Post: #51

I agree Obama didn't go full socialist, but would you rather we have Fidel? I don't understand you Tuth. We seem to agree on everything, but there seems to be a part of you that is a "true believer" of sorts in socialism.

Is that accurate? Do you really believe that with the right people in charge that socialism would be turned from a bad word into something that people would really enjoy living under?

Post: #52

Ah, and this is our fundamental disagreement. There is something inherently wrong with the glass. It attracts dirtiness like no other glass in the history of the world.

The glass will always turn dirty, the solution then, is to keep the glass as small as possible, easier to keep it clean.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

This is why, in my opinion, it is best to limitthe power of government.

Post: #53

(07-22-2015 01:23 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 01:02 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I stole Obama's soundbite with "Let me be clear".

So tired of hearing that fuckstick say that the past 7 years....

Quite frankly, the private sector unions would be fine if not for the fact our government has sold out their jobs for overseas labor. And in the past couple decades, even on shore labor.

For example, lots of people like to bitch about GM and Chrysler going bankrupt. Understand this; The US is the only country in the world that would work to kill the largest corporation the world has ever seen, GM, and succeed over the past 30 years.

People howl about "American" cars made in Mexico. Guess what, they did that for survival, not just stock profits. Both parties have been behind this shit and they have both reduced the lifestyle of the American populace.

Want to see the results? Take a tour of Detroit.

It's only the most obvious destination. There are cities and towns all over this country that have been devastated by our trade policies of the past 40 years.

Our country is now at 81% for service jobs.

Think about that. No service economy has ever succeeded.

Ah, gotcha!

We are both right in this case. It's not the government alone that wants cheap labor. It's the government working in conjunction with global elitists/corporations. If anything I'd argue that these global companies want the ability to outsource their operations more than the governments want to enable them.

And the unions for the most part have been helpless to prevent this move except for public sector unions which are usually operating under monopolies.

Understand one thing. GM never imported vehicles into this country from Mexico, or anywhere else, before the government allowed unfettered imports from Japan and other countries.

Yes, they owned plants in Canada. Bought Adam Opel in Germany back in the 20's or 30's. Because they had to to compete in those countries.

I know of no 1st tier country in the world that you can buy a US built car for the same price as you can from a small town dealer in Wisconsin. Or any other state.

I'd really like it if one of our German members could price a new Corvette and a new M4 in Berlin.

In China, a Buick Enclave (Only built in the US and exported to China. Chinese LOVE Buicks)

I'll do the same for both cars in the US.

It will shock people.

I made a similar comment in another thread here. In today's world of free economies, the US is the only one that comes close to being free. And it is killing us.

Edit-I should make myself a bit clearer here. What I am saying is that GM was the world's largest corporation before the US government let anyone and everyone into our market with no trade restrictions. GM owned, and still does, plants and manufacturers in other countries because that is what trade restrictions required. If they could build all the Opels in some backwater and ship them into Germany, they would.

Unfortunately, the US the only country you can build your shit in some 3rd world country and sell at home for huge profits.

btw-Every one of the GM manufacturing jobs lost was essentially another middle class family lost.

Post: #54

(07-22-2015 01:23 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Their private views range from being extremely racist, extremely hateful of Christianity, and extreme hate towards families.

This is one of the biggest problems in these sort of debates about "socialism." I very much consider myself a socialist on principle but despise the hysterical social justice warriors who have taken over the far left as much as anyone. Socialism should be about helping working people get good wages, giving employees more power vs their employers (a dynamic which now is INCREDIBLY tilted in favor of employers), promoting meritocracy so that regular people can compete on equal footing against the extremely privileged (and it's true, modern-day SJW type leftists *despise* the idea of a meritocracy, because it doesn't give them the outcomes they desire -- but I think it's an indispensable part of what it should mean to be a real "leftist," if the word and the 'movement' still made any sense). Anti-immigration even used to be a policy of the far-left, rightly recognizing the damaging effect it has on domestic labor.

