PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Is Socialism OK?


Pages : 1 2 [3]

Mr. Kotter
02-17-2010, 08:22 AM
I'll ask you the same question then, Kotter. Do you contend that not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to either pay in or opt out?

I don't know, of course. No one "knows." I suspect not though....given our national penchant for investing/dabbling/gambling in the stock market (and generally living beyond our means,) and investing incomes in the types of corporations that lead us down the economic road we traveled to bring on the current economic malaise. I don't know why we think average Americans would be "safer".....when investments can so easily and so quickly bankrupt so many people who may have invested in those companies that have gone bankrupt, or had to come begging for government "bailouts."

Don't get me wrong. I understand, generally speaking, long term investment in the stock market could/should benefit most Americans. What do we do, though, when the system blows up....and leaves those Americans bankrupt and penniless. Do we just say, "oh well, that's the breaks." Or do we try to ensure that, despite lower dividends/profits from investments....that "safe" is better than "maybe more."

Personally, I'd favor some compromise, at least initially, in which Americans could CHOOSE to invest 1/3 to 1/2 of their contributions--but with the caveat that those investments would be pretty restrictive.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 10:19 AM
I don't know, of course. No one "knows." I suspect not though....given our national penchant for investing/dabbling/gambling in the stock market (and generally living beyond our means,) and investing incomes in the types of corporations that lead us down the economic road we traveled to bring on the current economic malaise. I don't know why we think average Americans would be "safer".....when investments can so easily and so quickly bankrupt so many people who may have invested in those companies that have gone bankrupt, or had to come begging for government "bailouts."

Don't get me wrong. I understand, generally speaking, long term investment in the stock market could/should benefit most Americans. What do we do, though, when the system blows up....and leaves those Americans bankrupt and penniless. Do we just say, "oh well, that's the breaks." Or do we try to ensure that, despite lower dividends/profits from investments....that "safe" is better than "maybe more."

Personally, I'd favor some compromise, at least initially, in which Americans could CHOOSE to invest 1/3 to 1/2 of their contributions--but with the caveat that those investments would be pretty restrictive.

If individuals can't invest safely what makes you think the Federal government can? Even more convincingly, if corporate America, with their access to the best actuarial minds in the world, can't create sustainable fixed benefit retirement programs, what makes you think the Federal government can? SS is a pay-as-you-go ponzi-like scheme that hasn't gone belly up quite yet, not a safe alternative to private-sector retirement planning.

Taco John
02-17-2010, 11:03 AM
I don't know, of course. No one "knows." I suspect not though....given our national penchant for investing/dabbling/gambling in the stock market (and generally living beyond our means,) and investing incomes in the types of corporations that lead us down the economic road we traveled to bring on the current economic malaise. I don't know why we think average Americans would be "safer".....when investments can so easily and so quickly bankrupt so many people who may have invested in those companies that have gone bankrupt, or had to come begging for government "bailouts."

Don't get me wrong. I understand, generally speaking, long term investment in the stock market could/should benefit most Americans. What do we do, though, when the system blows up....and leaves those Americans bankrupt and penniless. Do we just say, "oh well, that's the breaks." Or do we try to ensure that, despite lower dividends/profits from investments....that "safe" is better than "maybe more."

Personally, I'd favor some compromise, at least initially, in which Americans could CHOOSE to invest 1/3 to 1/2 of their contributions--but with the caveat that those investments would be pretty restrictive.



What a bunch of empty rhetoric.

banyon
02-17-2010, 11:04 AM
The insanity must end. Everybody must be forced to buy insurance from mega-insurance companies or face the IRS and jail time.

That lie again. I say "lie" this time instead of "mistake" because at this point, you know it to be a falsehood that people will be jailed for not purchasing government insurance.

Taco John
02-17-2010, 11:06 AM
That lie again. I say "lie" this time instead of "mistake" because at this point, you know it to be a falsehood that people will be jailed for not purchasing government insurance.

I believe that you've clearly shown that the government will masquerade the "not purchasing insurance" part as "Tax fraud," which is punishable by jail.

Mr. Kotter
02-17-2010, 11:06 AM
If individuals can't invest safely what makes you think the Federal government can? Even more convincingly, if corporate America, with their access to the best actuarial minds in the world, can't create sustainable fixed benefit retirement programs, what makes you think the Federal government can? SS is a pay-as-you-go ponzi-like scheme that hasn't gone belly up quite yet, not a safe alternative to private-sector retirement planning.

The biggest difference between corporate America and government run pensions plans, IMHO, is the government plan has at least some measure of accountability and transparency. In addition, the government plan is less susceptible to the sort of greed that led us down the road of over-valuing real estate, and the compounding effects of derivatives/hedge funds/shady-financial-dealings that led to the economic hardships the real estate and financial sectors have been facing.

SS is far from perfect, and needs reform. Dumping it...for a game of high stakes poker with a bunch of money-grubbing Wall Street types is not a serious proposal though.

banyon
02-17-2010, 11:07 AM
What a bunch of empty rhetoric.

Rhetoric?

I don't think you understand what rhetoric is. Rhetoric is subsituting empty phrases like "income taxes are theft" in lieu of a discussion on the merits.

Kotter's post simply points out the potentially (and likely) devastating consequence to people's "private accounts" when the market crashes through the floor as it has a penchant for doing. Your reply basically sticks your head in the ground and pretends that, although it has always been a problem, somehow it won't now. In otherwords, it substitutes ideology for obvious practical consequences and refuses to confront the reality of them pretty much as you've done throughout this entire thread.

banyon
02-17-2010, 11:09 AM
I believe that you've clearly shown that the government will masquerade the "not purchasing insurance" part as "Tax fraud," which is punishable by jail.

