Do You View Socialism Positively?

[M14 Shooter]

Why are you a brainwashed hater dupe with nothing but a couple of talking points? Tell some poor schnook who Pubs put out of work your stupid theories and get your ass kicked, Rushbot.

Without surprise, I note you did not answer my question:
Why do you support state-enforced involuntary servitude?

 

[nodoginnafight]

In reality, successful economies rely upon various approaches. As one example, the United States would not have developed as it has were it not for the "socialist" policies of land redistribution by the government (Homestead Act, railroads), the Rural Electrification Act (the rural red Midwestern states could never afford it on their own), and the many, many public works departments across the land that provide utility access.

Yeah thats horseshit.
Development in the South is greater in areas that are not serviced by TVA than in those that are.

That's just not so. TVA served areas are far more economically prosperous than those areas not served by TVA. And TVA served historically underdeveloped areas.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Democrats haven't had a clear majority in Congress since Ford and Carter were in office.

Why do you need to lie to make your point?

 

[The Rabbi]

In reality, successful economies rely upon various approaches. As one example, the United States would not have developed as it has were it not for the "socialist" policies of land redistribution by the government (Homestead Act, railroads), the Rural Electrification Act (the rural red Midwestern states could never afford it on their own), and the many, many public works departments across the land that provide utility access.

Yeah thats horseshit.
Development in the South is greater in areas that are not serviced by TVA than in those that are.

That's just not so. TVA served areas are far more economically prosperous than those areas not served by TVA. And TVA served historically underdeveloped areas.

That is simply wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's ridiculous to argue socialism as known today with people who still view it from an ignorant cold war perspective. Hint: It's always democratic- ie, NOT communism.

It IS state-enforced involuntary servitude.
Why do you support this?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I said as a PURE economic system, laissez-faire is a lousy way to run an economic system. And I am aware of what Hayek promoted, are YOU?

Hayek also said this.

"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

The problem I have with you Bugfucker, isn't that you're dishonest.

Oh to be sure, you ARE dishonest, no question about that. But the problem is that most of the time you don't grasp the dishonesty you pander. You are but a cut and paste monkey - the one who composed the above shit on ThinkProgress or KOS, knew that the out of context quotes are absurd in the portrait you attempt to create of one of the founders of the Austrian school of economics. But I doubt that you realize the depth of the absurdity of attempting to portray Hayek as a Socialist.

It is akin to claiming that George Washington was actually a British spy.

If you seek credibility, any hope you would garner such by those educated in economics is lost by posts such as these.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He wrote that in 1944. Again, if you have a plan to ethnically cleanse the United States back to the demographics which formed our society in 1944, then spill the details. We were a far more united culture back them than we are today. All of our major social welfare programs arose in the period when we had shut down immigration and the proportion of foreign born citizens was at a historic low. The population was 88% white and forming into one culture through the application of harsh assimilation standards (Anglicanizing family names, etc).

Woman, can't you get it through your thick head that Hayek is referring to a reality that he saw before him, not to the events of 2014?

What do you think you're accomplishing by constantly citing old quotes and concepts in a present-day debate?

Be aware that Bugfucker is lying.

What he cuts and pastes from the leftist hate sites is deliberately composed to create a portrait that is literally 180° from reality.

Sadly, many of the leftist hate sites have taken to distortion and outright lies to program the drones. This is one of those cases. These out of context quotes have been around for decades, and were debunked a decade ago.

Did Hayek think welfare states lead to totalitarianism Bleeding Heart Libertarians

Bugfucker doesn't grasp what he posts, he is a mindless automaton. But clearly the hate sites think that people have forgotten the last time they floated these absurd lies and are once again programming the insects to spread them.

 

[DGS49]

No economy can thrive if it is either fully capitalistic or fully socialistic. Under capitalism, all wealth inevitably flows to fewer and fewer successful exploiters, until the "masses" eventually rise up and kill the bastards. Under socialism, human nature dictates that in due course the productive people will be supporting the slugs until they eventually give up and become slugs themselves. A "funny" saying was common in Soviet-Poland not so long ago: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." The Soviet Union collapsed due to its own weight, despite having an intelligent, hard-working population and untold natural resources.

In "capitalist" economies like ours, socialist initiatives like unions, social security, socialized medicine, graduated tax scales, corporate taxes,and business regulations work to keep from too much wealth being too concentrated at the top. In socialist/communist economies, the Sovereign eventually has to allow pockets of capitalism where individual entrepreneurs and closely controlled businesses can be energized by productive greed and the profit motive, such as we have seen in recent years in China.

Socialism can only work in small communities where the entire population is on board. Examples are convents, monasteries, and kibbutzim.

 

[Iceweasel]

No economy can thrive if it is either fully capitalistic or fully socialistic. Under capitalism, all wealth inevitably flows to fewer and fewer successful exploiters, until the "masses" eventually rise up and kill the bastards.

Your commie poly-sci professor lied to you. We've done quite well as a capitalist country, founded by capitalists by the way. Wealth can only flow to the few with the help of a corrupt government, like the industrial revolution days. Otherwise a free market system needs producers to produce and the more vibrant the economy the better position workers are in. Companies have to compete to get and keep them on board. And it wasn't all that long ago. How old are you?

Under socialism, human nature dictates that in due course the productive people will be supporting the slugs until they eventually give up and become slugs themselves. A "funny" saying was common in Soviet-Poland not so long ago: "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." The Soviet Union collapsed due to its own weight, despite having an intelligent, hard-working population and untold natural resources.

