The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[Iceweasel]

Finally we are getting down to calling each other sweetheart and cupcake.

 

[SwimExpert]

[
Both are purely socialist programs, so how exactly do you think Capitalism could replace those Socialist programs?

dear socialism is when central govt owns and manages or controls major industries not when local taxpayers run their local police force.

A distinction without a difference, ^^^ another logical fallacy held as a truth.

Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism? If so, you're truly a fucking idiot. Socialism is fundamentally an economic system. Having a professional police force paid for by tax funding is a political decision.

Calling me a fucking idiot strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. So, I'll respond with what you deserve, fuck off asshole.

Telling me to "fuck off asshole" strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. At least, according to you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[
Both are purely socialist programs, so how exactly do you think Capitalism could replace those Socialist programs?

dear socialism is when central govt owns and manages or controls major industries not when local taxpayers run their local police force.

A distinction without a difference, ^^^ another logical fallacy held as a truth.

Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism? If so, you're truly a fucking idiot. Socialism is fundamentally an economic system. Having a professional police force paid for by tax funding is a political decision.

Calling me a fucking idiot strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. So, I'll respond with what you deserve, fuck off asshole.

Telling me to "fuck off asshole" strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. At least, according to you.

a country is not considered socialist because it has a public police force. A child would know this, just not a liberal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach,. The balance is the issue, and one which cannot be intelligently debated by those stuck in an ideological box.

Coming from you, that's a hoot. Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman.

Can you read without bias? I don't believe you can, stuck as you are in that little box of ideology, any criticism of that ideology usually results in a claim that the author who challenges that ideology is being illogical and many times includes a personal attack.

"The answer is a pragmatic approach" ! It is not a one or the other theory of governance, it is one which seeks the best solution to the issue at hand. Your bias seems to lead you into a dishonest effort to rebut my comments, that being the hyperbolic example [ "Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman"].

To deny that the Crazy Right Wing isn't opposed to government, and the Libertarian movement wants less regulation and less interference into the lives of our citizens and business is patently dishonest. It is a theme presented everyday on this message board.

I don't advocate an authoritarian government; I'd never consider an invasive medical procedure, medically unnecessary, for a pregnant women who sought and abortion legally authorized by the Supreme Court. Nor do I want a laissez faire government approach to industry whose work product produces pollution of our air,
water or soil.

Sometimes a government needs to exercise its authority and other times to take a hands off approach. Using Art. I, Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment to circumvent long established and necessary governance is insane; some believe allowing a problem to fester when a medial treatment will remedy the situation is insane - and some of those are the ideologues who always hide behind the wording of the Second Amendment..

 

[Kosh]

Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach,. The balance is the issue, and one which cannot be intelligently debated by those stuck in an ideological box.

Coming from you, that's a hoot. Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman.

Can you read without bias? I don't believe you can, stuck as you are in that little box of ideology, any criticism of that ideology usually results in a claim that the author who challenges that ideology is being illogical and many times includes a personal attack.

"The answer is a pragmatic approach" ! It is not a one or the other theory of governance, it is one which seeks the best solution to the issue at hand. Your bias seems to lead you into a dishonest effort to rebut my comments, that being the hyperbolic example [ "Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman"].

To deny that the Crazy Right Wing isn't opposed to government, and the Libertarian movement wants less regulation and less interference into the lives of our citizens and business is patently dishonest. It is a theme presented everyday on this message board.

I don't advocate an authoritarian government; I'd never consider an invasive medical procedure, medically unnecessary, for a pregnant women who sought and abortion legally authorized by the Supreme Court. Nor do I want a laissez faire government approach to industry whose work product produces pollution of our air,
water or soil.

Sometimes a government needs to exercise its authority and other times to take a hands off approach. Using Art. I, Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment to circumvent long established and necessary governance is insane; some believe allowing a problem to fester when a medial treatment will remedy the situation is insane - and some of those are the ideologues who always hide behind the wording of the Second Amendment..

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

To deny that the Crazy Right Wing isn't opposed to government, and the Libertarian movement wants less regulation and less interference into the lives of our citizens and business is patently dishonest.

1) if they are crazy we don't care (obviously) about what they think

2) all agree that libertarians want less rather than more regulation.

You have to be talked to like child. Do you grasp these complex points??

