• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Soviet Union citizen confronts Socialists at an Occupy protest

Carefully read these words, folks:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I now have to ask. Is there anything more socialist than these words???

It must be these:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
 
  • The USPS is run by the Federal government. It's hemmoraging red ink. DHL found the market changed around it. It went out of business...which is exactly what should happen to the USPS.
  • Medicare is run by the Federal government. It's hemmoraging red ink.
  • Social Security is run by the Federal government. It's hemmoraging red ink.
  • Obamacare is a Socialistic program in the making. It will, in its final form, hemmorage red ink.
  • Public schools waste money from the top down. Inner-city schools are abject failures.

Here'sa big surprise. Property taxes don't go down.

Got any more ostrich comments?

There is fundamental assumption you're making that doesn't apply. Hemorrhaging red ink implies that these programs are designed to bring return, but really their existence is the return. The whole point of the public space is to operate outside market forces.

A public park, for example, or a library is funded from the public coffers to provide an open, common area for the community, where the socio-economic structure has no bearing. Everyone in the community has equal access and equal ownership, regardless of actual use.

I don't agree with underfunding our public institutions or propping them up via the national credit card, but their outright elimination will only bring down quality of life.

The dismissal of all things "socialism" is easy but purely emotional. I prefer a rational approach to the public sphere, not its dismantling to serve some poorly formed notion of economic bigotry or some utopian capitalist ideal.

Some free-marketers are every bit as starry-eyed as the socialists they admonish.
 
Last edited:
So forming Unions, establishing justice, ensuring domestic peace and providing common defense are socialist agendas?

Here I thought socialism centered around putting the main means of production and ownership squarely in cooperative quarters.

Boy oh boy - have I been wrong :roll:

"We the people" is not "I the person."

The gist I get from your Constitution is that working together will result in the greater good of society. The gist that I get from many here at DP is every man should be out for themselves. To me, it's not a reflection on the principles started by your forefathers.
 
Last edited:
So forming Unions, establishing justice, ensuring domestic peace and providing common defense are socialist agendas?

Here I thought socialism centered around putting the main means of production and ownership squarely in cooperative quarters.

Boy oh boy - have I been wrong :roll:

Seems like the definition of "socialism" changes from poster to poster and from post to post.

In the loosest sense, the police force and the court system are socialist, in the same way Obamacare is socialist. And only the loosest definition of socialism can be used to lump the Occupy protests in the with the USSR.
 
Very much so. All you need to do is look at China: when China converted to capitalistic markets, they say HUGE increases in wealth, production, and standards of living. If you want more examples, look at other Asian nations, the US, Europe, and South Africa.

I have friends who do a great deal of business in China.

According to them, China is beginning to see some of the same problems as we are on a shorter time scale.

Their new middle class is squawking about air quality. Raises in minimum wages over there are driving businesses to Malaysia and Vietnam. (Kind of putting the lie to the idea that its taxes and regulations that are driving businesses overseas)

Capitalism is by far the best system devised for turning respurces into wealth.

However, as it is concentrative by its very nature, it is not inherently the ideal means of distributing what the world produces.

ALL economic philosophies are about the "divvy up", when its all said and done.

If people had to devise a system for themselves to live in, without knowing where their place in the economic scheme would be, there is no way they would come up with our current iteration of capitalism.

Too much chance of being one of the "ain't got nothin, ain't never gonna have nothing" class.
 
Socialistic policies are normally championed at the bottom. This idea that a large bottom rung in a society will continue to nickel and dime their way through life living in poverty is interesting because that's never been the case. Order is good for commerce, continuity are good for commerce, disparity and widespread poverty are not good for either order or continuity.
Socialist policies are 'championed' by the wealthy and elite and promoted to the peons for their support. The are supported by the peons who one, are stupid enough to believe those people care about them and two, buy into the concept of others doing for them for a lifetime as opposed to working hard to provide for themselves.
 