No. Tax fraud is when you don't report things to the IRS, it is not a failure to pay. There has been no instance of the government failing to make that distinction ever. They have to follow the rules too.

Taco John
02-17-2010, 11:10 AM
Rhetoric?

I don't think you understand what rhetoric is. Rhetoric is subsituting empty phrases like "income taxes are theft" in lieu of a discussion on the merits.

Kotter's post simply points out the potentially (and likely) devastating consequence to people's "private accounts" when the market crashes through the floor as it has a penchant for doing. Your reply basically sticks your head in the ground and pretends that, although it has always been a problem, somehow it won't now. In otherwords, it substitutes ideology for obvious practical consequences and refuses to confront the reality of them pretty much as you've done throughout this entire thread.

So what's the answer to the question?

Do you contend that not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to either pay in or opt out?

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 11:14 AM
I believe that you've clearly shown that the government will masquerade the "not purchasing insurance" part as "Tax fraud," which is punishable by jail.

Excellent point! Done by some criminal on-the-govt-payroll lawyer who can parse words.;)

banyon
02-17-2010, 11:15 AM
Indeed. It's not a trick question - the question is genuine - but any way that Banyon answers, he loses the moral high ground in the debate. Which is why he won't dare to answer the question, but instead seek to further rationalize why the question isn't valid, or ignore it altogether.

I didn't get to your question because I wasn't in the forum until now, so no, it wasn't "fear of losing the moral high ground". You really are quite full of yourself with this stuff you know?

No, I don't have any problem stating the obvious. In fact i think i already posted that the system would not likely be viable with people opting out. That's why i said i would need to see if there is any policy alternative or combination that would make it work.

People aren't able to save virtually anything for retirement now, and when they do, there's no guarantee that they did it correctly. Where would the Enron pensioners be if they didn't have SSA to rely on and had invested ALL of it in Enron? Like Kotter asked, do you just say "them's the breaks"? What do they do for sustenance after that? Does it contribute to social instability when crooks ran off with their pension fund?

banyon
02-17-2010, 11:16 AM
Excellent point! Done by some criminal on-the-govt-payroll lawyer who can parse words.;)

How do you parse reporting or not reporting income?

Either it was reported or it wasn't.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 11:17 AM
1) Pick up a copy of Henry Hazlitt's: Economics in One Lesson
2) Read the Economics in One Lesson
3) Write an essay on main theme of Economics in One Lesson
4) Write "Socialism is bad. Now I know why." One-hundred times on the classroom whiteboard.
5) Report to me.

:D

Taco John
02-17-2010, 11:18 AM
I didn't get to your question because I wasn't in the forum until now, so no, it wasn't "fear of losing the moral high ground". You really are quite full of yourself with this stuff you know?

No, I don't have any problem stating the obvious. In fact i think i already posted that the system would not likely be viable with people opting out. That's why i said i would need to see if there is any policy alternative or combination that would make it work.

People aren't able to save virtually anything for retirement now, and when they do, there's no guarantee that they did it correctly. Where would the Enron pensioners be if they didn't have SSA to rely on and had invested ALL of it in Enron? Like Kotter asked, do you just say "them's the breaks"? What do they do for sustenance after that? Does it contribute to social instability when crooks ran off with their pension fund?



So then, no, not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to opt out? Is that right? No? Enough people wouldn't voluntarily participate?

banyon
02-17-2010, 11:31 AM
So then, no, not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to opt out? Is that right? No? Enough people wouldn't voluntarily participate?

Can you not read my post?

BucEyedPea
02-17-2010, 11:35 AM
Yes, socialism is okay but let's call it something else./banyon]

Taco John
02-17-2010, 11:36 AM
Can you not read my post?

Yeah, I just wanted you to answer the question. I already know that you don't think the system would be viable unless government forced people to use the system against their wills. My question to you is about their wills.

My question to you is this: Do you contend that not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to either pay in or opt out?

patteeu
02-17-2010, 11:40 AM
The biggest difference between corporate America and government run pensions plans, IMHO, is the government plan has at least some measure of accountability and transparency. In addition, the government plan is less susceptible to the sort of greed that led us down the road of over-valuing real estate, and the compounding effects of derivatives/hedge funds/shady-financial-dealings that led to the economic hardships the real estate and financial sectors have been facing.

SS is far from perfect, and needs reform. Dumping it...for a game of high stakes poker with a bunch of money-grubbing Wall Street types is not a serious proposal though.

Your class envy is even more sickening than your desperate grip on the teat of the welfare state.

banyon
02-17-2010, 11:42 AM
Yeah, I just wanted you to answer the question. I already know that you don't think the system would be viable unless government forced people to use the system against their wills. My question to you is about their wills.

My question to you is this: Do you contend that not enough Americans would voluntarily participate in Social Security to make it a viable program if given the option to either pay in or opt out?

I already answered this. Yes. I don't understand why this first answer was unclear to you:

In fact i think i already posted that the system would not likely be viable with people opting out.

There's quite a difference between people making choices as consumers and people making choices for long-term nationwide policies.

Individually, people will sign loans with usurious interest rates. They make that "choice". But in the long run, this is pretty damaging to everyone as a whole, so the practice is outlawed. We "held it against their wills". (talk about rhetoric, geez).

banyon
02-17-2010, 11:42 AM
Yes, socialism is okay but let's call it something else./banyon]

Go duck some thoughtful conversations somewhere else.

Mr. Kotter
02-17-2010, 12:05 PM
Your class envy is even more sickening than your desperate grip on the teat of the welfare state.


And your utter contempt for our republic (and, we, the people) is even more astounding than your blind faith in the integrity and honesty of real embezlers and thieves who sometimes resides on Wall Street.

