The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

[Chadrone]

Anyone who is present and not a citizen. That includes illegals.

What a fucking retard.....just redefines words at random to suit it's fucked up world view.

 

[SkyBubble]

That's a worse lie than any Marxist ever spoke.

Giovanni Gentile, the founder of fascism, admitted it was a form of socialism. He claimed it was the most viable form of socialism.
Socialism is a system in which the government (the state) controls all economic decisions. In the form of socialism known as communism and related variations, they simply take property, nationalize it directly, and run it directly by the government through government agents who have no idea how to run a business or what the price mechanism is.

The fascists (and their variant the Nazis), no less socialist, are a little smarter. They do what I call indirect nationalization. They don't directly nationalize; they retain nominal private property, but it's completely under government control, subservient to the state.

Read Mises on "Russian socialism" and "German socialism."

 

[Chadrone]

I'm no more a Marxist than you are -- but they do have a better claim than you have to define anything on the left.

Bullshit and bullshit.

 

[Wilson23]

Bullshit and bullshit.

You know I'm right. You always do.

 

[Chadrone]

Giovanni Gentile, the founder of fascism, admitted it was a form of socialism. He claimed it was the most viable form of socialism.
Socialism is a system in which the government (the state) controls all economic decisions. In the form of socialism known as communism and related variations, they simply take property, nationalize it directly, and run it directly by the government through government agents who have no idea how to run a business or what the price mechanism is.

The fascists (and their variant the Nazis), no less socialist, are a little smarter. They do what I call indirect nationalization. They don't directly nationalize; they retain nominal private property, but it's completely under government control, subservient to the state.

Read Mises on "Russian socialism" and "German socialism."

Like most democrats it's actaully stupid enough to think socialism is defined as "gubbmitn doin guud stuff that sounds good in headlines!!" ........collective ownership, control and or administration of the means of production means NOTHING to these fucking morons.

 

[Wilson23]

Giovanni Gentile, the founder of fascism, admitted it was a form of socialism.

No, he claimed it was. He lied. In those days, "socialism" was a word that could win votes.

 

[SkyBubble]

The Anarchists are farthest left and no authoritarians. The Fascists, not the Libertarians, are farthest right. The whole polysci world agrees on these points.

Anarchists are their own breed of cat. But the further left you go, from liberal to progressive to socialist to communist (or fascist -- variations on a theme), the more government controls people's lives. OTOH, moving rightward means less government control.

 

[Chadrone]

You know I'm right. You always do.

Nope, you're full of shit, same as you always are.

 

[SkyBubble]

We have never really had a welfare state, not even under FDR or LBJ, and we have not had open borders at any time since the Chinese Exclusion Act -- certainly not during the Biden years.

B-O-L-O-G-N-A. We have had one at least since the New Deal. We have a massive welfare system in this country. But as Mises said, the reason we're more prosperous is that we were "twenty years late" embarking on the road to socialism.

 

[Chadrone]

No, he claimed it was. He lied.

No, he just wasn't trying to redefine the word to suit a bullshit narrative about socialism.

 

[SkyBubble]

We have never really had a welfare state, not even under FDR or LBJ, and we have not had open borders at any time since the Chinese Exclusion Act -- certainly not during the Biden years.

Wrong on both counts.

 

[icanhelp1]

Anyone who is present and not a citizen. That includes illegals.

What classifies someone as an immigrant?

Immigrant - Any person lawfully in the United States who is not a U.S. citizen, U.S. national, or person admitted under a nonimmigrant category as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 101(a)(15).Dec 11, 2025

Nothing in that description mentions illegals.

 

[Wilson23]

Read Mises on "Russian socialism" and "German socialism."

No, I won't. Mises was was too closely associated with the Austrian school to ever have any credibility about anything. Better you should read Orwell:

Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes. Internally, Germany has a good deal in common with a Socialist state. Ownership has never been abolished, there are still capitalists and workers, and – this is the important point, and the real reason why rich men all over the world tend to sympathize with Fascism – generally speaking the same people are capitalists and the same people workers as before the Nazi revolution. But at the same time the State, which is simply the Nazi Party, is in control of everything. It controls investment, raw materials, rates of interest, working hours, wages. The factory owner still owns his factory, but he is for practical purposes reduced to the status of a manager. Everyone is in effect a State employee, though the salaries vary very greatly. The mere efficiency of such a system, the elimination of waste and obstruction, is obvious. In seven years it has built up the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen.

But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world. Outside the German Reich it does not recognize any obligations. Eminent Nazi professors have ‘proved’ over and over again that only nordic man is fully human, have even mooted the idea that non-nordic peoples (such as ourselves) can interbreed with gorillas! Therefore, while a species of war-Socialism exists within the German state, its attitude towards conquered nations is frankly that of an exploiter. The function of the Czechs, Poles, French, etc. is simply to produce such goods as Germany may need, and get in return just as little as will keep them from open rebellion. If we are conquered, our job will probably be to manufacture weapons for Hitler's forthcoming wars with Russia and America. The Nazis aim, in effect, at setting up a kind of caste system, with four main castes corresponding rather closely to those of the Hindu religion. At the top comes the Nazi party, second come the mass of the German people, third come the conquered European populations. Fourth and last are to come the coloured peoples, the ‘semi-apes’ as Hitler calls them, who are to be reduced quite openly to slavery.