Socialist policies are 'championed' by the wealthy and elite and promoted to the peons for their support. The are supported by the peons who one, are stupid enough to believe those people care about them and two, buy into the concept of others doing for them for a lifetime as opposed to working hard to provide for themselves.

I disagree. "Socialist policies" (like public parks, the post office, welfare, etc.) are available to all citizens who qualify whenever they qualify. A library, for example, is open to anyone who seeks knowledge, not just people who are too lazy or poor to buy books.

You might say a social safety net is different than a library, but I'd argue that a social safety net, like a library, is there to serve anyone who needs it, even if they used to make millions. If you allow that people move through socio-economic classes as they move through life, you should be able to recognize that even someone who will one day be a CEO might today need to be caught in a social safety net.

If people are using social safety nets for a lifetime, it could be a sign of their personal failings. Or it could be a sign that our socioeconomic classes are becoming entrenched. I think it's a mix of both, actually, based on macroeconomic data I've seen.
 
Last edited:
"We the people" is not "I the person."

The gist I get from your Constitution is that working together will result in the greater good of society. The gist that I get from many here at DP is every man should be out for themselves. To me, it's not a reflection on the principles started by your forefathers.
You really need to stop posting this stuff, and I hope you're just being political here and don't actually believe what you're saying.
 
Socialist policies are 'championed' by the wealthy and elite and promoted to the peons for their support. The are supported by the peons who one, are stupid enough to believe those people care about them and two, buy into the concept of others doing for them for a lifetime as opposed to working hard to provide for themselves.
Ha! Such a broad generalized view of anyone that believes in social safety nets. Apparently you have it all figured out.
 
I have friends who do a great deal of business in China.

According to them, China is beginning to see some of the same problems as we are on a shorter time scale.

Their new middle class is squawking about air quality. Raises in minimum wages over there are driving businesses to Malaysia and Vietnam. (Kind of putting the lie to the idea that its taxes and regulations that are driving businesses overseas)

Capitalistic China has seen a great boom in wealth, but they will always have problems under their nominal Communist government. And the lose of manufacturing will always be true in a developed society. The greatest resource of man is not his strength, for that is duplicated and exceed by numerous creatures of the animal kingdom, and tools and robots that we have invented. The greatest resource of man is his intellect - and that resource will only be utilized in a white-collar society. Loss of manufacturing is the other side of the coin to growth of high-techs and entrepreneurship.

Capitalism is by far the best system devised for turning respurces into wealth.

No argument here.

However, as it is concentrative by its very nature, it is not inherently the ideal means of distributing what the world produces.

ALL economic philosophies are about the "divvy up", when its all said and done.

You are confusing apples and oranges. First off, economic philosophies are not just about "divvying up" resources: it's about maximizing wealth. Also, concentration of wealth isn't a problem. Let me give an example: say I have a society of 100 people, and each person has $100 worth of resources. If, they use the capitalistic system, say the 100 people end up with 1 person who has $10k, and the other 99 end up with $110. How is this any worse that a socialist system, which would end up with (and I'm being generous), every person with $101. I'd much rather live in the shadow of the megawealthy and have more money than be equally in poverty with everyone else.

If people had to devise a system for themselves to live in, without knowing where their place in the economic scheme would be, there is no way they would come up with our current iteration of capitalism.

Too much chance of being one of the "ain't got nothin, ain't never gonna have nothing" class.

You're forgetting that capitalism, and only capitalism, provides a chance to be one of the "megawealthy who gets to fly around in a private jet and wipe his ass with $100 bills." There is a reason that people gamble and buy lottery tickets: the allure of success is much, much more powerful than the almost inevitable loss. In fact, if you've done much research in to the behavior of humans and the thought processes of the human mind, you'd see that capitalism is the only economic system that would have naturally occurred. The social and welfare programs we have created in our country today are an appeasement to those fears you've highlighted, but only came about because a group of people in an unnatural order (government) decided that this is what is best for everyone.
 