:shake:

Taco John
02-17-2010, 12:44 PM
I already answered this.

You didn't answer. You dodged the question. I didn't ask if you thought the program would be viable with people opting out. I asked you if you thought enough Americans would voluntarily participate in the program if given the option to opt out.


There's quite a difference between people making choices as consumers and people making choices for long-term nationwide policies.

I always like it when liberals spread the message that they know what is better for people's lives and decisions than they do.

Taco John
02-17-2010, 12:45 PM
I already answered this. Yes. I don't understand why this first answer was unclear to you:




Maybe you did answer. Your answer is yes, not enough people would voluntarily participate in social security to make it a viable program, and thus people should be forced to participate against their wills.

banyon
02-17-2010, 12:47 PM
Maybe you did answer. Your answer is yes, not enough people would voluntarily participate in social security to make it a viable program, and thus people should be forced to participate against their wills.

That's the rhetorical point you wanted to make without talking in further detail, correct?

banyon
02-17-2010, 12:48 PM
You didn't answer. You dodged the question. I didn't ask if you thought the program would be viable with people opting out. I asked you if you thought enough Americans would voluntarily participate in the program if given the option to opt out.




I always like it when liberals spread the message that they know what is better for people's lives and decisions than they do.

Great, another rhetorical score. Slap it on a bumper sticker! Don't address the substance of the point, whatever you do.

Mr. Kotter
02-17-2010, 12:48 PM
You didn't answer. You dodged the question. I didn't ask if you thought the program would be viable with people opting out. I asked you if you thought enough Americans would voluntarily participate in the program if given the option to opt out.

I always like it when liberals spread the message that they know what is better for people's lives and decisions than they do.

I do think the program could be/would be viable despite the "opt" outs. So, as I said....I'd, personally, favor a limited and restrictive program to test the waters. I just can't see risking everything as some suggest.

Isaac...in all honesty, we know you, banyon, and I are more than capable of making these decisions. But do you honestly think a large number of Americans are? Seriously?

Taco John
02-17-2010, 12:56 PM
Great, another rhetorical score. Slap it on a bumper sticker! Don't address the substance of the point, whatever you do.


As far as I'm concerned, the substance is that you believe in forcing people against their wills to participate in programs that they wouldn't voluntarily participate in. I just want to make sure people are clear where your coming from when you accuse them of "I've gots mine, you can all fuck off!"

Taco John
02-17-2010, 12:59 PM
But do you honestly think a large number of Americans are? Seriously?

Yes, yes I do. I think there are plenty of Americans who are capable of taking care of themselves and could do it much better than government can. Further, I believe that in a free society, they should be given the option to either participate or opt out of any government program.

Norman Einstein
02-17-2010, 01:13 PM
When looking at America do you see socialism as being OK?
Only if you are a socialist. Other wise we are driving down a one way street the wrong direction.

Mr. Kotter
02-17-2010, 01:48 PM
Yes, yes I do. I think there are plenty of Americans who are capable of taking care of themselves and could do it much better than government can. Further, I believe that in a free society, they should be given the option to either participate or opt out of any government program.

I'd agree there may be plenty; but it's not them I'm concerned about. I'd be very concerned about the large number who would not exercise good judgment or make good choices, and in the end would end up as wards of the state anyway....because of our refusal to allow them to die in the streets. I seen far too many parents and people make horrible choices for themselves and their families, to trust they'll choose wisely in something like this--and you and I will be left to pay that entire bill.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2010, 02:22 PM
The biggest difference between corporate America and government run pensions plans, IMHO, is the government plan has at least some measure of accountability and transparency. In addition, the government plan is less susceptible to the sort of greed that led us down the road of over-valuing real estate, and the compounding effects of derivatives/hedge funds/shady-financial-dealings that led to the economic hardships the real estate and financial sectors have been facing.

SS is far from perfect, and needs reform. Dumping it...for a game of high stakes poker with a bunch of money-grubbing Wall Street types is not a serious proposal though.

Since teachers and many other government employees dont participate in SS, why wouldn't you support that all those who have the option now be required like the rest of us to participate?

Taco John
02-17-2010, 02:23 PM
I'd agree there may be plenty; but it's not them I'm concerned about. I'd be very concerned about the large number who would not exercise good judgment or make good choices, and in the end would end up as wards of the state anyway....because of our refusal to allow them to die in the streets. I seen far too many parents and people make horrible choices for themselves and their families, to trust they'll choose wisely in something like this--and you and I will be left to pay that entire bill.


How do you know that "entire" bill wouldn't be much cheaper on the back end, than it is by funnelling it all through government, who ultimately uses the funds to expand the state even further?

Mr. Kotter
02-17-2010, 02:28 PM
Since teachers and many other government employees dont participate in SS, why wouldn't you support that all those who have the option now be required like the rest of us to participate?

I don't know what you are talking about, as everyone I know in teaching participates in SS. We do have our own pension/503B options which are deductions from pay IN ADDITION to social security....just like the rest of you who have 504K options.

How do you know that "entire" bill wouldn't be much cheaper on the back end, than it is by funnelling it all through government, who ultimately uses the funds to expand the state even further?

I don't; but I think it's a pretty safe bet. I'd be fine studying the issue, to see what the experts say.

Taco John
02-17-2010, 02:52 PM
Frankly, I don't really even care what the "experts" would say. Just on the principle that people shouldn't be forced into social programs against their will by force of government, I'm going to side on on the favor of liberty. Even if the "experts" said that 50% of Americans would die in gutters if social security were made optional, I wouldn't believe them. I have more faith in the human, let alone American spirit than that.

