The Neocons Were Right, After All

[NightTrain]

You've got to be kidding. Just because you can find some articles from a chosen topic does not mean you can find articles on any topic. France is a popular target since the war began, so there are lots of recent articles on it. Bush however, is generally not a popular target because of the war status of the nation, so the articles on the Carlyle group are older and not easily available. BTW: I originally saw the story on the Bush revolving door on PBS.

I can find anything I wish to on the internet, be it for me or against me.

You stand there and say it's impossible, if I were in your shoes I'd be figuring out how to use that search engine to back my dumbass up.

I doubt it'll happen. Even though I just demonstrated it.

I find it curious that you immediately threw your hands up and said it was impossible, even though I just performed the very action you claimed was impossible.

Nice. I'm sure you're winning over thousands of potential liberals reading this. Impressive.

 

[wade]

How to use search engines: http://www.monash.com/spidap4.html#meta

ROFL - Kathianne, I know how to use a search engine.

 

[Annie]

ROFL - Kathianne, I know how to use a search engine.

Please demonstrate that ability to back up your points.

 

[wade]

I can find anything I wish to on the internet, be it for me or against me.

You stand there and say it's impossible, if I were in your shoes I'd be figuring out how to use that search engine to back my dumbass up.

I doubt it'll happen. Even though I just demonstrated it.

I find it curious that you immediately threw your hands up and said it was impossible, even though I just performed the very action you claimed was impossible.

Nice. I'm sure you're winning over thousands of potential liberals reading this. Impressive.

You contrived a simple example. You chose a topic currently in the news, not one that is 5 years old and has been largely dropped because the American public has shown it is too stupid to care.

It is not that I cannot find supporting info, it's that there are so many of them. Finding one that would suit you is the problem.

Lets see. Find me "some stories about Saddam and WMDs prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom and France's stance", but only from moveon.org or other similar sites. That is a more equivalent task.

Wade.

 

[NightTrain]

Please demonstrate that ability to back up your points.

Take over, KA. I gotta get some sleep.

 

[Annie]

You contrived a simple example. You chose a topic currently in the news, not one that is 5 years old and has been largely dropped because the American public has shown it is too stupid to care.

It is not that I cannot find supporting info, it's that there are so many of them. Finding one that would suit you is the problem.

Lets see. Find me "some stories about Saddam and WMDs prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom and France's stance", but only from moveon.org or other similar sites. That is a more equivalent task.

Wade.

It's obvious you are unable to provide reasonable sources for the drivel you insist on posting. moveon didn't exist 5 years ago, btw. Even so, no one is asking you to find obscure sources, rather easily accessible bonafide ones.

 

[Annie]

Take over, KA. I gotta get some sleep.

Who needs sleep? :funnyface

 

[wade]

Who needs sleep? :funnyface

I do. Will continue this tomarrow.

I have a background search going on now, it has already had some interesting hits.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

This url returns nothing but the Yahoo search engine

Exactly. This is a free link to AP sourced news (among others) like you needed.

You think small. I'm saying Bush stands to profit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of this war.

So far we have the stated 'consulting fees' to Bush sr. via Carlyle. I highly doubt this supports your assertation. But link to the dollar amounts and I'll start checking for you.

Yes, it is a fact Bush Sr. will not disclose the fees or stock he's aquired and is aquiring. If he did, his son would have no chance to be re-elected.

It is also a fact I will not disclose the fees or stocks I have aquired and are acquiring, so I must also profit from the war in Iraq.

It is also a fact you will not disclose the fees or stocks you have acquired and are acquiring, so you must also profit from the war in Iraq.

You are totally mis-reading the sentance. I said the "true conservatives, like me,....", not "the true conservatives like me". I guess your reading skills need improvement, in the first case, it means that I am in accord with the true conservatives, in the latter case it would mean I was a true conservative. The comma makes all the difference.

No, you are not in accord with the true conservatives however you might make the claim. You are a Bush hating anti-War lefty, through and through. All your arguments trace back to the same sites based on the party line from Moveon.org. You are not at all creative in your point of view, everyone has heard it scores of times already and knows exactly which sources you personally consider relevent to your mindset.

I'm a fiscal conservative first and formost Comrade. I believe that more than anything else the economy must be protected.

I don't believe it. You are one of the few diehard Communist supporter who believe the USSR never really gave it a fair try. You make excuses for the USSR for turning out to be a bankrupt, militaristic totalitarian state.

You said:

"I agree with you Communism is an undesirable form of Government, but not because it inherantly means dictatorship. We have no idea what might have happend if the USA had chosen communism back in the 1780's instead of a democratic republic for its form of government. The Soviet Union fell from communism to dictatorship because of all the stresses to the union not faced by the USA. Remember, after the communists took power the western powers sent armies to try to dispel the new government. Under constant threat from outside powers and in the face of horrible economic conditions, it was easy for a dicator to seize power."