However horrible this system may seem to us, it works. It works because it is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way. British capitalism does not work, because it is a competitive system in which private profit is and must be the main objective. It is a system in which all the forces are pulling in opposite directions and the interests of the individual are as often as not totally opposed to those of the State.

 

[Wilson23]

Wrong on both counts.

We have some real drooling idiots on this board who think Biden had an "open borders policy." You're not one of those, are you?!

 

[SkyBubble]

No, it never worked out that way.

The history is that the economy grows after taxes are cut. As JFK said, a rising tide lifts all boats.

https://www.nber.org/digest/jun97/tax-rate-cuts-would-raise-long-term-growth?page=1&perPage=50

https://americansforprosperity.org/blog/how-tax-cuts-help-the-economy-and-working-families/

https://www.heritage.org/node/18247/print-display

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/benefits-of-a-corporate-tax-cut/

https://epicforamerica.org/the-economy/cutting-regulations-boosts-economic-growth/

But as much as tax cuts improve the economy (and they do), what we really need are major, big-time spending cuts. The reductions they've made in the Federal payroll ar ea good start. They may have some negative short-term consequences, but over the longer term, they'll help.

 

[Wilson23]

B-O-L-O-G-N-A. We have had one at least since the New Deal. We have a massive welfare system in this country. But as Mises said, the reason we're more prosperous is that we were "twenty years late" embarking on the road to socialism.

Mises has zero credibility. And you can't have a welfare state without UHC. And what welfare we did have was mostly abolished under Clinton.

 

[Wilson23]

The history is that the economy grows after taxes are cut. As JFK said, a rising tide lifts all boats.

https://www.nber.org/digest/jun97/tax-rate-cuts-would-raise-long-term-growth?page=1&perPage=50

https://americansforprosperity.org/blog/how-tax-cuts-help-the-economy-and-working-families/

https://www.heritage.org/node/18247/print-display

https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/benefits-of-a-corporate-tax-cut/

https://epicforamerica.org/the-economy/cutting-regulations-boosts-economic-growth/

But as much as tax cuts improve the economy (and they do), what we really need are major, big-time spending cuts. The reductions they've made in the Federal payroll ar ea good start. They may have some negative short-term consequences, but over the longer term, they'll help.

You're not helping your case any by citing Heritage -- or, worse, Americans for Prosperity (Koch org).

 

[SkyBubble]

No, I won't. Mises was was too closely associated with the Austrian school to ever have any credibility about anything. Better you should read Orwell:

I've read Orwell. He was wrong. Mises was correct.

 

[Wilson23]

I've read Orwell. He was wrong. Mises was correct.

Never in the lives of either of them was Mises right where Orwell was wrong.

 

[Hel_Books]

The history is that the economy grows after taxes are cut. As JFK said, a rising tide lifts all boats.

Life's a bit more complex than this bumper sticker. If taxes are high, perhaps lowering taxes cut will help the economy. Of course, if it's just done to give the rich a handout while not helping the poor (especially the people too poor to pay taxes!), the economy won't necessarily benefit.

On the other hand, if a nation has decrepit infrastructure, if it neglects its roads and schools and electrical grid because it devotes insufficient resources to them, then perhaps raising taxes will improve the economy. You've got to spend money to make money, after all!

 

[icanhelp1]

B-O-L-O-G-N-A. We have had one at least since the New Deal. We have a massive welfare system in this country. But as Mises said, the reason we're more prosperous is that we were "twenty years late" embarking on the road to socialism.

FDR was as socialist as socialist can be. FDR's DNA runs parallel to Pierre Leroux.

 

[Wilson23]

FDR was as socialist as socialist can be.

Lie.

 

[icanhelp1]

Life's a bit more complex than this bumper sticker. If taxes are high, perhaps lowering taxes cut will help the economy. Of course, if it's just done to give the rich a handout while not helping the poor (especially the people too poor to pay taxes!), the economy won't necessarily benefit.

On the other hand, if a nation has decrepit infrastructure, if it neglects its roads and schools and electrical grid because it devotes insufficient resources to them, then perhaps raising taxes will improve the economy. You've got to spend money to make money, after all!

Perhaps the government collects enough revenue to do the things you noted if the government actually spent it on those items instead of providing freebies for votes.

 

[Wilson23]

Pierre Leroux.

No socialist.

 

[Wilson23]

Perhaps the government collects enough revenue to do the things you noted if the government actually spent it on those items instead of providing freebies for votes.

Congresscritters come under a lot more pressure to provide freebies for money. They're far more likely to give tax breaks or sweetheart contracts to corporations that contribute to their campaigns, than to increase welfare benefits so the poor will vote for them.