Hell, clear all the busy body types out of government and let them apply their busy body demands on finding free market solutions to these problems. There are solutions out there that don't require government. Clear people out of congress and send people back out into their communities to "be the change that they're looking for." Quit forcing government down everyones' throats.

banyon
02-17-2010, 03:04 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the substance is that you believe in forcing people against their wills to participate in programs that they wouldn't voluntarily participate in. I just want to make sure people are clear where your coming from when you accuse them of "I've gots mine, you can all **** off!"

So, just to engage in the substanceless rhetorical scoring game: you believe that letting Enron pensioners die penniless is great, right? Do I score a point or not?

Any other reason you have ducked Kotter (and to a lesser extent my) point/question about what to do when private investments fail, or whether you just don't care about it?

HonestChieffan
02-17-2010, 03:14 PM
I don't know what you are talking about, as everyone I know in teaching participates in SS. We do have our own pension/503B options which are deductions from pay IN ADDITION to social security....just like the rest of you who have 504K options.



I don't; but I think it's a pretty safe bet. I'd be fine studying the issue, to see what the experts say.

Interesting . My wife taught for 20 years in Missouri and was not in social security because they had the Missouri Teachers Retirement program. My brother retired as a full professor from the University of Illinois and never paid a dime in SS beecause he was covered by the Illinois State Emplyoee Retirement program.

I wonder how many government employees do not pay SS and why some do and others dont?

orange
02-17-2010, 03:24 PM
http://www.extension.org/faq/39054

Who is exempt from paying the FICA tax in the United States?
Last Updated: March 30, 2009 Related resource areas: Personal Finance

FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. FICA consists of two separate payroll taxes: Social Security (6.2% of pay) and Medicare (1.45% of pay), for a total of 7.65%. This is paid equally by workers and their employers, for a total of 15.3% of pay (7.65% x 2). In the case of self-employed workers and independent contractors, they pay the full 15.3% tax as self-employment taxes on Schedule SE that is filed with their tax return.

Almost all employed and self-employed workers are covered by Social Security and are expected to pay FICA tax or self-employment taxes. The major exceptions are most civilian federal government employees hired before 1984 (they are covered by and pay the 1.45% tax for Medicare but not for Social Security retirement benefits) and about 25% of state and local government employees with a pension plan. There are also other limited exceptions that apply (e.g., some on-campus college student employment).

For additional information about FICA tax exemptions, check with your employer or visit www.socialsecurity.gov.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2010, 03:36 PM
They should all have to pay in.

Taco John
02-17-2010, 06:05 PM
So, just to engage in the substanceless rhetorical scoring game: you believe that letting Enron pensioners die penniless is great, right? Do I score a point or not?

I make no judgements with regards to how people invest their money. They have the liberty to self determine.


Any other reason you have ducked Kotter (and to a lesser extent my) point/question about what to do when private investments fail, or whether you just don't care about it?

What's to duck? Are you saying that I should be held responsible for their bad investment, and forced into a ponzi scheme against my will because of it?

Norman Einstein
02-17-2010, 06:34 PM
So, just to engage in the substanceless rhetorical scoring game: you believe that letting Enron pensioners die penniless is great, right? Do I score a point or not?

Any other reason you have ducked Kotter (and to a lesser extent my) point/question about what to do when private investments fail, or whether you just don't care about it?

Tell me oh grand poopbah, what will happen when the government goes bankrupt. Who's going to pay all of those retired people back the money they paid into social security? The gov has had their fingers in it for a long time, the more we have big government the less of a chance that anyone has in getting to retire. When Obot defaults on the deficit who's going to be in charge? What will be be then? Chi-com-ericans?

Norman Einstein
02-17-2010, 06:35 PM
What's to duck? Are you saying that I should be held responsible for their bad investment, and forced into a ponzi scheme against my will because of it?

That's exactly what he is saying, at least until there is no government money to pay his tab, then his tune will change dramatically.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2010, 10:11 AM
Well I think it is quite clear that even the majority of Dems here feel socialism is OK. 5 out of 8, NICE!!!!

banyon
02-18-2010, 10:21 AM
Well I think it is quite clear that even the majority of Dems here feel socialism is OK. 5 out of 8, NICE!!!!

Yeah, you really engaged us in this discussion, BD.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2010, 10:56 AM
Yeah, you really engaged us in this discussion, BD.

I did at first but then the troll patrol kept going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about wanting a precise definition for socialism so they could attack the definition instead of talking about their own and where we are it as well as where we are headed. It didn't matter how many times I explained why I posted it this way that's all they wanted to come at me with so I got bored. It's not like you needed me anyway. You can hold your own.

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2010, 10:59 AM
Banyon,

BTW I did give my personal definition and where I thought we are headed but I wasn't being engaged on that.

Wow, dems think socialism is OK at a 2 to 1 margin now and not one single person from any other party agrees. Interesting

banyon
02-18-2010, 11:26 AM
Banyon,

BTW I did give my personal definition and where I thought we are headed but I wasn't being engaged on that.

Wow, dems think socialism is OK at a 2 to 1 margin now and not one single person from any other party agrees. Interesting

Ok. Fair enough.

Taco John
02-18-2010, 11:34 AM
I did at first but then the troll patrol kept going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about wanting a precise definition for socialism so they could attack the definition instead of talking about their own and where we are it as well as where we are headed. It didn't matter how many times I explained why I posted it this way that's all they wanted to come at me with so I got bored. It's not like you needed me anyway. You can hold your own.



I've found that it's not considered socialism unless they issue arm bands.

patteeu
02-18-2010, 11:42 AM
I've found that it's not considered socialism unless they issue arm bands.