Excuses excuses. And false ones. The USSR never disarmed and consistently threatened those around it since inception.

This means the goverment cannot engage in excessive protracted deficit spending for any reason, as the long term costs always far outweigh the short term benifits. I don't support such spending for any purpose, be it for a liberal or conservative cause.

Following a war in a recession, deficit spending makes perfect sense.

Anyone who does support such spending is not really a conservative, they are a neoconservative, which means they don't really understand, or worse don't care, about how the economy works or what the consequences of high deficits and high debt loading are.

Say no deficit spending EVER, assumes you will raise taxes consistently to meet growing government programs.

Beyond that, I believe that nobody in America should be malnurished or
freeze to death, and nobody in america should be ill or maimed because they cannot afford basic medical care or medicines.

Which is an example of socialist government and not a conservative one.

I also believe the current medical system, which denies reasonable health care to a huge segment of our population, but then puts the costs of end-of-life care upon the tax payer, is absolutey stupid.

Tax the senior for their own care? How? They have almost zero income to tax.

Many children and young adults in this country suffer needlessly through their entire lives for want of decent care when they need it.

Dear God the CHILDREN!

But then if they can reach sufficient age, more money than would have been required to care for them when they really needed it, by many fold, will be spent to sustain them through the least productive and enjoyable part of their life - their death. As the baby-boomers become seniors, this simply must change.

You say cut them off then. If the only way to make sure six year old Bobby get a tripple bypass and live on past his second stroke is to cut 82 year old Marge off from her Insulin then so be it. She's unproductive and miserable?

But you said:

"nobody in america should be ill or maimed because they cannot afford basic medical care or medicines."

And since:

"This means the goverment cannot engage in excessive protracted deficit spending for any reason, as the long term costs always far outweigh the short term benifits. I don't support such spending for any purpose, be it for a liberal or conservative cause."

UP goes the taxes to cover this socialist utopia of yours.

But then if they can reach sufficient age, more money than would have been required to care for them when they really needed it

Walk it off Grandma!

I also believe we should be trying to make our world a utopia, but to do this we need to be smart and not spend ourselves into bankruptcy or destroy the ecology to satiate the greed of the very few.

Socialized health care, greedy capitalists, Bush profiting from Iraq, and now the ecology as a victim in the whole affair

Here's a chart:

Far Left (<............{Center}............>) Far Right
^
You're here^


You are not a conservative.

 

[Comrade]

I'll be laughing at the right wingers on this board in less than 2 years, because the economy is going down the toilet and there will be no denying that.

The true conservatives, like me, aren't at all happy with what is going on.

Don't know whether to laugh or cry, do ya? Mr. Wade, meet Mr. Wade.

 

[wade]

Exactly. This is a free link to AP sourced news (among others) like you needed.

Wrong. You can sometimes find AP or NY Times stories via search engines. But if they are more than about 12-18 months old these links usually land you at a pay-to view page. I have lots of examples if you want me to post them.

So far we have the stated 'consulting fees' to Bush sr. via Carlyle. I highly doubt this supports your assertation. But link to the dollar amounts and I'll start checking for you.

Ummm... Consulting fees AND Stocks. It is the stocks where the real $ are made, but the "consulting fees" are highly questionable too. These are inflated because they are a means by which payoffs are made.

It's the oldest trick in payoff laundering... instead of giving the money directly to the individual you instead donate it to an organization with the condition that they must hire the individual as a speaker. It is similar is the book payoff, an individual writes a book and then you make sure it sells well, even if that means you must purchase the great majority of the books published... don't you remember that one?

It is also a fact I will not disclose the fees or stocks I have aquired and are acquiring, so I must also profit from the war in Iraq.

Only if you have direct influence on the decision to goto war.

It is also a fact you will not disclose the fees or stocks you have acquired and are acquiring, so you must also profit from the war in Iraq.

Same deal. Since I do not have inside influence on the decision to goto war, there is no conflict of interest, and any such investments I might make are fair. If I had the ability to influence whether or not we go to war, and I was able to decided how much to invest in war related companies based upon such inside influence and information - it would not be fair or legal.

No, you are not in accord with the true conservatives however you might make the claim. You are a Bush hating anti-War lefty, through and through. All your arguments trace back to the same sites based on the party line from Moveon.org. You are not at all creative in your point of view, everyone has heard it scores of times already and knows exactly which sources you personally consider relevent to your mindset.

Think what you want. But I am in accord with the true conservatives when it comes to the economy and the general principals of fiscal conservatism. While I have problems with, for instance, Pat Buchanan on some of his positions, on this issue I'm in general agreement.

I don't believe it. You are one of the few diehard Communist supporter who believe the USSR never really gave it a fair try. You make excuses for the USSR for turning out to be a bankrupt, militaristic totalitarian state.

