PDA

View Full Version : Liberal, socialism, etc.



Bopper
Mar. 30, 2013, 11:48 AM
Do you think this country is heading towards Socialism? As more and more of our society appears to become dependent on the government for necessities it would seem that at some point the scale would tip and socialism would take over completely.

Some parties link the rise of liberalism with socialism, is that a valid association?

mvp
Mar. 30, 2013, 12:26 PM
Define socialism and liberalism first, please.

I say that because those tags get hurled around without any obligation to agree on them. So what makes someone a Socialist? Does favoring Head Start programs make one a Socialist....which might mean Communist.... which might mean Pinko Commie?

LauraKY
Mar. 30, 2013, 01:14 PM
You know, you really have to ask, when and why did socialism become a dirty word. Many of us equate socialism with communism. It's not the same thing.

Here's an interesting article that might help explain what socialism really is:

http://tellthetruthonthem.com/?page_id=269

vineyridge
Mar. 30, 2013, 01:27 PM
Nothing wrong with a tilt towards Socialism. Most of the rest of the Western World is Socialist to a greater or lesser degree, and they aren't headed for doomsday.

AffirmedHope
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:02 PM
I saw this explanation on Facebook and I think it's does pretty well in explaining the difference between the two. :D

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

stolen virtue
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:12 PM
I think a definition is necessary since I have heard many republicans state that having federal taxes makes this country a socialist nation. I think many of us don't want to explain the need for government in a society, again.

ezduzit
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:18 PM
I think we are already fairly *socialist*. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Pooling monies to get better things or improve things is a good thing.

I don't like our trend towards communism (as defined simply, above). More and more people are allowing themselves to become dependent on the government. It's a gradual increase but increasing none the less. Once enough people are in that dependent status, the government, then, can have all the cows and determines how much milk the citizens can get. As it stands now, too many citizens own cows for that too work. The system has to be brought down economically and socially until hardly any citizens can have cows unless the government supplies them. The citizens will be allowed to care for the government's cows.

This is what I fear will happen over the next few generations.

Beentheredonethat
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:20 PM
Well, I think we ought not be allowed to use names and such, but rather define what you mean. I am a conservative, which means I think we need to stop spending so much money, cut our military massively and get out of everyone's business, stop subsidizing corporations, get out of everyone's business that does not harm others (as in gay marriage, legalize pot) tie government salaries to performance, help thy neighbor (as in provide basics in education and healthcare) and so on, tax churches like the big businesses they are, ban all religion in politics, etc.

The people who call themselves "conservative" now seem to be fascists by definition. Socialism seems to be what the god of the Bible intended, but religious people seem more fascist. I don't know what liberal means. It seems to be what I would call conservative--you act like an adult and take care of the people around you and take on your fair share of the burden in life so you don't put it on others.

I think we have a lot of sophisticated brainwashing going on to convince people to do what they know is not right and to go against what is good for them.

stolen virtue
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:31 PM
I think we are already fairly *socialist*. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Pooling monies to get better things or improve things is a good thing.

I don't like our trend towards communism (as defined simply, above). More and more people are allowing themselves to become dependent on the government. It's a gradual increase but increasing none the less. Once enough people are in that dependent status, the government, then, can have all the cows and determines how much milk the citizens can get. As it stands now, too many citizens own cows for that too work. The system has to be brought down economically and socially until hardly any citizens can have cows unless the government supplies them. The citizens will be allowed to care for the government's cows.

This is what I fear will happen over the next few generations.

We are all dependent on the government. Roads, bridges, water supply (not everyone but most), sewer, police, fire, social security, medical professionals (must pass state boards to be able to practice)and many others. I am always shocked by the idea that the citizens must not depend on government, we all do. Furthermore, if all citizens had to read the infrastructure reports they would demand that more money be put into the aging systems that we rely on such as pipelines and the aging bridges. That is something to fear.

jr
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:33 PM
Socialism does not work. Take a look at the economic health and stability of Europe, or lack of stability that is.

Helping your neighbor is to be encouraged, but the government taking your stuff to hand to your neighbor is destructive. It is a disincentive to the folks who work hard, and an encouragement to those who do not. When government redistributes, folks who receive feel entitled and folks deprived of their hard earned property feel taken. When neighbors help out, the helper feels good, and the person helped generally feels a responsibility to make the most out of the hand up.

Our modern educational system is training the next generation that the government is the only way to help folks up from poverty. That's a prescription for disaster. The best way to help folks out of poverty is to have a thriving economy, a good educational system, neighbors helping neighbors, and a culture of personal responsibility. In the end, it takes personal motivation to improve your lot in life and a government check in no way way addresses the basic problem.

Communism, fascism, socialism are different faces of the same problem. Give me capitalism coupled with strong independent social institutions like various churches and civics organizations any day. Unfortunately, liberalism in this country has for over 100 years been working hard to shake the role of social institutions and strengthen the socialist bent in our government. Double trouble.

stolen virtue
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:36 PM
Well, how well did capitalism work for Wall Street in 2008 ? "Double trouble" how soon we forget...

mvp
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:37 PM
I saw this explanation on Facebook and I think it's does pretty well in explaining the difference between the two. :D

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

This discussion is going to go into the shitter if we start by taking out working definitions from FaceBook.

mvp
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:39 PM
Well, how well did capitalism work for Wall Street in 2008 ? "Double trouble" how soon we forget...

But something that looks like Socialism in broad strokes worked really well for the banks and General Motors. We certainly do practice socialism for "too big to fail" corporations. My sense is that Socialism was never designed to protect the largest and most powerful sectors of society (except indirectly by keeping things stable).

Bopper
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:40 PM
Instead of defining Socialism, how about making the question a little more clear. Do you think too many people depend on the government now for things they should be providing for themselves? Do you think the trend is for more dependence to the government to supply all that you need?

If someone is physically or mentally disabled and unable to provide for themselves then they definitely should get assistance but some people that should be able to provide for themselves have become dependent on the government for their whole lives.

The government has gone from providing the basics necessities of life (food, housing, etc.) to providing things like cell phones.

On a tangent note, have you noticed that several of the politicians that tout the 'redistribution of wealth' are quite wealthy and yet they don't redistribute their own wealth. Some of them RARELY give non political donations. I think this is ironic. If the redistribution of wealth is so vital then why not start with yourself and lead by example?

Beentheredonethat
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:42 PM
I agree, "capitalism" with the backing of strong tax free institutions like churches are what got us where we are today. Whatever you want to call it, it is the recipe for the disaster we got into.

And, I so agree on our infrastructure. I keep seeing more more and more reports of just how bad it is, from bridges to sewer and water systems. I live where the capitalist company PGE made money and the gas pipe blew up a neighborhood. I'm sure we're going to be hearing a lot more about failing bridges. What about the people in New Orleans and the water systems to keep them from flooding? How does that get paid for? Who paid for the clean up in the gulf when the capitalist company spilled the oil? I heard the report last night about the capitalist owner of Carnival is not paying for the billions of dollars in the clean up, rescue, whatever for the cruise ships that are failing because the law allows the loophole that the very rich can get into.

There are no easy answers. Putting simplistic names to big ideas doesn't solve anything. It's just a way of name-calling and not actually answering any questions.

I wrote this before yours, Bopper.

I agree that there is always corruption. But, things like the cel phones aren't as stupid as they look. I heard something about how there are so many used cel phones thrown away, it's basically free, and it's a way to "find" people you have no way to otherwise.

And I totally agree on the politicians thing. It has changed dramatically. Now they are all very wealthy. The problem is, they make the laws, and won't do things like make laws we WANT them to make about themselves. That part of it is what is out of control. And if they leave politics, they now get paid the big bucks to be a lobbyist because of all of their contacts. I think the key to this is to somehow tie in government pay to effectiveness, make lobbyists illegal, repeal the Citizens United decision and ALL political donations go into ONE pot to be shared by ALL, and, I don't know what.

jr
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:44 PM
I haven't forgotten anything. First, our real estate bubble was in part caused by government policy that encouraged unwise lending. Then the problem was compounded with gov intervention using taxpayer dollars to bail out bad businesses. That is not capitalism. We should have let the weakest go bankrupt. Instead, our gov is now printing money and driving a new bubble in the stock market.

Capitalism has flaws, but it's better than the rest. And if the government stops mucking with it, it works better....

stolen virtue
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:47 PM
Yes, the bailouts worked. But the US got to the crisis through pure capitalism with no government oversight, just like Enron when the company created power blackouts to get their power purchase contracts approved with higher rates. It is really sad that there are people who say capitalism is the only good economic system, 2008 was not that long ago and we still are feeling the effects.

Ignorance is just so sad.

jr
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:53 PM
I'm not going to call you ignorant. I'm sure you are not. Neither am I. We just disagree. People that disagree with you are not stupid, they generally have a different perspective based on education or experience. We all need to learn from each other and meet on the middle. Hard to do when you assume folks who disagree with you are unable to offer anything to the conversation.

stolen virtue
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:56 PM
I haven't forgotten anything. First, our real estate bubble was in part caused by government policy that encouraged unwise lending. Then the problem was compounded with gov intervention using taxpayer dollars to bail out bad businesses. That is not capitalism. We should have let the weakest go bankrupt. Instead, our gov is now printing money and driving a new bubble in the stock market.

Capitalism has flaws, but it's better than the rest. And if the government stops mucking with it, it works better....

Do some homework, real estate loans on margainal property and owners were not required to be identified, they were not required to be on the books because there was no requirement to disclose, that is capitalism with no regulations. The weakest had the most impact on our economic holdings-TOO BIG TO FAIL- the consequences would have been dire for this nation, think Greece.

"government printing money" this is why everyone needs to take courses in economics. This government is not creating a stock bubble, corporations are holding onto their cash, they are not investing into their infrastructure, employees or expanding hence their stocks go up.

jr
Mar. 30, 2013, 02:58 PM
You've cherry picked your facts, buts that's okay. I'm happy to read your posts and agree with some of your points and disagree with others.

I love it when folks say that conservatives are by definition, the closed minded ones.

Bluey
Mar. 30, 2013, 03:10 PM
I saw this explanation on Facebook and I think it's does pretty well in explaining the difference between the two. :D

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

I have heard:

SOCIALISM
You have two cows and you are evil for that.
Your neighbor without a cow is entitled to one and the government will see that he gets it.
Then the government will take half the milk.

COMMUNISM
You have two cows and are evil for that.
The government will take both and teach you a lesson, put you to work for the government in a mine in Siberia so you forget you ever thought of owning anything.

I will only say, you pick your poison.
One fascist dictator for all, or several government picked dictators of any flavor for all.

Whoever mentioned Europe becoming more and more socialist, yes and see where that is getting them, more and more governments failing and unrest all over.

There will always be more to do and it's share of discontents to whom nothing is ever good enough, but we better not let them run the show.
We have it good in the good old USA and so many don't realize how good.
When it comes to government, the grass is really not greener across the fence.

vineyridge
Mar. 30, 2013, 03:14 PM
One point of interest is that the fascist governments were explicitly anti-liberalism and anti-democracy. They were also explicitly socialist. :)

Monarch
Mar. 30, 2013, 03:46 PM
One thing to keep in mind. Buisness big and small, Banks and goverments are all run by people. People can be good or bad. Human nature never changes though it tries at times. I wish people would look at things for what they really are and not just what it looks or feels like. A bit of honesty with others and oneself could go along way.
M

mvp
Mar. 30, 2013, 04:14 PM
I haven't forgotten anything. First, our real estate bubble was in part caused by government policy that encouraged unwise lending. Then the problem was compounded with gov intervention using taxpayer dollars to bail out bad businesses. That is not capitalism. We should have let the weakest go bankrupt. Instead, our gov is now printing money and driving a new bubble in the stock market.

Capitalism has flaws, but it's better than the rest. And if the government stops mucking with it, it works better....

Before you can defend capitalism, you'd have to find a successful example of it. As you rightly point out, what the US has ain't it.

Note, that logically does not make the US socialist, nor does it say anything about what does work in all times and all places.

Oh, and the banks and people trading derivates weren't complaining about the government loopholes that allowed their respective businesses to grow. You can't put this all on government, or assume that the government was caught unawares. I think you can worry that legislation has become Wall Street's b!tch.

ezduzit
Mar. 30, 2013, 04:31 PM
I think this is like a bunch of kids playing together: the kids being capitalism. Then the parents and coaches come and take over: they being the government. Now if the kids are left to play on their own, they will figure out the rules. Sometimes it won't be pretty, there will be some knock-down, drag outs but they will end up with a game that suits everyone. Those that play hard will do better than those who try to cheat or slouch. When the parents/coaches get involved and start imposing THEIR rules based on THEIR idea of fairness, fair play, equality then nobody knows what the game is anymore and the kids of left powerless, except to try and follow ever-changing rules and regulations.

Capitalism needs to keep parents and coaches out of the game. And you're right...we don't have that in the U.S. We have a bastardization of capitalism. And THAT doesn't work.

AffirmedHope
Mar. 30, 2013, 04:35 PM
This discussion is going to go into the shitter if we start by taking out working definitions from FaceBook.

Gee, who the hell pissed in your cheerios?

I forgot NO HUMOR ALLOWED!!

Too bad, I'm posting the rest of the Facebook post because I thought it was FUNNY and we can all use a little bit of humor every once in a while on these types of topics. If that offends you well then good for you, here's a gold star.

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
throws the milk away

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy
grows.
You sell them and retire on the income

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to
produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why
the cow has dropped dead.

A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
You still only have two cows.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows,
but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...

Canaqua
Mar. 30, 2013, 04:47 PM
But something that looks like Socialism in broad strokes worked really well for the banks and General Motors. We certainly do practice socialism for "too big to fail" corporations. My sense is that Socialism was never designed to protect the largest and most powerful sectors of society (except indirectly by keeping things stable).

Yeah...privatized gains and socialized losses. Ugh.

vineyridge
Mar. 30, 2013, 05:08 PM
Here are some of the mostly socialist countries in Europe that seem to be working pretty well:
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Germany
Estonia
Finland
Latvia
Poland
Czech Republic
Austria
Hungary (?)

What do they have in common? Fairly homogenous populations that make it easier to care for one's neighbors. Also pretty much all NORTHERN Europe.

Lest we forget, Canada and New Zealand are far more socialist than the US.

Most of the functional AND non-functional European countries are mostly socialist. So you really can't blame the non-functional ones on socialism, per se. The ones that are falling apart seem to be the traditionally poor ones, except for Iceland which is a case study in itself.

grayarabpony
Mar. 30, 2013, 05:24 PM
I think this is like a bunch of kids playing together: the kids being capitalism. Then the parents and coaches come and take over: they being the government. Now if the kids are left to play on their own, they will figure out the rules. Sometimes it won't be pretty, there will be some knock-down, drag outs but they will end up with a game that suits everyone. Those that play hard will do better than those who try to cheat or slouch. When the parents/coaches get involved and start imposing THEIR rules based on THEIR idea of fairness, fair play, equality then nobody knows what the game is anymore and the kids of left powerless, except to try and follow ever-changing rules and regulations.

