Socialist supporters...

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

That's certainly the simplistic way to look at what I said. No connections necessary.

I am saying that our neediest are needier than theirs as a whole. We have a larger population, we have a greater number of folks at the bottom who need more.

Education is not the sole property of socialsists. Everyone agrees education is the key to solving a lot of issues. The difference is - socialists don't take into account that having incentive to strive for greater things produces greater things (think Ford's assembly line - if efficiency hadn't brought him greater profits, would we have the assembly line?). Socialsits believe to each according to their needs from each according to their ability. The only problem is their concepts tend to stunt the latter, as there is no benefit to achieving more than average and that winds up being its downfall (plus they lower the bar on the lesser as there's no need to do anything as all your needs will be met regardless. So, if you are below average, what's the point in doing anything?). Ask the USSR. Even China is morphing from this concept.

If you lived in or around NYC in the 80's and 90's you'd understand this clearly. David Dinkins crushed the city by enlarging welfare rolls and tending toward more socialistic programs because his theory was people couldn't help themselves. Giuliani came in and said hogwash - I'm giving money to law enforcement and not to welfare, and folks can get jobs. He cleaned up 42nd street and increased tax revenues by giving tax breaks to Disney and the like to populate new buildings in a clean, new Times Square. And folks got jobs instead of wallowing on socialist payouts.

please show me a real world example where socialism has stunted innovation ... you are basically saying that socialists are lazy and do not have drive to excel ... which is outrageous ...

i wasn't in NYC that time but i am there now quite a bit ... and all the cool things about NYC are looong gone ... it's all flash no substance that city now ... neighbourhoods that used to be populated by creative and diverse people are not full of kids with trust funds ... the prosperity gap is as wide as it ever has been and it's only getting wider ... everyone i know there can't wait to leave ... sure, if you are all about making money and spending $1,000 on a slice of pizza - it's a great city ...

polaris_x

listen ... i really don't think there is an argument against the concept of socialism ... the accusations of laziness, slavery, etc.. just don't have any merit behind it ...

what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?

Parachute

polaris_x wrote:

Parachute wrote:

What the hell is "modern day socialism?"

the best way to describe it would be countries like norway and sweden ... where socialistic principles take precedence over individualistic goals all within a capitalistic framework ...

so, corporations and individuals are allowed to earn as much money as possible but not at the expense of socialistic values such as the environment or someone's health ...

value is placed on programs such as education and health care in order for individuals in society to have the best assets to contribute to society ... long-term sustainability of people and resources are not sacrificed for short-term gains ...

Fair enough. How would you classify Venezuela?

Parachute

polaris_x wrote:

listen ... i really don't think there is an argument against the concept of socialism ... the accusations of laziness, slavery, etc.. just don't have any merit behind it ...

what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?

I'm clueless. What does Haliburton get away with?

polaris_x

Parachute wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

listen ... i really don't think there is an argument against the concept of socialism ... the accusations of laziness, slavery, etc.. just don't have any merit behind it ...

what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?

I'm clueless. What does Haliburton get away with?

http://www.ethicsinbusiness.net/case-st ... urton-kbr/

It is only an extreme case of how the Pentagon, the largest source of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, does business.

Go Beavers

fife wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

redrock wrote:

THere are many different types of 'socialism' and if you can't define what YOU think you mean by this, how can we answer your question properly? And yes, a society that doesn't rely on money can thrive though, as brianlux said, your scenario doesn't resemble any socialism I know.

I think that when talking about socialism here, some may confuse 'true' (if one can use that word) socialism with a social democracy.

Your telling me that there are no people out there that are using other peoples tax dollars (taken by force) to pay for their goods and services?
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?

actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.

What would Blockhead do if he couldn't complain about taxes and feel victimized that his money is being stolen?

polaris_x

Parachute wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

Parachute wrote:

What the hell is "modern day socialism?"

the best way to describe it would be countries like norway and sweden ... where socialistic principles take precedence over individualistic goals all within a capitalistic framework ...

so, corporations and individuals are allowed to earn as much money as possible but not at the expense of socialistic values such as the environment or someone's health ...

value is placed on programs such as education and health care in order for individuals in society to have the best assets to contribute to society ... long-term sustainability of people and resources are not sacrificed for short-term gains ...