You said:

"I agree with you Communism is an undesirable form of Government, but not because it inherantly means dictatorship. We have no idea what might have happend if the USA had chosen communism back in the 1780's instead of a democratic republic for its form of government. The Soviet Union fell from communism to dictatorship because of all the stresses to the union not faced by the USA. Remember, after the communists took power the western powers sent armies to try to dispel the new government. Under constant threat from outside powers and in the face of horrible economic conditions, it was easy for a dicator to seize power."

Excuses excuses. And false ones. The USSR never disarmed and consistently threatened those around it since inception.

My point was the Soviet Union was never free from immeadiate threats from outside. This allowed the ideals of the state to be easily thwarted by those using the need to protect it. The fundimental flaw of the Soviet Union was it failed to have anything like a bill of rights clearly defining the individuals role in society and putting limitations on the state.

I am not an advocate for communism. But that does not mean I cannot look at it objectively. You just foam at the mouth when talking about any political system other than unregulated capitalism - which is proving very clearly that it does not work either.

Following a war in a recession, deficit spending makes perfect sense.

Some deficit spending yes. But the outragous deficit spending we've seen - no. Those $ have to be paid back someday. We are fastly approaching the point where the only way to pay it back is to devalue the currency, and thus the debt - and that has staggering consequences on the quality of life of the typical American.

Say no deficit spending EVER, assumes you will raise taxes consistently to meet growing government programs.

Not necessarily. Government programs simply would only grow when the economy grows and tax revnues increase.

I never said no deficit spending ever. However, the total deficit should never be allowed to exceed about 25% of GDP. Our GDP is $10.98 trillion (2003 - 2004 figures are not in yet) and a NATIONAl DEBT of $7.383 trillion (to date). By the end of the year the debt will be in the area of $7.6 trillion. By the end of another 4 years of Bush economy, the National debt will equal or exceed the GDP.

To put this in realistic perspective, today each citizen is on the hook for something around $25,000 of this debt. By the end of next year this will be close to $30,000 for every citizen. This against a mean family income in the US of about $43,000. In real terms this means that right now each family owes between $75,000 and $100,000 today, and this will expand to something between $90,000 and $120,000 by the end of 2005. Add in the private debt loading of the American family - which now well exceeds 100% of family yearly income, and the total debt figures are astounding - never in history have Americans put so much debt on the future generation.

Do you not see that this economy is in very serious trouble?

Our 2003 exports amounted to $714.5 bil., but our imports were $1.26 trillion, a net loss of almost $550 bil. There is no sign that trade is going to work us out of this disaster.

Tax the senior for their own care? How? They have almost zero income to tax.

Dear God the CHILDREN!

You say cut them off then. If the only way to make sure six year old Bobby get a tripple bypass and live on past his second stroke is to cut 82 year old Marge off from her Insulin then so be it. She's unproductive and miserable?

No that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the only way to give bobby his lukemia treatments is not give Marge her triple-bypass, then that is how it should be. Marge will probably die anyway and saddle the public with a $200,000 debt. If she wants extrodinary measures in her 80's, she should provide for that herself.

But you said:

"nobody in america should be ill or maimed because they cannot afford basic medical care or medicines."

And since:

"This means the goverment cannot engage in excessive protracted deficit spending for any reason, as the long term costs always far outweigh the short term benifits. I don't support such spending for any purpose, be it for a liberal or conservative cause."

UP goes the taxes to cover this socialist utopia of yours.

What I mean is that we are going to have to accept that we cannot spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on end of life health care - this is the perview of the private sector. The same holds true for adults with chronic (<--- please don't ignore this word) medical problems - if they have not insured themselves, they are shit out of luck, and should get comfort care only. The only place where I think the public should be on the hook for extremely high medical costs are for children, and reasonable coverage for them after they become adults (since they cannot get coverage at that point).

Look again at what I actually said: "nobody in america should be ill or maimed because they cannot afford basic medical care or medicines." The word "basic" is key. The way it is right now, many Americans do not seek medical care for basic injuries and illnesses because they cannot afford the bill. The result is these relatively minor problems often become major problems, and then the taxpayer ends up footing the bill for threatment when it becomes life threatening. That is just stupid - give the poor a free tetanus shot for God sakes, rather than foot the bill when they are hospiltalized for a full blown case of tetanus. If they are not poor, charge them according to their income level.

I also think it would generally be a good idea to index payments for some treatments/medicines to income or tax levels, especially when those treatments and proceedures are developed on the public dime. It is not right that everyone pitches in for the development of treatments and drugs that only the wealthy can afford. An example is the drug Taxol, used to treat ovarian cancer:

The NIH spent $37 mil. developing Taxol, including the clinical trials and production processes. It then gave the formula for making the drug to Bristol-Meyers Squibb, who has the sole right to make and sell the drug. It takes an average of 6-8 treatments for the drug to be effective (if it is effective), and the cost of this is around $14,000.​

If the public sector is going to foot the lions share of the R&D bill, they should all have access to the results.