Capitalism needs to keep parents and coaches out of the game. And you're right...we don't have that in the U.S. We have a bastardization of capitalism. And THAT doesn't work.

I think you suffer from incomplete thought processes.

grayarabpony
Mar. 30, 2013, 05:30 PM
I haven't forgotten anything. First, our real estate bubble was in part caused by government policy that encouraged unwise lending. Then the problem was compounded with gov intervention using taxpayer dollars to bail out bad businesses. That is not capitalism. We should have let the weakest go bankrupt. Instead, our gov is now printing money and driving a new bubble in the stock market.

Capitalism has flaws, but it's better than the rest. And if the government stops mucking with it, it works better....

You, too, suffer from incomplete thought processes, because you're leaving out an entire side of the equation.

A large part of what caused the crisis was dishonest people in banking and real estate taking advantage of loopholes in laws. Many regulations were loosened starting in the Reagan era (and it continued) and people took advantage.

And no, I do not approve of bailing out said banks and no one going to jail. But it's very difficult to prosecute such crimes now within the current statutes of limitation.

jr
Mar. 30, 2013, 05:36 PM
I guess you didn't read the part where I said that it was caused in part by.... That would mean that I recognize multiple causes including the one that you mentioned among several other variables as well. I chose to talk to the one I personally feel is key, but certainly not the only one.

ezduzit
Mar. 30, 2013, 05:39 PM
I could write a book about it if you like. This is the internet...simplistic works best for most people.

I do actually prefer the growth of a topic during a face to face conversation.

You talk about dishonest people taking advantage of loopholes. So called *loopholes* are not against the law. Taking advantage of them is not being dishonest. Regulations loosened and people fulfilled them. That's not taking advantage.

What are the crimes that were committed? Why should anyone go to jail when they haven't broken any laws?

That you don't approve of it, I get. But you would take a deduction on your taxes for mortgage interest wouldn't you? To some, that's considered a loophole.

So your thought process may be complete but they are based on incorrect assessments of information.

Bluey
Mar. 30, 2013, 06:21 PM
Why were regulations loosened?
So people that normally would not have been able to get easy access to money, didn't have enough assets, didn't qualify as good risks, now, "make everyone equal", let everyone access the american dream.

Well, it worked for those that were thrifty and smart and careful with their money.
Didn't work with those many that were clueless about money and having access to it to buy stuff, mostly houses out of their reach normally, then could not make that work for them.

No one was making the public borrow beyond their means, they did it themselves.

The good, careful banks didn't fall for it, the big, greedy ones did and some of those failed.
I too think they should have be let to fail, insurance paid and let the other banks catch up the slack.
The customers of those failing banks had already lost.:(

carolprudm
Mar. 30, 2013, 06:49 PM
Why were regulations loosened?
So people that normally would not have been able to get easy access to money, didn't have enough assets, didn't qualify as good risks, now, "make everyone equal", let everyone access the american dream.

Well, it worked for those that were thrifty and smart and careful with their money.
Didn't work with those many that were clueless about money and having access to it to buy stuff, mostly houses out of their reach normally, then could not make that work for them.

No one was making the public borrow beyond their means, they did it themselves.

The good, careful banks didn't fall for it, the big, greedy ones did and some of those failed.
I too think they should have be let to fail, insurance paid and let the other banks catch up the slack.
The customers of those failing banks had already lost.:(
It was also thought that when people owned the homes they lived in rather than renting them they would take better care of them and their neighborhoods. Stable neighborhoods also seemed to have children who did better in school than transients.

Bluey
Mar. 30, 2013, 06:55 PM
It was also thought that when people owned the homes they lived in rather than renting them they would take better care of them and their neighborhoods. Stable neighborhoods also seemed to have children who did better in school than transients.

You would not think so if you see what some people do to new homes in the first few months they live there.:eek:

I do agree, there are way more than one reason why some ideas don't work, or don't always work.

There were plenty that, given a chance, some that regular well run banks would not have loaned to, a bit too risky, really did well with it and didn't have any trouble paying their interest on time and eventually the loans off.:)

vacation1
Mar. 31, 2013, 01:17 AM
Do you think this country is heading towards Socialism? As more and more of our society appears to become dependent on the government for necessities it would seem that at some point the scale would tip and socialism would take over completely. Some parties link the rise of liberalism with socialism, is that a valid association?

Completely skipping the definition-demanding and the competition to see who can call who ignorant first, I'm just going to go with OP's apparent definitions. And say yes, I think that liberalism (if you're definining it as the current Democratic administration) is going to lead to a deepening of socialism (if you're definining it as a larger segment of the US population depending on government programs), because the one thing that forces people into government programs like welfare and disability is a lack of jobs that pay a living wage. And that issue has been avoided like the plague by both parties for 30 years as corporate America shipped jobs overseas and savaged unions and that's because corporate America and the 1% that owns the largest and most powerful companies, bought our &%(*$&%(*&$@W% government one fat, filthy politician at a time. But although both parties (if you can even call them two parties; they're like siamese twins at this point, joined at the wallet) got us here, the liberalism side of the problem is in power and is doing nothing to solve the problem. Which is very disappointing, for those of us who are quite liberal on social issues and would rather like to vote for pro-abortion candidates.

stolen virtue
Mar. 31, 2013, 01:29 AM
Completely skipping the definition-demanding and the competition to see who can call who ignorant first, I'm just going to go with OP's apparent definitions. And say yes, I think that liberalism (if you're definining it as the current Democratic administration) is going to lead to a deepening of socialism (if you're definining it as a larger segment of the US population depending on government programs), because the one thing that forces people into government programs like welfare and disability is a lack of jobs that pay a living wage. And that issue has been avoided like the plague by both parties for 30 years as corporate America shipped jobs overseas and savaged unions and that's because corporate America and the 1% that owns the largest and most powerful companies, bought our &%(*$&%(*&$@W% government one fat, filthy politician at a time. But although both parties (if you can even call them two parties; they're like siamese twins at this point, joined at the wallet) got us here, the liberalism side of the problem is in power and is doing nothing to solve the problem. Which is very disappointing, for those of us who are quite liberal on social issues and would rather like to vote for pro-abortion candidates.

We all depend on the government hence my post with the list of government we ALL depend on. But hey "completely skipping the definition-demanding " therefore I skipped your post since it is pointless to address anything not defined and really your response is just rambling...

CVPeg
Mar. 31, 2013, 02:29 AM
Bluey - I don't necessarily agree with you about people making their own decisions about being qualified to buy or not. I do agree people do need to be responsible for their own decisions. But I have seen many lead down the garden path.

And I don't mean to dump on you. ;) But perhaps share my experiences.

Amongst myriad other things, I've been a real estate agent, then broker, off and on since the early 80's. When first trained, we learned to qualify buyers ourselves, so that we were showing properties to those qualified, not to waste the sellers time, the buyers time, and our own. Back then banks were very careful about how they worked, and who they'd loan money to.

Stepped away from it in the early 90's, then returned in the early 2000's back in my hometown, initially working with a poorly trained broker. I was then told not to even discuss finances with buyers, that they'd be qualified by their banks, mortgage companies, whatever... just show the houses. Crappy broker then slid to Florida for the winter, leaving me to do the closings. (When he returned I went out on my own.) I shuddered at several of them I attended. Using fly-by-night out-of-state mortgage companies that didn't have a clue, weren't prepared, didn't have the paper work right. Of course, it is all our fault as agents, even though they were unreachable and disorganized. Does having all the paperwork signed by a dummy authority sound familiar? And the buyers encouraged to go beyond their comfortable realistic situation? So what? As long as it helped some banks meet their quotas!

And don't get me started on the appraisals that way over-appraised. I am now in a smaller market, with some high end homes. So we did have it tough in the other direction, as there was little to compare things to. But when banks see housing in a formulaic manner, with frankly no real ties to reality, it is danger time. You should have seen the houses well priced in horrible locations, or poorly constructed - very subjective items an appraiser adds or subtracts from - simply because the square footage and lot size are similar to another - albeit much nicer home. Yessir, Mr Appraiser, just do whatever it takes so we can get 'em closed, and we can all get our mortgage broker bonuses. Then lousy location home would be eventually dumped when their values were truly apparent as the housing market slid. Over and over again.

One example in this neck of the woods. Lake A is very deep water, historic town, very desirable. Lake B is 10 miles away, but frankly hardly deep at all, so it is stinkier in the summer, and often dried up on the edges. City buyers coming to the area have all convinced themselves that when they bought Lake B property, because it is "on a lake", that now they can sell it for the big bucks. And other newbies think, "OK, looks good..." And then wonder why theirs doesn't have the better turn around time... You're right a buyer should have done his homework to make a good decision. But an appraisal might not reflect the different locales...

And I've handled lots of foreclosures, having represented banks in sales. You wouldn't believe how many refused to winterize homes (fortunately my main bank was one of the good ones) - how many were damaged because large banks/mortgage companies were too disorganized to handle their messes. Certainly delinquent homeowners leave damage, but banks often have other priorities than worrying about a house dropping $100k because of the ruined HVAC system and significant water damage they didn't timely address.

Frankly, I loved selling foreclosures, because I wouldn't take a listing that a bank would overprice. But then companies started popping up to oversee the brokers handling foreclosures. I gave up when one of these companies said they would only reimburse my expenses - which often were significant - coordinating locksmiths, clean-up crew, dumpsters, landscapers - if I mailed my proof on one of two allowed days a month I could postmark my letter on. Really...

Frankly, it really all happened when mortgages were sold on the secondary market, and no one ever maintained the personnel to adequately oversee them. Period.

hosspuller
Mar. 31, 2013, 02:57 AM
It was also thought that when people owned the homes they lived in rather than renting them they would take better care of them and their neighborhoods. Stable neighborhoods also seemed to have children who did better in school than transients.

This is the thought that confuses cause and effect.

Stable people and families are able to save a down payment to buy a house. A house doesn't make stable people and families. When the gov't forced house purchases with no money down, the unstable people and families were able to buy a house. Since they didn't have any skin or their money in the house, they didn't take care of the house or stripped it bare when they left it. This is the major cause of the housing bubble and when it burst, the damage we're living through today.

stolen virtue
Mar. 31, 2013, 03:18 AM
No the housing "bubble" was created by the compete lack of accountability of the lenders, some of which were fresh and new to the banking market. Bad loans were never disclosed and the accounting was a sham, our loan on our house went through 4 banks. Yes, capitalism with no accountability created the housing bubble....wonder whats next...

Repeal of the Glass Segal Act allowed insurance companies (they were too big to fail as an example) and other financial institutions to be in the loan business without disclosing bad loans. Free market for all, no disclosure to what the "assets" actually were.

Bluey
Mar. 31, 2013, 06:44 AM
No the housing "bubble" was created by the compete lack of accountability of the lenders, some of which were fresh and new to the banking market. Bad loans were never disclosed and the accounting was a sham, our loan on our house went through 4 banks. Yes, capitalism with no accountability created the housing bubble....wonder whats next...

Repeal of the Glass Segal Act allowed insurance companies (they were too big to fail as an example) and other financial institutions to be in the loan business without disclosing bad loans. Free market for all, no disclosure to what the "assets" actually were.

Well, the house bubble was created because everyone and their dog was going to live the american dream without having to work for it, they were entitled to it and a whole bunch of factors came together to give it to them.

Now every Tom, Dick and Harry could get all the money they wanted, even if they didn't understand that money doesn't really grow on trees, that they have to work for it and treat it right, that they can't just live high on the hog, for them and expect to miraculously the mortgage be as easy to pay every month, the money just appear out of the blue for them, it is their right.

Yes, some unscrupulous people were selling them their dreams, but people also were coming to them with little thought.

Happens in so much we do and you know, no matter what society you have, there are some that are not smart enough to figure things out and fall for all and any some slick salesman sells, here the housing bubble.

As a society, we have to look after the citizens, need sensible laws and regulations, but there is also a line where you have to expect adults to act like they are adults and rational and sensible and not fall for the snake oil salesmen.

While some think they know how to run societies, there is a point where we have to let the people in them make their own mistakes, because without that, no one would ever learn.
That is one reason I don't like bankruptcy laws, they are letting people fall into mistakes, let the ones that do take care to do what is right fail then and they do not learn from the failures.

I know someone who just went thru bankruptcy for the second time and it is made so easy today, while leaving others hanging to make up for it.

Society dynamics are not as simple cause and effect as we may want to make them sound.
By the time we can look back and see what all is happening, there were many forces tugging at our past and depending where we stand ourselves colors what we choose to see.

Talking about disruptions to the existing path our country is taking, just wait until the results of this new socialized type medicine is implemented more thoroughly next year.
I read some articles in medical magazines trying to figure this out, to position themselves where they can live with the new reality.
I think in the end we may have a bigger disruption to our lives with this situation than the housing market bobble caused and yes, that "bobble" is not a spelling error.

enjoytheride
Mar. 31, 2013, 08:49 AM
Socialism is a system that seeks to satisfy human needs, goods are produced for use and not just private profit. "To each according to his contribution" " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" The idea is that human behavior is shaped by the social environment people grow up in and when people develop their own interests and use their own talents through work they become happier and more productive. The belief is that a capitalist government controlled system concentrates wealth and creates inequality which does not allow individuals that are exploited to reach their potential.

Ideally everything is owned by co op, worker run institutions producing goods for other workers with each worker having a say in the production of the goods. Eventually money would become non existent as it would become unnecessary. As everyone's needs are met money would become obselete

Marx believed that communism and eventually socialism were the natural course of things, as workers became more upset at wage slavery and would eventually overthrow the state and moving toward a classless society.

If you look at the conditions of lower class workers during the time frame this view makes much more sense.

So real socialism and communism are initiated at the very bottom level in a spontaneous movement, by the workers who join together to combat the slavery like conditions, and not by a government who uses the definition to seek more power and control and as a reason for taking things away from people that need them.

WildBlue
Mar. 31, 2013, 09:04 AM
I think this is like a bunch of kids playing together: the kids being capitalism. Then the parents and coaches come and take over: they being the government. Now if the kids are left to play on their own, they will figure out the rules. Sometimes it won't be pretty, there will be some knock-down, drag outs but they will end up with a game that suits everyone. Those that play hard will do better than those who try to cheat or slouch. When the parents/coaches get involved and start imposing THEIR rules based on THEIR idea of fairness, fair play, equality then nobody knows what the game is anymore and the kids of left powerless, except to try and follow ever-changing rules and regulations.