Fair enough. How would you classify Venezuela?

a dictatorship? ... not a model i would implement whatsoever ...

Parachute

polaris_x wrote:

Parachute wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

listen ... i really don't think there is an argument against the concept of socialism ... the accusations of laziness, slavery, etc.. just don't have any merit behind it ...

what i think you guys are confusing is the poorly run aspects of socialism and instead of blaming it on the inefficiency of the people executing the program you are blaming the theory behind it ... do you guys get bent out of shape with the shit Haliburton gets away with?

I'm clueless. What does Haliburton get away with?

http://www.ethicsinbusiness.net/case-st ... urton-kbr/

It is only an extreme case of how the Pentagon, the largest source of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, does business.

website blocked. damn. Will check it out at home. Thanks.

fife

Your telling me that there are no people out there that are using other peoples tax dollars (taken by force) to pay for their goods and services?
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?[/quote]

actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.[/quote]

What would Blockhead do if he couldn't complain about taxes and feel victimized that his money is being stolen?[/quote]

i was actually trying to be nice. i was going to jump on his idea that people on social assistance can not and do not contribute.

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

please show me a real world example where socialism has stunted innovation ... you are basically saying that socialists are lazy and do not have drive to excel ... which is outrageous ...

i wasn't in NYC that time but i am there now quite a bit ... and all the cool things about NYC are looong gone ... it's all flash no substance that city now ... neighbourhoods that used to be populated by creative and diverse people are not full of kids with trust funds ... the prosperity gap is as wide as it ever has been and it's only getting wider ... everyone i know there can't wait to leave ... sure, if you are all about making money and spending $1,000 on a slice of pizza - it's a great city ...

I did not insinuate ALL socialists are lazy. That's a lazy argument. I know you are smarter than that. Which means you also have to realize that while yes there are high achievers that will achieve regardless of the circumstances (and low achievers that will fail regardless), the vast majority fall into a category where if the reward is a regression to the mean, the desire and output will be a regression to the mean. Which in human terms can only happen from the above average, thus moving the average down.

And I don't know where you go for pizza, but you can get a slice that's practically the size of half a pie for a few bucks right in Penn Station in mid-town. And there are plenty of creative people in NYC. Can you find me one of those trusts you speak of?

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I did not insinuate ALL socialists are lazy. That's a lazy argument. I know you are smarter than that. Which means you also have to realize that while yes there are high achievers that will achieve regardless of the circumstances (and low achievers that will fail regardless), the vast majority fall into a category where if the reward is a regression to the mean, the desire and output will be a regression to the mean. Which in human terms can only happen from the above average, thus moving the average down.

And I don't know where you go for pizza, but you can get a slice that's practically the size of half a pie for a few bucks right in Penn Station in mid-town. And there are plenty of creative people in NYC. Can you find me one of those trusts you speak of?

i'll ignore your condescending remark ... and say that your entire argument is lazy ... it's based on hyperbole and simplifications ... your formula makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ... to even think the validity of a societal form of coexistance can be summarized by a formula is beyond absurd ...

did we invent the wheel or fire because of personal gain or glory? ... no, we invented it for societal benefit ...

where has the model you so prefer succeeded? ... show me examples where limited gov't and free-market capitalism has created a great society ...

and obviously you can get a slice of pizza for a few bucks ... you miss my point completely ... the fact there are joints like this ... http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/nino-selimaj shows the market for excess in that town ...

Cosmo

Blockhead wrote:

Would you still support socialism if we lived in a society that didn't use money?