Stem cell research is a prime example of where the public is going to foot 98% of the bill, but only the rich are going to be able to afford to access the results which will be handed to the private sector. Another Bush policy of favoring the rich over the average American and using a morals argument as a smoke screen, and doing so on the average Americans tax dollars.

You are not a conservative.

No, I am a fiscal conservative. I'm also a social liberal on many but not all issues, but only within the bounds of fiscal conservatism, since otherwise the system cannot be sustained.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Wrong. You can sometimes find AP or NY Times stories via search engines. But if they are more than about 12-18 months old these links usually land you at a pay-to view page. I have lots of examples if you want me to post them.

No, we want you to USE them.

Hmmm... Consulting fees AND Stocks. It is the stocks where the real $ are made, but the "consulting fees" are highly questionable too. These are inflated because they are a means by which payoffs are made.

It's the oldest trick in payoff laundering... instead of giving the money directly to the individual you instead donate it to an organization with the condition that they must hire the individual as a speaker. It is similar is the book payoff, an individual writes a book and then you make sure it sells well, even if that means you must purchase the great majority of the books published... don't you remember that one?

Why bother, Bush gets far more coming out from a 2nd term. And you'd still assume he is driven by money alone. Power trumps money. You assume he risks his power for illegal payoffs he will eventually get as if his own 14 million + 20 on retirement is not sufficient and he must break the law to squeeze out how much? It's your theory, how much would Bush risk his second term over?

Same deal. Since I do not have inside influence on the decision to goto war, there is no conflict of interest, and any such investments I might make are fair. If I had the ability to influence whether or not we go to war, and I was able to decided how much to invest in war related companies based upon such inside influence and information - it would not be fair or legal.

Who influences funding for which company? That's always missing FACTS

Think what you want. But I am in accord with the true conservatives when it comes to the economy and the general principals of fiscal conservatism. While I have problems with, for instance, Pat Buchanan on some of his positions, on this issue I'm in general agreement.

Socialized health care is not a conservative position. Have you changed your mind since a week ago?

My point was the Soviet Union was never free from immeadiate threats from outside.

No one nation is ever free of threats. But Lenin had a good 20 year run from his indisputed position at the top of the state after 1918. Despite starving, murdering, or banishing millions of his own in pursuit of his selected commiittee edicts he managed to get mummified and entoumbed in the 20th century fashion himself. See the rotten corpse of Lenin, the original Marxist who pretty much set it up for Stalin to do in another 20 million or so.

Communist of any form is something I wish you could have experienced.

This allowed the ideals of the state to be easily thwarted by those using the need to protect it. The fundimental flaw of the Soviet Union was it failed to have anything like a bill of rights clearly defining the individuals role in society and putting limitations on the state.

Comminism does not cohabitate with democracy, property rights, individual rights, or a bill or rights. The nature of single party rule using total state domination of property IS the flaw.

I am not an advocate for communism. But that does not mean I cannot look at it objectively. You just foam at the mouth when talking about any political system other than unregulated capitalism - which is proving very clearly that it does not work either.

I lived in the USSR while it was a communist state. You imagine you might and then imagine from there. But I trully know a way of life you little understand. If I could I'd send you back to 1990 Ukraine under the USSR and let you stand in line for potatoes.

Some deficit spending yes. But the outragous deficit spending we've seen - no. Those $ have to be paid back someday. We are fastly approaching the point where the only way to pay it back is to devalue the currency, and thus the debt - and that has staggering consequences on the quality of life of the typical American.

You were the one to bring up universal healthcare as I quoted you from before.

A good portion of this bloated budget goes to fund the prescription drug program for seniors. This is still yet a baby step to what you propose as a universal healthcare objective.

Do you drop, keep, or expand this coverage?

Do you still allocate funds for wartime?

Are your strict standards relative to interest rates (now still in historical lows)?

Would you increase tax or reduce spending to make up for shortfalls? Increased tax to whom then? Or reduced spending in which programs? Answer these questions if you want to prove a point. Otherwise stop blowing smoke. Don’t answer me unless you have percentages quoted and numbers added up.

Not necessarily. Government programs simply would only grow when the economy grows and tax revnues increase.

But Congress has good reason to borrow against future revenues in times of economic shortfall and especially in wartime. Such a system like you install would be counter-intuitive to smoothing economic cycles, and unduly restrictive to congressional authority in all matters of collecting revenue and making expenditures.

I never said no deficit spending ever. However, the total deficit should never be allowed to exceed about 25% of GDP. Our GDP is $10.98 trillion (2003 - 2004 figures are not in yet) and a NATIONAl DEBT of $7.383 trillion (to date). By the end of the year the debt will be in the area of $7.6 trillion. By the end of another 4 years of Bush economy, the National debt will equal or exceed the GDP.

