Is socialism an inevitable future?

[Luddly Neddite]

but WHY do they engage in cronyism Capitalism? why do they keep screwing us? Could it be our electoral system where massive amounts of money are required to run an effective campaign?

Btw...in 2011, there were 3.1million millionaires according to thisU.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Yes, but that 3.1 million number of millionaires is based on total assets, my number is based on AGI in one year, 2009. Are you by chance suggesting we tax assets in addition to income? Boy howdy, the exodus of wealthy people outta here would be something to see. Banana republic time.

Re cronyism, they're doing it to us because we let 'em get away with it. Not enough of us are informed, and too many are getting subsidized by the gov't and won't vote to change the system. One of the reasons why I like the TPers so much is because it is a grass roots uprising against the wasteful spending. Give 'em less money, they got less to waste. Hopefully it'll change into a movement for better, more effective and efficient gov't that promotes more competition and more opportunities. I don't think we need to subsidize that, but we do need to change the rules somewhat. We need to be sending more assholes to prison for bilking the public or cheating investors.

I'd prefer not to tax ANYONE excessively....but if those at the top would rather outsource, hide assets, and not properly compensate employees to the point where subsidization is necessary to keep people trim suffering and to maintain (somewhat) the consumer driven economy we have created....what choice is there?

Don't forget....these big multinational corporations are not only taking jobs away from Americans, they are also creating new markets for their goods....making the American people less necessary for their success. It's a huge double whammy that is really hurting this country. I find it dishonorable....and that's putting ut as civilly as I possibly can.

That pretty much sums it up.

Yeppers.

So, why would anyone VOTE for more of this?

 

[Avatar4321]

but WHY do they engage in cronyism Capitalism? why do they keep screwing us? Could it be our electoral system where massive amounts of money are required to run an effective campaign?

Btw...in 2011, there were 3.1million millionaires according to thisU.S. Has Record Number of Millionaires - The Wealth Report - WSJ

Crony capitalism is a natural outgrowth of big government. The solution is limited government. The more the government is involved in picking winners and losers in the market, the more cronyism there is.

Then stop demonizing unions that used to do what government is forced to. Did they get too big, go too far? yep....but they helped maintain a decent standard of living before they got too big for their britches. truthfully? When Reagan came on the scene...they needed a smack in the face...they were hurting American business. But it's gone so far in the other direction that the average person is struggling just to make it, let alone purchasing goods and services at the level needed to keep the economy rolling.

Im sorry, I dont believe in crony unionism either

 

[Steelplate]

This whole topic leaves me wondering why progressives still hide behind the word "progressive".

These people were bold and courageous in the '80s. Told us what they were about and how they intended to achieve their goals. They lost and found their chic communism suddenly unpopular and they appeared to go away for a while.
Now they're back but they're also deceptive and dishonest aside from rare instances like this thread in which they come so close to being totally honest.

If you truly believe in what you say you stand for it. What's with all the hiding behind words?

what are you talking about? I am no Communist...not even close. I want to see our people compensated fairly in a way that they can afford to live in their own country in a reasonably comfortable manner. I'm not talking luxuries here...I'm talking roof, utilities, food, clothing, health care....that's about it....one income should be able to provide those basics. anything more than that? then you need two incomes...not two incomes just to survive.

That's not Communism....that's just being reasonable.

 

[IGetItAlready]

This whole topic leaves me wondering why progressives still hide behind the word "progressive".

These people were bold and courageous in the '80s. Told us what they were about and how they intended to achieve their goals. They lost and found their chic communism suddenly unpopular and they appeared to go away for a while.
Now they're back but they're also deceptive and dishonest aside from rare instances like this thread in which they come so close to being totally honest.

If you truly believe in what you say you stand for it. What's with all the hiding behind words?

what are you talking about? I am no Communist...not even close. I want to see our people compensated fairly in a way that they can afford to live in their own country in a reasonably comfortable manner. I'm not talking luxuries here...I'm talking roof, utilities, food, clothing, health care....that's about it....one income should be able to provide those basics. anything more than that? then you need two incomes...not two incomes just to survive.

