Buys Ad To Warn About Socialism

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yet the cons say that the canadians can not get medical services, that they are dying for lack of medical service,

As usual a liberal will be too slow for words!! If communism or socialism worked China would go back to it and give up the fastest economic growth rates in human history!!


Chaoulli v. Quebec
The majority opinion stated: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care".

Middle-aged 'being denied cancer surgery' - Telegraph

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why do Americans fear Socialism?

because it produced en masse starvation and genocide. See why we are 1000% sure a liberal will be slow??

Do they equate it with Communism?

Again, too stipid and liberal by 1000%. Marx invented socialism and said it was merely a transitional state on route to communism, so of course any sane person fears communism.

Marx also said capitalism would concentrate wealth, lead to class warfare, and a communist take over of a capitalist economy. This is essentially Barry's point of view which explains to why the president who had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders is doing so much to promote class warfare!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But here is the real clincher. In either of the above rankings, the nations above us all have either socialist, or mostly socialist economies.

Of course that is 100% idiotic and liberal based on CIA fact book or OECD that place us first among major industrial countries. Not to mention that we have the highest business taxes in the world and get 40% of all federal revenue from the top1%( more than any other country) so can't be seen as much less socialist than much of the world!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow??


Rank Country Value Date of Info
1 Qatar $145,300 2010 est.
2 Liechtenstein $122,100 2007 est.
3 Luxembourg $81,800 2010 est.
4 Bermuda $69,900 2004 est.
5 Singapore $62,200 2010 est.
6 Norway $59,100 2010 est.
7 Jersey $57,000 2005 est.
8 Kuwait $51,700 2010 est.
9 Brunei $50,300 2010 est.
10 United States $47,400 2010 est.
11 Hong Kong $45,600 2010 est.
12 Andorra $44,900 2008
13 Guernsey $44,600 2005
14 Cayman Islands $43,800 2004 est.
15 Switzerland $42,900 2010 est.
16 San Marino $41,900 2007
17 Australia $41,300 2010 est.
18 Netherlands $40,500 2010 est.
19 Bahrain $40,400 2010 est.
20 Austria $40,300 2010 est.
21 United Arab Emirates $40,200 2010 est.
22 Canada $39,600 2010 est.
23 Sweden $39,000 2010 est.
24 British Virgin Islands $38,500 2004 est.
25 Iceland $38,400 2010 est.
25 Gibraltar $38,400 2006 est.
26 Equatorial Guinea $37,900 2010 est.
26 Belgium $37,900 2010 est.
27 Ireland $37,600 2010 est.
28 Denmark $37,000 2010 est.
29 Germany $35,900 2010 est.
29 Greenland $35,900 2007 est.
30 Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) $35,400 2002 est.
31 Finland $35,300 2010 est.
32 Taiwan $35,100 2010 est.
32 United Kingdom $35,100 2010 est.
33 Isle of Man $35,000 2005 est.
34 Japan $34,200 2010 est.
35 Faroe Islands $34,000 2008 est.
36 France $33,300 2010 est.
37 Macau $33,000 2009
38 European Union $32,900 2010 est.
39 Italy $30,700 2010 est.
40 Korea, South $30,200 2010 est.
40 Greece $30,200 2010 est.
41 Monaco $30,000 2006 est.
42 Spain $29,500 2010 est.
42 Israel

 

[NoNukes]

Why do Americans fear Socialism? Do they equate it with Communism?

Now...for today's lesson in the history of economic theory.....

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s 'Plebeian Manifesto,' which was later renamed the 'Manifesto of the Equals.' Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact.

He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.



So, you see, NoNoodles....."Why do Americans fear Socialism?" is no more than a bumper-sticker sans any real meaning.

Despising socialism in favor of capitalism is merely the sign of an educated mind.



You're welcome.

Guess there are no educated minds in Europe. You are going to have to stop reading Anne Coulter, she is turning your brains to mush.

 

[NoNukes]

Why do Americans fear Socialism?

because it produced en masse starvation and genocide. See why we are 1000% sure a liberal will be slow??

Do they equate it with Communism?

Again, too stipid and liberal by 1000%. Marx invented socialism and said it was merely a transitional state on route to communism, so of course any sane person fears communism.

Marx also said capitalism would concentrate wealth, lead to class warfare, and a communist take over of a capitalist economy. This is essentially Barry's point of view which explains to why the president who had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders is doing so much to promote class warfare!!