The talk of "inequality" is hopelessly corrupted too. The modern SJW leftists talk about "inequality" as differences between groups of people based on race or gender -- that any sort of difference between the average outcomes of two identity groups must be based on racism or sexism and we need a bunch of thought-policing and post-modern "educational" dreck to set it right. A real, principled leftist movement should celebrate *natural* inequalities (intelligence, talent) and work against *unnatural inequalities* (how much money your parents have, being born in a backwater area, etc.).

Socialist movements and the far left have been hugely influential in creating the first world living standards we know today. Labor laws, unions (they were massively important in negotiating high wages and good benefits throughout the 20th century until free-trade and neoliberal policy killed them -- for all the faults they *did* have), social welfare programs of all sorts, including education. Somewhere around the 1960s they traded this legacy in to start agitating about the sort of nonsense you hear today -- social constructs, the patriarchy, etc.

What are the biggest problems today? It's incredibly hard to find a good paying job, unemployment and underemployment are massive, bankers are committing disastrous crimes with *complete* impunity (make no mistake here: Obama is to blame), what anemic economic growth there is is going almost *elusively* to the rich (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/1...hiest-1/). These are problems that call for a left-wing solution.

There are probably a million things I disagree with Bernie Sanders on. No doubt you will hear him pay lip service to the "pay gap." No doubt he is probably more pro-immigration than I or many others would like him to be. But I don't believe Sanders is a real SJW type. He strikes me as a more old-style leftist who cares primarily about working people and economic conditions. He'll put up a real fight against criminal bankers, he won't sell out American labor in trade deals, he'll work with the benefit of working people genuinely in mind. And he's the only candidate that can apply to.

And Trump? I like him speaking out against immigration. I like that he has big balls and isn't hiding behind a safe and empty script written up by his campaign managers. But I think it's insane to trust him for one minute to work with the benefit of most Americans in mind. No doubt he will protect the bankers, favor policies that give more power to employers and do nothing to help the non-rich get back the economic gains they've been missing out on for the last many, many years.

Post: #55

if you think socialism helps 'the working man' you are extremely delusional. Taking from 'the rich' (whatever you think that is) doesn't help the little man. the only way is to lift up yourself, giving more money to government bureaucracies doesn't help anyone except shitty government workers.

Post: #56

(07-21-2015 07:59 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 07:54 PM)Kaizen Wrote:  Say what you will...at least he's not a puppet with a master (clinton, bush, walker etc).

Everyone in politics is a puppet. His masters are the labor unions.

In order of contributions:
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
Teamsters Union
National Education Assn
United Auto Workers
United Food & Commercial Workers Union
Communications Workers of America
Laborers Union
Carpenters & Joiners Union
National Assn of Letter Carriers
American Assn for Justice
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
United Transportation Union
Sheet Metal Workers Union
Operating Engineers Union
Service Employees International Union
UNITE HERE
United Steelworkers
American Postal Workers Union
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union

Thanks to unions we have an 8 hour work day, 5 day work week, 2 week vacations, and child labor laws among other things.

In fact, workers have fought and died for it: http://www.history.com/topics/child-labo...ead-strike

Also, most of Sanders support is from small-dollar donors ($200 or less).

Post: #57

Socialism is a con job. It's on the opposite end of the political spectrum across from the unfettered free marketeers. They're simply looters of a different stripe who use different tactics to gain support and play on the envy of the common man. In America and the West this is made worse by their insistence on destroying the predominant culture. Here socialism and cultural marxism are inseparably connected at the hip. This wasn't always the case in practice, but it has been for decades ever since the American middle class wanted no part of it and the Old Left got dethroned by the New Left.

I find guys like Trump exciting because they unapologetically reject the absurdness and excesses of socialism while at the same time taking on the free marketeers who sell the nation down the river.

Post: #58

(07-22-2015 10:56 AM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  if you think socialism helps 'the working man' you are extremely delusional. Taking from 'the rich' (whatever you think that is) doesn't help the little man. the only way is to lift up yourself, giving more money to government bureaucracies doesn't help anyone except shitty government workers.

Socialism has helped working people, by agitating for the labor reforms during the 20th century that created the first world living standard known today. Developed western countries outside the United States with more "socialist" policies have better conditions for workers.