Capitalism needs to keep parents and coaches out of the game. And you're right...we don't have that in the U.S. We have a bastardization of capitalism. And THAT doesn't work.

Of course, too far the other way results in Lord of the Flies...

I'm not sure most people are on board with an extreme in either direction, as there can be good and bad points to both. IMO, the big problem is that the strongest make the rules and arrange things for their own gain. That disenfranchises everyone else, particularly if the 'everyone else' stays busy blaming and bickering between themselves.

ReSomething
Mar. 31, 2013, 09:06 AM
. . .\
Frankly, it really all happened when mortgages were sold on the secondary market, and no one ever maintained the personnel to adequately oversee them. Period.

Agree with this in terms of the housing market. Mortgages turned into "paper" and got sold as investment vehicles independent of due diligence regarding the collateral and the mortgage holder.

Isabeau Z Solace
Mar. 31, 2013, 09:37 AM
Capitalism needs to keep parents and coaches out of the game. And you're right...we don't have that in the U.S. We have a bastardization of capitalism. And THAT doesn't work.

I believe that scenario was considered in Lord of the Flies....

ezduzit
Mar. 31, 2013, 09:54 AM
I wasn't talking about anything as extreme as that...which was fiction.

I mean a playground situation where kids are just playing. They scrap, they come up with *rules* for their made up game. It's actually a developmental step that is missing from childhoods these day. The ability to learn to work with a group, come up with mutually acceptable boundaries, negotiate, compromise and end up with a game. It enhances leadership skills in some children, enhances worker bee skills in others, allows for imaginative outlets...all kinds of developmental opportunities that are taken away or squelched as soon as adults come in and start applying THEIR rules and expecting the kids to 'hop to' just because that's how it's done.

alterhorse
Mar. 31, 2013, 10:17 AM
There's an ancient governing strategy that is based on providing just enough assistance to placate the underclasses for the purpose of preventing uprisings, and then finding ways to take enough from the underclasses, to pervert them from becoming powerful enough to inplement changes that might threaten the balance of power.

LauraKY
Mar. 31, 2013, 10:20 AM
There's an ancient governing strategy that is based on providing just enough assistance to placate the underclasses for the purpose of preventing uprisings, and then finding ways to take enough from the underclasses, to pervert them from becoming powerful enough to inplement changes that might threaten the balance of power.

I suspect we may be approaching a tipping point.

ezduzit
Mar. 31, 2013, 10:41 AM
Which way do you see it tipping?


I suspect we may be approaching a tipping point.

alterhorse
Mar. 31, 2013, 10:51 AM
I suspect we may be approaching a tipping point.

I wonder if it's just a coincidence that those who tend to achieve power also tend to support those policies that facilitated their success.

In other words. The path to success favors those whose actions tend to enable those who are already successful.

This doesn't tend provide for many alternative choices for supporting existence, even if those other choices might be viable.

sunridge1
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:33 AM
I suspect we may be approaching a tipping point.

I think we've already tipped. Now it's just a matter of time before our middle class way of life no longer exists. We are already owned.

sunridge1
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:34 AM
Double.

Bluey
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:35 AM
Of course, too far the other way results in Lord of the Flies...

I'm not sure most people are on board with an extreme in either direction, as there can be good and bad points to both. IMO, the big problem is that the strongest make the rules and arrange things for their own gain. That disenfranchises everyone else, particularly if the 'everyone else' stays busy blaming and bickering between themselves.

Good and bad points, people come from all extremes also, the ones working hard and making it work for them, those that don't quite make it and the freeloaders the others have to carry.

In paper, it sounds good to want to run a society of equals, but where do you put those that don't pull their weight and those that are outright crooks and criminals then, before you catch them to put them away so they don't get to participate and take advantage when they can?

We have an imperfect set of humans and we have to consider all of them when trying to make societies work and that is a juggling effort and why we have the societies we have and none that stable.
We have a boiling pot, not one sitting on a cold stove.

If science and technology doesn't save our bacon yet again, with as many humans as we have, we are headed for an implosion, as we will be scrambling for scarce resources of all kinds, food one that may become in short supply sooner rather than later.

While more and more of the world is getting a better standard of living, "only" half are starving today, compared with 2/3 a few short decades ago, I am not sure that those in the first world and with first world problems will hold the fort down so we can keep trying to bring all on board.

sunridge1
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:41 AM
Good and bad points, people come from all extremes also, the ones working hard and making it work for them, those that don't quite make it and the freeloaders the others have to carry.

In paper, it sounds good to want to run a society of equals, but where do you put those that don't pull their weight and those that are outright crooks and criminals then, before you catch them to put them away so they don't get to participate and take advantage when they can?

We have an imperfect set of humans and we have to consider all of them when trying to make societies work and that is a juggling effort and why we have the societies we have and none that stable.
We have a boiling pot, not one sitting on a cold stove.

If science and technology doesn't save our bacon yet again, with as many humans as we have, we are headed for an implosion, as we will be scrambling for scarce resources of all kinds, food one that may become in short supply sooner rather than later.

While more and more of the world is getting a better standard of living, "only" half are starving today, compared with 2/3 a few short decades ago, I am not sure that those in the first world and with first world problems will hold the fort down so we can keep trying to bring all on board.
Guess I don't have to give examples of that, plenty right here on COTH.;)

I think water will become the new oil.

Bluey
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:46 AM
I think water will become the new oil.

Yes, definitely.

Did I mention we are in the third year of a record breaking drought, some say the 17th of a 30 year drought cycle?:eek:

mvp
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:49 AM
I'm not going to call you ignorant. I'm sure you are not. Neither am I. We just disagree. People that disagree with you are not stupid, they generally have a different perspective based on education or experience. We all need to learn from each other and meet on the middle. Hard to do when you assume folks who disagree with you are unable to offer anything to the conversation.

I don't think someone arguing for pure capitalism-- while remembering it's failures-- is ignorant, per se. But what I don't understand is why someone would support something that screwed them over. How do you resolve the two?

mvp
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:53 AM
Again, y'all need definitions and examples of the "capitalism" you'd like and the "socialism" you don't want.

With respect to pure capitalism, I assume you mean little-to-no regulation. Monopolies are cool, unsafe working conditions are cool-- to the extent that the market allows those. Would you favorite examples be Dickensian England? The US in the 1880s and 1890s? Show me the capitalism you mean.

sunridge1
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:55 AM
Honest capitalism could work. It would the ideal. However we know that'll never happen.

mvp
Mar. 31, 2013, 12:03 PM
Gee, who the hell pissed in your cheerios?

I forgot NO HUMOR ALLOWED!!

Too bad, I'm posting the rest of the Facebook post because I thought it was FUNNY and we can all use a little bit of humor every once in a while on these types of topics. If that offends you well then good for you, here's a gold star.

Humor is super-awesome..... when it is In Addition To and not A Substitute For serious thought.

Really Not Funny in the end of the giant plan is to laugh about shitty government until it bites you in the ass. And here's the thing, I think we are getting bitten in the ass now.

AffirmedHope
Mar. 31, 2013, 12:12 PM
And here's the thing, I think we are getting bitten in the ass now.

No disagreement from me there.

vacation1
Mar. 31, 2013, 06:07 PM
We all depend on the government hence my post with the list of government we ALL depend on. But hey "completely skipping the definition-demanding " therefore I skipped your post since it is pointless to address anything not defined and really your response is just rambling...

Here's an idea; if a post is rambling and pointless and you don't read it, just don't respond.

stolen virtue
Mar. 31, 2013, 06:38 PM
Completely skipping the definition-demanding and the competition to see who can call who ignorant first,

Here is another thought, maybe insulting posters before you ramble is not the best way to make a point...

vacation1
Mar. 31, 2013, 06:45 PM
Here is another thought, maybe insulting posters before you ramble is not the best way to make a point...

I didn't insult you, you self-important whiny twerp (see, that's an insult). Declining to play the definitions game is not insulting you; you were hardly the only person to decide to go in that direction of nailing down exactly what "liberalism" and "socialism" mean.

Bluey
Mar. 31, 2013, 06:49 PM
I didn't insult you, you self-important whiny twerp (see, that's an insult). Declining to play the definitions game is not insulting you; you were hardly the only person to decide to go in that direction of nailing down exactly what "liberalism" and "socialism" mean.

I like that creative use of the English language.
Sounds like you are calling someone a kind of rare bird, not really an insult to my ears.:p

vineyridge
Mar. 31, 2013, 06:51 PM
1. Unregulated capitalism tends to monopoly, per Bertrand Russell in Freedom and Organization. That certainly seems to be correct, IMO.
2. The profit motive (greed) is the explicitly the driver of capitalism. Profits are enhanced by lower expenses. Expenses generally include wages and benefits, environmental remediation and preservation, materials costs, quality control, etc. etc.

In socialism, the driving motive is human welfare, as it is in liberalism--the greatest good for the greatest number.

alterhorse
Mar. 31, 2013, 07:34 PM
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Smith/tms133.html

This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments. That wealth and greatness are often regarded with the respect and admiration which are due only to wisdom and virtue; and that the contempt, of which vice and folly are the only proper objects, is often most unjustly bestowed upon poverty and weakness, has been the complaint of moralists in all ages.

~ Adam Smith
The Theory of Moral Sentiments

inne
Mar. 31, 2013, 07:42 PM
God, I *wish* the US was on the path to true socialism or even plain old social democracy. That would be fantastic. However, the US has the weakest social welfare state in the western world, socialism is misunderstood and demonized to the point that it is rarely possible to even have a rational discussion about it outside certain academic communities, and the histories and political ideologies that set the stage for socialist and social democrat intervention in many European states are entirely missing from the US. Sadly, there is no true, meaningful leftism in American electoral politics and I don't believe there will be in any foreseeable future.

kathy s.
Mar. 31, 2013, 08:06 PM
In socialism, the driving motive is human welfare, as it is in liberalism--the greatest good for the greatest number.


Yeah, isn't that what the pigs said in "Animal Farm?"

Or this? "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10

Canaqua
Mar. 31, 2013, 08:21 PM
Yeah, isn't that what the pigs said in "Animal Farm?"

Or this? "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others."
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10

Orwell wasn't criticizing socialism (Orwell was a Socialist himself), he was critcizing corrupt leadership (i.e. Stalin).

And the quote above...not inappropriate for the state of affairs in the US right now.

I'm pretty sure that George Orwell would agree with inne's post above.

kathy s.
Mar. 31, 2013, 09:46 PM
And the quote above...not inappropriate for the state of affairs in the US right now.

I'm pretty sure that George Orwell would agree with inne's post above.


First, I agree that our country seems to be heading in this direction. However, after reading 1984, I think Orwell was pointing out the direction he thought America would be going in. As a Sociologist, I think Orwell foresaw what was happening to our country, even back then.

kathy s.
Mar. 31, 2013, 09:47 PM
And the quote above...not inappropriate for the state of affairs in the US right now.

I'm pretty sure that George Orwell would agree with inne's post above.


First, I agree that our country seems to be heading in this direction. However, after reading 1984, I think Orwell was pointing out the direction he thought America would be going in. As a Sociologist, I think Orwell foresaw what was happening to our country, even back then.

JER
Mar. 31, 2013, 10:31 PM
Do you think this country is heading towards Socialism? As more and more of our society appears to become dependent on the government for necessities it would seem that at some point the scale would tip and socialism would take over completely.

Some parties link the rise of liberalism with socialism, is that a valid association?

The reason more Americans are dependent on the government is because the percentage of Americans living below the poverty level has increased over the past decade. Real household income has decreased. Income inequality is on the increase.

Can you understand that increased poverty ≠ socialism? Can you understand that it has nothing to do with liberalism?

This interview (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121226/joseph-stiglitz-us-income-inequality) with Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz addresses these issues:


People that are born at the bottom now stay at the bottom whereas in the Scandinavian countries people are still able to work their way up the ladder. Those that start at the bottom have a much better chance of getting to the top than those in the United States.

More specifically, what other countries should find disturbing about America are three things:

One, we don't recognize the benefits of people getting access to medicine and other basic necessities of life. In spite of being a rich country, those at the bottom in the US have inadequate healthcare and food. When I visited India this year, I remember how scandalous they thought it was that not everybody had access to food. People in other societies view this as a lack of humanity. A kid born into a poor family should at least have access to adequate food and healthcare.

Two, America has become a rent-seeking society, a term of opprobrium we usually hear applied to oil-exporting countries. Rent-seekers extract profit from existing industries without contributing value – in the form of innovation, entrepreneurship, and growth – to the economy. They use their wealth to consolidate their power, by influencing regulations and government policies. This has happened in many instances – we see it in our military and drug companies, in our banks that succeeded in stripping away regulations, which allowed them to earn huge profits at the expense of the rest of society – and it's not a model for a competitive dynamic economy.

Three, we do so little to correct the inequality in our country. In fact, we do much less than countries that have less inequality than we have, and that's disturbing.

A little socialism might do a lot of good for the US.

kathy s.
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:21 PM
The reason more Americans are dependent on the government is because the percentage of Americans living below the poverty level has increased over the past decade. Real household income has decreased. Income inequality is on the increase.

Can you understand that increased poverty ≠ socialism? Can you understand that it has nothing to do with liberalism?

A little socialism might do a lot of good for the US.


Bolding mine. What I see is people choosing unemployment instead of getting a second job. I sit in my graduate classes listening to the young people complaining about the cut in hours at their job yet voting for liberals (you know, the ones who support Obamacare).
Why is it most refuse to get a second job vs complain they aren't being paid enough? IMO, most, not all, would rather sit and bitch than get out there and work. Sign of the times.
I have worked up to 3 jobs at a time to get by. It never occurred to me to ask for benefits. And I have a friend that is working 5 part time jobs to get by. So, I have no sympathy for those griping they can't find work. It's out there- go get it.

Beentheredonethat
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:37 PM
When I see the top 1% increasing their income 300% in the last 10 years, and the average schmo 7%, it's REALLY obvious why there is an income gap. Yep, there will always be slackers, but it's the slackers in the top 1% causing the problem.

When I see "conservatives" whining about this, and yet they were going to vote for the biggest slacker of all who wanted to cut his taxes to 0 and then cut the bottom? Yeah. When we stop subsidizing Exxon slackers instead of focusing on those at the bottom, than we'll be on the right track.

JER
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:46 PM
Bolding mine. What I see is people choosing unemployment instead of getting a second job. I sit in my graduate classes listening to the young people complaining about the cut in hours at their job yet voting for liberals (you know, the ones who support Obamacare).

A full-time job at minimum wage puts an American worker below the poverty line with no benefits. You can't blame that on the labor force.

How is it that you think that voting for conservatives will help the situation?