That's not Communism....that's just being reasonable.

But didn't you also say, "The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens"?

So when someone hits your "level of success" the rest is simply handed over to the government?

 

[IGetItAlready]

This whole topic leaves me wondering why progressives still hide behind the word "progressive".

These people were bold and courageous in the '80s. Told us what they were about and how they intended to achieve their goals. They lost and found their chic communism suddenly unpopular and they appeared to go away for a while.
Now they're back but they're also deceptive and dishonest aside from rare instances like this thread in which they come so close to being totally honest.

If you truly believe in what you say you stand for it. What's with all the hiding behind words?

what are you talking about? I am no Communist...not even close. I want to see our people compensated fairly in a way that they can afford to live in their own country in a reasonably comfortable manner. I'm not talking luxuries here...I'm talking roof, utilities, food, clothing, health care....that's about it....one income should be able to provide those basics. anything more than that? then you need two incomes...not two incomes just to survive.

That's not Communism....that's just being reasonable.

Why would people bother getting married and having families if the government were to simply hand each individual a living? And once you do marry, which party loses their federal handouts? And are these handouts up for grabs in divorce proceedings or do we simply start paying double again?

 

[Steelplate]

Crony capitalism is a natural outgrowth of big government. The solution is limited government. The more the government is involved in picking winners and losers in the market, the more cronyism there is.

Then stop demonizing unions that used to do what government is forced to. Did they get too big, go too far? yep....but they helped maintain a decent standard of living before they got too big for their britches. truthfully? When Reagan came on the scene...they needed a smack in the face...they were hurting American business. But it's gone so far in the other direction that the average person is struggling just to make it, let alone purchasing goods and services at the level needed to keep the economy rolling.

Im sorry, I dont believe in crony unionism either

so....in your opinion, there should be no minimum standard of living in this country? If so, I have to disagree with you. extremely poor people don't buy anything...the country spirals. There are many, many times more of the "grunt" workers out there than there are of businessmen, professionals(including tradesmen), and government workers combined. We need for them to be able to afford to keep our economy rolling. That makes us all better off.

 

[Political Junky]

Socialism is an inevitable failure. It comes with a 100% Guaranteed Fail rate. It's so bad that almost without exception, the countries who adopt it have to build walls topped with barbed wire and armed guards to keep creative and talented people from fleeing.

denmark happiest place on earth - Google Search

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGKUwMegZ4]Denmark happiest place on earth - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eflatminor]

Fact is, the US is socialist.

More and more every day.

Many of you who screech about various "ists" haven't a clue whet you're talking about.

I can't speak for others, but I never screech and I do know what I'm talking about...at least in matters of economics, politics, history. On pop culture, I'm pretty ignorant.

You blather on and on about hating "socialism" but drive on state maintained highways,

Which are crap compared to private highways; they're more efficient and safer for drivers. Besides, are we supposed to not drive on state maintained highways just because we think there is a better alternative?

send your kids to state maintained schools,

Which suck even worse. Skyrocketing costs, awful results, can't fire anyone...sounds like a government monopoly to me.

call tax paid cops and

You're suggesting that because we believe in the idea of law enforcement...we're somehow hypocrites? Wow, do you see things in black and white. I'm okay with some laws and laws have to be paid for. If we're going to make murder and rape illegal, it follows that law enforcement would be a necessary expense. Though I have to say, if I'm rich enough to afford private security, I would not call the cops.

if your house was on fire,

You think a private firefighting business has much of a chance of competing with a government enforced monopoly? Again, are we supposed to let the house burn because we understand:
1) The federal government has no business funding local firefighters; and
2) We do not need more firefighters! Injuries and death from fires have steadily and dramatically decreased for decades. We've learned to build better structures and vehicles, with materials, inside and out, that produces far less smoke and toxins.

you'd forget all about socialism.