What do you mean, "life yourself up?" The US has very low social mobility compared to more "socialist" developed western countries. I believe only the UK, another particularly right-wing developed nation, has lower social mobility.

Post: #59

A lot of the so-called "socialist" western countries are mostly homogeneous (although not as much anymore) high-trust societies that implemented market reforms in the last couple decades. They have some socialistic social policies but not so much economically.

A better real-world example of socialist rule would be Venezuela.

Post: #60

Chagataev - by 'lift yourself up' I mean start a fucking business. capitalism. entrepreneurship. Provide value with your labor. Do something useful.

I would say the decreases social mobility is largely affected by the destruction of the family unit more than anything. Kids who grow up in dysfunctional homes are less likely to focus and be socially adjusted in a workplace.

Post: #61

When people rail against "socialism" do they mean things like Medicare and Veterans hospitals?

Or bailouts for banks, corporate subsidies, and socializing "free market" losses?

Post: #62

There are two important red pill lessons that men must first learn before they can advance in their own lives...

#1) Women and men are not the same. We are not designed the same, we have different bodies and brains that function differently for different roles in life. This does not mean there are no outliers but the majority are within these bounds.

#2) If you give women the right to vote they will run society. When taking out the inmate population and earlier deaths, women now account for 54% of the voters. This means women virtually run our society from the voting booth. And women will continue to vote to increase govt. because they most cherish security over freedom. This is a huge difference in men and women. Men want freedom and women want security. Women will vote in a larger and larger govt. thinking it will give them security. Men will often vote in less govt. intervention in their lives and look to minimize it.

Bernie Sanders is a proud socialist. You can never have socialism without women voting for it. It is not a sustainable system, as has been proven around the world. Socialism is basically the economic model of feminism, and we don't want feminism in our private lives any more than we want feminism running our economic lives.

You can always save money and travel to places with more feminine women. But you will struggle to do this with a growing govt. taxing more and more of your money.

Post: #63

(07-22-2015 01:32 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  The government is like a nice, solid drinking glass. The politicians inside of the glass are like liquid diarrhea. There's nothing inherently wrong with the glass ("the government"). We used to drink refreshing water out of it (e.g., the ability to support a whole family on a single income and have your thin, feminine wife stay home with your non-autistic children).

But, now, the glass full of liquid diarrhea. The solution isn't to blame the glass, it's to pour out the liquid diarrhea, sterilize the glass, and keep using it. It's a great glass you can't just go out and buy.

That's a funny way of looking at it but there's definitely something wrong with the governments. We look to the past with rose tinted *glasses but since the start of the last century estimates of death caused by governments are between 160 million to 260 million. Including war, genocide, famine etc. They've got the guns and we've got the high death toll numbers.

Here's a morbidly interesting website that collects data from many sources and various estimates.

Quote:"Lives deliberately extinguished by politically motivated carnage":
167,000,000 to 175,000,000
Including:
War Dead: 87,500,000
Military war dead:
33,500,000
Civilian war dead:
54,000,000
Not-war Dead: 80,000,000
Communist oppression:
60,000,000

http://necrometrics.com/all20c.htm

Post: #64

(07-22-2015 12:25 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Socialism 2016
"I swear it won't be like Cuba, Russia, N. Korea, China, Hungary, Czech Republic, or Ukraine. I promise no one will go hungry this time. This time our hair brained wealth redistribution schemes at a time when this nation is deeply in debt already and has a broken monetary system that I'm not addressing, this time it will really work. Trust me."

I thought this was rather witty of you Mr. Korben Dallas. So you know, I will be stealing it and using as my own bullet point for discussing this topic IRL.

Anyway, I gained my first employment opportunity for a huge grocery store everybody has heard of, at 15. UFCW union. I am very anti-union, for my own sake (and in general, but for the sake of discussion, I digress) and tried avidly to not join. They absolutely forced me to. And when I was making minimum wage collecting carts in squelchering heat, guess who the fuck got a cut from my every little paycheck. I WAS MAKING MIN WAGE, that means after the union I was making less than min wage! Insanity! Plus, I despise the fact that they force you to join, or you can not work. Mother fuckers. They are so crooked. If I knew what I knew back when I was 15 ther is no way they can actually force you to join. I was shakendown and extorted.

