When (if ever) did the U.S. become socialist?

[jasonnfree]

"Socialism" is a relative term, so .... in steps...

-- when we created the Post Office...
-- when we subsidized the telegraph-cum-telephone system... and the electrical grid...
-- when Al Gore personally invented the internet...
-- when we opened public libraries...
-- when we built public roads and public parks...
-- when we created FDA, FAA and similar agencies to ensure public safety...
-- when we instituted municipal fire departments.... and municipal water supplies...
etc etc etc...

You are aware that we had roads, bridges and schools before government took them over, right?

As far as the post office, it's not actually socialism because we all pay as we go. It's not given to anyone and no one gets to send mail for free. While it's run by government, it operates like a business. Of course, with government running it, it's not as efficient as it should be and if it was a private business, it would have gone bankrupt long ago.

Same with phones and internet. People pay to use them or they don't get them at home.

The creation of so many federal agencies to act as watchdogs sounded good in theory, but they are now mostly bloated agencies who fail to achieve their goals. How many bag drugs have been approved by the FDA? It is impossible to keep all food safe and most companies will aim to be honest or they will go out of business. The FDA operates on the theory that people fear they might be inspected and therefore will have high standards. I think fear of the public turning on them is a bigger fear. Inspectors have been paid off or just didn't bother to inspect. What do all those bureaucrats do with their time and billions of our dollars?

The agencies could easily be downsized and still maintain the same effect they have now. We pay more and more people each year to get very little in return.

Socialism means half pay for the other half. We are getting there considering the record number of people on the doles. Those with an entitlement mentality are treated as if they are more virtuous than those working. When was the last time a welfare recipient was told to do more for themselves or have some appreciation for those who are on the giving end? Instead, the left supports higher taxes, which always falls on the middle class, who are often not doing as well as some of the welfare recipients in certain states.

Social Security may have been the first actual form of socialism, but it's really more of a Ponzi scheme, as evidenced by the fact that it's running out of money just like many predicted it would.

Ponzi's scheme lasted a few months. Social security has been around since the 1930's. Germany has had social security since Bismark's time in the 1800's.
Where are the states where welfare payment are higher than middle class wages?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Socialism" is a relative term, so .... in steps...

-- when we created the Post Office...
-- when we subsidized the telegraph-cum-telephone system... and the electrical grid...
-- when Al Gore personally invented the internet...
-- when we opened public libraries...
-- when we built public roads and public parks...
-- when we created FDA, FAA and similar agencies to ensure public safety...
-- when we instituted municipal fire departments.... and municipal water supplies...
etc etc etc...

You are aware that we had roads, bridges and schools before government took them over, right?

As far as the post office, it's not actually socialism because we all pay as we go. It's not given to anyone and no one gets to send mail for free. While it's run by government, it operates like a business. Of course, with government running it, it's not as efficient as it should be and if it was a private business, it would have gone bankrupt long ago.

Same with phones and internet. People pay to use them or they don't get them at home.

The creation of so many federal agencies to act as watchdogs sounded good in theory, but they are now mostly bloated agencies who fail to achieve their goals. How many bag drugs have been approved by the FDA? It is impossible to keep all food safe and most companies will aim to be honest or they will go out of business. The FDA operates on the theory that people fear they might be inspected and therefore will have high standards. I think fear of the public turning on them is a bigger fear. Inspectors have been paid off or just didn't bother to inspect. What do all those bureaucrats do with their time and billions of our dollars?

The agencies could easily be downsized and still maintain the same effect they have now. We pay more and more people each year to get very little in return.

Socialism means half pay for the other half. We are getting there considering the record number of people on the doles. Those with an entitlement mentality are treated as if they are more virtuous than those working. When was the last time a welfare recipient was told to do more for themselves or have some appreciation for those who are on the giving end? Instead, the left supports higher taxes, which always falls on the middle class, who are often not doing as well as some of the welfare recipients in certain states.

Social Security may have been the first actual form of socialism, but it's really more of a Ponzi scheme, as evidenced by the fact that it's running out of money just like many predicted it would.

Ponzi's scheme lasted a few months. Social security has been around since the 1930's. Germany has had social security since Bismark's time in the 1800's.
Where are the states where welfare payment are higher than middle class wages?