The economy will grow at what rate over four years?

Are budgets based on tax and spending bills some trend you can plot or is this is all conjecture?

I have no problem with America in deficit because, like I said, I've seen much worse before until market forces adjusted and the US economy bounced back and hammered that deficit down in the upswing.

Right now we are at war, and the Federal interest rates loaned to banks are still in historical lows. Increased government orders for goods and services under the increased spending programs do wonders to grow the economy into the next expansion. Spending in a deficit makes perfect sense.

To put this in realistic perspective, today each citizen is on the hook for something around $25,000 of this debt. By the end of next year this will be close to $30,000 for every citizen. This against a mean family income in the US of about $43,000. In real terms this means that right now each family owes between $75,000 and $100,000 today, and this will expand to something between $90,000 and $120,000 by the end of 2005. Add in the private debt loading of the American family - which now well exceeds 100% of family yearly income, and the total debt figures are astounding - never in history have Americans put so much debt on the future generation.

We're not Argentina. The day the US goes bankrupt on debt the world you live in won’t leave you happy about it.

A notable increase of spending and increase in debt can be a signal for a boom in the economy.

So even if the USA will absolutely increase debt by 20% in another year as long as we grow at some modest rate overall consumers will handle the interest on this debt with money to spare.

Do you not see that this economy is in very serious trouble?

Let me ask you, have you sold short on US stocks or not? When you get really feelthy rich from betting on the collapse of the US economy, you’d be swallowed up in the chaos of worldwide economic meltdown and then what good is your stock advice then, huh?.

Our 2003 exports amounted to $714.5 bil., but our imports were $1.26 trillion, a net loss of almost $550 bil. There is no sign that trade is going to work us out of this disaster.

That's why everyone uses dollars. The US is rich and wants to buy stuff from others. The US is in a constant and ever growing trade deficit with others and so what?

No that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the only way to give bobby his lukemia treatments is not give Marge her triple-bypass, then that is how it should be. Marge will probably die anyway and saddle the public with a $200,000 debt. If she wants extrodinary measures in her 80's, she should provide for that herself.

Based on insurance rates for children and up to middle-aged adults, put the cost of all those under retirement age at 1/3 of those over retirement age. You’re not saving babies by leaving Marge to gasp for her last breath, but you certainly cut down on medicare costs.

Are you for universal healthcare, or are you not?

What I mean is that we are going to have to accept that we cannot spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on end of life health care - this is the perview of the private sector. The same holds true for adults with chronic (<--- please don't ignore this word) medical problems - if they have not insured themselves, they are shit out of luck, and should get comfort care only. The only place where I think the public should be on the hook for extremely high medical costs are for children, and reasonable coverage for them after they become adults (since they cannot get coverage at that point).

I agree, but children are cheap, adults even cheaper, it’s seniors who demand the bucks for medical attention and our system takes care of children pro-bono as required by Federal law. Seniors too, but not to the degree they require for living a healthy life to it’s fullest. I agree such a cut would help balance the budget but the seniors will stop that nonsense and vote you out lickety split.

Look again at what I actually said: "nobody in america should be ill or maimed because they cannot afford basic medical care or medicines." The word "basic" is key. The way it is right now, many Americans do not seek medical care for basic injuries and illnesses because they cannot afford the bill. The result is these relatively minor problems often become major problems, and then the taxpayer ends up footing the bill for threatment when it becomes life threatening.

You assume a lot without explaining the economics of your proposal in definitive terms.

Basic injuries or illnesses are more often not life threatening, but certainly tax funded regardless. And life threatening illnesses under such an assembly line of socialist health care are more less likely to be detected. And certainly never treated by basic medical care.

So then you prove how:

Basic care over and beyond insured parties funded by taxpayers
+
Cost of treating life threatening health factors discovered by basic care and not covered by insured parties

Is less than the current tax burden to health care which is:

0

That is just stupid - give the poor a free tetanus shot for God sakes, rather than foot the bill when they are hospiltalized for a full blown case of tetanus. If they are not poor, charge them according to their income level.

These are free to indigents.

I also think it would generally be a good idea to index payments for some treatments/medicines to income or tax levels, especially when those treatments and proceedures are developed on the public dime. It is not right that everyone pitches in for the development of treatments and drugs that only the wealthy can afford. An example is the drug Taxol, used to treat ovarian cancer:

But rating prices to income or taxes let’s the billonares with wealth alone get price less than the minimum wage earner.

Think this one through a bit… and do you see a Communist nightmare?

The NIH spent $37 mil. developing Taxol, including the clinical trials and production processes. It then gave the formula for making the drug to Bristol-Meyers Squibb, who has the sole right to make and sell the drug. It takes an average of 6-8 treatments for the drug to be effective (if it is effective), and the cost of this is around $14,000.​

If the public sector is going to foot the lions share of the R&D bill, they should all have access to the results.