Why is it most refuse to get a second job vs complain they aren't being paid enough? IMO, most, not all, would rather sit and bitch than get out there and work. Sign of the times.

How many hours a week do you think people should have to work to even reach the frickin' poverty line?

Here (http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/) are some stats on the US work force:


At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week; the U.S. does not.

In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.

According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”
Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker.


I have worked up to 3 jobs at a time to get by. It never occurred to me to ask for benefits.

So you've been exploited. How do you feel about that?

Why is it that American workers think they have few rights and little value? Maybe because they don't.

Wake up, kathy s. You deserve better treatment in the work place.

inne
Mar. 31, 2013, 11:49 PM
What is disturbing to me is that someone would have to work 5 jobs to make ends meet and that you would have to ask for benefits in the first place rather than simply get them. It is always a bit odd to me when people start racing to the bottom rather than agitating for improved labour conditions for everyone.

sid
Apr. 1, 2013, 12:03 AM
Haven' read all the posts. All I can say is that as a biz owner who has loved and taken care of all my employees over the last 25 years, with every benefit, fair and excellent pay, and still grow my biz to take on others in the same fashion, I can't anymore.

When I add up all the benefits, salaries and perks that people demand to match what they can get from not working at all from gov't entitlements, and massive regulations that take up so much of my time, I can no longer compete.

The gov is just putting me out of business, since 2008, when higher prices for everything -- especially feed, bedding and everything that is agricultural since ethanol/corn growing for fuel for the new green enegy diatribe started.

And with gas prices skyrocketing that winds up in the all costs of goods and services we all need, whether in the horse biz or not. It all winds up with higher prices for all. And I'm NOT the 1 or 2%. Well, at one point I was but I'm rapidly heading to to the "other 47%".

So sad, I loved employing others, watch them and their families grow.

Socialism? Maybe. Don't know. All I know is what has happened since 2008 is not geared to people like me who want to grow a biz and hire people and be able to pay them well, give good benefits.

Basically, I'm shut down. The day of the small biz owner (or any biz that GROSSES over $250K per year, sans expenses) which has driven our economy for centuries, is over. The big ones, that make uber contributions to political canditates will be those who survives as they will always get political favors.

It sucks.

kathy s.
Apr. 1, 2013, 12:12 AM
A full-time job at minimum wage puts an American worker below the poverty line with no benefits. You can't blame that on the labor force.

How is it that you think that voting for conservatives will help the situation?



How many hours a week do you think people should have to work to even reach the frickin' poverty line?

Here (http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/) are some stats on the US work force:





So you've been exploited. How do you feel about that?

Why is it that American workers think they have few rights and little value? Maybe because they don't.

Wake up, kathy s. You deserve better treatment in the work place.


I am not a conservative, I am an Independent. And the reason Americans have few rights and little value is b/c they keep voting for people like McCain, Reid, and Pelosi. The reason Americans have few rights and little value is b/c they DO NOT pay attention to what is going on, instead choose to be sheeple. That's why.

Until that changes, well here we are...
And as far as "waking up," I have, for a very long time. Problem is those that haven't...

JER
Apr. 1, 2013, 12:36 AM
I am not a conservative, I am an Independent. And the reason Americans have few rights and little value is b/c they keep voting for people like McCain, Reid, and Pelosi.

Yet you were only castigating the 'young people' in your classes for voting for 'liberals'.

Because I still don't get your point, can you please tell me who you think these young people should be voting for and how you think their policies will promote positive change for American workers?


The reason Americans have few rights and little value is b/c they DO NOT pay attention to what is going on, instead choose to be sheeple. That's why.

If you're paying attention to what's going on around you, why aren't you standing up for your rights?

When you're working three jobs and it never occurs to you to ask for benefits, you are the very definition of sheeple.

kathy s.
Apr. 1, 2013, 12:59 AM
Yet you were only castigating the 'young people' in your classes for voting for 'liberals'.

Because I still don't get your point, can you please tell me who you think these young people should be voting for and how you think their policies will promote positive change for American workers?



If you're paying attention to what's going on around you, why aren't you standing up for your rights?

When you're working three jobs and it never occurs to you to ask for benefits, you are the very definition of sheeple.

Yeah,

Keep asking for benefits and let me know how that is working for you...

vineyridge
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:06 AM
Yeah,

Keep asking for benefits and let me know how that is working for you...

And you don't think you're being exploited?

kathy s.
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:17 AM
And you don't think you're being exploited?

No way, no how. I think those that consider themselves "exploited" are those that don't educate themselves. I am smart, educated, and have worked in blue-collar jobs. Those that are "exploited" choose to ignore what they observe in front of their face.
You that consider yourselves "exploited" can continue having pity parties, whining 'woe is me'.... The solution is to vote idiots out of office and vote in those you know will make a change. Simple.

Beentheredonethat
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:19 AM
Right. And who will make a change? Where did your vote go?

JER
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:23 AM
Keep asking for benefits and let me know how that is working for you...

Quite well, actually. I belong to a labor union, so my work contracts come with benefits, protections, and guarantees.

Also, could you please answer my question about your students and which candidates -- if not 'liberals' (and seriously, true liberals are only on the ballot in a handful of places) -- your students should be voting for to promote a better working life for Americans?

vineyridge
Apr. 1, 2013, 02:15 AM
Workers in America work more hours, have less vacation, no guaranteed health care, no job protection without civil service or a union, and often have their hours manipulated so they do not even get overtime. I happen to be a very well educated professional, and still had to suffer from both sexual harassment and wage inequality, as well as lack of equal opportunity from the private sector. Much of the latter has changed for women who weren't in the first wave of professional school graduates. And I was privileged.

If a full time job or a group of part time jobs that equal full time work does not pay enough to lift the hard working sob who is in that situation out of poverty and give him/her health care and a pension or equivalent earnings, then the employers ARE exploiting their workers.

inne
Apr. 1, 2013, 02:18 AM
No way, no how. I think those that consider themselves "exploited" are those that don't educate themselves. I am smart, educated, and have worked in blue-collar jobs. Those that are "exploited" choose to ignore what they observe in front of their face.
You that consider yourselves "exploited" can continue having pity parties, whining 'woe is me'.... The solution is to vote idiots out of office and vote in those you know will make a change. Simple.

What are they ignoring? What change do you want? Who will create it?

And how do you deal with an economy that fundamentally depends on poverty level labour on a mass scale? Poverty is not a character flaw, it is an economic condition, and its existence is *necessary* for America's economy to function in its current state. It is absolutely disingenuous to talk about ending poverty via education and magical bootstraps and various other mechanisms if we do not talk about the basics of our economic structures and labour practices, structures and practices that would have to radically change in order for poverty to be eliminated to any meaningful extent. What type of economy can support itself without poverty and how do we create it? Moreover, what type of economy can support itself with good labour conditions and a high quality of life for everyone? There are some very, very good models to look at.

Frank B
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:35 AM
Well, how well did capitalism work for Wall Street in 2008 ? "Double trouble" how soon we forget...
Yeah, right. (http://robinbrown.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/double-facepalm1.jpg)

What we've been subjected to for the past four decades has been an increasingly bastardized version of Capitalism distorted and manipulated by bureaucrats and politicians who lack the financial acumen to even make a go of a lemonade stand in downtown Phoenix on an August afternoon.

If you want an insider's first hand look at the economic collapse and what brought it on, read John A. Allison's "The Financial Crisis and The Free Market Cure" (http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Crisis-Free-Market-Cure/dp/0071806776/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364820045&sr=8-1&keywords=john+a+allison). It exposes many factors that you won't hear of from the so-called mainstream media. It was on The Wall Street Journal's best seller list for a considerable amount of time.

kathy s.
Apr. 1, 2013, 11:07 AM
Workers in America work more hours, have less vacation, no guaranteed health care, no job protection without civil service or a union, and often have their hours manipulated so they do not even get overtime. I happen to be a very well educated professional, and still had to suffer from both sexual harassment and wage inequality, as well as lack of equal opportunity from the private sector. Much of the latter has changed for women who weren't in the first wave of professional school graduates. And I was privileged.

If a full time job or a group of part time jobs that equal full time work does not pay enough to lift the hard working sob who is in that situation out of poverty and give him/her health care and a pension or equivalent earnings, then the employers ARE exploiting their workers.

I've belonged to 2 unions working in male-dominated professions. Good benefits came with that membership. OTOH, I worked at several horse farms cleaning stalls, grooming, etc. and had to work jobs to supplement that income in order to get by. Now, with illegal labor to compete with, I doubt I could get a job at a barn.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle are allowing businesses to exploit workers by hiring illegal workers whom they can get away with paying less than a living wage and no benefits. I get sick of hearing people say illegals do the work Americans won't do. After Katrina, I had many friends in the construction field go to New Orleans to work and were turned away by contractors that told them cheaper labor was on it's way. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-labor4apr04,0,128489.story

I guess my point here is that much of what is happening in the U.S. we bring on ourselves. We have to be vigilant and get ride of the entrenched politicos that impose laws on ordinary citizens yet exempt themselves from them. And to the person that asked which way I voted, it's no one's business however, I will say I didn't vote for either presidential nominee last time around.

hastyreply
Apr. 1, 2013, 11:33 AM
None of them really work if your expect that whatever your idea of a "perfect" life is what will be the result. There are always those who will exploit others and those who will be exploited. In all large communist/socialist societies they just exchanged one group of HAVES with another. There was still a large group of have nots, stuck with no way out.

Unfortunately those who seek the limelight and leadership roles more often have their own agenda they are hoping to set in motion. It makes no difference what their ideology is. It is mans nature, it seems, to want what others have, to think it all should be shared equally but not to contribute equally, their mindset is right and everyone else's is wrong.

The sharing the "wealth" of a nation is akin to dividing a cake among a group of children. Some will take their piece and quickly eat it and ask for more. Some will just lick the icing off and ask for another piece even though they didn't eat their cake. Some will refuse it because they don't like that flavor and sulk about it. Some will eat their piece and be happy with that. A few will want to know how it was made, so they can learn to make one on their own. We seem to be heading for the first 2 types as a majority in this country.

7HL
Apr. 1, 2013, 11:43 AM
Do you think this country is heading towards Socialism? As more and more of our society appears to become dependent on the government for necessities it would seem that at some point the scale would tip and socialism would take over completely.

Some parties link the rise of liberalism with socialism, is that a valid association? Just as valid as linking conservatism, with bigotry and fascism.

JER
Apr. 1, 2013, 11:53 AM
And to the person that asked which way I voted, it's no one's business however, I will say I didn't vote for either presidential nominee last time around.

If you're referring to me, I've never asked how you voted.

What you said in your previous post was:


I sit in my graduate classes listening to the young people complaining about the cut in hours at their job yet voting for liberals (you know, the ones who support Obamacare).

The question I've asked -- repeatedly now -- is who you think these young people should be voting for in order to improve the lot of American workers and job-seekers.

Not 'liberals', you say, while apparently defining 'liberals' as those who support Obamacare. So who, in your opinion, should your students vote for?

Obamacare allows Americans to stay on their parents' health care until the age of 26. Thus, voting for candidates who support Obamacare has a direct benefit to your young people. Yet you think that they are not voting in their best interests when they vote for these candidates.

Clearly, as it 'never occurred to you to ask for benefits', you think that others should not be offered access to basic health care.

So once again, I ask you to tell me who you think these young people should be voting for. You don't have to name names, but I would like to know what policies and political philosophies you think these young people should support.

hosspuller
Apr. 1, 2013, 12:09 PM
It's simple, when everybody sits on the wagon, it doesn't move. If a few pull while most sit, the load is very heavy and slow. The pullers tire and
quit. Only when most pull while a few sit is the load light and the wagon moves quickly.

Seems the wagon that is our country is unduly burdened and is slowing as pullers tire and quit.

LauraKY
Apr. 1, 2013, 12:40 PM
I think many of those pullers are only pretending to pull.

hastyreply
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:02 PM
It's simple, when everybody sits on the wagon, it doesn't move. If a few pull while most sit, the load is very heavy and slow. The pullers tire and
quit. Only when most pull while a few sit is the load light and the wagon moves quickly.


Seems the wagon that is our country is unduly burdened and is slowing as pullers tire and quit.

Those pulling get tired of pulling just because it's the right thing to do. They want a carrot or two as a reward and don't really want to share it with those sitting in the wagon. Or at least want a say so in who gets the extra carrots.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:22 PM
A large part of what caused the crisis was dishonest people in banking and real estate taking advantage of loopholes in laws. Many regulations were loosened starting in the Reagan era (and it continued) and people took advantage.

And no, I do not approve of bailing out said banks and no one going to jail. But it's very difficult to prosecute such crimes now within the current statutes of limitation.

In pure capitalism, there is no such thing as "dishonesty" as a problem. Everyone gets to purchase or manipulate to the full extent of their ability to do so.

Loopholes---whether they were a lucky-precondition that bankers found or one which they created-- are logically things they can exploit without criticism.

Of course, the other side of capitalism-- the thing that keeps shoddy shite like this in check-- is the refusal of the market to buy their product. In the case of loopholes, that means a public who insists on closing them up or forcing bankrupt firms to go bankrupt.

So capitalism is all good, so long as everyone within it has power. Of course, the point of capitalism is to minimize the other guy's ability to influence you. That certainly has happened with the Big Business/Governent collusion.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:29 PM
And say yes, I think that liberalism (if you're definining it as the current Democratic administration) is going to lead to a deepening of socialism (if you're definining it as a larger segment of the US population depending on government programs), because the one thing that forces people into government programs like welfare and disability is a lack of jobs that pay a living wage.

You have a good point: Here-- as in so many other countries-- you come to rely on a handout if you cannot earn a living wage on the open market. So, yeah, the exporting of jobs is part of the problem, and it's not ideological so much as economic.

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:35 PM
That is pretty naive. Economics and these ideologies are inexorably linked.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:36 PM
When the gov't forced house purchases with no money down, the unstable people and families were able to buy a house.

How did the government force anyone to buy a house with no money down?

I do think the no-down and "liar loan" made available make a lot of people happy-- the buyers with no hope in hell of having 20% down, sellers who could enjoy market prices uncapped by the need for a big downpayment, whoever was selling private mortgage insurance....

But *no one* was forced to commit to a huge-a$$ debt and investment bet because someone merely made it possible for them to be able to get in.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:45 PM
That is pretty naive. Economics and these ideologies are inexorably linked.

Darn tootin' they are.

But how does that relate to the factors that constrain behavior when jobs are being exported? It seems to me that one can be philosophically opposed to welfare or food stamps and still do that if they can't feed themselves with a job they can get.