Never! It is the antithesis of Liberty! If you wan to call the enumerated powers in the Constitution socialism, fine. To the extent states have undertaken central planning, I am free to criticize but cannot be called a hypocrite if my parents couldn't afford private school in the face of government's monopoly on affordable education.

 

[Steelplate]

This whole topic leaves me wondering why progressives still hide behind the word "progressive".

These people were bold and courageous in the '80s. Told us what they were about and how they intended to achieve their goals. They lost and found their chic communism suddenly unpopular and they appeared to go away for a while.
Now they're back but they're also deceptive and dishonest aside from rare instances like this thread in which they come so close to being totally honest.

If you truly believe in what you say you stand for it. What's with all the hiding behind words?

what are you talking about? I am no Communist...not even close. I want to see our people compensated fairly in a way that they can afford to live in their own country in a reasonably comfortable manner. I'm not talking luxuries here...I'm talking roof, utilities, food, clothing, health care....that's about it....one income should be able to provide those basics. anything more than that? then you need two incomes...not two incomes just to survive.

That's not Communism....that's just being reasonable.

But didn't you also say, "The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens"?

So when someone hits your "level of success" the rest is simply handed over to the government?

let me answer both your responses in this one.

First off, yes I did say that...and no, I didn't necessarily mean government takes the rest. It was a comparison. why would you think that there should be no limits on either end of the spectrum? If someone is working hard full time and contributing to society, don't you think they should be able to afford to live in their own country in a reasonable manner?

Heck, I'd prefer that the private sector make that happen. Like I said, I wouldn't want to tax anyone unnecessarily. If the private sector would do this on their own? I would be the FIRST person to jump the fence to a very much Libertarian political stance.

that should answer both your posts in one paragraph....until the private sector makes government programs unnecessary, I will support them.

I don't believe in the winner take all/loser get none philosophy of the right. I believe that our strength is in our labor force. We do more with less than any other industrialized country....except China and the some of the other Asian countries who produce at the point of a gun while their governments keep the profits. Every other modern country provides most basic needs for their citizens....I don't necessarily want that, but damn....give our people a chance by at least getting them to the point of affording life in a society where everything is "for profit".

One income should be able to do that...two income should allow families to thrive.

If employers were willing to do that, great....end welfare for anyone capable of working. It would only be for the incapable...mentally or physically handicapped...if they need it. There are physically handicapped people who are just as productive as non-handicapped people....so I wouldn't want to pigeon hole anyone.

 

[IGetItAlready]

what are you talking about? I am no Communist...not even close. I want to see our people compensated fairly in a way that they can afford to live in their own country in a reasonably comfortable manner. I'm not talking luxuries here...I'm talking roof, utilities, food, clothing, health care....that's about it....one income should be able to provide those basics. anything more than that? then you need two incomes...not two incomes just to survive.

That's not Communism....that's just being reasonable.

But didn't you also say, "The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens"?

So when someone hits your "level of success" the rest is simply handed over to the government?

let me answer both your responses in this one.

First off, yes I did say that...and no, I didn't necessarily mean government takes the rest. It was a comparison. why would you think that there should be no limits on either end of the spectrum? If someone is working hard full time and contributing to society, don't you think they should be able to afford to live in their own country in a reasonable manner?

Heck, I'd prefer that the private sector make that happen. Like I said, I wouldn't want to tax anyone unnecessarily. If the private sector would do this on their own? I would be the FIRST person to jump the fence to a very much Libertarian political stance.

that should answer both your posts in one paragraph....until the private sector makes government programs unnecessary, I will support them.

I don't believe in the winner take all/loser get none philosophy of the right. I believe that our strength is in our labor force. We do more with less than any other industrialized country....except China and the some of the other Asian countries who produce at the point of a gun while their governments keep the profits. Every other modern country provides most basic needs for their citizens....I don't necessarily want that, but damn....give our people a chance by at least getting them to the point of affording life in a society where everything is "for profit".