SS is not a Ponzi scheme. There is no Ponzi at the top.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Socialism" is a relative term, so .... in steps...

-- when we created the Post Office...
-- when we subsidized the telegraph-cum-telephone system... and the electrical grid...
-- when Al Gore personally invented the internet...
-- when we opened public libraries...
-- when we built public roads and public parks...
-- when we created FDA, FAA and similar agencies to ensure public safety...
-- when we instituted municipal fire departments.... and municipal water supplies...
etc etc etc...

You are aware that we had roads, bridges and schools before government took them over, right?

As far as the post office, it's not actually socialism because we all pay as we go. It's not given to anyone and no one gets to send mail for free. While it's run by government, it operates like a business. Of course, with government running it, it's not as efficient as it should be and if it was a private business, it would have gone bankrupt long ago.

Same with phones and internet. People pay to use them or they don't get them at home.

The creation of so many federal agencies to act as watchdogs sounded good in theory, but they are now mostly bloated agencies who fail to achieve their goals. How many bag drugs have been approved by the FDA? It is impossible to keep all food safe and most companies will aim to be honest or they will go out of business. The FDA operates on the theory that people fear they might be inspected and therefore will have high standards. I think fear of the public turning on them is a bigger fear. Inspectors have been paid off or just didn't bother to inspect. What do all those bureaucrats do with their time and billions of our dollars?

The agencies could easily be downsized and still maintain the same effect they have now. We pay more and more people each year to get very little in return.

Socialism means half pay for the other half. We are getting there considering the record number of people on the doles. Those with an entitlement mentality are treated as if they are more virtuous than those working. When was the last time a welfare recipient was told to do more for themselves or have some appreciation for those who are on the giving end? Instead, the left supports higher taxes, which always falls on the middle class, who are often not doing as well as some of the welfare recipients in certain states.

Social Security may have been the first actual form of socialism, but it's really more of a Ponzi scheme, as evidenced by the fact that it's running out of money just like many predicted it would.

Ponzi's scheme lasted a few months. Social security has been around since the 1930's. Germany has had social security since Bismark's time in the 1800's.
Where are the states where welfare payment are higher than middle class wages?

Pretty much all 57 states

"In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Welfare benefits are not taxed, while wages are, so we calculated how much money a welfare recipient receiving these six benefits would have to earn in pretax income if she took a job and left the welfare rolls. We computed the federal income tax, the state income tax, and the FICA payroll taxes one would have to pay on wage income; we also took into account both federal and state versions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as well as child tax credits where available (these helped increase the relative value of work but did not fully offset the taxes due)."

Read more at: Welfare: A Better Deal than Work | National Review Online

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

America's roots in socialist society go back to the Mayflower compact

Stick with stuff you know, like being a Drama Queen and Attention Whore

Oh Frank. We wuv you two

 

[Pogo]

You are aware that we had roads, bridges and schools before government took them over, right?

Roads and bridge like this?

​

I didn't mention "schools". Nor did I mean to.

As far as the post office, it's not actually socialism because we all pay as we go. It's not given to anyone and no one gets to send mail for free. While it's run by government, it operates like a business. Of course, with government running it, it's not as efficient as it should be and if it was a private business, it would have gone bankrupt long ago.

You just made the argument for why it's better run by a government. The *system* is what the structure creates -- not the price of postage.

--- which by the way is the lowest and most efficient in the world, as anyone who's mailed anything from outside the US well knows.

Same with phones and internet. People pay to use them or they don't get them at home.

Once again, you ignored my content, which for this part was:

-- when we subsidized the telegraph-cum-telephone system... and the electrical grid...
-- when Al Gore personally invented the internet...
​

It goes without saying that subscribers pay their way for their electricity or phone line or internet. But the infrastructure that carries it universally in a big country doesn't get there by itself, nor does it get there privately without help.

I pointed to "who planted the forest" and you want to argue about a tree in it.

The creation of so many federal agencies to act as watchdogs sounded good in theory, but they are now mostly bloated agencies who fail to achieve their goals. How many bag drugs have been approved by the FDA? It is impossible to keep all food safe and most companies will aim to be honest or they will go out of business. The FDA operates on the theory that people fear they might be inspected and therefore will have high standards. I think fear of the public turning on them is a bigger fear. Inspectors have been paid off or just didn't bother to inspect. What do all those bureaucrats do with their time and billions of our dollars?