My point is that it is to blame to poor for being somehow unthoughtful or uncommitted to an idea when they must risk more than the well-off to live up to it.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:49 PM
I didn't insult you, you self-important whiny twerp (see, that's an insult). Declining to play the definitions game is not insulting you; you were hardly the only person to decide to go in that direction of nailing down exactly what "liberalism" and "socialism" mean.

I was the first person to ask for the working definitions we'd use on this thread. I don't see how that's a game (meant to belittle or demean-- with winners and losers--as your calling it a "game" implies).

The point was to create a common set of definitions folks here could work from. If you think that's an insult or a challenge that's too great, that's on you. It was a reasonable and inclusive request.

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:51 PM
It is not correct to say that the government forced individuals to buy homes at zero down. But the Community Re-investment Act (particularly the ammendments made under the Clinton administration) forced lenders to offer this type of financing.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:56 PM
Bolding mine. What I see is people choosing unemployment instead of getting a second job. I sit in my graduate classes listening to the young people complaining about the cut in hours at their job yet voting for liberals (you know, the ones who support Obamacare).
Why is it most refuse to get a second job vs complain they aren't being paid enough? IMO, most, not all, would rather sit and bitch than get out there and work. Sign of the times.
I have worked up to 3 jobs at a time to get by. It never occurred to me to ask for benefits. And I have a friend that is working 5 part time jobs to get by. So, I have no sympathy for those griping they can't find work. It's out there- go get it.

I hope you appreciate that those collection unemployment are exemplary participants in capitalism. It is absolutely rational to collect unemployment when getting one job or a second does not pay a return high enough to warrant the extra labor.

And think of programs like unemployment insurance, welfare disability and the like as the price that the rich pay for social stability.

We could do things your way-- eliminate the social safety nets that keep the poor quiet--- but man, the crime will suck.

At the end of the day, you cannot justifiably criticize the poor for taking advantage of whatever this there-- the opportunity to rip off your house or food stamps. They are rational actors maximizing their own gain. Pure capitalism does not require that someone is good and virtuous and hardworking.

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 02:04 PM
eliminate the social safety nets that keep the poor quiet--- but man, the crime will suck.Most liberals suffer from the bigotry of low expectations. There are alternatives to government managed social safety nets. And the method used to share those resources has meaning.

http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2013/01/dsouzas_sandwich_analogy_for_morals_coercion_and_o bamacare.html

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 02:07 PM
It is not correct to say that the government forced individuals to buy homes at zero down. But the Community Re-investment Act (particularly the ammendments made under the Clinton administration) forced lenders to offer this type of financing.

OK. And so....

I'm not being sarcastic. I was responding to the idea that we ought to be anti-government because it was those rat bastards who contributed in this way to the real estate collapse.

FWIW, as I posted before, the loosening up of borrowing rules benefited many disparate participants. And if you could bundle bad mortgages and sell them to off-shore investors, even better!

redalter
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:08 PM
Not sure I'm clear here, but are you saying that what they did was justified because they are POOR?

I am not being sarcastic, I am really trying to understand your post.
About 8 years ago, I met someone who told me:

they have no intention of ever working - that was for suckers
they had been faking back injuries for years
they had successfully established a work until you can get disability/unemployment, etc. pattern
they get food stamps, now permanent disability
Recently "retired" and gets social security

Yup, they spend their days smoking pot, reading, buying pot, and laughing at those who work (their words). and yes this is all true. I happen to know- this is not them just talking.

Think that person was a victim? Or one of a few?

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/09/food-stamp-fraud-costing-taxpayers-billions/


Also long ago, had a friend who was a successful doctor. Came from an inner city fifth - generation welfare family.

I never knew it until one day they told me. They also said" You know what? It's a choice - I choose not to be the sixth generation on welfare"

Huge eye opening experiences. Do I think everyone is a fraud? Of course not.

But does the government need to buy cell phones for people? Not so much.

And it's funny. Somehow Dick Cheney was corrupt for his previous ties to Haliburton, but Obama to Trakphone CEO? Not so much (TRak phone is the primary provider of government provided cell phones - the CEO close buddy and major contributor to Obama)

They ALL do this -both parties. Yet it seems the MSM only highlights the conservatives.






I hope you appreciate that those collection unemployment are exemplary participants in capitalism. It is absolutely rational to collect unemployment when getting one job or a second does not pay a return high enough to warrant the extra labor.

And think of programs like unemployment insurance, welfare disability and the like as the price that the rich pay for social stability.

We could do things your way-- eliminate the social safety nets that keep the poor quiet--- but man, the crime will suck.

At the end of the day, you cannot justifiably criticize the poor for taking advantage of whatever this there-- the opportunity to rip off your house or food stamps. They are rational actors maximizing their own gain. Pure capitalism does not require that someone is good and virtuous and hardworking.

hosspuller
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:30 PM
How did the government force anyone to buy a house with no money down?

I do think the no-down and "liar loan" made available make a lot of people happy-- the buyers with no hope in hell of having 20% down, sellers who could enjoy market prices uncapped by the need for a big downpayment, whoever was selling private mortgage insurance....

But *no one* was forced to commit to a huge-a$$ debt and investment bet because someone merely made it possible for them to be able to get in.

NHRW clarified my statement. No one was forced to buy more house than they could afford. The lenders were "FORCED" to loan the money by various tactics.

Exactly because no one was "forced" to buy... I have no sympathy toward anyone foreclosed because they bought more house than they could afford. That was their greed manifested.

Lady Eboshi
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:43 PM
Some simple truths:

Whatever you subsidize, you're going to get more of.

(Dependency, single motherhood, long-term unemployment, growing lousy pesticide-laced food, over-reliance on the medical system, etc.)

The free-market system is great, as long as there's a grownup in the room.

(Bankers and Corporations need some oversight or they WILL cause train-wrecks as we've recently had a front-row seat for).

You can NOT claim to be a civilized nation without SOME social safety nets.

(Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are good things--abuse of them by people who don't NEED them is not. Ditto every welfare program in the country.)

If a person goes on the dole, or accepts other G'ment help, it should be for the shortest possible period of time until they can change their situation. The incentive needs to be, you surrender some "rights" while you're accepting help. You need WIC, food stamps, head start? OK--get on birth control, NOW. The G'ment will pay for it. Have another kid while you can't feed the ones you have, and risk losing your benefits! By the same token, there should be some kind of work/study program involved--not just lying on the couch all day banging down Eskimo Pies and watching Honey Boo-Boo! And elderly people of MEANS (over $1M in net worth, or yearly income of $75K+, do NOT need to collect ANYthing.

(I could run for President, but I'd get shot quick). :o

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:51 PM
Not sure I'm clear here, but are you saying that what they did was justified because they are POOR?
No, reread the post of mine you quoted.

The point is that within pure capitalism, there is no room for moral judgment. So my point was that you don't get to be mad at the poor for trying to get the most for the least. They do that; the rich do that. Everyone gets to sell his labor at the highest price the market will allow.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:56 PM
NHRW clarified my statement. No one was forced to buy more house than they could afford. The lenders were "FORCED" to loan the money by various tactics.

Exactly because no one was "forced" to buy... I have no sympathy toward anyone foreclosed because they bought more house than they could afford. That was their greed manifested.

I have no sympathy for the foreclosed-upon, either. Oh, and add to that "I don't want to pay because the house is worth less than I owe. Meh, it's an investment. You have a 50/50 shot at losing money, too.

That's the capitalist way, folks: no bail outs. Businesses or people that cannot survive in current market conditions categorically do not.

But! We have not treated the home owners, bankers and the Wall Street traders with the same kindness. We either need to let them all fail to the extent they will (the capitalist's solution) or if we are going to bail folks out (arguably leaning toward socialism), then we need to spread that option around evenly. To date, we have not.

vineyridge
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:57 PM
You are assuming that Medicare and Social Security which are financed by special contributions by both employers and workers are not the pre-funded annuities they were created to be. It's really a very simple concept: You pay in throughout your working life and then collect when you no longer work. Those of means pay in just as regularly as other workers and deserve to collect their annuities just as regularly.

When one conflates those two programs with government largess, one is making a huge mistake.

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:07 PM
The point is that within pure capitalism, there is no room for moral judgment.That is BS. Moral judgement is an exercise of free will. Capitalism is the result of economic free will and the market it creates.


You are assuming that Medicare and Social Security which are financed by special contributions by both employers and workers are not the pre-funded annuities they were created to be.This is a common misconception about SSI and Medicare. They are not pre-funded annuities, more like a pyramid scheme actually.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:09 PM
Not sure I'm clear here, but are you saying that what they did was justified because they are POOR?


No.

The poor are no more or less justified than the rich if they behave badly.

And!

In pure capitalism, there is no way to behave in an immoral sense unless you are irrational, that is, not trying to maximize your own gains and sell your labor the greatest possible price. I think the original advocates for this political philosophy would have thought that the Crazy Altruist (as in potlatch economies) was F-ing things up. Same for the person who would go bankrupt just to bring another person down as well.

My only point in the post of mine you quoted is that it makes no sense to chastise the poor (especially), or anyone for being a jerk if you want to defend rugged capitalism.

ETA: Oops! Posting F-up. I think this is a repost of the same response I made earlier. Sorry. Pick the one you like.

vineyridge
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:12 PM
nhwr, you're wrong. You need to read the contemporaneous debates and discussions in the Congressional Record.

The revenue that comes in from them is invested in the United States government, but it's still invested.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:12 PM
That is BS. Moral judgement is an exercise of free will. Capitalism is the result of economic free will and the market it creates.


Have you read any of the foundational texts that launched capitalism? Honest to God, your point about free will and that being the source of moral judgement utterly misses the point. And more to the point, these 18th century guys knew that and addressed it.

vineyridge
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:13 PM
David Ricardo, anyone?

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:18 PM
mvp, you are simply misinformed. You are referring to market forces, not individual choices.
In a capitalist system, compulsion of the individual does not exist. One is free to depose of one's capital as one sees fit. There is no prohibition to selling an asset or your own labor below market value or even giving money away, if that is your choice.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:23 PM
The free-market system is great, as long as there's a grownup in the room.

(Bankers and Corporations need some oversight or they WILL cause train-wrecks as we've recently had a front-row seat for).

Actually, this was the instigating question behind the theorizing that produced capitalism.

That question was: Who, exactly, was the grown-up in the room? Was that God? Meh, He became a really unsatisfying answer since so many Western European empires through of royalty is between God and everyone else in the scala naturae... and folks got really, really tired of their f-ups and greed.

So all this "invisible hand" stuff was about how you could get reliable order from the apparent chaos of everyone trying to maximize their own gain.

The question was serious and metaphysical: If you found the God-authored natural law that governed economies, you could exploit those (for your country, presumably) and triumph. No need to look to inbred, or STD-ridden kings to figure it out for you. But the goal was to figure out how nature worked and work with it.

Back to modern times: There is no philosophical reason, therefore, to assign any person or class of them that "grown up" status. In fact, you'd be an idiot to do that since those "rational actors" must also be deeply self-interested.

snoopy
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:26 PM
You know, you really have to ask, when and why did socialism become a dirty word. Many of us equate socialism with communism. It's not the same thing.





THANK YOU!!!!

redalter
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:30 PM
Ok, got it.

However.

I know a number of people who have worked their way up and never by milking the system.

Once many years ago, we lost everything we had, family issues.

We went on food stamps.

We worked out of it - it took awhile. And yes we were at ROCK BOTTTOM in a lot of ways. It happens.

During that time, I had to go down to the city to apply in person.
Then every month, I had to go get them, in person. (there was no car, and the money for the city bus MATTERED in the budget. I would hit the grocery store,
then get on the bus with what groceries I could carry.

The things I witnessed and heard, and experienced, helped me to form the opinion, that many many of those on government assistance? It's a way of life, good economy, bad economy, doesn't matter. They will always have an excuse.

And many people will have low expectations - justifiying if you will, bad behaviour, because they are underprivilgeded, etc.

Not fighting your post per se, just making an observation from an up close, unpleasant personal experience.



No, reread the post of mine you quoted.

The point is that within pure capitalism, there is no room for moral judgment. So my point was that you don't get to be mad at the poor for trying to get the most for the least. They do that; the rich do that. Everyone gets to sell his labor at the highest price the market will allow.

snoopy
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:30 PM
This is a common misconception about SSI and Medicare. They are not pre-funded annuities, more like a pyramid scheme actually.


Quite Correct!!!

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:37 PM
mvp, you are simply misinformed. You are referring to market forces, not individual choices.
In a capitalist system, compulsion of the individual does not exist. One is free to depose of one's capital as one sees fit. There is no prohibition to selling an asset or your own labor below market value or even giving money away, if that is your choice.

True, you are free to do this. But this individual is also irrational and too many of him screw up the whole theory.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:43 PM
Ok, got it.

However.

I know a number of people who have worked their way up and never by milking the system.

Once many years ago, we lost everything we had, family issues.

We went on food stamps.

We worked out of it - it took awhile. And yes we were at ROCK BOTTTOM in a lot of ways. It happens.

During that time, I had to go down to the city to apply in person.
Then every month, I had to go get them, in person. (there was no car, and the money for the city bus MATTERED in the budget. I would hit the grocery store,
then get on the bus with what groceries I could carry.

The things I witnessed and heard, and experienced, helped me to form the opinion, that many many of those on government assistance? It's a way of life, good economy, bad economy, doesn't matter. They will always have an excuse.

And many people will have low expectations - justifiying if you will, bad behaviour, because they are underprivilgeded, etc.

Not fighting your post per se, just making an observation from an up close, unpleasant personal experience.

Cool, so we agree so far.

In order to complete an argument for "Yay, pure capitalism," you have to concede two things.

1. The rich try to screw as many/behave as badly or whathaveyou as anyone else. That's just what rational actors do, regardless of their wealth.

2. How much damage does each side-- rich or poor-- do? That's the debatable part that has to do with whether or not deregulation rocks.

To me, it looks like rich corporations have the greatest ability to buy political influence. So you'd have to assume (as has happened in the past in the US), that they'd buy the government that increased their wealth.

3. So who gives a fat rat's one if the poor are slackers? If we innoculated them with "work ethic" at birth, would that make a greater or lesser difference than our not reining in the larger, but equally callous and self-serving, actors?

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:44 PM
vineyridge, with all due respect, you are wrong.

Social Security was developed in the US in the 1930's (1935, if IIRC) to remedy poverty among the elderly. It provided benefits to retirees and the unemployed, and a benefit at death. Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. This began immediately in the 1930's when none of the recipients of benefits had paid into SSI and therefore is not an annuity.

That is generally how the system continues to work today. One must contribute for a certain number of quarters to be eligible. But there is no correlation between amount of contribution made and amount of benefits one is entitled to receive as there would be with an annuity. This is why SSI is referred as an unfunded liability of the Federal government. As the number of workers (contributors) decline, the ability of the Federal government to pay benefits is undermined. This is why there is so much discussion of SSI going broke.

redalter
Apr. 1, 2013, 04:56 PM
I'm just not going to get into a fight. I have my opinions, you have yours.

