, but received with demands for more.

It is evil because it unnecessarily allows government to intrude into individual lives and thus takes away their freedom. The more government is allowed to intrude in our lives, the less freedom we have.