Is 37 Million the lions share to Bristol Meyers own investment or less? What part of the story tells me why the rights should have gone to Bristol Meyers?

Stem cell research is a prime example of where the public is going to foot 98% of the bill, but only the rich are going to be able to afford to access the results which will be handed to the private sector. Another Bush policy of favoring the rich over the average American and using a morals argument as a smoke screen, and doing so on the average Americans tax dollars.

So take ‘the rich’ (top half) and their contribution to taxes (~90%) and since no on it profiting except from new health tech we determine if the 10% contribution made by the bottom 50% benefits them by at least 8% of the investment. You reasoned this out then?

No, I am a fiscal conservative. I'm also a social liberal on many but not all issues, but only within the bounds of fiscal conservatism, since otherwise the system cannot be sustained.

Then why the earlier flirtation with communism? You can either be a fiscal conservative or believe that the first step to utopia is the state seizure of all property. You can’t choose both.

 

[Zhukov]

the Soviet Union was never free from immeadiate threats from outside.

What, from 'capitalist imperialists'? Find that in Stalin's memoirs did we?

 

[wade]

Comrade,

Unfortunately I don't have time to reply to you in full right now Comrade. I will try to do so soon. But I just had to reply to the following statement:

No one nation is ever free of threats. But Lenin had a good 20 year run from his indisputed position at the top of the state after 1918. Despite starving, murdering, or banishing millions of his own in pursuit of his selected commiittee edicts he managed to get mummified and entoumbed in the 20th century fashion himself. See the rotten corpse of Lenin, the original Marxist who pretty much set it up for Stalin to do in another 20 million or so.

Hmmm - for a Russian your knowelge of Russian/Soviet history is amazingly poor.

You say "But Lenin had a good 20 year run from his indisputed position at the top of the state after 1918". Hmmm...that would mean he ran the country for 15 years from beyond the grave! He had several mild to moderate strokes in 1922 and an incapcitating one in 1923. Three days before his severe stroke of 1923 Lenin dictated the following message to the communist party:

"Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated enormous power in his hands: and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient caution. I therefore propose to our comrades to consider a means of removing Stalin from this post and appointing someone else who differs from Stalin in one weighty respect: being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite, more considerate of his comrades."​

That stroke left him paralysed and unable to communicate, and he died shortly thereafter.

Communist Russia started off having to defeat the Czarist monarchy which was itself an increadibly corrupt and oppressive regime. Then, in 1918 it had to defeat the White Russians who were supported by the British and the USA. In 1919 the British, USA, Japanese, Italians, Czechs, and Canadians had nearly 100,000 troops in Russia opposing the new communist regime. They were driven out relatively quickly - mostly by the climate which it seems no one but the Russians can endure.

In 1919-1922 famine and typhus killed over 27 million people, and this coupled with Lenin's ill health opend the door for Stalin to seize power and destroy the ideals of Lenin's Communist state.

In 1922 Stalin became Secretary General of the Soviet Union and over the next 7 years he acted to execute or exile all rivals (anyone with any political power). Durint this time it was mostly Lenin's plans which were implemented within the general public of Russia, in the form of moderate collectivism, and (under Lenin's "New Economic Plan" of 1922) many aspects of capitalism were embraced, including limited private ownership of land and free markets for most products. In 1929 Stalin reversed this course, moving to strict collectivism on a massive scale, begining the "de-kulakization" programs which displaces many millions and lead to perhaps another 10-20 million deaths.

The point is, by 1929 the Soviet state was no longer in any way Communist except in name. Stalin had turned communism into a mechansim that supported his authoritarian rule of a totalitarian state. It had all the trappings of Fascism, just wearing a red suit instead of a black one.

However, had the Russian people been more idealistic and stopped this at the start, the ideals of communism as set forth by Marx and later by Lennin might have lead to an entirely different state. Just because Communism in Russia failed does not mean it cannot work.

As a case in point, cosider Rome. It was a democracy for almost 200 years but then fell to totalitarianism. Many democratic states have failed throughout history.

My argument is that the USA was born of unique circumstances which allowed our democracy (of sorts - it is really a republic) to survive. The most significant of these being:

1) there was no one ethnic background for the population - therefore no religious or lineage based system could establish itself. Furthemore, almost universally, all of the ethinic sub-groups had fled to America from Europe to escape various forms of persecution. Therefore, the foundations of the USA were set, more than anything else, in the prevention of such persecutions.

2) there was no pre-existing state of significance - so there was no existing ruling class or nobility to be disposessed, and no significant counter-revolutionary movement to contend with.

3) there was no need for land reform - land was plentiful, all you had to do was take it from the native americans, and that was pretty easy.

4) once the revolution was over, there was no significant outside military threat for a generation.