Doesn't address the point at all. The point is "is there a need that the private sector cannot serve?" and the answer is obviously there is. Were it left to private industry, your and my mothers would have been sold Thalidomide, as others were around the world, leading to thousands of deformities and deaths. But not here. Why not? Because the FDA demanded answers, that's why. And they were right.

Whether that regulatory system, or any other system, works efficiently is an entirely different question. I deplore the DC revolving door that puts a Monsanto lawyer in the Ag department and a cellphone company exec in the FCC -- but that in no way discounts the fact that a functioning society needs those controls. You don't go, "well this farmer's not farming efficiently, therefore let's shut down all farms".

Socialism means half pay for the other half.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means some things the collective need can only happen by the collective working together.

We are getting there considering the record number of people on the doles. Those with an entitlement mentality are treated as if they are more virtuous than those working. When was the last time a welfare recipient was told to do more for themselves or have some appreciation for those who are on the giving end?

I don't know. Do you? Link it.

Who is this "entitlement mentality"? Do such actually exist? Or are you parroting some talking head who says they exist?

 

[Pogo]

"In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year.

Since the question was "Where are the states where welfare payment are higher than middle class wages?", compare this list with a list of the nine wealthiest states. Let me know if you see a correlation.

And "wealthy" of course means, "has a high cost of living".

 

[Spinster]

this is a spin off from the other thread .

It's an interesting question that gets all kinds of varied answers . Mainly cause "socialism" is defined in many ways .

For me, I go way back to the U.S. opening up west for expansion . The govmnt basically giving away land in spur westward growth .

I'd go back, if we're looking for the first Socialist program, to when we started to pay off widows so the men would leave their wives to fight.

How can a "widow" have a man that goes off to fight? To legitimately be a widow her husband has to be DEAD. Duh!

 

[Mac1958]

You're not non-socialist one day and then socialist the next. This stuff exists on a continuum, and we're still to the right of countries that have social democratic systems, and they're to the right of actual socialist countries.

That said, we're clearly heading left, and there was a turning point for me: It was the reaction to Obama's shocking "you didn't build that, someone else made that happen" speech. What he said was an indication in itself, but the reaction in support made it all pretty clear. So that's the direction we're headed.

And if the Right doesn't like it, they're going to have to do a FAR better job of communicating a better alternative, and quickly.
.

 

[Likkmee]

this is a spin off from the other thread .

It's an interesting question that gets all kinds of varied answers . Mainly cause "socialism" is defined in many ways .

For me, I go way back to the U.S. opening up west for expansion . The govmnt basically giving away land in spur westward growth .

That's so they'd have fodder to work at military bases and test nuclear weapons to further their FASCIST agenda: Regime Change(s)
It's a "capitalists" party......you aren't invited.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year.

Since the question was "Where are the states where welfare payment are higher than middle class wages?", compare this list with a list of the nine wealthiest states. Let me know if you see a correlation.

And "wealthy" of course means, "has a high cost of living".

Translation: Pogo got pwned by the answer, so he's deflecting

 

[Pogo]

"In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year.

Since the question was "Where are the states where welfare payment are higher than middle class wages?", compare this list with a list of the nine wealthiest states. Let me know if you see a correlation.

And "wealthy" of course means, "has a high cost of living".

Translation: Pogo got pwned by the answer, so he's deflecting

Translation: Pogo saw through it immediately, having lived in some of those states.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

this is a spin off from the other thread .

It's an interesting question that gets all kinds of varied answers . Mainly cause "socialism" is defined in many ways .

For me, I go way back to the U.S. opening up west for expansion . The govmnt basically giving away land in spur westward growth .

I'd go back, if we're looking for the first Socialist program, to when we started to pay off widows so the men would leave their wives to fight.

How can a "widow" have a man that goes off to fight? To legitimately be a widow her husband has to be DEAD. Duh!