I disagree. "Socialist policies" (like public parks, the post office, welfare, etc.) are available to all citizens who qualify whenever they qualify. A library, for example, is open to anyone who seeks knowledge, not just people who are too lazy or poor to buy books.

You might say a social safety net is different than a library, but I'd argue that a social safety net, like a library, is there to serve anyone who needs it, even if they used to make millions. If you allow that people move through socio-economic classes as they move through life, you should be able to recognize that even someone who will one day be a CEO might today need to be caught in a social safety net.

If people are using social safety nets for a lifetime, it could be a sign of their personal failings. Or it could be a sign that our socioeconomic classes are becoming entrenched. I think it's a mix of both, actually, based on macroeconomic data I've seen.
Im not opposed to providing social services...they just should be provided locally or at the state level and should be run efficiently. In a perfect world, the social services we have in this country would be directed towards those that need it, not just those who fail miserably in life. Some people NEED help. Some people NEED a hand up. Im all about providing that. Im opposed to the whiny people that believe they are 'entitled' to something they dont work for and are capable of. I also dont buy into the 'social entrenchment' bull****. Success and social elevation is as possible today and yesterday...it just takes hard work.
 
Ha! Such a broad generalized view of anyone that believes in social safety nets. Apparently you have it all figured out.
When capable people treat a 'safety net' like a hammock...we have a problem.
 
Im not opposed to providing social services...they just should be provided locally or at the state level and should be run efficiently. In a perfect world, the social services we have in this country would be directed towards those that need it, not just those who fail miserably in life. Some people NEED help. Some people NEED a hand up. Im all about providing that. Im opposed to the whiny people that believe they are 'entitled' to something they dont work for and are capable of. I also dont buy into the 'social entrenchment' bull****. Success and social elevation is as possible today and yesterday...it just takes hard work.

This is probably the nicest breeze of fresh air I've seen in a long time. Would you mind running for office much?
 
Im not opposed to providing social services...they just should be provided locally or at the state level and should be run efficiently. In a perfect world, the social services we have in this country would be directed towards those that need it, not just those who fail miserably in life. Some people NEED help. Some people NEED a hand up. Im all about providing that. Im opposed to the whiny people that believe they are 'entitled' to something they dont work for and are capable of. I also dont buy into the 'social entrenchment' bull****. Success and social elevation is as possible today and yesterday...it just takes hard work.

I don't entirely disagree with you here. I do think social mobility is more difficult now than in some periods of America's history, but I can't honestly defend fraud, waste and abuse in our entitlement programs. I would argue they need to be well designed and well policed, but I prefer having social safety nets to not, noting that such programs will always create some perverse incentives as a trade-off.

Practically speaking, could our states realistically replace Medicare and Medicaid without completely overhauling our current system of government and raising local taxes considerably?
 
I don't imagine that many Americans have lived in a socialist community. I have, and it wasn't a bit like that: it was very unselfish and decent, as I recall.

A socialist community? I'm sure it was great. Try a socialist run country... there's a difference.
 
I don't entirely disagree with you here. I do think social mobility is more difficult now than in some periods of America's history, but I can't honestly defend fraud, waste and abuse in our entitlement programs. I would argue they need to be well designed and well policed, but I prefer having social safety nets to not, noting that such programs will always create some perverse incentives as a trade-off.

Practically speaking, could our states realistically replace Medicare and Medicaid without completely overhauling our current system of government and raising local taxes considerably?
the states WOULD have to raise taxes, but without the layers of federal bull****eacracy the federal tax burden would be significantly reduced and the resources would be much more directly managed and applied. It makes no sense to send 70 billion to the fed in taxes for the Dept of Ed for example, have them absorb 35 billion in operating costs, and then graciously return 35 billion back to the states. Medicare...medicade...we know they are being buried in fraud annually. Again...much easier to manage locally. I think if people saw their money and where it was actually going they would be more likely to vote and we would have much higher turnout at local elections than we do now (which is embarassingly low).
 
