Socialism brings people down - lowers quality of life

[NeverEndingMe]

I never understood why anyone was pro socialism ... after all, its still the same game.

When someone says that he or she is pro socialism we just need to put a sign on their head that says they are a fucktard. as they are saying they are lazy, can't and don't want to compete and just retarded/ignorant.

Just that there is less chance for opportunities. you still have the elite and 1% if you will. you still have poor but there are a lot more of you.

being pro socialist is like being a union member, as you are telling the world you do sub-par work and need protection otherwise your ass would be fired.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I never understood why anyone was pro socialism ... after all, its still the same game.

When someone says that he or she is pro socialism we just need to put a sign on their head that says they are a fucktard. as they are saying they are lazy, can't and don't want to compete and just retarded/ignorant.

Just that there is less chance for opportunities. you still have the elite and 1% if you will. you still have poor but there are a lot more of you.

being pro socialist is like being a union member, as you are telling the world you do sub-par work and need protection otherwise your ass would be fired.

There are three kinds of people who are Socialists. One is the bleeding heart type who believes everybody should get a substantial piece of the pie and there are the lazy ones who believe the world owes them a living. And there are those who really do need somebody to support and take care of them. I can feel sympathy for them but I feel disdain for the first kind and contempt for the second.

 

[JayPierce95]

I would say they were a classic case of capitalism. They were the result of corporate bullying by unrestricted companies that became so big they could bully the government. In effect, they said to government
"You can't let us fail, if you do the whole of your economy will collapse. We fail and our creditors will foreclose on all the loans we've made. Companies you thought had no connection with banking will go under because they can't repay us. You, the government, will be responsible because you allowed us to get ourselves into this position by taking away all the regulations, in the name of capitalism."

Where I agree with you is to say that the ultimate capitalist argument would have been "We don't care." But the resulting crash would have made the great depression look like a tea party and would have proved to the world that capitalism doesn't work. That was a risk that no government was prepared to take. You could say that the financial instutions gambled and won. A victory for capitalism?

My post was not suggesting we have pure capitalism, it was merely to point out the differences between our current economy and Adam Smith capitalism or pure capitalism. My point was that if the government had never succumbed to that practice in the beginning then the banks wouldn't be taking unnecessary risk. The reason they know they can gamble is because they know they will be bailed out. Right now, when ratings agencies give credit ratings to Wall Street bonds they actually include the expected taxpayer bailouts in their calculations. Banks actually have higher credit ratings on riskier loans just because they know they are too big to fail. While I agree that letting financial institutions sink or swim on their own is not always the way to go, the amount of security we promise them in advance of collapse is encouraging more reckless behavior that causes these severe crashes. The Great Depression and the Great Recession were caused by banks giving out risky mortgages, failing to look at the simplest of numbers, and not self-regulating out of necessity.

 

[oggbashan]

...

being pro socialist is like being a union member, as you are telling the world you do sub-par work and need protection otherwise your ass would be fired.

Unions in the UK can be different. Many are not anti-bosses or protect a worker at all costs. They can provide protection, yes but also education, training, and social activities for their members.

During my managerial career I worked with 14 union branches spread across five unions. Except for one of those five unions which was very defensive of members' practices, the other four worked with management to improve productivity and standards of work, to increase the qualifications of their members, and to solve problems, particularly health and social problems. They wanted the company to be profitable because that was in the long term interest of their members.

That didn't mean they were averse from asking management for impossible concessions - because their members had wanted them to - but they expected the management's answer to be 'No'. They could then tell their member(s) that the evil management (me) wouldn't accept their request.

But the union representatives were reasonable people who wanted Win-Win solutions whenever possible.

An example:

One young apprentice had been out drinking the night before to celebrate a mate's engagement. Not surprisingly he had a hangover when he was due to go to work the next day. He telephoned to report himself as 'sick' and said he would be back at work tomorrow. So far, no problem except that his first line manager would probably have a quiet word suggesting that Friday or Saturday evenings were better for drinking too much.

BUT - he had to fill out a form to request the sick absence. He put down 'brain tumour', not 'upset stomach' or something similar. His supervisor told him not to be so stupid. The apprentice insisted that it felt like a brain tumour so he wasn't going to change it. The supervisor held on to the form for a day although it should have been sent to the Personnel department. The supervisor also telephoned the local Union representative to ask him to have a word with the apprentice. The Union representative was much more forthright, telling the apprentice he wasn't just stupid but a 'bloody fucking idiot'. Even so the apprentice refused to change the wording and it was sent to Personnel - who referred it to me.

I spoke directly to the supervisor and the Union representative. I told them that IF the apprentice continued to claim 'brain tumour' I would refer him to the company doctor immediately and he should NOT be at work because he was unsafe near moving machinery, and if he really had a brain tumour his apprenticeship would have to end because it was conditional on him having no long term health problems.

Please could the supervisor arrange for him to be taken by ambulance to the company doctor as an emergency and then be escorted home to his parents because he was unsafe to be living alone in a bed-sit?