That was before he went off to fight, dumbass. If she wasn't going to be taken care of he wasn't going. Learn American Fucking History: Civil War Pensions

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

America's roots in socialist society go back to the Mayflower compact

Stick with stuff you know, like being a Drama Queen and Attention Whore

That's more your department. And since you're too fucking lazy to respond intelligently, let me help you:

"""The Mayflower carried not only the Pilgrims but a few other settlers as well. When it arrived at Cape Cod, several hundred miles north of its planned destination inVirginia owing to storms at sea, the passengers realized they were outside the bounds of the governmental authority they had contracted with in England.

William Bradford, the Pilgrim leader, was alarmed to learn that some of the others felt no obligation to respect the rules of the Pilgrims. In his words, they wanted to “use their owne libertie.” The male heads of Pilgrim and non-Pilgrim families therefore drew up a compact that bound all signers to accept whatever form of government was established after landing. The compact created a “Civil Body Politic” to enact “just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices.” Every adult male had to sign the agreement before going ashore. The compact remained in effect until Plymouth was incorporated into the short-lived Dominion of New England in 1686 and subsequently absorbed into theMassachusetts Bay Colony in 1691."""

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

this is a spin off from the other thread .

It's an interesting question that gets all kinds of varied answers . Mainly cause "socialism" is defined in many ways .

For me, I go way back to the U.S. opening up west for expansion . The govmnt basically giving away land in spur westward growth .

Yup, the Homestead Acts:

"The Homestead Acts were several United States federal laws that gave an applicant ownership of land, typically called a "homestead", at little or no cost. In the United States, this originally consisted of grants totaling 160 acres (65 hectares, or one-quarter section) of unappropriated federal land within the boundaries of the public land states."

That's how my father's side of the family got to Texas and started farming and ranching.

So your a welfare family ??

I kid, I kid !!

Right up until the Dust Bowl in the 1930s when everything they had planted and raised was blown away. "So they packed up the truck and moved to Beverly.... "

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Socialism" is a relative term, so .... in steps...

-- when we created the Post Office...
-- when we subsidized the telegraph-cum-telephone system... and the electrical grid...
-- when Al Gore personally invented the internet...
-- when we opened public libraries...
-- when we built public roads and public parks...
-- when we created FDA, FAA and similar agencies to ensure public safety...
-- when we instituted municipal fire departments.... and municipal water supplies...
etc etc etc...

None of which is even remotely defined as socialism

 

[Spinster]

this is a spin off from the other thread .

It's an interesting question that gets all kinds of varied answers . Mainly cause "socialism" is defined in many ways .

For me, I go way back to the U.S. opening up west for expansion . The govmnt basically giving away land in spur westward growth .

I'd go back, if we're looking for the first Socialist program, to when we started to pay off widows so the men would leave their wives to fight.

How can a "widow" have a man that goes off to fight? To legitimately be a widow her husband has to be DEAD. Duh!

That was before he went off to fight, dumbass. If she wasn't going to be taken care of he wasn't going. Learn American Fucking History: Civil War Pensions

Then learn how to communicate properly and try reading a dictionary, asshole. Widows have dead husbands, period. Women whose husbands went off to fight found ways to support themselves like factory work, taking in laundry, cleaning houses, tending other people's kids, etc. Learned American Fucking History, shit for brains.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

this is a spin off from the other thread .

It's an interesting question that gets all kinds of varied answers . Mainly cause "socialism" is defined in many ways .

For me, I go way back to the U.S. opening up west for expansion . The govmnt basically giving away land in spur westward growth .

I'd go back, if we're looking for the first Socialist program, to when we started to pay off widows so the men would leave their wives to fight.

How can a "widow" have a man that goes off to fight? To legitimately be a widow her husband has to be DEAD. Duh!

That was before he went off to fight, dumbass. If she wasn't going to be taken care of he wasn't going. Learn American Fucking History: Civil War Pensions

Then learn how to communicate properly and try reading a dictionary, asshole. Widows have dead husbands, period. Women whose husbands went off to fight found ways to support themselves like factory work, taking in laundry, cleaning houses, tending other people's kids, etc. Learned American Fucking History, shit for brains.

A Widow is a woman who has lost a husband. Until we started paying them off if their husband went to war and died the men stayed home you goddamned fucking idiot.

 

[Spinster]

this is a spin off from the other thread .

It's an interesting question that gets all kinds of varied answers . Mainly cause "socialism" is defined in many ways .