5) there was no widespread famine or disease. The post-revolutionary war USA was more than capable of producing its food requirements, and population densities were not sufficent to support serious pestilance.

Russian lacked all of these aspects to a very large degree. It already had a very stratified class structure which needed to be torn down. It had to protect itself from counter-revolutionary movements, supported by foriegn powers with both funds and miltary forces, which would put the Czar back in power if they could. It had a serious need for land reform. And it faced both famine and pestilance. All these factors made it relatively easy for a Stalin to manipulate the system and achieve dictatorial power.

All this being said, I don't want you to mistake my meaning. I'm not saying that Communism is a prefered system of government. As I've said before, I think it is unrealistic if the goal of society is human happiness, as I think it should be. I'm just saying that Communism is a viable system, and it does not necessarily have to succumb to totalitarianism, any more than Democracy must. By your arguments, the founding Fathers should never have tried democracy because it was a proven failure.

Communism is a good basis for a war economy - and if you look at it, the USA was basically communist during WWII. Tax rates ramped very quickly up to 90%. Almost everyone sacrificed for the good of the whole. If the state needed property, it was claimed with minimal compesnation. Most companies made very little profits - DuPont for instance made $1 profit during the war, and almost every company made infintesimal profits (Note: companies did grow tremendously and collect patents at public expense which became a boon post war). The problem is that running the economy in this way is not good for individual happiness.

Communism makes sense for a nation when it needs land/property reform and wealth re-distribution to redress past evils, foreign powers stand against such changes, and the new state is going to have to "go it alone" for an extended period. Effectively they have to start in a war mode. Infant democracies are too easy to corrupt or topple.

Look at Vietnam. The way things are going, Vietnam will effectively be a democracy in another 15 years or so, maybe less. All it will take is the right incentives, which seem to be in the offering. Unlike so many "democracies" in that part of the world (Indochina, Malyasia, the Phillapines, etc...) the Vietnamese people are well educated, healthy, enjoy a rising standard of living, and the government is relatively free of corruption. And they did this without Chineese, Russian, or US help. Vietnam will hopefully be the case in point - communism is a means of land/property/wealth/power reform that can make true democracy possible.

Finally, yes I understand that things were bad under Soviet totalitarianism. But, I'd bet they'd have been even worse under Czarist rule. Look at how the Czars ran Russia - it was the epitome of corruption.

Wade.

PS: I'll try to address some of the other aspects of your post soon, probably in a new thread in another area of this board.

 

[Comrade]

Comrade,

Unfortunately I don't have time to reply to you in full right now Comrade. I will try to do so soon. But I just had to reply to the following statement:

I don't blame you. The bulk of my questions were indeed difficult to answer.

However, had the Russian people been more idealistic and stopped this at the start, the ideals of communism as set forth by Marx and later by Lennin might have lead to an entirely different state. Just because Communism in Russia failed does not mean it cannot work.

And just because Lenin had only so and so many years along with Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Mao, etc and it failed to bring utopia, doesn't mean it WILL work.

As a case in point, cosider Rome. It was a democracy for almost 200 years but then fell to totalitarianism. Many democratic states have failed throughout history.

Which is more than the existing ones in modern times, still intact since inception. Can you name 50 who failed before which now still exist today? No, you cannot.

My argument is that the USA was born of unique circumstances which allowed our democracy (of sorts - it is really a republic) to survive. The most significant of these being:

"1) there was no one ethnic background for the population - therefore no religious or lineage based system could establish itself. Furthemore, almost universally, all of the ethinic sub-groups had fled to America from Europe to escape various forms of persecution. Therefore, the foundations of the USA were set, more than anything else, in the prevention of such persecutions."

2) there was no pre-existing state of significance - so there was no existing ruling class or nobility to be disposessed, and no significant counter-revolutionary movement to contend with.

3) there was no need for land reform - land was plentiful, all you had to do was take it from the native americans, and that was pretty easy.

4) once the revolution was over, there was no significant outside military threat for a generation.

5) there was no widespread famine or disease. The post-revolutionary war USA was more than capable of producing its food requirements, and population densities were not sufficent to support serious pestilance.

Russian lacked all of these aspects to a very large degree. It already had a very stratified class structure which needed to be torn down. It had to protect itself from counter-revolutionary movements, supported by foriegn powers with both funds and miltary forces, which would put the Czar back in power if they could. It had a serious need for land reform. And it faced both famine and pestilance. All these factors made it relatively easy for a Stalin to manipulate the system and achieve dictatorial power.

All this being said, I don't want you to mistake my meaning. I'm not saying that Communism is a prefered system of government. As I've said before, I think it is unrealistic if the goal of society is human happiness, as I think it should be. I'm just saying that Communism is a viable system, and it does not necessarily have to succumb to totalitarianism, any more than Democracy must. By your arguments, the founding Fathers should never have tried democracy because it was a proven failure.