For those who have had to 'get carts' in 105-107 degree weather, I feel you and by no means am I demeaning the actual job. I learned a TON of shit. But fuck UFCW. Fuck that crooked union. (Un-union?)

Post: #65

(07-22-2015 10:52 AM)chagataev Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 01:23 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Their private views range from being extremely racist, extremely hateful of Christianity, and extreme hate towards families.

This is one of the biggest problems in these sort of debates about "socialism." I very much consider myself a socialist on principle but despise the hysterical social justice warriors who have taken over the far left as much as anyone. ...

This reminds me of someone who, when confronted with the problems of feminism, says, "That's not REAL feminism." It's hamster logic at it's best.

The reality is that there is no difference between the hysterics you describe and "real" socialism. All socialists are anti-profit. All socialism kills the primary motive to success. Case in point:

Quote:A real, principled leftist movement should celebrate *natural* inequalities (intelligence, talent) and work against *unnatural inequalities* (how much money your parents have, being born in a backwater area, etc.).

So "real" socialists should work against you because your parents have some money? And how would they do that? By taking your parent's money and giving it to the backwater-born kid until everyone is even? And that doesn't strike you as an extreme position?

Post: #66

Quote:if you think socialism helps 'the working man' you are extremely delusional. Taking from 'the rich' (whatever you think that is) doesn't help the little man. the only way is to lift up yourself, giving more money to government bureaucracies doesn't help anyone except shitty government workers.

I used to hold the same opinion, but living and working in Germany changed my mind over the course of a few years. Socialism (at least in the contemporary European context) does help the little man. The problem is that it prevents the little man from becoming a big man. This is an asset in ethnically and culturally homogeneous nations with long histories of tribal altruism, but in America, with founding principles based on self-reliance, personal responsibility, and economic initiative, it's a curse.

Post: #67

Sometimes "socialism" does "help the little man become a big man":

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs.

In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

Post: #68

(07-22-2015 12:42 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Sometimes "socialism" does "help the little man become a big man":

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs.

In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

Your best examples of socialism some what working, and there is a great debate about how it truly worked even at that, goes back 80 some years, when the USA was a MUCH different place.

You implement socialism today and you might as well kiss the middle class good bye. Socialism would be a complete disaster in a country with 300,000,000 citizens, $20 trillion in debt, and no border protection and no manufacturing base. It would be a giant grab to screw the new person over until the whole thing collapsed.

The best example of socialism in the USA today is the ghettos. These are the areas with the most govt. intervention. And the result is women tossing men aside and creating violent single mother household ghettos full of drugs, crime and teenage death.

Post: #69

(07-22-2015 12:42 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Sometimes "socialism" does "help the little man become a big man":

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs.

In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

Winning a government bid to build military housing isn't socialism. In fact, the act of making a profit off the transaction is inherently non-socialist because it isn't "production for use" by definition.

Let's not redefine terms until they're meaningless.

Post: #70

(07-22-2015 12:48 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:42 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Sometimes "socialism" does "help the little man become a big man":

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs.

In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

Your best examples of socialism some what working, and there is a great debate about how it truly worked even at that, goes back 80 some years, when the USA was a MUCH different place.

You implement socialism today and you might as well kiss the middle class good bye. Socialism would be a complete disaster in a country with 300,000,000 citizens, $20 trillion in debt, and no border protection and no manufacturing base. It would be a giant grab to screw the new person over until the whole thing collapsed.

The best example of socialism in the USA today is the ghettos. These are the areas with the most govt. intervention. And the result is women tossing men aside and creating violent single mother household ghettos full of drugs, crime and teenage death.

I don't know anyone on the planet who is rallying for a try Socialist economy. Even China, Vietnam, (and soon Cuba) abandoned all of that long ago.
As the comedian Louis Black says... there are 9 socialists in the US and you can find them at the cemetery.

To your point, eradicating all vestiges of a social program and you also "kiss the middle class goodbye" (e.g. getting rid of Medicare).