In pointing out my experiences, I in no way was advocating for pure capitalism. Nor was I defending the rich.

I am entitled to be irked at what I saw and experienced of people gaming the system, you bet. Do the rich? Of course they do.

Do you have statistics on who behaves worse - rich or poor? I assumed you did since you said they screw as many as the poor who are gaming the system. I could not begin to know that.

As for political influence?

From my perspective, the entitled seem to have a pretty good hold on political influence lately.

Lady Eboshi
Apr. 1, 2013, 05:21 PM
Cool, so we agree so far.

In order to complete an argument for "Yay, pure capitalism," you have to concede two things.

1. The rich try to screw as many/behave as badly or whathaveyou as anyone else. That's just what rational actors do, regardless of their wealth.

2. How much damage does each side-- rich or poor-- do? That's the debatable part that has to do with whether or not deregulation rocks.

To me, it looks like rich corporations have the greatest ability to buy political influence. So you'd have to assume (as has happened in the past in the US), that they'd buy the government that increased their wealth.

3. So who gives a fat rat's one if the poor are slackers? If we innoculated them with "work ethic" at birth, would that make a greater or lesser difference than our not reining in the larger, but equally callous and self-serving, actors?

Am I right that you're taking basically the Ayn Rand position? I'm not saying that's invalid--and I'm now going to spend all of chores-hour thinking about WHO the "grownup in the room" is supposed to be! (You got me there!)

All I need to know about human nature I've learned in a herd of a dozen horses. There is NO difference! The Alpha will eat "first bucket." He knows he has the ability (privilege?) of kicking every single other horse out of HIS bucket if he wants to; up to and including eating everybody else's lunch PLUS his own while the rest of 'em stand there and watch and LET HIM!

This illustrates the old saying, "The only thing required for tyrants to rule is for good men to do nothing."

Now this can't all happen that way if I'm standing there keeping good order and discipline with dirty looks backed up by a longe whip. :D

So: Who's holding the longe whip?

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 05:28 PM
Am I right that you're taking basically the Ayn Rand position? I'm not saying that's invalid--and I'm now going to spend all of chores-hour thinking about WHO the "grownup in the room" is supposed to be! (You got me there!)

Jesus, no, I'm not arguing that we *should* become the selfish ba$tards Rand thinks make the world go 'round. I'm explaining that capitalism does, more or less.

Within a capitalist system, there certainly is a distribution of power-- or potential for it. After all, workers have to agree to sell their labor at a price. They can decide not to buy the widgets made and so on.

It just seems to me that we are in a moment where the power differential between, say, the 1%-- particularly those who now buy political influence as much as they do building sites for factories-- have a tad too much power. That going on for a while makes it hella hard for the poor minimum wage schmuck to resist by refusing to work for poor wages, in unsafe conditions, not look for a 3% downpayment deal even though that screwed many like him previously.

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 05:29 PM
True, you are free to do this. But this individual is also irrational and too many of him screw up the whole theory.Uh ... no. What you call "irrationality" is part of the theory.
Capitalism regards unstable markets as opportunity. There are many factors that influence market stability, supply and demand, confidence, weather, foreign affairs and investor behavior to name a few obvious ones. These things are neither rational or irrational. They are natural.

Government intervention or regulation (your grown up in the room) in the market seeks to minimize instability but is, by definition, a blunt force to the market and often results in unintended consequences (like the mortgage crisis).

It is also worth noting that among the largest purchasers of political power are labor unions. In my state, California, public employee unions own the legislature. And the state now has a negative net worth of close to $130 Billion.

PS Ayn Rand was an objectivist, not a capitalist.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 05:31 PM
Uh ... no. What you call "irrationality" is part of the theory.
Capitalism regards unstable markets as opportunity. There are many factors that influence market stability, supply and demand, confidence, weather, foreign affairs and investor behavior to name a few obvious ones. These things are neither rational or irrational. They are natural.

Government intervention (regulation) in the market seeks to minimize instability but is, by definition, a blunt force to the market and often results in unintended consequences (like the mortgage crisis).

PS Ayn Rand was an objectivist, not a capitalist.

Yup, never said Rand was a capitalist.

Where do you get the version of capitalism you hold?

vineyridge
Apr. 1, 2013, 05:36 PM
This quote comes from a 1939 book called "American Labor", by Herbert Harris and published by the Yale University Press.

The Social Security Act
was approved by the President on August 14, 1935.

. . . .

What is new, and startling to many, are the two extremely important innovations: unemployment compensation and old-age benefits. With the exception of the so-called "annuity" part of the old-age benefits system, which is exclusively a national plan, the Act was designed primarily to enable and guide the states to pass their own laws to assist the unemployed and the aged, and to establish their own agencies which, it was believed, were better adopted to local needs and conditions.

. . . . .

The operation of the law as it affects old-age benefits resembles the unemployment-insurance provisions provisions in several respects . . . .In dealing with the question of old-age security, however, two drastically different methods are used: the one to satisfy immediate need, and the other to confirm an earned and cumulative right. In the first case, the basis of need, the states receive from the Federal government one-half of all sums paid to persons over sixty-five under their old-age laws, an amount limited to a monthly top of $15 dollars per pensioner plus $5 to reimburse the state for expenses incurred in looking after him.

In the second case, the basis of right, an annuity system--borrowed from the actuarial techniques of private life-insurance companies--has been established, and the Federal government itself assumes complete responsibility for it's administration. Under this arrangement, a tax is imposed upon every $3,000 of wages and payrolls up to $3000 per worker, both both employer and employee contributing at the following rates:
. . . .

Significantly enough, the money thus collected is paid into the Federal, not as a separate item, but as part of general revenue. To meet necessary outlays, Congress is to appropriate annually for an Old Age Reserve Account as sum which must be "sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required" as well as to serve the purpose of establishing a reserve, the interest n which will defray the deficit in later years when annual taxes do not meet annual benefit claims. The major distribution of earned benefits is scheduled to begin on January 1, 1942, on the basis of wages received and paid out since December 31, 1936; for, as the [preceding table of rates] shows, both employer and worker contribute equal shares. From this Old Age Reserve Account, monthly payments will be made to all properly qualified persons. When, for example, a worker reaches the age of 65 on January 1, 1948, after earning $3000 a year from December 31, 1936, onwards, he is entitled to monthly ''dividends" calculated on graduated percentages as follows:
1/2 of 1 per cent for the first $3,000, or $15
1/2 of 1 per cent for the remaining $30,000 or $25
adding up to $40 a month or $480 per year.

(Footnote) [The Act also provides] that upon the death of a worker before he reaches 65 years of age, his heirs shall receive 3 1/2 per cent of his total wages upon which taxes have been paid.



Everyone (1930's right and left) knew the Old-Age provisions of Act were very flawed; but it was what was possible at the time. It was thought of at the time as insurance and conceived to work like a private insurance annuity and payment was deferred for six years to allow a build up in the Reserve Account.

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 06:23 PM
It was initially intended that social security would be a fully funded system financed by payroll taxes. However, in the year 1939, the fully funded system was replaced by the pay-as-you-go system.


http://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/overview
What is Social Security?

Social Security is the foundation of economic security for millions of Americans—retirees, disabled persons, and families of retired, disabled or deceased workers. About 157 million Americans pay Social Security taxes and 56 million collect monthly benefits in 2012. About one household in four receives income from Social Security.
Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go program. This means that today's workers pay Social Security taxes into the program and money flows back out as monthly income to beneficiaries. As a pay-as-you-go system, Social Security differs from company pensions, which are “pre-funded.” In pre-funded retirement programs, the money is accumulated in advance so that it will be available to be paid out to today's workers when they retire. The private plans need to be funded in advance to protect employees in case the company enters bankruptcy or goes out of business.




BTW, it is likely we'll see the same type of funding manipulation with Obamacare. Already the program for pre-existing conditions has been terminated for new applicants because the funding was simply insufficient.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2013/02/15/cb9d56ac-779c-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_print.html

hosspuller
Apr. 1, 2013, 07:48 PM
It is also worth noting that among the largest purchasers of political power are labor unions. In my state, California, public employee unions own the legislature. And the state now has a negative net worth of close to $130 Billion.

This needs to be said again and again... since the traditional news media will not.

See here ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

total the amounts spent by unions against the amounts spent by the "Fat cats" and you'll see who really buys the political power.

JER
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:03 PM
This needs to be said again and again... since the traditional news media will not.

See here ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

Um, hosspuller, the WSJ is about as traditional as news media gets, even more so now that Murdoch owns it.

Also, this line is worth noting:


The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn.

That's how unions are supposed to work -- for the workers.

hosspuller
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:14 PM
Um, hosspuller, the WSJ is about as traditional as news media gets, even more so now that Murdoch owns it.

Also, this line is worth noting:
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn.


That's how unions are supposed to work -- for the workers.

Good for the gov't workers does not mean good for the public. There is no limit to the demands since taxes always increase in response. Of the top 5 political spenders, 3 are unions. Of those top three, two are primarily gov't employees

When labor demands too much of a Business, the whole enchilada just goes bankrupt and everybody loses. It's self limiting

sid
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:15 PM
Um, hosspuller, the WSJ is about as traditional as news media gets, even more so now that Murdoch owns it.

Also, this line is worth noting:



That's how unions are supposed to work -- for the workers.

There is nothing wrong with that...unions were very much needed back in the day to protect employees from manufacturing abuse when we were an industrial, blue collar worker nation -- and to deal with child labor laws.

But that was then, this is now. Who ever would have thought that umpteen decades later, those itty-bitty innovators who had a great idea that created a big industry that could employ millions are now are struggling to keep their doors open... because complusory union dues morphed into political clout and campaign contributions that determines who is elected.?

Just sayin'. I'm not anti union. I'm anti union abuse of power that results from compulsory union dues from employees.

LauraKY
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:30 PM
I'd be very interested to see the comparison of union spending to PACs during the 2012 election.

Here it is, from the WSJ. Things changed quite a bit in the 2 years between elections. And not for the good. We need campaign limits.

http://projects.wsj.com/super-pacs/

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:40 PM
Unions were (may be) necessary to protect employees from potential abuses handed out by employers in an environment where a profit motive exists. There is no such motive, and therefore no such justification, in the public sector.

George Meeney, former president of the AFL-CIO said “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” F.D.R. considered the idea of a job action against taxpayers “unthinkable and intolerable.” Collective bargaining rights for public employee unions means that voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives, many of whom are elected by union donations, must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is a blatant conflict of interest.

sid
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:47 PM
Unions were (may be) necessary to protect employees from potential abuses handed out by employers in an environment where a profit motive exists. There is no such motive, and therefore no such justification, in the public sector.

George Meeney, former president of the AFL-CIO said “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” F.D.R. considered the idea of a job action against taxpayers “unthinkable and intolerable.” Collective bargaining rights for public employee unions means that voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives, many of whom are elected by union donations, must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is a blatant conflict of interest.

EXACTLY. One does not need to hang a label on oneself as a liberal, conserative, independent, Dem, Repub, Lib or anything else to see this. It's a "right and wrong" issue.

nhwr
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:51 PM
Interesting LauraKY but it leaves out unions.

Let's add them in too.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292645/who-s-biggest-outside-group-2012-elections-big-labor-jonathan-collegio

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304782404577488584031850026.html#p roject%3DLABOR20120710

It should be noted that most of the money used by unions come from the rank and file members who are forced through dues to contribute.

vacation1
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:54 PM
I was the first person to ask for the working definitions we'd use on this thread. I don't see how that's a game (meant to belittle or demean-- with winners and losers--as your calling it a "game" implies).
The point was to create a common set of definitions folks here could work from. If you think that's an insult or a challenge that's too great, that's on you. It was a reasonable and inclusive request.

I love how when someone overreacts and is called on it, they suddenly retreat and become Very Dignified. Yes, I understand you wished to define various words/ideas before arguing. While it was a reasonable request, that's all it was; a request. I declined to do it, and called it a game because it so often is. Abortion is murder! Wait, define murder! Weeeeellll, murder is - No! Murder is - Shut up, I know what murder is! It goes on and on and on, and you end up forgetting what you were originally intending to debate because you're too busy trying to google the 1912 ratification of Slovenia's constitution in order to prove that murder has once defined as the coloring of Easter eggs for the purpose of deciding national elections.

sid
Apr. 1, 2013, 09:20 PM
I'm sorry, maybe I'm being dense.

What does the discussion of the many descriptions of what is called murder from the past an now have to do with unions influencing the outcome of elections by collecting compulsory union dues from employees who may differ from the bosses.:confused:

"Capitalism" (power of a boss over an employee) run amok...only on the flip side. :lol: Double-edge sword.

AbbieS
Apr. 1, 2013, 10:16 PM
Well, I think we ought not be allowed to use names and such, but rather define what you mean. I am a conservative, which means I think we need to stop spending so much money, cut our military massively and get out of everyone's business, stop subsidizing corporations, get out of everyone's business that does not harm others (as in gay marriage, legalize pot) tie government salaries to performance, help thy neighbor (as in provide basics in education and healthcare) and so on, tax churches like the big businesses they are, ban all religion in politics, etc.

The people who call themselves "conservative" now seem to be fascists by definition. Socialism seems to be what the god of the Bible intended, but religious people seem more fascist. I don't know what liberal means. It seems to be what I would call conservative--you act like an adult and take care of the people around you and take on your fair share of the burden in life so you don't put it on others.

I think we have a lot of sophisticated brainwashing going on to convince people to do what they know is not right and to go against what is good for them.

I would describe a lot of that stuff as liberal. I'm in JSA (junior statesman of america, a national organization for high schoolers interested in politics) and when we split into liberal or conservative sides, most of the liberals go for what you described.

Socialism isn't what God intended, basically he says if you don't work or aren't trying to work (ie looking for a job) you are lazy and don't deserve to live off of others. Sometimes people hit hard times and He says we should help out the poor (help thy neighbor;)), but dependence on someone is foolish. And if Fascism is defined as this: Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community, maybe some religions call for that (I can't speak for them), but not Christianity. And in JSA (dominated by non-christians) we definately don't lump conservatives into fascist

I agree with your last sentence, but I'm not sure if we agree on what's not right and what's good for them :winkgrin:

I'm not trying to call you out in particular, I was just confused about how you defined some things.

As per the rest, I agree that depending on he government for some things (infrastructure stuff) is good, but we should not depend on them for money. They should not pay as much as they do for unemployment, I know some people personally who take advantage of that and they're not the only ones, and social security, while a good thing, needs to be reformed. Yes OP I do think too many people are dependent on the government for things they should supply on their own, that and our tendency toward self-entertainment is why many countries view Americans as lazy (the whole obesity thing is't helping).