For me, I go way back to the U.S. opening up west for expansion . The govmnt basically giving away land in spur westward growth .

I'd go back, if we're looking for the first Socialist program, to when we started to pay off widows so the men would leave their wives to fight.

How can a "widow" have a man that goes off to fight? To legitimately be a widow her husband has to be DEAD. Duh!

That was before he went off to fight, dumbass. If she wasn't going to be taken care of he wasn't going. Learn American Fucking History: Civil War Pensions

Then learn how to communicate properly and try reading a dictionary, asshole. Widows have dead husbands, period. Women whose husbands went off to fight found ways to support themselves like factory work, taking in laundry, cleaning houses, tending other people's kids, etc. Learned American Fucking History, shit for brains.

A Widow is a woman who has lost a husband. Until we started paying them off if their husband went to war and died the men stayed home you goddamned fucking idiot.

Dang, you have a comprehension issue besides. Isn't that what I said. Lost her husband in war. Let's say it together real slow so you can get it. Prior to that he stayed home. Just STFU for once!

 

[daws101]

You are aware that we had roads, bridges and schools before government took them over, right?

Roads and bridge like this?

​

I didn't mention "schools". Nor did I mean to.

As far as the post office, it's not actually socialism because we all pay as we go. It's not given to anyone and no one gets to send mail for free. While it's run by government, it operates like a business. Of course, with government running it, it's not as efficient as it should be and if it was a private business, it would have gone bankrupt long ago.

You just made the argument for why it's better run by a government. The *system* is what the structure creates -- not the price of postage.

--- which by the way is the lowest and most efficient in the world, as anyone who's mailed anything from outside the US well knows.

Same with phones and internet. People pay to use them or they don't get them at home.

Once again, you ignored my content, which for this part was:

-- when we subsidized the telegraph-cum-telephone system... and the electrical grid...
-- when Al Gore personally invented the internet...
​

It goes without saying that subscribers pay their way for their electricity or phone line or internet. But the infrastructure that carries it universally in a big country doesn't get there by itself, nor does it get there privately without help.

I pointed to "who planted the forest" and you want to argue about a tree in it.

The creation of so many federal agencies to act as watchdogs sounded good in theory, but they are now mostly bloated agencies who fail to achieve their goals. How many bag drugs have been approved by the FDA? It is impossible to keep all food safe and most companies will aim to be honest or they will go out of business. The FDA operates on the theory that people fear they might be inspected and therefore will have high standards. I think fear of the public turning on them is a bigger fear. Inspectors have been paid off or just didn't bother to inspect. What do all those bureaucrats do with their time and billions of our dollars?

Doesn't address the point at all. The point is "is there a need that the private sector cannot serve?" and the answer is obviously there is. Were it left to private industry, your and my mothers would have been sold Thalidomide, as others were around the world, leading to thousands of deformities and deaths. But not here. Why not? Because the FDA demanded answers, that's why. And they were right.

Whether that regulatory system, or any other system, works efficiently is an entirely different question. I deplore the DC revolving door that puts a Monsanto lawyer in the Ag department and a cellphone company exec in the FCC -- but that in no way discounts the fact that a functioning society needs those controls. You don't go, "well this farmer's not farming efficiently, therefore let's shut down all farms".

Socialism means half pay for the other half.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means some things the collective need can only happen by the collective working together.

We are getting there considering the record number of people on the doles. Those with an entitlement mentality are treated as if they are more virtuous than those working. When was the last time a welfare recipient was told to do more for themselves or have some appreciation for those who are on the giving end?

I don't know. Do you? Link it.

Who is this "entitlement mentality"? Do such actually exist? Or are you parroting some talking head who says they exist?

 

[daws101]

this is a spin off from the other thread .

It's an interesting question that gets all kinds of varied answers . Mainly cause "socialism" is defined in many ways .

For me, I go way back to the U.S. opening up west for expansion . The govmnt basically giving away land in spur westward growth .

I'd go back, if we're looking for the first Socialist program, to when we started to pay off widows so the men would leave their wives to fight.

How can a "widow" have a man that goes off to fight? To legitimately be a widow her husband has to be DEAD. Duh!

Reading comprehension problems?
It is implied that the woman was made a widow after her husband band was killed.