If it was impossible to tax people in order to redistribute wealth, would you simply accept using a barter/trade system for exchanging goods for services, or would you support/form mobs and forcibly invade peoples homes and take their stuff to redistribute to the masses?
Would you force farmers (privately owned) to hand over their land to the "public" so that the production of vegetables was owned publicly?
Say there was a blacksmith in this fictional community, would you forcibly take over his forge? And since he's the only one trained to use it, would you force him to provide his services for free?

I'm curious how you can jusfity socialism being implemented, if at all... If there weren't any banks just working people, bartering/trading for what they need. Wouldn't socialism be pointless if there wasn't a class system to begin with? Just people making a living producing stuff and trading it with other people. Isn't socialism actually counter-productive in such a society?

...
Does this scenario mean that the current system we know of has been obliterated in a Glenn Beck wet-dream, post-apocalyptic Hellscape... or that money has never existed in the first place?
Also... what you describe is not 'Socialism'.

Smellyman

fife wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

Your telling me that there are no people out there that are using other peoples tax dollars (taken by force) to pay for their goods and services?
I never said a society could not thrive without relying on money. I am asking if trading and bartering were our only source of obtaining goods, would you still support forcefully taking someones goods and/or services to people who can not and do not contribute (can't trade or barter their goods or services) If you don't then why do you support taking peoples money (goods/services) and giving it to someone who dosen't have any?

actually nothing is taken by force. you decide to actually live in the country you are living in. because of that you have agreed to follow the rules that your Democratic elected officials have placed. if you don't like those rules that you are free to move to any country you choose.

Somalia perhaps. A really hands off gov there.

keeponrockin

Blockhead:
Why does the government forcibly take my money to fund wars I don't agree with? This is unfair. I want

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

i'll ignore your condescending remark ... and say that your entire argument is lazy ... it's based on hyperbole and simplifications ... your formula makes absolutely no sense whatsoever ... to even think the validity of a societal form of coexistance can be summarized by a formula is beyond absurd ...

did we invent the wheel or fire because of personal gain or glory? ... no, we invented it for societal benefit ...

where has the model you so prefer succeeded? ... show me examples where limited gov't and free-market capitalism has created a great society ...

and obviously you can get a slice of pizza for a few bucks ... you miss my point completely ... the fact there are joints like this ... http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/nino-selimaj shows the market for excess in that town ...

I do apologize. Didn't mean to be condescending. Of course, a lot of what we say here is hyperbole and simplification. Let me try to put my formula into selfish terms - if I expect the same return on my effort as someone who does very little, why should I spend 10 years struggling through school and after to pass Actuarial exams? I can just be smarter than the next guy without having any qualifications, and I still get the same result. So, while Actuaries may not make the world go 'round, they probably do enhance society in some way, shape or form through their training. I'll still be smart (I know, there goes the ego), I just won't have any need to be trained/educated.

As for your wheel - today. We "needed" the wheel (And fire if you want to go back further). We don't NEED massive memory super computers that sit on your desktop. That's created b/c of profit motive. Nothing more. Nothing less. Bill Gates is a great philanthropist now, but he wasn't sitting in a garage with Steve Jobs thinking - let's do something awesome with the computer and live out of this garage the rest of our lives because it's all we need.

And an example for you is the Reagan '80s. We had to redefine what "Full Employment" meant because his economic policies actually created a lower unemployment rate than we ever imagined. Now, much like Norway isn't perfect socialism (I'm guessing Doctors there get more than just their needs met), Reagan wasn't perfect small gov't, unlimited capitalism. But, their concepts are probably as close to their intended precepts.

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

and obviously you can get a slice of pizza for a few bucks ... you miss my point completely ... the fact there are joints like this ... http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/nino-selimaj shows the market for excess in that town ...

And you are right - that is ridiculous. But, those fine people are making a living off fools - as in a fool and their money are soon parted. I would never eat there even if I could afford it. I might buy a $13 beer at Alpine, but that's a whole other story in monopolies.... (It's a joke - let's not go off on that tangent even though I just teed it up for you).