I have friends that went to Paris, France and hated the trip because everyone was so mean to them just because they were American. They stopped in Spain though, and are fluent in Spanish, so they had a good time there. Let's rescue our reputations Americans!:D

JER
Apr. 1, 2013, 11:29 PM
As per the rest, I agree that depending on he government for some things (infrastructure stuff) is good, but we should not depend on them for money. They should not pay as much as they do for unemployment, I know some people personally who take advantage of that and they're not the only ones,

What are you talking about? Are you aware of how unemployment benefits are funded or what it takes to be eligible for unemployment benefits or the time limits on collecting?

In almost all states (IIRC, three require minimal employee contributions), unemployment insurance is funded by a tax on employers. You become eligible to collect benefits if you lose your job through no fault of your own and you can only collect for a limited amount of time.


Yes OP I do think too many people are dependent on the government for things they should supply on their own,

Like what? If you're talking about health care, why is it that the largest group on Medicaid in two dozen states is Walmart workers? You think those workers, rather than their mega-rich employer Walmart, should supply their own health care? The reason these people can get Medicaid is because their employer doesn't pay a living wage.


that and our tendency toward self-entertainment is why many countries view Americans as lazy (the whole obesity thing is't helping).

Americans aren't lazy. Americans work hard. I refer you to my earlier post (http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?398075-Liberal-socialism-etc&p=6914689#post6914689):


At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week; the U.S. does not.

In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.

According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”
Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker.


I have friends that went to Paris, France and hated the trip because everyone was so mean to them just because they were American. They stopped in Spain though, and are fluent in Spanish, so they had a good time there. Let's rescue our reputations Americans!:D

My dear AbbieS, please consider that the US currently wages war with impunity all over the world. The US kills women, children, old folks, whoever in drone strikes -- and then goes back and bombs the rescue workers and funerals. The US government currently maintains a kill list of its own citizens who have no due process to find out why they're on the list or challenge their place on the roster. Among those killed this way was an American-born 16 year-old.

If America needs to rescue its reputation, maybe it should be less about obesity and more about ending the lawless destruction and bloodshed. If your friends are feeling ostracized overseas, maybe they need to wake up to the reality of the USA in the 21st century.

AbbieS
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:06 AM
Whoa!!!

Relax, I support unemployment benefits and I know how they work. You have to show proof of documentation and everything, but there are always ways to get around this I know people with part-time jobs that still collected their benefits online a couple weeks after thay had it. I'm just worried about how effectively they can support the benefit system. I'm saying maybe the system needs to be revamped is all.

About the dependence, I was talking about trivial things like cell phones and other not basic needs, which the OP mentioned in a post. I'll quote next time :yes:. The healthcare thing is up in the air for me, because my dad works for a private heathcare company and Obamacare was not looking great and he had good arguements too, but I think free healthcare sounds good in theory, so I don't really have a side there.

As for laziness, it is there, statistics and averages are statistics and averages. Yes our productivity is higher, it's much easier to produce things more efficiently in higher quantities today because of technology. Now I've met plenty of hardworking Americans that don't deserve the reputation, I've also met many who do deserve it. If politics shows anything it's that one bad mark can ruin your entire reputation because that's what everybody focuses on. Eventually it gets blown out of proportion. I'm not saying Americans are lazy as a whole, I'm saying that's how people SEE us. So the Americans that are lazy need to get up and work.

I agree with basically everything you said about the military, athough the kill list sounds a bit conspiracy theorist (don't worry I know about Guantanamo). But that is a military reputation, I'm talking about a social reputation which we have because some people are lazy and it's been blown out of proportion.

By the way my friends weren't "ostracized" that would imply they were trying to fit in, they were treated poorly as tourists which isn't a good rap for France's tourism industry, that is the reputation France now has in my eyes. They were not treated poorly in Spain, even though they were only on layover there and decided to walk the streets. They had to carry their suitcases with them everywhere which would give you an annoying reputation in the eyes of fellow Americans, but they were treated fine.

Please don't go for the throat until you understand the situation, as you can see, I agree with a lot of what you are saying

mvp
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:14 AM
Remember that the lack of regulation in the American economy was ignited the collapse of the global economy in the 2008 crash.

And since WWII at least, the US has made sure the rest of the world knew it would use its wealth as well as legitimate and illegitimate military and political means to get what it wanted.

If Western Europe has a bone to pick with us as "lazy" or self-serving, they aren't entirely wrong. If some tourists feel a bit of a cold shoulder post-2008, I'd say they should just consider it the cost of doing business as an American.

AbbieS
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:18 AM
Remember that the lack of regulation in the American economy was ignited the collapse of the global economy in the 2008 crash.

And since WWII at least, the US has made sure the rest of the world knew it would use its wealth as well as legitimate and illegitimate military and political means to get what it wanted.

If Western Europe has a bone to pick with us as "lazy" or self-serving, they aren't entirely wrong. If some tourists feel a bit of a cold shoulder post-2008, I'd say they should just consider it the cost of doing business as an American.

I don't completely disagree with you, I just think it's not a good strategy for their tourism industries is all, because the number one place my friend mentioned as unpleasant was their hotel b/c of the hotel staff. It might just be that particular place because people vacation in France all the time with no problem.

mvp
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:20 AM
With all due respect, I don't think France is obligated to give a sh!t about the wishes of American tourists given the state of things and our part in it.

All things being equal, sure-- create a great experience for tourists. But it would suit Americans much better to have a little humility right about now.

vineyridge
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:29 AM
For as long as I can remember in my long life, the French, Parisians in particular, have had a reputation for being nasty to tourists--especially tourists who don't try and speak French. I daresay they are just as nasty to Brits and Germans as to Americans, since both of those are their traditional enemies--centuries of being enemies and fighting wars on French territory with all the associated killing. IIRC, their view is that the rest of the world needs what France has to offer more than France needs the rest of the world.

You're young; you'll learn.


I don't completely disagree with you, I just think it's not a good strategy for their tourism industries is all, because the number one place my friend mentioned as unpleasant was their hotel b/c of the hotel staff. It might just be that particular place because people vacation in France all the time with no problem.

AbbieS
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:32 AM
mvp, Yes, I agree, Americans are not known for their humility and we're not obligated to special treatment because we're Americans and especially not if someone doesn't like us; it might be personal, social, or economical, the reason doesn't matter, we're not above them and they have a right to their feelings and to act on them (short of bodily harm).

We're killing this thread debating my friend's and her family's treatment during their trip to France. I didn't mean for this to happen I swear!

So to resume the OP said:


Instead of defining Socialism, how about making the question a little more clear. Do you think too many people depend on the government now for things they should be providing for themselves? Do you think the trend is for more dependence to the government to supply all that you need?

If someone is physically or mentally disabled and unable to provide for themselves then they definitely should get assistance but some people that should be able to provide for themselves have become dependent on the government for their whole lives.

The government has gone from providing the basics necessities of life (food, housing, etc.) to providing things like cell phones.

On a tangent note, have you noticed that several of the politicians that tout the 'redistribution of wealth' are quite wealthy and yet they don't redistribute their own wealth. Some of them RARELY give non political donations. I think this is ironic. If the redistribution of wealth is so vital then why not start with yourself and lead by example?

Frizzle
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:49 AM
So, now this has turned into a French-bashing thread. :sigh:

I've been to France twice, several years apart, and spent a week each time--and both times I was treated exceptionally well. The first time, I was in the Vosge (sp?) mountains in the Alsace region, and the second time I was in Paris. I had *one* person in Paris (@ the Pompidou) who was ever-so-slightly snippy with me, just a bit of an attitude but nothing that really bothered me. No big deal. Everyone else was just lovely--one lady on the metro even went out of her way to help me and my friend when there was an announcement over the loudspeaker about the next station being closed, and having to get on a bus to go to the next station. She had us go with her so we wouldn't get lost, made sure we knew where we were going, and gave us lots us great tips/advice for sightseeing, etc. And, yes, she was a native Parisian.

I can tell you, though, when I spent a semester abroad in the Czech Republic, I was often *horrified* at the behavior of my fellow classmates and sometimes even my professor. I can't tell you how many times I thought, "Well, if any people over here aren't too fond of Americans, THIS is why."

As for Social Security being some sort of handout--?!?! It's taken out of our paychecks. That is not a handout. :no:

vineyridge
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:07 AM
If we're talking personal experiences, I've been to France several times, totaling several months over 40 years, and I never found many French people who would fall over themselves to help tourists who didn't speak French. But then again, I've never found very many Americans who would do the same for tourists with whom they couldn't communicate relatively easily.

What I did find was a French sense of cultural superiority. That's not French bashing, because French culture is, on the whole, superior.

AbbieS
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:12 AM
Ahhhh I'm sorry, no French bashing, that wasn't supposed to happen! I just used one example that I thought would make a good supporting point about how people look at each other and make/earn reputations/judgements. It just happened to be in France! As I said:


It might just be that particular place because people vacation in France all the time with no problem.

Back to Socialism!

inne
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:14 AM
Lazy? I do not think so. If anything the stereotype is that Americans live to work and that their lives and self-identities revolve around their jobs and that these are sad things. The first question you ask upon meeting someone is usually "what do you do?" Europeans tend to be absolutely baffled by American labour standards, lack of holiday time, long hours, lack of unionization, lack of parental leave, and having healthcare tied to employment. And of course the conservative nature of politics, individualism, isolationism, cultural imperialism, militarism, etc. There is a sort of brutality in American culture that is quite foreign, which can seem odd because Americans are often so extremely friendly and welcoming and there is a kind of overt cultural sentimentality that somehow does not translate into a sense of social well-being or ethical geopolitical and economic practices.

Of course there are significant historical reasons for this state of affairs, dating back to colonization itself. And America also had one of the most notable and fruitful social welfare policies in history - the New Deal. But since the 1980s America has experienced a mass rightward shift in politics, including economic policy (the rise of neoliberalism, hyper-globalization, etc.), that has in many ways drastically separated it from the rest of the western world. Reaganism and Thatcherism are quite a lovely couple and the UK does have commonalities with the US in its trajectory (the UK has its own kind of brutality), as does Canada, but the US is the most extreme of any of the western nations.

I remember when McDonald's came to Sweden, tried to prevent unionization, and were quickly forced to allow collective bargaining. Toys R Us tried to do the same about a decade later and worker agitation - not only from Toys R Us employees but unions in other parts of the supply chain in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway - led to the first union at Toys R Us ever. So these practices are not just things people in European countries read about in papers and say "how awful!", they're practices America exports and that are fundamentally against our own sense of ethical economic models.

Those are some real reasons for anti-American sentiment, along with JER's eloquent post above.

JER
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:39 AM
agree with basically everything you said about the military, athough the kill list sounds a bit conspiracy theorist (don't worry I know about Guantanamo).

The assassination list is real. This column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo) has all the links you need to get your head around it.

hosspuller
Apr. 2, 2013, 10:12 AM
Whoa!!!

The healthcare thing is up in the air for me, because my dad works for a private heathcare company and Obamacare was not looking great and he had good arguements too, but I think free healthcare sounds good in theory, so I don't really have a side there.


If anybody thinks healthcare is expensive now.(My ins cost tripled in last 3 years to completely devouring my pension) .. Wait till it's "free"

alterhorse
Apr. 2, 2013, 11:07 AM
Ahhhh I'm sorry, no French bashing, that wasn't supposed to happen! I just used one example that I thought would make a good supporting point about how people look at each other and make/earn reputations/judgements. It just happened to be in France! As I said:
Back to Socialism!


I think the increased influence of the socialist party in Post-WWII France played a role in the politics during that reconstruction period.

I'd also think that some socialist ideologies were a factor that drove the european unification.

Americans have to remember that Western Europe suffered damage from WWII in ways that America did not. The difference in experiences had influence over how our respective societies developed in the aftermath.

Unfortunately for America, the ideologies of "winning" and "power", seemed to become a driving force for the choices that would shape America towards what it would later become.

Europe's socialist inclinations are exactly what one might expect a population that experienced massive devastation and loss of civilian life to gravitate towards to try to prevent such insanity from ever occurring again.

mvp
Apr. 2, 2013, 12:30 PM
I think the increased influence of the socialist party in Post-WWII France played a role in the politics during that reconstruction period.

I'd also think that some socialist ideologies were a factor that drove the european unification.

Americans have to remember that Western Europe suffered damage from WWII in ways that America did not. The difference in experiences had influence over how our respective societies developed in the aftermath.

Unfortunately for America, the ideologies of "winning" and "power", seemed to become a driving force for the choices that would shape America towards what it would later become.

Europe's socialist inclinations are exactly what one might expect a population that experienced massive devastation and loss of civilian life to gravitate towards to try to prevent such insanity from ever occurring again.

You have a good point.

We were "shocked and awed" by the 9/11 attacks. Meh-- walk about Berlin where you can see bombed Cathedrals/ Look at the films of firebombed London. Ask why you can't find public garbage cans in the London tube (because too many nailbombs were being set off in them). Yeah, we had Pearl Harbor-- but in a remote part of the US that didn't look anything like "us."

So Americans have a limited understanding of suffering. It is always removed.

Oh, and we don't have the connection to Continental Philosophy that Europeans do. Between our following the British turn to Analytic Philosophy and the home-grown invention of Pragmatism, there's not the intellectual basis for any sophisticated kind of Socialism in your average American bear.

Our intellectual isolationism is too bad.

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 12:33 PM
You have a good point.

We were "shocked and awed" by the 9/11 attacks. Meh-- walk about Berlin where you can see bombed Cathedrals/ Look at the films of firebombed London. Ask why you can't find public garbage cans in the London tube (because too many nailbombs were being set off in them). Yeah, we had Pearl Harbor-- but in a remote part of the US that didn't look anything like "us."

So Americans have a limited understanding of suffering. It is always removed.

Oh, and we don't have the connection to Continental Philosophy that Europeans do. Between our following the British turn to Analytic Philosophy and the home-grown invention of Pragmatism, there's not the intellectual basis for any sophisticated kind of Socialism in your average American bear.

Our intellectual isolationism is too bad.

You are disgusting!

mvp
Apr. 2, 2013, 12:38 PM
You are disgusting!

Oh really? Given the damage we have done to other nations in wars before anything arrived here, how do you figure?

It's the height of hypocrisy to think that bombing the shit out of other nations for our own purposes is run-of-the-mill world politics and to get verklempt about the discovery that the same can be done to us.

carolprudm
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:01 PM
About the dependence, I was talking about trivial things like cell phones and other not basic needs, which the OP mentioned in a post.


People abuse the system, both rich and poor. Bill Gates has a reputation for donating to humanitarian causes, Doris Buffet is known as the Sunshine Lady, but the Romneys and Waltons do not.