 

[danielpalos]

capitalism engenders capital morals for a price while socialism engenders social morals for free.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

capitalism engenders capital morals for a price while socialism engenders social morals for free.

dear, why not tell us what capital morals are???

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
Both are purely socialist programs, so how exactly do you think Capitalism could replace those Socialist programs?

dear socialism is when central govt owns and manages or controls major industries not when local taxpayers run their local police force.

A distinction without a difference, ^^^ another logical fallacy held as a truth.

Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism? If so, you're truly a fucking idiot. Socialism is fundamentally an economic system. Having a professional police force paid for by tax funding is a political decision.

Calling me a fucking idiot strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. So, I'll respond with what you deserve, fuck off asshole.

Telling me to "fuck off asshole" strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. At least, according to you.

Had you the ability to provide a reasoned approach, my response would have been different. Your post, accusing me of a logical fallacy, was in fact a Straw Man. You failed to rebut my post (my argument) and instead called me a "fucking Idiot". That you cannot understand your error is telling; I suggest you google logical fallacies and study them, before you try to use them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Finally we are getting down to calling each other sweetheart and cupcake.

Not all of us.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear socialism is when central govt owns and manages or controls major industries not when local taxpayers run their local police force.

A distinction without a difference, ^^^ another logical fallacy held as a truth.

Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism? If so, you're truly a fucking idiot. Socialism is fundamentally an economic system. Having a professional police force paid for by tax funding is a political decision.

Calling me a fucking idiot strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. So, I'll respond with what you deserve, fuck off asshole.

Telling me to "fuck off asshole" strongly suggests you are incapable of presenting a rational rebuttal. At least, according to you.

Had you the ability to provide a reasoned approach, my response would have been different. Your post, accusing me of a logical fallacy, was in fact a Straw Man. You failed to rebut my post (my argument) and instead called me a "fucking Idiot". That you cannot understand your error is telling; I suggest you google logical fallacies and study them, before you try to use them.

too 100% stupid of course!! Using govt to violently raise your wage while other non-union workers who earn less have to pay for it with higher prices is evil and liberal. Unions just shipped 40 million American jobs off-shore. Unions should be made illegal again to bring those 40 million jobs back and dramatically raise American wages.

 

[SwimExpert]

You failed to rebut my post (my argument) and instead called me a "fucking Idiot".

Actually, if you had been paying attention you'd see that I did refute your post, and called you a fucking idiot after.

 

[Iceweasel]

Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach,. The balance is the issue, and one which cannot be intelligently debated by those stuck in an ideological box.

Coming from you, that's a hoot. Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman.

Can you read without bias? I don't believe you can, stuck as you are in that little box of ideology, any criticism of that ideology usually results in a claim that the author who challenges that ideology is being illogical and many times includes a personal attack.

"The answer is a pragmatic approach" ! It is not a one or the other theory of governance, it is one which seeks the best solution to the issue at hand. Your bias seems to lead you into a dishonest effort to rebut my comments, that being the hyperbolic example [ "Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman"].

You said:
"Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach"

To which I replied that you set up a strawman to kick around since nobody was advocating your first case scenario. Maybe due to your bias can't see the problem but that isn't my problem.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thus we need to debate issues, evaluate policies and determine which works best - an unregulated system allowed to police itself, or a system wherein the government decides - the answer is a pragmatic approach,. The balance is the issue, and one which cannot be intelligently debated by those stuck in an ideological box.

Coming from you, that's a hoot. Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman.

Can you read without bias? I don't believe you can, stuck as you are in that little box of ideology, any criticism of that ideology usually results in a claim that the author who challenges that ideology is being illogical and many times includes a personal attack.

"The answer is a pragmatic approach" ! It is not a one or the other theory of governance, it is one which seeks the best solution to the issue at hand. Your bias seems to lead you into a dishonest effort to rebut my comments, that being the hyperbolic example [ "Since NOBODY is advocating eliminating all business regulations you're just kicking around a lame strawman"].

To deny that the Crazy Right Wing isn't opposed to government, and the Libertarian movement wants less regulation and less interference into the lives of our citizens and business is patently dishonest. It is a theme presented everyday on this message board.

I don't advocate an authoritarian government; I'd never consider an invasive medical procedure, medically unnecessary, for a pregnant women who sought and abortion legally authorized by the Supreme Court. Nor do I want a laissez faire government approach to industry whose work product produces pollution of our air,
water or soil.