ROFL

Chief Henry
02-18-2010, 12:14 PM
Does socialism work when the private sector is out of money ?

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 12:16 PM
Well I think it is quite clear that even the majority of Dems here feel socialism is OK. 5 out of 8, NICE!!!!

Yup! But we already knew that didn't we?;)

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 12:17 PM
Does socialism work when the private sector is out of money ?

No. But then eking out a living using military conquest handles that—just as it did for the Soviet Union. That too came to pass as unworkable.

banyon
02-18-2010, 12:46 PM
I've found that it's not considered socialism unless they issue arm bands.

Rhetoric> substance

It's actually "mostly owns or controls the means of production". Not that you bothered to ask anyone you were pretending to debate with.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 12:53 PM
That line about the arm-bands Taco packs a LOT of SUBSTANCE in a pithy statement. Well done!:thumb:

banyon
02-18-2010, 12:53 PM
That line about the arm-bands Taco packs a LOT of SUBSTANCE in a pithy statement. Well done!:thumb:

It's good rhetoric! Slap it on a bumper sticker! Then run for the hills if anyone challenges you on it!

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 12:55 PM
Like I said Taco, I have to congratulate you again. I can't stop thinking about that terrific line. Packs a wallop! Mind if I steal it? ;)

BIG_DADDY
02-18-2010, 01:40 PM
I've found that it's not considered socialism unless they issue arm bands.

Beautiful.

orange
02-18-2010, 01:53 PM
I've found that it's not considered socialism unless they issue arm bands.

If only those death camp victims were still around to pay modern U.S. taxes - then they'd know what real suffering is.

http://clivesimpkins.blogs.com/clive_simpkins/images/2008/03/26/angst.jpg

NewChief
02-18-2010, 02:08 PM
Do you guys really think the armband line is that good? I didn't even realize that socialists were known for wearing armbands.

Chief Henry
02-18-2010, 02:12 PM
If only those death camp victims were still around to pay modern U.S. taxes - then they'd know what real suffering is.

http://clivesimpkins.blogs.com/clive_simpkins/images/2008/03/26/angst.jpg



Orange loves socialism :hail:

Taco John
02-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Rhetoric> substance

It's actually "mostly owns or controls the means of production". Not that you bothered to ask anyone you were pretending to debate with.

Controlling the means of production - like with GM? Like with social security retirement planning? Like with No Child Left Behind centralized planning? Or do these examples not count because no armbands went out?

Amnorix
02-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Do you guys really think the armband line is that good? I didn't even realize that socialists were known for wearing armbands.


Eh. It really only applies to the Nazis, who were a unique brand of socialists. When I think armbands I think fascist, not socialist.

But hey, a good one liner rarely needs to be accurate. Just being in the ballpark of truth is enough if it's memorable enough.

NewChief
02-18-2010, 02:16 PM
Eh. It really only applies to the Nazis, who were a unique brand of socialists. When I think armbands I think fascist, not socialist.

But hey, a good one liner rarely needs to be accurate. Just being in the ballpark of truth is enough if it's memorable enough.

Well, there's this whole push to equate socialism with national socialism these days... so I suppose it's in keeping with their current talking points.

Taco John
02-18-2010, 02:19 PM
Well, there's this whole push to equate socialism with national socialism these days... so I suppose it's in keeping with their current talking points.


They equate themselves by their common denominator.

Amnorix
02-18-2010, 02:24 PM
They equate themselves by their common denominator.

Yeah, except the Nazis are called "facists", not "socialists" for a reason. They were only "socialist" at need, and their political philosphies weren't dominated by socialism (far from it) but rather by other concepts. Frankly, the entire Nazi hierarchy had an extremely limited understanding of economics.

mlyonsd
02-18-2010, 02:27 PM
Frankly, the entire Nazi hierarchy had an extremely limited understanding of economics.

3...2...1

banyon
02-18-2010, 02:29 PM
Controlling the means of production - like with GM? Like with social security retirement planning? Like with No Child Left Behind centralized planning? Or do these examples not count because no armbands went out?

Well, only one out of three has to do with the means of production, and even that one is just a temporary measure to return them to private profitability.

I didn't agree with the GM bailout (BUT HOW WHEN I AM A SUPERSOCIALIST!111!!???) but no, certainly those examples would be deficient, armbands or no.

go bowe
02-18-2010, 05:10 PM
The Mises Institute simpletons and Lew Rockwell groupies among us will NOT be deterred....

;)



Your definition is bunk; TJ's and CB's are too. BD...I'm unsure of at this point. THAT is what a teacher does....finds out what students/others are THINKING in their OWN mind. Duh.teacher? sounds more like a mentalist to me...

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 06:09 PM
Well, there's this whole push to equate socialism with national socialism these days... so I suppose it's in keeping with their current talking points.

Well that's the kind we're getting pretty much.

KC native
02-18-2010, 06:13 PM
Well that's the kind we're getting pretty much.

so, when you going to make an appearance in patty's thread for you?

Taco John
02-18-2010, 06:13 PM
Well, only one out of three has to do with the means of production, and even that one is just a temporary measure to return them to private profitability.

I didn't agree with the GM bailout (BUT HOW WHEN I AM A SUPERSOCIALIST!111!!???) but no, certainly those examples would be deficient, armbands or no.



Finish this sentence:

"I didn't agree with the government buying GM, but since they did it, _____________________."

banyon
02-18-2010, 06:16 PM
Finish this sentence:

"I didn't agree with the government buying GM, but since they did it, __I haven't changed my mind about it, and Taco John would be hard-pressed to find ANY examples of me on this forum advocating bailouts_."

Is that what you wanted?