In "capitalist" economies like ours, socialist initiatives like unions, social security, socialized medicine, graduated tax scales, corporate taxes,and business regulations work to keep from too much wealth being too concentrated at the top. In socialist/communist economies, the Sovereign eventually has to allow pockets of capitalism where individual entrepreneurs and closely controlled businesses can be energized by productive greed and the profit motive, such as we have seen in recent years in China.

Socialism can only work in small communities where the entire population is on board. Examples are convents, monasteries, and kibbutzim.

Profit is greed? Start your own business and get back to us.

 

[OnePercenter]

Democrats haven't had a clear majority in Congress since Ford and Carter were in office.

Why do you need to lie to make your point?

When did Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and the majority of the House at the same time which is a clear majority?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Democrats haven't had a clear majority in Congress since Ford and Carter were in office.

Why do you need to lie to make your point?

When did Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and the majority of the House at the same time which is a clear majority?

Fool
"Clear majority" is 50%+1, by any standard.

 

[OnePercenter]

Democrats haven't had a clear majority in Congress since Ford and Carter were in office.

Why do you need to lie to make your point?

When did Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and the majority of the House at the same time which is a clear majority?

Fool
"Clear majority" is 50%+1, by any standard.

Except in the Senate where it take 60 votes to pass a bill.

Again: When did Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and the majority of the House at the same time which is a clear majority?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Democrats haven't had a clear majority in Congress since Ford and Carter were in office.

Why do you need to lie to make your point?

When did Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and the majority of the House at the same time which is a clear majority?

Fool
"Clear majority" is 50%+1, by any standard.

Except in the Senate where it take 60 votes to pass a bill.

No. It takes a 51, assuming everyone is there; sometimes that 1 vote comes from the VP
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Sad that you know you have to lie to make your point.

 

[OnePercenter]

Democrats haven't had a clear majority in Congress since Ford and Carter were in office.

Why do you need to lie to make your point?

When did Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate and the majority of the House at the same time which is a clear majority?

Fool
"Clear majority" is 50%+1, by any standard.

Except in the Senate where it take 60 votes to pass a bill.

No. It takes a 51, assuming everyone is there; sometimes that 1 vote comes from the VP
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Sad that you know you have to lie to make your point.

Under the current rules of the Senate–which can be altered by a majority vote–it takes 60 votes to proceed to a vote on a bill when some senators want to continue debate forever, or filibuster.

How Many Votes Does It Take to Pass a Senate Bill

 

[M14 Shooter]

How Many Votes Does It Take to Pass a Senate Bill

A simple majority.
Every time.
It doesn't matter how many times you try to say otherwise -- every senate bill passes with a simple majority.

 

[OnePercenter]

How Many Votes Does It Take to Pass a Senate Bill

A simple majority.
Every time.
It doesn't matter how many times you try to say otherwise -- every senate bill passes with a simple majority.

You are simply a denier of fact who will die as ignorant as you were born.

 

[Mathbud1]

How Many Votes Does It Take to Pass a Senate Bill

A simple majority.
Every time.
It doesn't matter how many times you try to say otherwise -- every senate bill passes with a simple majority.

You are simply a denier of fact who will die as ignorant as you were born.

It does not take 60 votes to pass an ordinary bill in the Senate; it takes a majority of the senators voting...

But that doesn't mean that a bill needs 60 votes to be approved; it means 41 senators can keep a bill from being voted on. The distinction is worth making...

Feel sheepish?

 

[Rikurzhen]

How Many Votes Does It Take to Pass a Senate Bill

A simple majority.
Every time.
It doesn't matter how many times you try to say otherwise -- every senate bill passes with a simple majority.

You are simply a denier of fact who will die as ignorant as you were born.

It does not take 60 votes to pass an ordinary bill in the Senate; it takes a majority of the senators voting...

But that doesn't mean that a bill needs 60 votes to be approved; it means 41 senators can keep a bill from being voted on. The distinction is worth making...

Feel sheepish?

You have to hand it to liberals, they're innovators - finding new ways to be wrong about everything is a tough challenge. Who'd have thought that OnePercenter could find a new way of being wrong, by linking to a page which he thinks supports his position but which, actually, completely guts his position.

Liberal way of being wrong #24,158,768 - link to a refutation of your position and crow about being right.

 

[Physics Hunter]

Socialism is awesome!

It's a bug zapper that attracts the lazy and corrupt scum that Communists require to be their useful idiots.

It's like when the leaves turn over before a thunderstorm.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Socialism is awesome!

It's a bug zapper that attracts the lazy and corrupt scum that Communists require to be their useful idiots.

It's like when the leaves turn over before a thunderstorm.

It always amazes me that socialists self-identify instead of doing as their Nazi cousins do, and meet in secret. How damn stupid do you have to be to out yourself as a socialist and be proud of that? About as damn stupid as the self-outed Nazis we occasionally see on TV, like the guy who named his son Adolf Hitler:

A New Jersey couple who named their children 'Adolf Hitler' and 'JoyceLynn Aryan Nation' have lost custody of their newborn son.

Heath and Deborah Campbell were told to hand over their baby Hons to welfare officials immediately after she gave birth at Hunterdon Medical Center on Thursday.
​

There's all kinds of stupid in the world and the self-revealed Nazis and Socialists are right at the top of the list.