The Union representative went to the apprentice and told him what I had said. The apprentice asked to fill out another form stating 'upset stomach'. I destroyed the original one showing 'brain tumour'. The Union representative and supervisor, standing side by side, then told the apprentice unofficially that his apprenticeship was still in doubt, not for 'brain tumour' but for stupidity.

Two years later he was the second highest scoring apprentice in his final examination. The highest scoring? His fiancée - who had been making him work hard to eradicate his mistake.

That is how Unions can help - and nothing like the traditional view of US unions.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

I think that's from a commercial for a stock brokerage firm.

Actually, it hit me as I fell asleep last night it's the end of an episode of "Leverage"... Which did an episode early on that included "Bailout" in the title, & lots of dialogue references to the government bailing-out banks.

Also, one of the leaders of the "villain" group was the surviving police officer on "Person Of Interest".

 

[BotanyBoy]

" You, the government, will be responsible because you enabled us to get into this position by 'regulating', in the name of greed and special interest."

FYP.

Where I agree with you is to say that the ultimate capitalist argument would have been "We don't care." But the resulting crash would have made the great depression look like a tea party and would have proved to the world that capitalism doesn't work. That was a risk that no government was prepared to take.

That's pure speculation based entirely upon the fear mongering those evil capitalist (really oligarchs) used to 'bully' their homies in congress. Reality is nobody really knows what would have happened, how bad it would have been, how the recovery would have gone etc.

Also it wouldn't show capitalism doesn't work because the USA hasn't had capitalism in a very long time. It would show government fucking with perfectly fine markets in the name of feel good bullshit is a bad idea.

You could say that the financial instutions gambled and won. A victory for capitalism?

How is that a victory for capitalism? If anything it's a victory of oligarchs, feudalism....government control over the markets, much closer to socialism than capitalism ever will be.

A victory for capitalism would have been telling Bank of America to suck it like everyone else so a better, not failing, company could provide service/goods.

 

[underguy1]

FYP.



That's pure speculation based entirely upon the fear mongering those evil capitalist (really oligarchs) used to 'bully' their homies in congress. Reality is nobody really knows what would have happened, how bad it would have been, how the recovery would have gone etc.

Also it wouldn't show capitalism doesn't work because the USA hasn't had capitalism in a very long time. It would show government fucking with perfectly fine markets in the name of feel good bullshit is a bad idea.



How is that a victory for capitalism? If anything it's a victory of oligarchs, feudalism....government control over the markets, much closer to socialism than capitalism ever will be.

A victory for capitalism would have been telling Bank of America to suck it like everyone else so a better, not failing, company could provide service/goods.

Apparently Warren Buffet et al aren't capitalists in your view of the space time continuum.

LOLz.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Apparently Warren Buffet et al aren't capitalists in your view of the space time continuum.

LOLz.

Where did you come up with that pile of shit?

 

[DeYaKen]

FYP.

.

So you've learned how to edit quotes to make it look like I said something that I didn't. Ooh how clever you are, excuse me while I get down on my knees and praise your intellect.

WHAT YOU SAY I SAID
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeYaKen View Post
" You, the government, will be responsible because you enabled us to get into this position by 'regulating', in the name of greed and special interest."

WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.
You, the government, will be responsible because you allowed us to get ourselves into this position by taking away all the regulations, in the name of capitalism."

By claiming that I said what I clearly did not. You, sir, are a LIAR and not worthy of my interest. I now have no option but to ignore you.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you've learned how to edit quotes to make it look like I said something that I didn't. Ooh how clever you are, excuse me while I get down on my knees and praise your intellect.

WHAT YOU SAY I SAID
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeYaKen View Post
" You, the government, will be responsible because you enabled us to get into this position by 'regulating', in the name of greed and special interest."

WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID.
You, the government, will be responsible because you allowed us to get ourselves into this position by taking away all the regulations, in the name of capitalism."

Yea, and I'm right.

What you said is total fucking pant load.

By claiming that I said what I clearly did not. You, sir, are a LIAR and not worthy of my interest. I now have no option but to ignore you.

Uh oh, someone can't back up their bullshit!!

 

[dan_c00000]

I believe I am most suited to make decisions for myself and prefer that government does so.

The wall of text approach doesn't impress me, sadly.

There are two questions I have about your above quote:

1. Does so what...? You didn't finish your sentence.

2. I'm assuming you want the government to trust you, which is fine, but the question is just because the government can trust you doesn't mean everyone else can. If you want a good example of this take a look at Wall Street. Lots of people trusted them (the government even trusted them repealing the Glass-Steagall Act) and the entire world got screwed.

You might want to rethink your wall of bullshit approach.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

again, those that believe in socialism are quitters. they failed in life and don't have the energy or desire to improve

 

[oggbashan]

again, those that believe in socialism are quitters. they failed in life and don't have the energy or desire to improve

You keep repeating this. Some socialists are not failures. They believe that they should help those who cannot help themselves - the elderly, the long-term sick, disadvantaged children.