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 06:18 PM
It's true banyon wasn't for the GM buyout. He said bankruptcy court. But he would have preferred to over regulate them like a good Progressive so they built the cars he says they should. He's not a direct socialist he's a National Socialist. That's what Progressives are.

KC native
02-18-2010, 06:23 PM
It's true banyon wasn't for the GM buyout. He said bankruptcy court. But he would have preferred to over regulate them like a good Progressive so they built the cars he says they should. He's not a direct socialist he's a National Socialist. That's what Progressives are.

so, when you going to make an appearance in patty's thread?

banyon
02-18-2010, 06:28 PM
It's true banyon wasn't for the GM buyout. He said bankruptcy court. But he would have preferred to over regulate them like a good Progressive so they built the cars he says they should. He's not a direct socialist he's a National Socialist. That's what Progressives are.

I'm a nazi?

If the Hindus are right and reincarnation has a sense of irony, maybe you can get reincarnated as a holocaust survivor and you can reflect on the difference between whining about taxes and forcibly starving people in prisons and throwing them into ovens.

What a cowardly ad hominem. Run along now with your 'did you say something" passive-aggressive coping mechanism or whatever.

Taco John
02-18-2010, 06:32 PM
"I didn't agree with the government buying GM, but since they did it, __I haven't changed my mind about it, and Taco John would be hard-pressed to find ANY examples of me on this forum advocating bailouts_."

Is that what you wanted?

No. I was looking for your policy position on how to stop what we both agree is socialism - not to mention unconstitutional.

banyon
02-18-2010, 06:35 PM
No. I was looking for your policy position on how to stop what we both agree is socialism - not to mention unconstitutional.

My policy position is that GM should have to declare bankruptcy like every other company that makes terrible business choices and they should have to do it without giant taxpayer subsidies. It's not a positive policy, it's just vote no on stupid handouts to corporations that don't really further the taxpayers in general that are giving up those tax dollars.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 06:45 PM
My policy position is that GM should have to declare bankruptcy like every other company that makes terrible business choices and they should have to do it without giant taxpayer subsidies. It's not a positive policy, it's just vote no on stupid handouts to corporations that don't really further the taxpayers in general that are giving up those tax dollars.

Oh so it's only to corps you deny stupid handouts because they don't further the taxpayer? LMAO WTF does that mean? I'll tell ya' what. That reeks of socialism because it comes across as a business should serve the taxpayers. That and it leaves open that non-corporations are "entitled" to aid.

banyon your mentality is socialist

|Zach|
02-18-2010, 06:47 PM
Oh so it's only to corps you deny stupid handouts because they don't further the taxpayer? LMAO WTF does that mean? I'll tell ya' what. That reeks of socialism because it comes across as a business should serve the taxpayers. That and it leaves open that non-corporations are "entitled" to aid.

banyon your mentality is socialist

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223334

Taco John
02-18-2010, 07:11 PM
My policy position is that GM should have to declare bankruptcy like every other company that makes terrible business choices and they should have to do it without giant taxpayer subsidies. It's not a positive policy, it's just vote no on stupid handouts to corporations that don't really further the taxpayers in general that are giving up those tax dollars.

I'm not asking about your look backwards policy position. I'm asking about what your position movign forward, now that the government has socialized GM and controls the means of production for building American automobiles.

mlyonsd
02-18-2010, 07:18 PM
I'm not asking about your look backwards policy position. I'm asking about what your position movign forward, now that the government has socialized GM and controls the means of production for building American automobiles.

10 or 15 more recalls on foreign car makers should do the trick.

Amnorix
02-19-2010, 07:25 AM
He's not a direct socialist he's a National Socialist. That's what Progressives are.


You really have no idea WTF you are talking about. And I mean that with all sincerety. To compare anyone on this board -- absolutely anyone -- with those mass murdering lunatics is absolutely disgusting.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 08:06 AM
You really have no idea WTF you are talking about. And I mean that with all sincerety. To compare anyone on this board -- absolutely anyone -- with those mass murdering lunatics is absolutely disgusting.

She and some of the other damagogues here have allowed their dogamtic ideological myopia to warp any sense of objective historical perspective. Honestly, when it's done TIC or to provoke a reaction...it's to be expected. In the case of some, though it's stunning how truly delusional they are. It's spooky actually.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 08:20 AM
She and some of the other damagogues here have allowed their dogamtic ideological myopia to warp any sense of objective historical perspective. Honestly, when it's done TIC or to provoke a reaction...it's to be expected. In the case of some, though it's stunning how truly delusional they are. It's spooky actually.
So you both got nothing. Now I know I've won the argument.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 09:33 AM
Great thread. It got the socialists out of the closet once and for all.

NewChief
02-19-2010, 09:44 AM
Great thread. It got the socialists out of the closet once and for all.

Seems to have brought out your inner McCarthy as well. Of course, I know that your rightwing revisionists are trying to whitewash Joe's legacy anyway, so you'll probably embrace the comparison.

KC native
02-19-2010, 09:53 AM
Great thread. It got the socialists out of the closet once and for all.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223334

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 10:01 AM
Seems to have brought out your inner McCarthy as well. Of course, I know that your rightwing revisionists are trying to whitewash Joe's legacy anyway, so you'll probably embrace the comparison.

Well, according to released KGB files when the Iron Curtain came down McCarthy turned out to be right. However, I never advocated taking your liberties away to speak or work in the govt or elsewhere, nor have I called for an investigation. That is entirely unecessary anyways because argument at the level of ideas if enough to reveal truth. I am just exposing the truth. And when the smears come one knows they hit on the truth. Same reason McCarthy was smeared. So I know we've won the argument.