By my arguments? How do you reason this out?

Communism is a good basis for a war economy - and if you look at it, the USA was basically communist during WWII. Tax rates ramped very quickly up to 90%.

40% is the more accurate figure based on my own research on WWII tax expenditures as a percentage of annual GDP. But taxation is not communism. Communism doesn't require taxation, when government controls all means of production.

Almost everyone sacrificed for the good of the whole. If the state needed property, it was claimed with minimal compesnation.

Most companies made very little profits - DuPont for instance made $1 profit during the war, and almost every company made infintesimal profits (Note: companies did grow tremendously and collect patents at public expense which became a boon post war). The problem is that running the economy in this way is not good for individual happiness.

And so then admittedly then this has nothing to do with the US (patent greedy) companies in WWII anyway.

Communism makes sense for a nation when it needs land/property reform and wealth re-distribution to redress past evils, foreign powers stand against such changes,

Often the property communists take is usually that purchased and financed by those living among foriegn powers.

and the new state is going to have to "go it alone" for an extended period. Effectively they have to start in a war mode. Infant democracies are too easy to corrupt or topple.

Wah, cries Castro, why won't the US invest in Cuba after I took over all their investments!

Look at Vietnam. The way things are going, Vietnam will effectively be a democracy in another 15 years or so, maybe less. All it will take is the right incentives, which seem to be in the offering. Unlike so many "democracies" in that part of the world (Indochina, Malyasia, the Phillapines, etc...) the Vietnamese people are well educated, healthy, enjoy a rising standard of living, and the government is relatively free of corruption. And they did this without Chineese, Russian, or US help. Vietnam will hopefully be the case in point - communism is a means of land/property/wealth/power reform that can make true democracy possible.

Look at South Korea. They way things could have gone for Vietnam if Ho Chi Mihn has not conquered and ruled there, is demonstrated by South Korea in politics and economic success.


Why won't you accept that Vietnam failed under communism?

Finally, yes I understand that things were bad under Soviet totalitarianism. But, I'd bet they'd have been even worse under Czarist rule. Look at how the Czars ran Russia - it was the epitome of corruption.

I'd bet if they tried Liberal Democracy, which the 'Whites' would have eventually have had a chance to usher in between unbearable serfdom and violent revolution, the foolish dreams of Marx would be no more than an unrealized fantasy. But Marxist followers have had a slew of failures to point out for you in history. So if you'd rather excuse them for all being impure practitioners of the art form, you have to expect a very narrow list of supporters to back your point of view.

 

[wade]

Why won't you accept that Vietnam failed under communism?

How so? It has been a model of success. The people are healthy, well educated, and and generally prosperous.

Unlike Vietnam, Korea did not suffer from entrenched French colonialism. The ethnic/political problems of Vietnam were not present in Korea. Therefore, it is not a legitimate comparison at all.

Again your understanding of Russian history is lacking. The Whites wanted to reinstall the Czar and uphold the pre-existing economic structure of inequity.

White Russian Armies

Had the whites won, the same oppresive political regime that had existed prior to the revolution would have re-estabilished itself.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

wade, inequity is the natural state of life. We can work to guarantee certain rights, but even then, people will achieve to different levels. It's nature. It's life. Learn to accept reality.

 

[wade]

wade, inequity is the natural state of life. We can work to guarantee certain rights, but even then, people will achieve to different levels. It's nature. It's life. Learn to accept reality.

I agree. However the system should put pressure towards equality, but not so much that people cannot rise above it.

The problem with the philosphies of the right are that they seem to believe that the system should be designed in such a way that once a person reaches a certain level they are virtually gauranteed further success. It seems to believe that the creation of family dynasties of wealth and power are a good thing that the system should encourage and enforce.

This is wrong. The system should require continued excellence for a person or his family to sustain or improve their position. If they fail to do so, over time they should fall back until their compensation matches their contribution.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're too radical. There should be basic public services, as we have now. Families should be allowed to pass on advantages to their children. ANd who deems "worthiness", you? I don't think so. Survey says :"X".

 

[wade]

You're too radical. There should be basic public services, as we have now. Families should be allowed to pass on advantages to their children. ANd who deems "worthiness", you? I don't think so. Survey says :"X".

I agree, however that is not how it works.

The way the Repbulcians are trying to work things, if you have a significant amount of wealth you are virtually gauranteed that if you play the game you will only get wealthier and wealthier. That is not how things should be.

I agree you should be able to pass on advantages to your children, but there should be some limits to this. Bush wants to eliminate the inheritance tax because this would almost ensure that dynasties would be self perpetuating.

The system should decide who is worthy. The higher you get up the ladder the harder it should be to reach the next rung. The way it is right now, the rungs get further and further apart to about the 85% percentile of income, and then they start getting closer together.

Wade.