Get out of the gutter, someone is blocking your world view.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Guess there are no educated minds in Europe.

dear, mankind stood still politically for 100,000 years before capitalism instantly transformed life on this planet so it not hard to imagine that Europe would be a few 100 years behind us in their political/economic thinking!

Don't forget, we rescued them and recreated them during WW2 so it is no surprise that they are not thinking so well at this early point in their modern development.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Get out of the gutter, someone is blocking your world view.

You don't seem intelligent enough to be here. If there is something wrong with the conservative/libertarian world view you must say why it is wrong!! Do you understand???

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do Americans fear Socialism? Do they equate it with Communism?

Now...for today's lesson in the history of economic theory.....

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s 'Plebeian Manifesto,' which was later renamed the 'Manifesto of the Equals.' Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact.

He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.



So, you see, NoNoodles....."Why do Americans fear Socialism?" is no more than a bumper-sticker sans any real meaning.

Despising socialism in favor of capitalism is merely the sign of an educated mind.



You're welcome.

Guess there are no educated minds in Europe. You are going to have to stop reading Anne Coulter, she is turning your brains to mush.

1. Isn't that just like a liberal, trying to tell me what to read and what not to read....



2. "Guess there are no educated minds in Europe."

Must I be responsible for your entire education????

a. Only a short while ago some European politicians were touting the European social model’s superiority over what many continental Europeans deride as “Anglo-Saxon capitalism.”

b. Now, however, governments across Europe are scrambling to avoid the fate of Greece. Moreover, they are doing so by contemplating—and, in some cases, implementing—the hitherto unthinkable: reducing their budget deficits by diminishing the expansive welfare states to which many Europeans have long been accustomed.

c. …several decades of low economic growth. As the Czech president Václav Klaus recently observed, “average annual economic growth in the eurozone countries was 3.4 percent in the 1970s, 2.4 percent in the 1980s, 2.2 percent in the 1990s and only 1.1 percent from 2001 to 2009.” “A similar slowdown,” Klaus added, “has not occurred anywhere else in the world.”

d. The modern European welfare state goes back to the late nineteenth century when Otto von Bismarck, Imperial Germany’s ruthless “Iron Chancellor,” introduced state social insurance in an undisguised attempt to placate the growing German industrial working class and the ever-increasing number of Social Democrats they elected to the German legislature. Far too many Europeans now simply assume a munificent welfare state as part of the economic landscape. Indeed the increasing number of older West Europeans today has no incentive to change. Their attitude might be described as “Après moi, le déluge.”

MercatorNet: Fatal attraction: democracy and the welfare state

 

[Bfgrn]

You know PC, these polarized arguments you constantly post day after day can only be interpreted as coming from a severely dogmatic mind. Your doctrinaire always relies on liberals being as extreme as you are. We are not, never were and never will be. Liberals in America believe in capitalism, support capitalism and practice capitalism. But, capitalism is not a religion, it is an economic philosophy. It works very well in many areas of our policies, but fails miserably in others. You yourself say people are basically evil, and without rules and regulations, people can perpetrate evil in a capitalistic or a socialistic society.

History teaches us that a mixed economy performs better than pure capitalism or pure socialism. THAT is what liberals promote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know PC, these polarized arguments you constantly post day after day can only be interpreted as coming from a severely dogmatic mind. Your doctrinaire always relies on liberals being as extreme as you are. We are not, never were and never will be. Liberals in America believe in capitalism, support capitalism and practice capitalism. But, capitalism is not a religion, it is an economic philosophy. It works very well in many areas of our policies, but fails miserably in others. You yourself say people are basically evil, and without rules and regulations, people can perpetrate evil in a capitalistic or a socialistic society.

History teaches us that a mixed economy performs better than pure capitalism or pure socialism. THAT is what liberals promote.

Why didn't ya' tell me that you wanted a different kind of post???
No prob!

1. "You know PC,..."
Unless you were introducing me to your imaginary friends, a comma is required after 'You know,' ...."You know, PC......"

2. "...can only be interpreted as coming from a severely dogmatic mind."
Awkward construction. Better: "...can only be interpreted as being extremely dogmatic."

3. "Your doctrinaire always relies on liberals being as extreme...."
How the heck to fix this? "Your doctrines...." or "Your thesis always present Liberals as
far-Left, and/or extreme.


4. " Liberals in America believe in capitalism,..."

OK...now you've done it! This stretches credulity further than can be accepted!


5. "You yourself say people are basically evil,...."
A fib.
I've never said that.