Just like there are reasons to try to give more people the opportunity to own their own home there is a good reason for the "Obamaphones" The idea actually started in the Reagan administration with land lines. Without a phone it is hard to apply for a job or call 911. It was later expanded to cell phones and is paid for by a telecommunication tax.

carolprudm
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:10 PM
I think this is as good a definition of a liberal as any
". . . My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

(Ted Kennedy's eulogy for his brother)

I am proud to call myself a liberal

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:17 PM
People abuse the system, both rich and poor. Bill Gates has a reputation for donating to humanitarian causes, Doris Buffet is known as the Sunshine Lady, but the Romneys and Waltons do not.

Just like there are reasons to try to give more people the opportunity to own their own home there is a good reason for the "Obamaphones" The idea actually started in the Reagan administration with land lines. Without a phone it is hard to apply for a job or call 911. It was later expanded to cell phones and is paid for by a telecommunication tax.

You dont know what you are talking about!

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:19 PM
I think this is as good a definition of a liberal as any
". . . My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

(Ted Kennedy's eulogy for his brother)

I am proud to call myself a liberal

Let us not forget the Ted Kennedy, the one who killed a girl, left the scene and then skirted the law for the remainder of his life, yes that Ted Kennedy.

carolprudm
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:32 PM
You dont know what you are talking about!
LOL, care to back that up with facts?

carolprudm
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:52 PM
Let us not forget the Ted Kennedy, the one who killed a girl, left the scene and then skirted the law for the remainder of his life, yes that Ted Kennedy.

You are aware of course that Mitt Romney was also driving a car in which a woman was killed in France. The records have been destroyed and it is unclear who was at fault but no charges were filed. It is quite possible that reckless driving was the cause

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:54 PM
You are aware of course that Mitt Romney was also driving a car in which a woman was killed in France. The records have been destroyed and it is unclear who was at fault but no charges were filed. It is quite possible that reckless driving was the cause

Hahah, laughable.

inne
Apr. 2, 2013, 03:04 PM
Let us not forget the Ted Kennedy, the one who killed a girl, left the scene and then skirted the law for the remainder of his life, yes that Ted Kennedy.

I'm not quite sure what this has to do with a description of Robert F. Kennedy's work or the fact that carolprudm finds it a good description of liberalism.

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 03:42 PM
I'm not quite sure what this has to do with a description of Robert F. Kennedy's work or the fact that carolprudm finds it a good description of liberalism.

Kidding? He is your poster child liberal. He and his philanderer brother JFK.

inne
Apr. 2, 2013, 03:46 PM
Are you trolling?

kathy s.
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:35 PM
Are you trolling?

Oh good Lord :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Once again, if someone doesn't like what is said, the name calling begins.

kathy s.
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:39 PM
Re Obamaphones;

Taxpayers indirectly pay for the phones through their cell phone service- paragraph 2 or 3;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/09/28/crazy-for-obama-phones-but-are-they-for-real/

JER
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:40 PM
Oh good Lord :rolleyes::rolleyes:

kathy s., you're back!

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about which candidates your students should be voting for in order to create a stronger nation for American workers.

You've indicated that they should not be voting for 'liberals'. But what policies or parties, in your opinions, should these young people support?

:)

kathy s.
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:43 PM
According to a French newspaper, Mitt was driving and the woman he was with was killed by a priest in a horrific car crash. According to this report, the priest was drunk at the time;

http://www.france24.com/en/20120314-usa-mitt-romney-france-paris-mormon-mormonism-mission-election-presidential

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:50 PM
According to a French newspaper, Mitt and the woman were killed by a preist in a horrific car crash. According to this report, the priest was drunk at the time;

http://www.france24.com/en/20120314-usa-mitt-romney-france-paris-mormon-mormonism-mission-election-presidential

I am pretty sure Mitt didnt die in the crash.

Just love how the leftists try to slant things in a false way.

kathy s.
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:53 PM
kathy s., you're back!

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about which candidates your students should be voting for in order to create a stronger nation for American workers.

You've indicated that they should not be voting for 'liberals'. But what policies or parties, in your opinions, should these young people support?

:)


JER, I am not a teacher, I am finishing up my Master's in Sociology/Criminal Justice. I will be done by early summer. In fact, I've got class in a little while and will have to leave this wonderful board once again.
To answer you questions,IMO, to create a 'stronger nation' for American workers begins with teaching young people integrity and to be imaginative/innovative. Good work ethics begins at home. That being said, a professor once told a class I was in that colleges were teaching young people to be good "march step" workers.
Ideally, young people should do their research about candidates instead of regurgitating what they hear on TV and that goes for both sides. I've been told by more than a few students that they cast their vote for Obama b/c they are hoping for a student loan 'bailout.' Many have no concept that the "government" is an entity totally separate and apart from taxpayers.

Anyway, I have to jump in the shower and head to class.

kathy s.
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:12 PM
I am pretty sure Mitt didnt die in the crash.

Just love how the leftists try to slant things in a false way.

Whoops! Thanks for the correction. I was in a hurry.:)

carolprudm
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:38 PM
Kidding? He is your poster child liberal. He and his philanderer brother JFK.
Philandering knows no political bounds. Remember Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich?

hosspuller
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:38 PM
You are aware of course that Mitt Romney was also driving a car in which a woman was killed in France. The records have been destroyed and it is unclear who was at fault but no charges were filed. It is quite possible that reckless driving was the cause

carolprudm .. For shame.. Your post is clearly innuendo meant to destroy rather than build. I thank the other poster that found & posted the truth.

carolprudm
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:44 PM
I am pretty sure Mitt didnt die in the crash.

Just love how the leftists try to slant things in a false way.Accounts of the accident vary http://www.disinfo.com/2012/08/mitt-romneys-coma/

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:45 PM
Philandering knows no political bounds. Remember Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich?

As I reacall, neither Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich ever held the highest office in the land. And, Newt never brought prostitutes into the WH.

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:50 PM
Accounts of the accident vary http://www.disinfo.com/2012/08/mitt-romneys-coma/

Information from a site called disinformation, hahaha.

inne
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:51 PM
Asking if someone is trolling isn't name calling. I am surprised that someone would bring up the personal virtue of two specific individuals in a conversation about political ideologies and policy. It seems to be inflammatory and quite beside the point. We are talking about concepts and practices, not people.

nhwr
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:53 PM
Remember that the lack of regulation in the American economy was ignited the collapse of the global economy in the 2008 crash.

And since WWII at least, the US has made sure the rest of the world knew it would use its wealth as well as legitimate and illegitimate military and political means to get what it wanted.

If Western Europe has a bone to pick with us as "lazy" or self-serving, they aren't entirely wrong. If some tourists feel a bit of a cold shoulder post-2008, I'd say they should just consider it the cost of doing business as an American.

The crash of 2008 was caused by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. The number of subprime mortgages grew because of government mandated loan policies. In other words, it was caused by government regulation.

Post WWII, the US used its wealth to rebuild the war torn world almost single-handedly. Ask anyone who lived in Berlin in the late 40's what they think of Americans. And most French like us too. Except for the Parisians, they don't like anyone but Parisians. (My mother's college room-mate is a the daughter of a French baron. She was born in Indo-Chine and her accent is decidedly un-Parisian. I was with her in Paris for a few weeks several years ago. You should have seen Parisians snub her 'til they recognized who she was, lol.)

America is not perfect but it is better than any other country on the planet. If you want to see how well socialism works, just look at Greece or Cyprus. And just wait for most of the rest of the EU to follow suit.

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:54 PM
Asking if someone is trolling isn't name calling. I am surprised that someone would bring up the personal virtue of two specific individuals in a conversation about political ideologies and policy. It seems to be inflammatory and quite beside the point. We are talking about concepts and practices, not people.

The TOPIC of this thread is liberal, socialism. The people mentioned in my post were exhlated for their virtuous liberalism by someone else.. I pointed out the obvious character flaws in both men.

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:56 PM
The crash of 2008 was caused by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. The number of subprime mortgages grew because of government mandated loan policies. In other words, it was caused by government regulation.
Post WWII, the US used its wealth to rebuild the war torn world almost single-handedly. Ask anyone who lived in Berlin in the late 40's what they think of Americans. And most French like us too. Except for the Parisians, they don't like anyone but Parisians. (My mother's college room-mate is a the daughter of a French baron. She was born in Indo-Chine and her accent is decidedly un-Parisian. I was with her in Paris for a few weeks several years ago. You should have seen Parisians snub her 'til they recognized who she was, lol.)

America is not perfect but it is better than any other country on the planet. If you want to see how well socialism works, just look at Greece or Cyprus. And just wait for most of the rest of the EU to follow suit.

Liberals can not grasp this concept.

sunridge1
Apr. 2, 2013, 06:22 PM
No one can grasp the subject because it all started 40 years ago. No "party" is without blame. A bunch serendipitous failures that brought us where we are today. Until folks grasp that concept nothing will ever change. Which is exactly what the 1% are hoping for...

nhwr
Apr. 2, 2013, 06:26 PM
PS Mitt didn't die in a crash.
He was at the Blenheim CDI last weekend. He was very nice but Rafalca was awesome :D

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 06:28 PM
No one can grasp the subject because it all started 40 years ago. No "party" is without blame. A bunch serendipitous failures that brought us where we are today. Until folks grasp that concept nothing will ever change. Which is exactly what the 1% are hoping for...

Ha, nope. There is a quite clear path of legislation that began the CRA creep as I call it. It was started under Carter, then balooned into the massive fraud it bacame under the Clinton presidency.

nhwr
Apr. 2, 2013, 06:38 PM
No one can grasp the subject because it all started 40 years ago. No "party" is without blame. A bunch serendipitous failures that brought us where we are today. Until folks grasp that concept nothing will ever change. Which is exactly what the 1% are hoping for...Sorry that is simply wishful thinking. The Community Re-investment Act was created under Carter to encourage banks to give lower income and minority buyers access to the housing market. It was later modified under the Clinton administration to force mortgage lenders to relax qualifications so the unqualified buyers could have access to homeownership. This basically created the housing bubble while at the same time guaranteed it would burst.

JER
Apr. 2, 2013, 07:20 PM
To answer you questions,IMO, to create a 'stronger nation' for American workers begins with teaching young people integrity and to be imaginative/innovative. Good work ethics begins at home. That being said, a professor once told a class I was in that colleges were teaching young people to be good "march step" workers.

Ideally, young people should do their research about candidates instead of regurgitating what they hear on TV and that goes for both sides. I've been told by more than a few students that they cast their vote for Obama b/c they are hoping for a student loan 'bailout.' Many have no concept that the "government" is an entity totally separate and apart from taxpayers.

kathy s., while I appreciate that you finally deigned to answer my question, your answer doesn't really align with what you wrote in your previous post (http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?398075-Liberal-socialism-etc&p=6914648#post6914648):


I sit in my graduate classes listening to the young people complaining about the cut in hours at their job yet voting for liberals (you know, the ones who support Obamacare).

What if those young people did their research and studied their candidates yet still voted for what you call 'liberals'? Would you still be denigrating them and their choices?

Obviously, you meant something else -- and you're not going to own up to it now.

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 08:31 PM
Sorry that is simply wishful thinking. The Community Re-investment Act was created under Carter to encourage banks to give lower income and minority buyers access to the housing market. It was later modified under the Clinton administration to force mortgage lenders to relax qualifications so the unqualified buyers could have access to homeownership. This basically created the housing bubble while at the same time guaranteed it would burst.

Lesson to be learned here is that govt interference in the free market will eventually lead to massive failure. No matter what program you want to talk about.

Cant wait to see how Obamacare will f this country in a few years.

sunridge1
Apr. 2, 2013, 09:21 PM
We are already F-ed. All I can see for a future is Soy-lent Green. I'm glad I'll be dead.

I will say it again no admin in the last 40 years is without fault. If you can't see that, then you are buying into exactly what they want, fighting amongst ourselves about a lie.

Noms
Apr. 2, 2013, 09:32 PM
We are already F-ed. All I can see for a future is Soy-lent Green. I'm glad I'll be dead.

I will say it again no admin in the last 40 years is without fault. If you can't see that, then you are buying into exactly what they want, fighting amongst ourselves about a lie.

tehehehe, I want to be staring straight at the tip of the nuclear bomb when the time comes.

kathy s.
Apr. 2, 2013, 10:58 PM
kathy s., while I appreciate that you finally deigned to answer my question, your answer doesn't really align with what you wrote in your previous post (http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?398075-Liberal-socialism-etc&p=6914648#post6914648):



What if those young people did their research and studied their candidates yet still voted for what you call 'liberals'? Would you still be denigrating them and their choices?

Obviously, you meant something else -- and you're not going to own up to it now.

Quit with the snark or I'll put you on ignore. First, I don't get your point about my first post not aligning, etc. Explain. No where did I state I was a teacher.
Second, that's a big what if.
Third, I meant what I said.

kathy s.
Apr. 2, 2013, 11:01 PM
PS Mitt didn't die in a crash.
He was at the Blenheim CDI last weekend. He was very nice but Rafalca was awesome :D

See post #175. :)

JER
Apr. 3, 2013, 12:20 AM
Quit with the snark or I'll put you on ignore.

Are you for real? If you're the sort of person that threatens people on discussion boards, then please put me on your ignore list.


First, I don't get your point about my first post not aligning, etc. Explain.

You criticized the 'young people' for complaining about lack of jobs/hours yet voting for 'liberals.' I asked who, then, do you think they should be voting for. If not liberals/Obamacare-supporters, then who, and why? Which candidates, IYO, support policies that will benefit these young people as they join the job force in the US?

Then you said that these young people should research and not regurgitate -- but that doesn't help me understand why these young people deserve criticism for voting for 'liberals' and those who support Obamacare. Obamacare at least gives many of these 'young people' a good chance at health care through their mid-20s. Is there another group that has policies that would provide more quality of life for them?


No where did I state I was a teacher.

I didn't say you did. I used 'your students' because 'your young people' is a bit unwieldy and I was describing the young people as 'students', because they are students if they are in a class. Whether or not you're a teacher or fellow student is irrelevant here.

kathy s.
Apr. 3, 2013, 12:49 AM
Are you for real? If you're the sort of person that threatens people on discussion boards, then please put me on your ignore list.



It's not a threat however take it however you like, I can't stand snark b/c it totally lowers the level of conversation or debate.

inne
Apr. 3, 2013, 12:54 AM
The TOPIC of this thread is liberal, socialism. The people mentioned in my post were exhlated for their virtuous liberalism by someone else.. I pointed out the obvious character flaws in both men.

I simply don't understand how personal flaws are relevant to the discussion in any way. Their private lives are separate from their lives as political actors and their contributions to American liberal policy and history.