KC native
02-19-2010, 10:06 AM
Well, according to released KGB files when the Iron Curtain came down McCarthy turned out to be right. However, I never advocated taking your liberties away to speak or work in the govt; nor have I called for an investigation. That is entirely unecessary anyways because argument at the level of ideas if enough to reveal truth. I am just exposing the truth. And when the smears come one knows they hit on the truth. Same reason McCarthy was smeared. So I know we've won the argument.

McCarthy was smeared? That's called karma bitch. Not when are you going to quit being a coward and show up in patty's thread and admit you were wrong.

NewChief
02-19-2010, 10:17 AM
Well, according to released KGB files when the Iron Curtain came down McCarthy turned out to be right. However, I never advocated taking your liberties away to speak or work in the govt or elsewhere, nor have I called for an investigation. That is entirely unecessary anyways because argument at the level of ideas if enough to reveal truth. I am just exposing the truth. And when the smears come one knows they hit on the truth. Same reason McCarthy was smeared. So I know we've won the argument.

Isn't this whole thread just an attempt to smear. So we won before you won. So there.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 10:19 AM
So you both got nothing. Now I know I've won the argument.

I know most of us who frequent this joint are occasionally guilty of being flippant, condescending, and a jerk. I've certainly had times where it was my "default" mode here. However, I've really tried to become more conscientious and willing to engage folks based more on substance than I used to do. I know I'm still not perfect.


However, BEP you know....for someone who appears to, at a cursory glance, be an intelligent woman, engaging with you in any discussion is becoming a waste of time and effort. You remind me of my 8 or 10 year old. Seriously.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 10:49 AM
Only a philosophy a borg could love.;):D

Amnorix
02-19-2010, 11:07 AM
Well, according to released KGB files when the Iron Curtain came down McCarthy turned out to be right. However, I never advocated taking your liberties away to speak or work in the govt or elsewhere, nor have I called for an investigation. That is entirely unecessary anyways because argument at the level of ideas if enough to reveal truth. I am just exposing the truth. And when the smears come one knows they hit on the truth. Same reason McCarthy was smeared. So I know we've won the argument.

First, running around declaring yourself the winner of an argument all the time isn't very persuasive. Comical is the word I'd use.

Second, you seem to lack understanding of what McCarthy did, how he did it, and what McCarthyism really was. Not that I'm surprised by any of that, actually. You understand less about more than anyone I've ever seen.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 11:30 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M_bvT-DGcWw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M_bvT-DGcWw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Reaper16
02-19-2010, 04:32 PM
<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M_bvT-DGcWw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>
You know that Roger Waters was an ardent Obama supporter, right?

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 04:33 PM
That doesn't matter to me. I think that video captures the inner spirit of socialism. A dark and dreary dystopia where no one can move up because we're all equal forever.

Taco John
02-19-2010, 04:35 PM
You know that Roger Waters was an ardent Obama supporter, right?

Is he one of the ones mourning now?

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 04:35 PM
That doesn't matter to me. I think that video captures the inner spirit of socialism. A dark and dreary utopia.

Or conversely, it captures the opposite side lunatic fringe....libertarian/reactionary/anarchism.

:hmmm:

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 04:35 PM
I'm not a libertarian. More ad hominem shows you've lost the debate too.

Reaper16
02-19-2010, 04:36 PM
Is he one of the ones mourning now?
I don't know. I am unaware of any recent interviews with him.

Jenson71
02-19-2010, 04:57 PM
Well, according to released KGB files when the Iron Curtain came down McCarthy turned out to be right. However, I never advocated taking your liberties away to speak or work in the govt or elsewhere, nor have I called for an investigation. That is entirely unecessary anyways because argument at the level of ideas if enough to reveal truth. I am just exposing the truth. And when the smears come one knows they hit on the truth. Same reason McCarthy was smeared. So I know we've won the argument.

This is uneducated, narrow-minded half-truth.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 05:20 PM
I'm not a libertarian. More ad hominem shows you've lost the debate too.

You insist others are socialists, when clearly by any reasonalbe definition, they are not. Seems to me, others should be entitled to afford you that same courtesy. Especially when it's true.

There is a faction of "libertarianism" that defines you to a "T." I'd bet you can even google your way to finding out what I'm talking about. I call it ding-bat paranoid reactionary libertarianism--but that's not what political scientists call it. And you are it. Fits like a glove. No ad hominem; it's truth.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 05:23 PM
uh...hmmmm.

HonestChieffan
02-19-2010, 05:24 PM
Love when a guy who said he prefers a welfare state calls someone else a dingbat

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 05:37 PM
Love when a guy who said he prefers a welfare state calls someone else a dingbat

Or even says he'd send troops in if state's nullify the HC bill. Reminds me of the Bolsheviks sending in their guys to take property from the kulaks.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 05:59 PM
Love when a guy who said he prefers a welfare state calls someone else a dingbat

Apparently, you aren't aware that our nation has been a welfare state since the 1930s....and despite silly conflations suggesting otherwise, there is a wide-gulf between a socialist nation and a welfare state.

Of course such distinctions are inconvenient for talk show radio hosts and their dittoheads to recognize.

Or even says he'd send troops in if state's nullify the HC bill. Reminds me of the Bolsheviks sending in their guys to take property from the kulaks.

In the proud tradition of TR (coal strikes,) Eisenhower (Civil Rights,) Nixon (bussing,) and Reagan (Air Traffic Controllers.) . :thumb:

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:06 PM
Uh...hmmm.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 06:12 PM
Uh...hmmm.

So, how many members do you have in your local JBS chapter?

Maybe you should start and Chiefsplanet JBS "Group"? :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:14 PM
Uh...hmmm.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 06:37 PM
Uh...hmmm.