6. "History teaches us that a mixed economy performs better than pure capitalism or pure socialism. THAT is what liberals promote."
Yippeee....agreement!

Now the question of where the right mix, the correct percentages end up.

Examples?
a. Taxation....you down with the Laffer Curve? Say....no more than 32-35% total?

b. Big Government regulations?

More and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

officials in these agencies often cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity.

Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.



Wadda ya' say? Ready to put you 'John Hancock' on the dotted line?

Are ya,' huh?

You can trust me....I know what's right!

 

[oldfart]

Why do Americans fear Socialism? Do they equate it with Communism?

Now...for today's lesson in the history of economic theory.....

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s 'Plebeian Manifesto,' which was later renamed the 'Manifesto of the Equals.' Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact.

He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.



So, you see, NoNoodles....."Why do Americans fear Socialism?" is no more than a bumper-sticker sans any real meaning.

Despising socialism in favor of capitalism is merely the sign of an educated mind.



You're welcome.

Your history of economic theory does not name a single economist (unless you count Marx, which I would not), mention any economic theory, and apparently ends at 1880. It would also be more readable if you made it more definite who you were quoting (an unintended consequence of cut-and-paste?)

I actually had to read 2,000 or so pages of Joseph Schumpeter's magnus opus (History of Economic Analysis) in graduate school. Mercifully he died with it not completed and his wife spent three years editing it for publication. Given his politics as well as his economics, he would be right up your alley. nd he really was an Austrian Economist; he served as finance minister of Austria in 1919!

 

[Rshermr]

Why do Americans fear Socialism? Do they equate it with Communism?

Now...for today's lesson in the history of economic theory.....

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s 'Plebeian Manifesto,' which was later renamed the 'Manifesto of the Equals.' Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact.

He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.



So, you see, NoNoodles....."Why do Americans fear Socialism?" is no more than a bumper-sticker sans any real meaning.

Despising socialism in favor of capitalism is merely the sign of an educated mind.



You're welcome.

Guess there are no educated minds in Europe. You are going to have to stop reading Anne Coulter, she is turning your brains to mush.

Actually, they were already that way.

 

[Rshermr]

You know PC, these polarized arguments you constantly post day after day can only be interpreted as coming from a severely dogmatic mind. Your doctrinaire always relies on liberals being as extreme as you are. We are not, never were and never will be. Liberals in America believe in capitalism, support capitalism and practice capitalism. But, capitalism is not a religion, it is an economic philosophy. It works very well in many areas of our policies, but fails miserably in others. You yourself say people are basically evil, and without rules and regulations, people can perpetrate evil in a capitalistic or a socialistic society.

History teaches us that a mixed economy performs better than pure capitalism or pure socialism. THAT is what liberals promote.

Why didn't ya' tell me that you wanted a different kind of post???
No prob!

1. "You know PC,..."
Unless you were introducing me to your imaginary friends, a comma is required after 'You know,' ...."You know, PC......"

2. "...can only be interpreted as coming from a severely dogmatic mind."
Awkward construction. Better: "...can only be interpreted as being extremely dogmatic."

3. "Your doctrinaire always relies on liberals being as extreme...."
How the heck to fix this? "Your doctrines...." or "Your thesis always present Liberals as
far-Left, and/or extreme.


4. " Liberals in America believe in capitalism,..."

OK...now you've done it! This stretches credulity further than can be accepted!


5. "You yourself say people are basically evil,...."
A fib.
I've never said that.

6. "History teaches us that a mixed economy performs better than pure capitalism or pure socialism. THAT is what liberals promote."
Yippeee....agreement!

Now the question of where the right mix, the correct percentages end up.

Examples?
a. Taxation....you down with the Laffer Curve? Say....no more than 32-35% total?

b. Big Government regulations?

More and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

officials in these agencies often cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity.

Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.



Wadda ya' say? Ready to put you 'John Hancock' on the dotted line?

Are ya,' huh?

You can trust me....I know what's right!

No one trusts anyone who posts dogma. Laffer curve is believed by a very small percentage of economists. Most simply laugh at the laffer.
Your problem, PC, among many, is that you spend your time trying to push dogma. You can not make an economic argument. You simply can not. Cut and paste just does not do it for most.

If you want to be of any interest, explain how the con plan will help the current economy. Which, of course, you will not because it is above your pay grade. Posting dogma is your thing. Which is a total intellectual waste of space.
Or, put another way, reading your dogma is about as enlightning as reading that of your apparent hero, Coulter.l Just makes people laugh at you.