So what exactly is your alternative Maggie? No postal service, no Medicare, no Social Security, no Public School system? In your mind, what does the United State look like after we stomp out that evil socialistic policies?

How about letting the private sector take over for the post office? How about not having explicit and rigidly enforced rules against competition from private enterprise? As to Medicare and Social Security? How about a Congress that either makes the program NOT hemmorage red ink or disbands it and starts over? Why have public schools? Give private schools the same advantages and let private enterprise teach our kids. It's working on a small scale. It works.

I'm not saying any one of these programs is evil. I am pointing out that private enterprise can do 'em better.
 
I disagree. "Socialist policies" (like public parks, the post office, welfare, etc.) are available to all citizens who qualify whenever they qualify. A library, for example, is open to anyone who seeks knowledge, not just people who are too lazy or poor to buy books.

You might say a social safety net is different than a library, but I'd argue that a social safety net, like a library, is there to serve anyone who needs it, even if they used to make millions. If you allow that people move through socio-economic classes as they move through life, you should be able to recognize that even someone who will one day be a CEO might today need to be caught in a social safety net.

If people are using social safety nets for a lifetime, it could be a sign of their personal failings. Or it could be a sign that our socioeconomic classes are becoming entrenched. I think it's a mix of both, actually, based on macroeconomic data I've seen.

As with all things... moderation is needed. I like libraries, I like the post office, I like that those who have fallen on hard times can be given a chance to get back what they lost or improve themselves. I don't like when things are taken to the extreme and the arguments for 99 weeks of unemployment are used, or those who game the system are allowed to do so. Just as there needs to be some social assistance, there also needs to be some independence and a need to be more self sufficient to balance it all out.
 
MaggieD said:
How about letting the private sector take over for the post office?

In part, they do. I pity the damned fool that ships a package through the USPS over FedEx.
 
I don't imagine that many Americans have lived in a socialist community. I have, and it wasn't a bit like that: it was very unselfish and decent, as I recall.

Jonestown was a socialist community.
 
A Capitalist Utopia would be an environment where people CAN bust their ass and succeed. That still exists. But in the midst of a capitalist society, 47% arent contributing a penny to the fed 'revenues' and are draining the country of resources. Obviously we dont have a pure capitalist government and society. Regardless...we have a bunch of folks that spew on about 'real' socialism. Yet...they never live that model for some reason. They hate capitalism yet suck off their capitalist parents. They hate 'the banks' yet go to the banks for these massive student loans to give to their socialist evangelists at the Universites, then bitch that the banks have the audacity to want them to pay back their loans. Its always someone ELSE that should do what they believe.

1) They aren't paying taxes because businesses aren't paying them high enough wages so they are able to pay taxes. If we raised the wages of these workers, they wouldn't have to be on the government teat.

2) They don't hate capitalism. And they aren't even socialist. What they are is jobless. And they can't get jobs worth their education. Why? Because corporations don't want to pay for that.
 
"We the people" is not "I the person."

The gist I get from your Constitution is that working together will result in the greater good of society. The gist that I get from many here at DP is every man should be out for themselves. To me, it's not a reflection on the principles started by your forefathers.

You're totally misinterpreting what, "we the people", means. It's means that We The People get to select our government. It in no way means that I have to give up half of my salary, so some deadbeat mother****er can sit on his ass and do nothing. It means that you have the liberty to succeed, or fail, based on your own ambitions and the government will not get in the way of your success, nor will the government aid in your failure.

We The People don't want a socialist government. That was made obvious in the 2010 midterms.

If you folks in Canada want more socialism, then that's great, go for it. Most folks in the States don't want that and we are rejecting it.
 
It in no way means that I have to give up half of my salary, so some deadbeat mother****er can sit on his ass and do nothing.

Then I would protest less about the government providing welfare and protest more at corporations that are at a race to 0 when it comes to hiring people so they can earn wages for themselves.
 
Back
Top Bottom