One income should be able to do that...two income should allow families to thrive.

If employers were willing to do that, great....end welfare for anyone capable of working. It would only be for the incapable...mentally or physically handicapped...if they need it. There are physically handicapped people who are just as productive as non-handicapped people....so I wouldn't want to pigeon hole anyone.

Do you know WHY the Chinese "produce at the point of a gun"?
Because they'd not do so otherwise for the compensation they're receiving.
People are people and the wealthy aren't much different than the poor in that if you impose on them limits or incentives to plateau, that's exactly what they'll do. No one is going to seek out further success for themselves which in turn leads to more opportunities for others when the government says, "beyond this point it's all "fair share"".

The "winner take all/loser get none" hyperbole is simply that. America's wealthy are some of the most charitable people on earth. There have been poor in this nation since its inception...even longer. But I can't think of a single instance in 236 years of American history when the poor were simply left to starve in the streets.

I couldn't agree more that there are those within our society who genuinely NEED assistance and despite all the rhetoric we hear everyday, much of which pollutes these very boards, I've not heard any politician calling for the needy to be killed off or left to die. Of course ivy league academics is another story entirely. Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer.

I would certainly agree that those in need should receive enough to get by but a successful system by definition would be one in which budgets continually decrease as more people are lifted in economic status and fall off the roles.

An incessant "need" for increased federal revenue in order to fund an ever growing entitlement culture which devours everything over some arbitrary level of personal wealth really "helps" no one. And the least among us are truly "helped" least of all.

 

[Steelplate]

But didn't you also say, "The only thing to be negotiated is the level of success the wealthy are allowed to achieve vs. the level of minimal protections of our least capable citizens"?

So when someone hits your "level of success" the rest is simply handed over to the government?

let me answer both your responses in this one.

First off, yes I did say that...and no, I didn't necessarily mean government takes the rest. It was a comparison. why would you think that there should be no limits on either end of the spectrum? If someone is working hard full time and contributing to society, don't you think they should be able to afford to live in their own country in a reasonable manner?

Heck, I'd prefer that the private sector make that happen. Like I said, I wouldn't want to tax anyone unnecessarily. If the private sector would do this on their own? I would be the FIRST person to jump the fence to a very much Libertarian political stance.

that should answer both your posts in one paragraph....until the private sector makes government programs unnecessary, I will support them.

I don't believe in the winner take all/loser get none philosophy of the right. I believe that our strength is in our labor force. We do more with less than any other industrialized country....except China and the some of the other Asian countries who produce at the point of a gun while their governments keep the profits. Every other modern country provides most basic needs for their citizens....I don't necessarily want that, but damn....give our people a chance by at least getting them to the point of affording life in a society where everything is "for profit".

One income should be able to do that...two income should allow families to thrive.

If employers were willing to do that, great....end welfare for anyone capable of working. It would only be for the incapable...mentally or physically handicapped...if they need it. There are physically handicapped people who are just as productive as non-handicapped people....so I wouldn't want to pigeon hole anyone.

Do you know WHY the Chinese "produce at the point of a gun"?
Because they'd not do so otherwise for the compensation they're receiving.
People are people and the wealthy aren't much different than the poor in that if you impose on them limits or incentives to plateau, that's exactly what they'll do. No one is going to seek out further success for themselves which in turn leads to more opportunities for others when the government says, "beyond this point it's all "fair share"".

The "winner take all/loser get none" hyperbole is simply that. America's wealthy are some of the most charitable people on earth. There have been poor in this nation since its inception...even longer. But I can't think of a single instance in 236 years of American history when the poor were simply left to starve in the streets.

I couldn't agree more that there are those within our society who genuinely NEED assistance and despite all the rhetoric we hear everyday, much of which pollutes these very boards, I've not heard any politician calling for the needy to be killed off or left to die. Of course ivy league academics is another story entirely. Taking Life: Humans, by Peter Singer.