 

[NoNukes]

Get out of the gutter, someone is blocking your world view.

You don't seem intelligent enough to be here. If there is something wrong with the conservative/libertarian world view you must say why it is wrong!! Do you understand???

My, what a condescending little shit you are. You must suffer from severe insecurity.

'Any damn fool can be complicated. It takes a genius to be simple, but great. ' Woody Guthrie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No one trusts anyone who posts dogma.

You don't trust yourself? Is that why you refuse to pick one of your precious studies proving how stupid I am and defend it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know PC, these polarized arguments you constantly post day after day can only be interpreted as coming from a severely dogmatic mind. Your doctrinaire always relies on liberals being as extreme as you are. We are not, never were and never will be. Liberals in America believe in capitalism, support capitalism and practice capitalism. But, capitalism is not a religion, it is an economic philosophy. It works very well in many areas of our policies, but fails miserably in others. You yourself say people are basically evil, and without rules and regulations, people can perpetrate evil in a capitalistic or a socialistic society.

History teaches us that a mixed economy performs better than pure capitalism or pure socialism. THAT is what liberals promote.

Why didn't ya' tell me that you wanted a different kind of post???
No prob!

1. "You know PC,..."
Unless you were introducing me to your imaginary friends, a comma is required after 'You know,' ...."You know, PC......"

2. "...can only be interpreted as coming from a severely dogmatic mind."
Awkward construction. Better: "...can only be interpreted as being extremely dogmatic."

3. "Your doctrinaire always relies on liberals being as extreme...."
How the heck to fix this? "Your doctrines...." or "Your thesis always present Liberals as
far-Left, and/or extreme.


4. " Liberals in America believe in capitalism,..."

OK...now you've done it! This stretches credulity further than can be accepted!


5. "You yourself say people are basically evil,...."
A fib.
I've never said that.

6. "History teaches us that a mixed economy performs better than pure capitalism or pure socialism. THAT is what liberals promote."
Yippeee....agreement!

Now the question of where the right mix, the correct percentages end up.

Examples?
a. Taxation....you down with the Laffer Curve? Say....no more than 32-35% total?

b. Big Government regulations?

More and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!

officials in these agencies often cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity.

Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.



Wadda ya' say? Ready to put you 'John Hancock' on the dotted line?

Are ya,' huh?

You can trust me....I know what's right!

No one trusts anyone who posts dogma. Laffer curve is believed by a very small percentage of economists. Most simply laugh at the laffer.
Your problem, PC, among many, is that you spend your time trying to push dogma. You can not make an economic argument. You simply can not. Cut and paste just does not do it for most.

If you want to be of any interest, explain how the con plan will help the current economy. Which, of course, you will not because it is above your pay grade. Posting dogma is your thing. Which is a total intellectual waste of space.
Or, put another way, reading your dogma is about as enlightning as reading that of your apparent hero, Coulter.l Just makes people laugh at you.

One study of the United States between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) between 32.67% and 35.21% Hsing, Y. (1996), "Estimating the Laffer curve and policy implications", Journal of Socio-Economics 25 (3): 395–401, doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(96)90013-X, http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S105353579690013X,


What size shoe does your mouth take?

 

[Bfgrn]

Why do Americans fear Socialism? Do they equate it with Communism?

Now...for today's lesson in the history of economic theory.....

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s 'Plebeian Manifesto,' which was later renamed the 'Manifesto of the Equals.' Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact.

He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.



So, you see, NoNoodles....."Why do Americans fear Socialism?" is no more than a bumper-sticker sans any real meaning.

Despising socialism in favor of capitalism is merely the sign of an educated mind.



You're welcome.

Your history of economic theory does not name a single economist (unless you count Marx, which I would not), mention any economic theory, and apparently ends at 1880. It would also be more readable if you made it more definite who you were quoting (an unintended consequence of cut-and-paste?)

I actually had to read 2,000 or so pages of Joseph Schumpeter's magnus opus (History of Economic Analysis) in graduate school. Mercifully he died with it not completed and his wife spent three years editing it for publication. Given his politics as well as his economics, he would be right up your alley. nd he really was an Austrian Economist; he served as finance minister of Austria in 1919!

Ironically, Republicans and conservatives want to make Schumpeter's advice from the 1920's policy...AGAIN.

What NEVER works is what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the predecessors of the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?