Oh, we're meetin' at the courthouse at eight o'clock tonight
You just walk in the door and take the first turn to the right
Be careful when you get there, we hate to be bereft
But we're taking down the names of everybody turning left
Oh, we're the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Here to save our country from a communistic plot
Join the John Birch Society, help us fill the ranks
To get this movement started we need lots of tools and cranks
Now there's no one that we're certain the Kremlin doesn't touch
We think that Westbrook Pegler doth protest a bit too much
We only hail the hero from whom we got our name
We're not sure what he did but he's our hero just the same
Oh, we're the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Socialism is the ism dismalest of all
Join the John Birch Society, there's so much to do
Have you heard they're serving vodka at the WCTU?
Well you've heard about the agents that we've already named
Well MPA has agents that are flauntedly unashamed
We're after Rosie Clooney, we've gotten Pinkie Lee
And the day we get Red Skelton won't that be a victory
Oh we're the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Norman Vincent Peale may think he's kidding us along
But the John Birch Society knows he spilled the beans
He keeps on preaching brotherhood, but we know what he means
We'll teach you how to spot 'em in the cities or the sticks
For even Jasper Junction is just full of Bolsheviks
The CIA's subversive and so's the FCC
There's no one left but thee and we, and we're not sure of thee
Oh, we're the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Here to save our country from a communistic plot
Join the John Birch Society holding off the Reds
We'll use our hand and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads
Do you want Justice Warren for your Commissar?
Do you want Mrs. Krushchev in there with the DAR?
You cannot trust your neighbor or even next of kin
If mommie is a commie then you gotta turn her in
Oh, we're the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society
Fighting for the right to fight the right fight for the Right
Join the John Birch Society as we're marching on
And we'll all be glad to see you when we're meeting in the John
The John, the John Birch So- ci- i- teee.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:41 PM
Uh hmmm.

Taco John
02-19-2010, 07:17 PM
Hmmm... Kotter talking bad about the John Birch Society. That's reason in itself to give them a second look and see what they're all about.

Baby Lee
02-19-2010, 07:17 PM
Uh hmmm.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UP-JD0ySddM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UP-JD0ySddM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 07:52 PM
Hmmm... Kotter talking bad about the John Birch Society. That's reason in itself to give them a second look and see what they're all about.

And he even calls his fellow Ds commies too.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 07:53 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UP-JD0ySddM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UP-JD0ySddM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Uh...hmmm.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 09:13 PM
And he even calls his fellow Ds commies too.

Some are pretty close. You know, like the wing-tard lunatic fringe on the right.

Each "side" has kooks. You, for example.

;)

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 09:32 PM
Uh hmmm. That's what was said of our Revolutionaries and Founders. About Dr. Semmelweis and flat earthers...about Christians. About people who liked a safety-nets at one time etc.et.
Continue with the projection. Lemme know when your done.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 09:43 PM
Uh hmmm. That's what was said of our Revolutionaries and Founders. About Dr. Semmelweis and flat earthers...about Christians. About people who liked a safety-nets at one time etc.et.
Continue with the projection. Lemme know when your done.

I'll be done, when you admit your John Birch Society membership....or when you join. You are PERFECT for each other. Congrats on that. A marriage made in heaven.

Let us know where you will "register" so we can peruse for appropriate gifts.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 10:14 PM
Uh hum. You'd be a better member since your socially more conservative than I and call your fellow Dems commies. I'm a social moderate. I would not fit in easily.

Bowser
02-19-2010, 10:23 PM
The sexual tension in here is thick.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 10:48 PM
There's tension but it's not sexual....not with Mr. Kotter and a little boy.

StcChief
02-20-2010, 02:34 PM
History of failures Attempting this... I say NO, not good for America.

patteeu
02-22-2010, 09:18 AM
Eh. It really only applies to the Nazis, who were a unique brand of socialists. When I think armbands I think fascist, not socialist.

But hey, a good one liner rarely needs to be accurate. Just being in the ballpark of truth is enough if it's memorable enough.

It was a great line because it nails the fact that the most socialist among us generally want to pretend that the label only applies to the non-American regimes that piggybacked other forms of oppression onto their brands of socialism. E.g. Gulags, concentration camps, intentional starvation, eugenics, etc. But even though the same governmental apparatus that enabled socialism also enabled those horrors, they weren't the only problems with socialism. It also highlights the arbitrary nature of their objections to the label (Hey, I'm not in favor of gulags and even though I want near total control by government, I don't want them to actually own the business!).

As for accuracy:

http://rexcurry.net/red-swastika-guard-students-armbands.jpg

Taco John
02-22-2010, 09:46 AM
http://rexcurry.net/red-swastika-guard-students-armbands.jpg


"Indeed! We are able and motivated!"

Taco John
02-22-2010, 02:21 PM
Mao has a freakishly long left arm.

BIG_DADDY
02-22-2010, 03:48 PM
It was a great line because it nails the fact that the most socialist among us generally want to pretend that the label only applies to the non-American regimes that piggybacked other forms of oppression onto their brands of socialism. E.g. Gulags, concentration camps, intentional starvation, eugenics, etc. But even though the same governmental apparatus that enabled socialism also enabled those horrors, they weren't the only problems with socialism. It also highlights the arbitrary nature of their objections to the label (Hey, I'm not in favor of gulags and even though I want near total control by government, I don't want them to actually own the business!).

As for accuracy:

http://rexcurry.net/red-swastika-guard-students-armbands.jpg

Exactly!!! The new America.

Jenson71
02-22-2010, 04:18 PM
Mao has a freakishly long left arm.

Maybe that explains how he was able to break world records in swimming.