Sometimes a government needs to exercise its authority and other times to take a hands off approach. Using Art. I, Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment to circumvent long established and necessary governance is insane; some believe allowing a problem to fester when a medial treatment will remedy the situation is insane - and some of those are the ideologues who always hide behind the wording of the Second Amendment..

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

hyperbolical.

Yes, hyperbolical (see here): Also, see related terms too.

Hyperbolical Define Hyperbolical at Dictionary.com




Thanks for sharing, your posts are always enlightening (sarcasm alert).

 

[Wry Catcher]

You failed to rebut my post (my argument) and instead called me a "fucking Idiot".

Actually, if you had been paying attention you'd see that I did refute your post, and called you a fucking idiot after.

This is not a refutation, "Are you seriously trying to argue that any form of taxation, and any form of basic government service, is socialism?"

It is a question asked in the form of a Straw Man. Never did I suggest Socialism is not an economic system. If the dichotomy is between Private Sector and Public Sector, which is implied in most of this thread, a police dept is a public sector example of Socialism in America.

A. Police Depts are employed by the public, and paid by the public and administrated by publicly elected employees hire by and paid by the public;

B. There is no competition with a police dept;

C. There is no profit motive assumed with a police dept.

D. Police Depts. do not pay taxes.

E. Police Depts. Water Depts, Gas and Electric Depts are public utilities, thus:

In other words a socialist economic system places utilities under public rather than private control and government officials manage the utilities to achieve policy goals rather than to build profit.

So they ain't a private sector entity, but a public untility; a public utility is more socialistic than the PPACA, which still involve privage insurance companies.

 

[JoeNormal]

RETARD ALERT!

You, Sylar and several others have posted some valid I nformation that debunks what Kosh and his ilk have bought into and stops short of calling him stupid. Still, the flow of misinformation continues.

Right back at ya buddy. The rebuttals to Skylar's (in particular) detailed and well thought out posts have been pathetic. That of course includes yours.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a public utility is more socialistic than the PPACA, which still involve privage insurance companies.

they are really not private when so heavily regulated by state insurance commissioners,ACA, and when it is illegal for them compete across state lines.

Socialism is when when major industries are owned, managed, regualted and/or taxed heavily by govt.
A public police force can be termed socialistic perhaps but it is not the sign of a socialist nation.

 

[Contumacious]

But guess who is paying the "income taxes" - not the rich , the middle class is. Because Americans have been conditioned to confuse patriotism with stupidity..

Since the top 1% earn 20% of income and pay 40% of income taxes and the top 5% pay 60% and the top 20% pay 94% of all income taxes, that would seem to be unsupported by the facts.

Really? That's a fact?


Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations

.

Those are IRS statistics. We have higher rates and more tax shelters, showing an example of a tax shelter doesn't refute what I said. But overall, it's income verus taxes, and I gave you the end result.

You are forgetting that the costs of doing business will be pass on to the consumers.

So "income" taxes are paid by the poor and middle class.

The Sixteenth "amendment" and the Revenue Act of 1944 ought to be repealed.

.

 

[Contumacious]

I didn't change any standards. Marriage affords couples numerous rights and protections, many of them LEGAL. You are calling for anarchy...

Who gets the house? The one with the gun.

Yes, you said government marriage being restricted from gays was discriminatory and you're against discrimination. That was your standard then. I pointed out all government marriage is discriminatory and I am against all government marriage. You are for discrimination that people who get married have benefits not shared by other people. I want everyone to be treated the same by government.

You came back with you love the perks other people don't get, baby. Not only a different standard from your first one, but contradictory to that you are against discrimination.

You keep saying you are not an anarchist, as you continue to describe your utopia...anarchy.

No, I never say I'm an anarchist. Here you go, Kiddie Poo.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Anarchists believe in NO government. It's not that hard. Well, except to liberals. But you're the ones who think not paying for things like birth control is denying people birth control...

Your problem is you are too stupid to know what anarchy really means, and what it looks like...

Your problem is you are too stupid to know that restoring and enforcing the Constitution ((1787) is not anarchy.


At any rate, compare the amount of individuals who have died under anarchy with those who have died under fascism/communism.

Go for it.


.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's very very true. The top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes and 50% of state taxes.
This is up from about 22% under Reagan. Its a stupid stupid liberal policy that takes so much from those how know best how to invest money and gives it to those who know least how to invest money.