Economic Policy Under Hoover

Throughout this decline—which carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor force—the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the Veterans’ Bonus, passed over President Hoover’s veto. That aside, the full employment budget surplus did not fall over 1929–33.

The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the nominal money supply from falling. Instead, its only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931.

This inaction did not come about because they did not understand the tools of monetary policy. This inaction did not come about because the Federal Reserve was constrained by the necessity of defending the gold standard. The Federal Reserve knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sector’s task as the “liquidation” of the American economy. It feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon…felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.…He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do Americans fear Socialism? Do they equate it with Communism?

Now...for today's lesson in the history of economic theory.....

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s 'Plebeian Manifesto,' which was later renamed the 'Manifesto of the Equals.' Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact.

He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.



So, you see, NoNoodles....."Why do Americans fear Socialism?" is no more than a bumper-sticker sans any real meaning.

Despising socialism in favor of capitalism is merely the sign of an educated mind.



You're welcome.

Your history of economic theory does not name a single economist (unless you count Marx, which I would not), mention any economic theory, and apparently ends at 1880. It would also be more readable if you made it more definite who you were quoting (an unintended consequence of cut-and-paste?)

I actually had to read 2,000 or so pages of Joseph Schumpeter's magnus opus (History of Economic Analysis) in graduate school. Mercifully he died with it not completed and his wife spent three years editing it for publication. Given his politics as well as his economics, he would be right up your alley. nd he really was an Austrian Economist; he served as finance minister of Austria in 1919!

" It would also be more readable if you made it more definite who you were quoting..."

Clean off your specs....

....this was at the very top:

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/impri...=2007&month=05

 

[oldfart]

Now...for today's lesson in the history of economic theory.....

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

1. Modern history presents us with two divergent models of economic arrangement: socialism, and capitalism. One of these appears preoccupied with the common good, and social betterment, the other with profits and production.

2. In its modern beginnings, socialism was optimistic and well intentioned, without the overlay of its contemporary varieties that tend to bemoan prosperity, romanticize poverty, and promote a view that place individual rights are a secondary concern. This is to say that the earliest socialists sought the fullest possible flourishing of humanity, “the common good.”

3. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s 'Plebeian Manifesto,' which was later renamed the 'Manifesto of the Equals.' Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact.

He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.” Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory. It takes very little interpolation to find that opponents profit at the expense of the environment, and conditions of inequality in society.

4. For Babeur, socialism would distribute prosperity across the entire population, as it would “[have] us eat four good meals a day, [dress} us most elegantly, and also [provide] those of us who are fathers of families with charming houses worth a thousand louis each.”

5. Oscar Wilde: “Under socialism…there will be no people living in fetid dens and fetid rags, and bringing up unhealthy, hunger pinched children in the midst of impossible and absolutely repulsive surroundings…Each member of society will share in the general prosperity and happiness of the society…”

6. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.

7. These economic advances continued throughout the period of the rise of socialist ideology. The poor didn’t get poorer because the rich were getting richer (a familiar socialist refrain even today) as the socialists had predicted. Instead, the underlying reality was that capitalism had created the first societies in history in which living standards were rising in all sectors of society.



So, you see, NoNoodles....."Why do Americans fear Socialism?" is no more than a bumper-sticker sans any real meaning.

Despising socialism in favor of capitalism is merely the sign of an educated mind.



You're welcome.

Your history of economic theory does not name a single economist (unless you count Marx, which I would not), mention any economic theory, and apparently ends at 1880. It would also be more readable if you made it more definite who you were quoting (an unintended consequence of cut-and-paste?)

I actually had to read 2,000 or so pages of Joseph Schumpeter's magnus opus (History of Economic Analysis) in graduate school. Mercifully he died with it not completed and his wife spent three years editing it for publication. Given his politics as well as his economics, he would be right up your alley. nd he really was an Austrian Economist; he served as finance minister of Austria in 1919!

" It would also be more readable if you made it more definite who you were quoting..."

Clean off your specs....

....this was at the very top:

From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/impri...=2007&month=05

I saw that. Is Father Sirico quoting Marx, Babeauf and Oscar Wilde? Why do you use quotation marks for some of the numbered points and not others? Please be consistent; I hate being thrust into the role of style-guide police.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why do Americans fear Socialism? Do they equate it with Communism?

Of course they do because Marx (who invented it) said socialism was on the slippery slope to communism, and communism killed 100 million.

Do you realize how dumb or liberal you have to be not to know that?

Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.