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I do apologize. Didn't mean to be condescending. Of course, a lot of what we say here is hyperbole and simplification. Let me try to put my formula into selfish terms - if I expect the same return on my effort as someone who does very little, why should I spend 10 years struggling through school and after to pass Actuarial exams? I can just be smarter than the next guy without having any qualifications, and I still get the same result. So, while Actuaries may not make the world go 'round, they probably do enhance society in some way, shape or form through their training. I'll still be smart (I know, there goes the ego), I just won't have any need to be trained/educated.

As for your wheel - today. We "needed" the wheel (And fire if you want to go back further). We don't NEED massive memory super computers that sit on your desktop. That's created b/c of profit motive. Nothing more. Nothing less. Bill Gates is a great philanthropist now, but he wasn't sitting in a garage with Steve Jobs thinking - let's do something awesome with the computer and live out of this garage the rest of our lives because it's all we need.

And an example for you is the Reagan '80s. We had to redefine what "Full Employment" meant because his economic policies actually created a lower unemployment rate than we ever imagined. Now, much like Norway isn't perfect socialism (I'm guessing Doctors there get more than just their needs met), Reagan wasn't perfect small gov't, unlimited capitalism. But, their concepts are probably as close to their intended precepts.

sorry ... similar to blockhead ... your examples have no foundation in the kind of socialism we are talking about ... why is there this perception that in a socialistic society everyone is equal in all aspects of life? ...

as for innovation ... the profit motive does indeed spur innovation ... but the profit motive sometimes does that at the expense of wellness to people (see big tobacco and monsanto) ... having said that - the kid that goes to school and studies genetics and stem cell research who's looking for a cure for alzheimers - you think he's doing it for greed or great riches or do you think he's doing it to cure society of a horrific illness?

and as for reagan ... the dude expanded gov't and raised taxes ... and some seriously shitty things happened under his watch ... i know conservatives treat him like a deity but he ranks as one of the worst presidents in history among historians and progressives ...

gimmesometruth27

^^^

totally agree with the reagan part. today reagan could not even run as a republican. he is waaaay too moderate compared to the party today.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

^^^

totally agree with the reagan part. today reagan could not even run as a republican. he is waaaay too moderate compared to the party today.

I agree with this. That's why it's so funny that folks think someone lauding Reagan is immediately a Republican. I do lean that way (obviously), but what has been proven time and again is our country is actually moderate. Not socialist, not liberal, not purely conservative. I do think as a whole we lean more conservative than liberal, but with a very moderate bent.

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

sorry ... similar to blockhead ... your examples have no foundation in the kind of socialism we are talking about ... why is there this perception that in a socialistic society everyone is equal in all aspects of life? ...

as for innovation ... the profit motive does indeed spur innovation ... but the profit motive sometimes does that at the expense of wellness to people (see big tobacco and monsanto) ... having said that - the kid that goes to school and studies genetics and stem cell research who's looking for a cure for alzheimers - you think he's doing it for greed or great riches or do you think he's doing it to cure society of a horrific illness?

and as for reagan ... the dude expanded gov't and raised taxes ... and some seriously shitty things happened under his watch ... i know conservatives treat him like a deity but he ranks as one of the worst presidents in history among historians and progressives ...

Who cares what progressives say (and historians do not say that. I'm sure some do, but on balance not)? If nothing else, Reagan portrayed a sense of - everything will be alright. And it was. Bush I tried that, and it didn't work as well at the end. Obama is trying that, and he's failing miserably. Because behind that a) you have to be believeable (which neither Bush I nor Obama are) and b) you have to surround yourself with folks that know what their doing rather than insisting that you know better than your policy team.

I know - How dare Reagan get the hostages home, end the cold war, get the Berlin Wall torn down, keep Qadafi quiet for 20 years by bombing the crap out of him the moment he stuck his head out of the rabbit hole (without a war) and having unemployment down to the lowest level in our history. Terrible. Simply terrible. We should be so unlucky as to find someone so bad to lead us.

Worst President - that is funny. Jimmy Carter himself would have an argument for you.