Billionaires can be socialists. Successful entrepreneurs can be socialists.

Your definition of socialism isn't recognised outside the right wing US.

 

[DeYaKen]

again, those that believe in socialism are quitters. they failed in life and don't have the energy or desire to improve

Again you generalise to the nth degree and spout opinion but offer no evidence to back it up.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Again you generalise to the nth degree and spout opinion but offer no evidence to back it up.

Clearly, you are either a union or government mentally challenged employee.

Competition is the way to go, pure and simple. Some might say what about China? well china doesn't compete they prostitute the markets they serve.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

You keep repeating this. Some socialists are not failures. They believe that they should help those who cannot help themselves - the elderly, the long-term sick, disadvantaged children.

Billionaires can be socialists. Successful entrepreneurs can be socialists.

Your definition of socialism isn't recognised outside the right wing US.

After a person is successful, what he or she does with their money is their business. Personally, a successful person can reinvest it back into society far better than any government agency. So yes, great entrepreneurs can do great and wonder social improvements.

No back to your "right wing" comment. If you stated this to me back in Dec, I would have responded with there is not one person on the "right" that would want a child to starve. What I do see the "right wing" bitching about is the waste and fraud in government and social programs.

just look at the number of billions wasted each and every year on the obama iphone program...and that is just one federal program. Were talking a min of 40% fraud for that program but I'm guessing if they really dug into the problem they would give 60 to 70%. The number if phones registered to non existent addresses is 40%.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Competition is the way to go, pure and simple. Some might say what about China? well china doesn't compete they prostitute the markets they serve.

That's called competing dumb ass.

 

[oggbashan]

Socialists can also bitch about waste in government programmes.

Targetted help is usually more efficient than general welfare that also goes to those who don't need it.

The US political system doesn't allow sensible solutions because they can't get a win/win scenario. If the other side wants it, it must be evil.

 

[DeYaKen]

Clearly, you are either a union or government mentally challenged employee.

Competition is the way to go, pure and simple. Some might say what about China? well china doesn't compete they prostitute the markets they serve.

Wrong on all three counts.
Not a government employee. Not even a member of a union, there are no unions that cover my line of employment, and clearly not as mentally challenged as someone whose only method of argument is just to shout the same old cliches over and over again.

What makes you think that socialism and competition are mutually exclusive? There are a number of countries that can show you that it isn't.

On the subject of competition, it is interesting to note that in the computer industry, the rate of development and technical innovation dropped significantly when they stopped sharing information and went down the competition route.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

Clearly, you are either a union or government mentally challenged employee.

Competition is the way to go, pure and simple. Some might say what about China? well china doesn't compete they prostitute the markets they serve.

You are clearly mentally-challenged & not honestly backing competition, as in every way & place imaginable, you are a loser.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

You are clearly mentally-challenged & not honestly backing competition, as in every way & place imaginable, you are a loser.

if that helps you sleep at night, then keep on living that failed dream

 

[richmondman]

Way down in this thread what JayPierce said is accurate. The US is the best capitalistic system the world has even known, at least in modern times, but it isn't, and never has been, purely "capitalism". Pure capitalism is a survival of the fittest, winner and loser, regime. That's it. That would apply to business, trade, social issues, you name it. You lose, too bad, don't care.

The fact of the matter is that few people can tolerate the consequences of a pure system like that, so exceptions are made with a rationale of "for the greater good", which to some folks posting here equates to "socialism."

It's one thing to argue principle and philosophy in the interwebs, even enjoyable at times. But once the principle and philosophy is flag-waved, practicalities take over, and frankly this entire country is focused more on those. This has all been debated in political philosophy courses for generations. The Ayn Rand philosophy wasn't new, just an adaption of older philosophical discussions.

It would be a very long list, since I think that just about every American benefits from and frankly insists on a multitude of "socialist" "anti-capitalism" "anti-free market" realities of life every day, whether you admit it or not. Food stamps (100 million people mostly white), social security, Medicare, road subsidies, farm subsidies, student loans, ... you name it. None of those things are free market capitalism. For most people, if the "socialist" program benefits them, they love it. If it doesn't, they hate it and the people who do. Go figure.

So it's today's parlor game to sneer at Obama and associate him with each, but the reason that each exists is that the American people insist on them, and have for generations, both parties. On the latter point, the Republicans control Congress - it could pass a bill tomorrow to eliminate any of them. That ain't Obama.

 

[L1tTleD1fferent]

if that helps you sleep at night, then keep on living that failed dream

I never started living a failed dream, & I don't pay attention to what my dreams involve if I'm sleeping well.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I never started living a failed dream, & I don't pay attention to what my dreams involve if I'm sleeping well.

you are pro obama and get hard thinking about other people's money. therefore, you are a sorry ass loser.

 

[oggbashan]

you are pro obama and get hard thinking about other people's money. therefore, you are a sorry ass loser.

Please change the record. This one is getting worn out after so many repeats.