Socialism is evil

[logical4u]

How many are getting "government assistance" that "can" work, but don't because they can get money without working?

Why should I share the "sweat of my brow" with another's charity cases and not my own charities? Why should the govenrment get to decide who is a charity case and not the local community? The government handouts will always have a huge amount of fraud and waste. Why not make it more efficient by letting local people decide who "needs", what?

Because that will create a pandemonium of local conflicts. It simply is not a practical idea.

Charity is an essential component of civilization and, unless you are exceptionally well off, for you to assume you will never need it is presumptuous. As for the rate of freeloaders, there always is the ten percent. They come with the turf. But the vast majority of charity recipients are legitimately needy and deserving.

Be thankful you're not among them.

I have been very blessed. I have needed help and asked for it. In some cases, I received help. I do not have a problem with that.

The federal government is a very expensive middle man. If you compared it to efficient charities where 70% or more goes for the charity and less than 30% goes for administrative costs, IMHO those numbers would be reversed. The gov would take 70% of every dollar for admin costs and give less than 30% for those in need. It is a bad idea to use the gov to decide who needs what (friends and relatives of the politician, their aids and their families and friends will come first). That need can be justified or nullified by a person that has no contact with the recipient or their situation. It destroys resources. In the long run, it is similar to civilizations destroying massive amounts of wealth to "pay tribute" to the dead. It is simply a "waste".

 

[Sallow]

How many are getting "government assistance" that "can" work, but don't because they can get money without working?



Why should I share the "sweat of my brow" with another's charity cases and not my own charities?



Why should the govenrment get to decide who is a charity case and not the local community?




The government handouts will always have a huge amount of fraud and waste. Why not make it more efficient by letting local people decide who "needs", what?

Const.,Art.1,Sec.8, Gen Welf.

..........................

That would be "specific welfare", not "general welfare" to give individuals money/charity. That is not in the Constitution. That was not the intent. The founding fathers would have NEVER let "settlers" go into the wilderness if they were responsible for the "individual welfare". General welfare means the country is protected and the laws are applied equally. Keep stretching, and make sure that you "support" all your extended family so the government doesn't need to do it.

Who are you to speak of "intent"?

There were major parts of the Constitution specifically left very broad for this reason. It would have been a much larger and complex document had "specifics" been carefully enumerated.

 

[eman1355]

I couldn't agree more. Socialism has been the downfall of everyone who has tried it. If socialism is so wonderful why did the economy of the Soviet Union collaps under its weight? Why is France having unenployment rates over 10%? When people are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor their dignity is stolen.

 

[Sallow]

I couldn't agree more. Socialism has been the downfall of everyone who has tried it. If socialism is so wonderful why did the economy of the Soviet Union collaps under its weight? Why is France having unenployment rates over 10%? When people are not allowed to keep the fruits of their labor their dignity is stolen.

First you start off with a very broad statement about a commie regime and then start with a very broad statement about taxes.

Commies don't pay taxes. Taxes are what you pay to live in a civil society. Don't like it?

Start your own damned country..

Here's a start.

Islands for Sale, Private Islands, Luxury Real Estate

 

[logical4u]

Socialism is evil
Socialism is evil

The author begs the main question, that is, he assumes that Locke's view of property has moral efficacy, but he never explains or defends it, nor does he explain Marx's objection to Locke. He says nothing substantive or conceptual about property; he merely states a simplistic truism: it's immoral to take from one and give to another -- and then he uses that truism to smear his crude strawman version of [communism? welfare capitalism?].

That's actually The Brilliance of Dr. Williams, I heard him say himself "he as a simple view of the world". People tend to make things more complicated than they have to be.

Communism doesn't want to take property from one and give to another, it wants to abolish it altogether. It doesn't see the protection of property as the protection of freedom, quite the opposite. It sees property as an exploitative lever, which gives one class the power to extract surplus from a perpetual underclass -- who are born with less access to [things like] education and health care (making it impossible for them to compete with the property "owners"). Eventually the property owners buy the state and media, and they craft laws and opinion which protect and normalize their advantage. I'm not saying this view of property is "true"; I'm saying that the author merely assumes Locke has the final word. Hopefully, the poster recognizes the limits of his sources.

Humm.... "the limits of my sources"?

Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.

Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.

Dr. Williams is the author of over 150 publications which have appeared in scholarly journals such as Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review, Georgia Law Review, Journal of Labor Economics, Social Science Quarterly, and Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy and popular publications such as Newsweek, Ideas on Liberty, National Review, Reader's Digest, Cato Journal, and Policy Review. He has authored six books: America: A Minority Viewpoint, The State Against Blacks, which was later made into the PBS documentary "Good Intentions," All It Takes Is Guts, South Africa's War Against Capitalism, which was later revised for South African publication, Do the Right Thing: The People's Economist Speaks, and More Liberty Means Less Government.


Biography

That is not the "politically correct" intellect.

 

[MikeK]

What most of you are confused about is the name of what you so hate.

What you guys hate is a WELFARE STATE.

One can have a welfare state in a land that practices capitalism.

Like for example, the United States.

But do carry on making yourselves look like ignoramouses if it amuses you.

Please be more specific in describing just what a "welfare state" is and exactly what it does to qualify for that designation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We don't have enough real jobs for those who need an income so we have invented positions to put people in. Job welfare. Half of them could be laid of and we would see no decrease in production. Technology had taken over as predicted. Some people can and never will be able to compete in the market place. What are we going to do with them ?
I think socialism thinks they have the answer. It just doesn't take human nature into consideration.

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

Presently - 15% (added by me)

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

If the tax rate put in place by FDR's New Deal were left in place the government would have more than enough money to finance overhaul of the Nation's infrastructure and energy grid, projects which would create more jobs than we have people to fill. Instead, what we have is a growing number of multi-billionaires and an unmanageable national debt -- not to mention two major military boondoggles created by an appointed Republican president and functioning to enrich beneficiaries of the Military Industrial Complex.

The bottom line is this Nation produces more than enough wealth resources to adequately employ all of its capable workers. The problem is the system has been hijacked and manipulated to serve the interests of an emerging plutocracy.

That's the mantra of the tax and spenders. The premise is that wealth is for government to confiscate to satisfy the insatiable desire to spend.
Here's the rub. In a perfect world where legislation was free of human foible, tax dollars would be spent efficiently and logically. That is where those find their base for increasing taxes to pre-1960 levels. Now in the real world politicians first priority is to remain politicians. They do what they must to keep their elected office. So they either propose legislation that will benefit their constituents or will only sign on to/ vote for bills that benefit their district. Too often we find major portions of spending bills littered with political favors provided by the sponsors....For example, a house member in West Virginia has a roadway in his district that needs a couple of new interchanges without which a new industrial park cannot be built. A fellow Member is trying to push through a bill that is geared to improve water quality standards. The Member that wants his highway interchanges is one of the last holdouts on the water bill. The sponsor of the Water bill tells the member from WV that he can put $20 million for his interchanges as long as he votes for the Bill. This is now $20 million more coming out of the taxpayers pockets. For what? So some people friendly to the WV Member can develop their property?
This is probably one of the biggest reasons why the majority of people cannot stand the way our federal government works. And this is why we despise the mere mention of a tax increase. This is also why we get fuming when the suggestion of increasing taxes on the wealthy will help fund government's irresponsibility. See above.