I would certainly agree that those in need should receive enough to get by but a successful system by definition would be one in which budgets continually decrease as more people are lifted in economic status and fall off the roles.

An incessant "need" for increased federal revenue in order to fund an ever growing entitlement culture which devours everything over some arbitrary level of personal wealth really "helps" no one. And the least among us are truly "helped" least of all.

once again...If the private sector were willing to make government programs obsolete, It would be great, and I agree with the decreasing role of government as the need itself decreases.

I'm pretty sure that in our history, there have been many people who have starved in the street. I'll do some research on that and get back to you.

There is another aspect to working people getting paid well...they buy stuff...when they buy stuff, business wins....hell....everybody wins

 

[IGetItAlready]

once again...If the private sector were willing to make government programs obsolete, It would be great, and I agree with the decreasing role of government as the need itself decreases.

How would the private sector go about doing this? Especially when the resources they might use to do so are taken from them at a near punitive level?

I'm pretty sure that in our history, there have been many people who have starved in the street. I'll do some research on that and get back to you.

There are always going to be exceptions but as a rule, it has not happened.

There is another aspect to working people getting paid well...they buy stuff...when they buy stuff, business wins....hell....everybody wins

Of course they do and yet we seem obsessed with the wealthy amassing and hording all the wealth in the nation while they watch their customer base suffer. Makes no sense.

 

[JoeB131]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

.

I think technology reduces the need for labor, and therefore makes it less of a commodity. But I think that has little to do with the whole "Capitalism vs. Communism" argument.

The thing is, both systems are absolutely wonderful on paper and both get truly fouled up when you get human beings involved.

 

[Wiseacre]

Socialism is an inevitable failure. It comes with a 100% Guaranteed Fail rate. It's so bad that almost without exception, the countries who adopt it have to build walls topped with barbed wire and armed guards to keep creative and talented people from fleeing.

denmark happiest place on earth - Google Search

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGKUwMegZ4]Denmark happiest place on earth - YouTube[/ame]

They're so happy they don't know how miserable they are. I mean, for God's sake they eat fish for breakfast. And lunch. And dinner.

 

[auditor0007]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

Wold employment is based on things lie man hours which is a measurement of the needed work and time that is needed to accomplish the job by a worker. A century or so ago manual labor was the only way to complete task, and workers or slaves were required to do things. We are heading down a road of technology where less and less human workers are required to reach goals due to machines. in some cases machines are much more efficient and able to handle the tass of many workers.

There are still areas and reasons to use humans in manufacturing positions. Despite the advances of machines the human being is still able to perform multiple very different functions that make them versatile enough to be superior to machines in some cases. This is coming to an end in many areas as machines are becoming more and more versatile, and much less expensive.

As we advance our technology in machine versatility including robots and improved computing abilities due to better learning computers and networking we need less and less man hours to accomplish our tasks. This advancement is accelerating, and each year we have more and more people in the world and less work to do.

In my opinion we have already come to a point where the forty hour workweek is already obsolete. humans can accomplish much more than they used to in 40 hours due to our advancements, and we just simply need less manufacturing and farming labor to keep up with the needs of the human race even in this day where we have more things than ever. One of the reasons i see that the US is presently in a unemployment problem is that we simply do not need the labor here in the country to keep up with our needs.

of course, it is cheaper to hire a person from another country at a lower wage than it is to develop some of our technology further.

Even areas like customer service and call center work have seen a decrease in the need for workers. As we look in areas of things like customer service we are using automated machines to answer simple commonly asked questions that eliminate the need for phone operators. The movie rental business is all but wiped out by media streaming, and things like redbox.

The way I see it is as our technology advances we have to admit to needing less human work. This leads me to realize that a more socialist view becomes far more applicable to our society than capitalistic working for a paycheck. Right now capitalism and the old ideas of a full workweek are keeping unemployment up because the few people who get jobs can easily accomplish what is needed leaving the rest of the people out in the cold and fighting for work that just simply no longer exists. Efficiency has made our need for wor hours less, and we need to examine our future as a technological species and recognize that although hard work and doing a good job were great values that made people strong, that hard work simply is not as necessary as it was.