Post: #71

(07-22-2015 12:53 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:42 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Sometimes "socialism" does "help the little man become a big man":

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs.

In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

Winning a government bid to build military housing isn't socialism. In fact, the act of making a profit off the transaction is inherently non-socialist because it isn't "production for use" by definition.

Let's not redefine terms until they're meaningless.

It was not a government bid...

It is what it is: A "big government program" and government financing (e.g. taxpayer $)

Not everything is just good ol' elbow grease and cunning entrepreneurship.

It may take that yes, but other factors are at work.

Post: #72

(07-22-2015 12:57 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:48 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:42 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  Sometimes "socialism" does "help the little man become a big man":

Trump was born in New York City in 1946, the son of real estate tycoon Fred Trump. Fred Trump’s business success not only provided Donald Trump with a posh youth of private schools and economic security but eventually blessed him with an inheritance worth an estimated $40 million to $200 million. It is critical to note, however, that his father’s success, which granted Donald Trump such a great advantage, was enabled and buffered by governmental financing programs.

In 1934, while struggling during the Great Depression, financing from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowed Fred Trump to revive his business and begin building a multitude of homes in Brooklyn, selling at $6,000 apiece. Furthermore, throughout World War II, Fred Trump constructed FHA-backed housing for US naval personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast.

Your best examples of socialism some what working, and there is a great debate about how it truly worked even at that, goes back 80 some years, when the USA was a MUCH different place.

You implement socialism today and you might as well kiss the middle class good bye. Socialism would be a complete disaster in a country with 300,000,000 citizens, $20 trillion in debt, and no border protection and no manufacturing base. It would be a giant grab to screw the new person over until the whole thing collapsed.

The best example of socialism in the USA today is the ghettos. These are the areas with the most govt. intervention. And the result is women tossing men aside and creating violent single mother household ghettos full of drugs, crime and teenage death.

I don't know anyone on the planet who is rallying for a try Socialist economy. Even China, Vietnam, (and soon Cuba) abandoned all of that long ago.
As the comedian Louis Black says... there are 9 socialists in the US and you can find them at the cemetery.

To your point, eradicating all vestiges of a social program and you also "kiss the middle class goodbye" (e.g. getting rid of Medicare).

Bernie Sanders says he is a socialist. How would a proud admitted socialist not believe in socialism?

Post: #73

(07-22-2015 11:38 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  When people rail against "socialism" do they mean things like Medicare and Veterans hospitals?

Or bailouts for banks, corporate subsidies, and socializing "free market" losses?

Hopefully all of the above.

Post: #74

(07-23-2015 01:45 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 11:38 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  When people rail against "socialism" do they mean things like Medicare and Veterans hospitals?

Or bailouts for banks, corporate subsidies, and socializing "free market" losses?

Hopefully all of the above.

Since we feel the need to kick other countries in the nuts, then pop smoke and get out of town before finishing the job, yes we should have some awesome VA hospitals. The one in Madison is actually pretty good btw.

Those kids are some of the few in this country that show some balls.

Saying that, I'm kinda curious where those kids come from. I'll throw it out there and say a majority are from the South and the Midwest.

Not too many from NYC or LA I'm guessing...

Post: #75

Hotwheels, please see my post here about Basic Training experiences in the Army: /thread-44904-...#pid952668 The majority of recruits come from Appalachia, the South (Texas included) and the Rockies. Anything north or east of Pennsylvania is a rarity. There are patterns and trends in every branch of the military, but the most common denominator is typically a sense of patriotism and political conservatism.

We don't want parades, we don't want to be called heroes, we don't want strangers shaking our hands every 5 minutes, and we don't want free lunches on Veterans Day. We just want the assurance that when we're sent to stomp dick and kill America's enemies abroad, it's for a good reason, and that if we're injured in the process, our basic medical needs are covered. This isn't socialism, it's common decency.

Very few politicians with a (D) or (R ) before their name give a rats ass about veterans. Politicians like John McCain claim to love wounded veterans and support them, yet they devote their entire political careers to making more of them.