Socialism and communism failed in the past because they were not technically viable as they are becoming today. i think they are the way of the future if we are to continue the advancements in technology and efficiency we have always strived for.

Technology won't have anything to do with it. Economic growth and opportunity in a capitalistic society is based on population growth. When population growth stops, economic growth stops. Yes, there can still be some economic growth, but it won't be much. So what happens to opportunity then? You either end up with a society where those on top stay on top and those on the bottom stay on the bottom, or things even out somewhat. Even in a no growth situation, there will be opportunities for some people to improve their place in society, but overall, the bettering of everyone will become the main cause. We will hit that point at some time in the future. Our population cannot continue to grow forever. This planet can only support so many people. The only way that we don't hit a no growth society is if there is a catastrophe that wipes out a major percentage of the world population.

 

[Political Junky]

Socialism is an inevitable failure. It comes with a 100% Guaranteed Fail rate. It's so bad that almost without exception, the countries who adopt it have to build walls topped with barbed wire and armed guards to keep creative and talented people from fleeing.

denmark happiest place on earth - Google Search

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGKUwMegZ4]Denmark happiest place on earth - YouTube[/ame]

They're so happy they don't know how miserable they are. I mean, for God's sake they eat fish for breakfast. And lunch. And dinner.

Very healthy diet. Probably a good reason that Danes and Japanese live longer than we do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Socialism is an inevitable failure. It comes with a 100% Guaranteed Fail rate. It's so bad that almost without exception, the countries who adopt it have to build walls topped with barbed wire and armed guards to keep creative and talented people from fleeing.

denmark happiest place on earth - Google Search

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTGKUwMegZ4]Denmark happiest place on earth - YouTube[/ame]

They're so happy they don't know how miserable they are. I mean, for God's sake they eat fish for breakfast. And lunch. And dinner.

Also they are a tiny, cohesive population in a tiny country, and because of the almost classless character of their sameness, they seem to be happy in their mediocrity while enjoying a fairly austere existance when compared to many other cultures. For a tiny population, they also have a disproportionately high level of addictions and suicides.

So in this case 'happiness' is relative.

 

[Intense]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

.

I think technology reduces the need for labor, and therefore makes it less of a commodity. But I think that has little to do with the whole "Capitalism vs. Communism" argument.

The thing is, both systems are absolutely wonderful on paper and both get truly fouled up when you get human beings involved.

We here, are rooted in Free Market Capitalism, not Communism. They are not interchangeable or compatible.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

I ask this question due to the technological and industrial advancements of the human race.

.

I think technology reduces the need for labor, and therefore makes it less of a commodity. But I think that has little to do with the whole "Capitalism vs. Communism" argument.

The thing is, both systems are absolutely wonderful on paper and both get truly fouled up when you get human beings involved.

We here, are rooted in Free Market Capitalism, not Communism. They are not interchangeable or compatible.

I am honestly saddened to think that you actually believe our capitalism system is free, or open or any of the above, the game is so rigged, i dont know where to start

 

[IGetItAlready]

I think technology reduces the need for labor, and therefore makes it less of a commodity. But I think that has little to do with the whole "Capitalism vs. Communism" argument.

The thing is, both systems are absolutely wonderful on paper and both get truly fouled up when you get human beings involved.

We here, are rooted in Free Market Capitalism, not Communism. They are not interchangeable or compatible.

I am honestly saddened to think that you actually believe our capitalism system is free, or open or any of the above, the game is so rigged, i dont know where to start

So let's hand everything over to the federal government because they're ALL about fairness and objectivity.

Your support for a heavy handed government will dry up the moment that the rich have all "gotten what they deserve" and YOU are next in line to be forced to bend over.

How do you feel about regulating, taxing and monitoring the internet?