A History of Socialism in America

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The idea is a sound one, played out in practice over 200 years? Not so much.

If the elected officials don't know better than the individuals, then why are we bothering with elections at all? Why not just leave the country and go find somewhere else to live where we have the ultimate authority over ourselves?

I hear about this place in South America...

If your house is infested with vermin, you don't move... you begin extermination protocols.

Unless it's a lost cause and the extermination would require a complete leveling of the entire house down to the foundation. At that point, it would be easier just to build a new home with better materials that discourage infestation in the first place, using lessons learned from the previous home.

Nah, the foundation is still sound and fully supportive. If the vermin won't move on, you set the mother to burn and rebuild it on that strong foundation.

As far the "majority opinion" comment, so? Everyone can disagree with a correct man all day long, doesn't magically stop him from being right.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think our current government spends wisely?

And if not, why would you want to increase the amount of funds that they take?

I don't mind paying to protect other American citizens from hardship. Isn't that supposed to be the purpose of the government, to protect its citizens?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It just shows that you are greedy with your money and don't want to share really.

OF COURSE I DON'T WANT TO SHARE IT!!!! I'm the one who took hours out of my day to attend my goddamned job and EARN it!!! Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are we in effing kindergarten again? "Did you earn enough for the class today, Johnny?"

Explain this to me, please. How is it "greedy" to expect to retain as great a portion of the money you earned, but not greedy to have your hand out and demand that life owes you something when you've failed to do a flipping thing to earn it? Let me also ask you this, what happens when the money runs out at the top of the chain under your system? Need a hint, look at the USSR in the late 80s, early 90s. When your wells run dry and you've got a kept populace, bad ju-ju goes down real quick. Keep jacking that middle class and up golden goose, man, meanwhile more and more of them slide down the ladder and your pool to steal from keeps drying up. I don't want to live in that world, man.

But most people on social programs are there because they WERE working hard and then can't get a job anymore or got injured and can't work. And to your answer, yes it is greedy. You don't have to get so mad about it. If you are proud to be greedy, fine. But a spade is a spade and I call it as I see it.

PS: The USSR was a communist country ran COMPLETELY differently than a Democratic Socialist country such as ourselves. It should be noted that we've been a Democratic Socialist country longer than the USSR was communist.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The poor pay no federal income taxes. In fact, many are actually paying negative tax rates in that they are getting money back in the form of refunds but not paying anything.

Payroll taxes aren't the same.

Sales tax, sin tax, capital gains taxes, estate tax, property tax, hotel tax. Heck here is a list of 97 different types of taxes and fees we pay. You'll be happy to notice that it is a conservative website at that too.

Stop trying to mix and match... paying sales taxes, sin taxes, etc are not the same as paying federal income taxes. yes, we are taxed too much at the local level too but that really isn't the topic.

I'm not mixing and matching. Those are all taxes and no, not all of them are local level taxes either. You are just trying to narrowly define the conversation around income taxes, but in reality there are a great deal many more taxes paid to the government that we all pay.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm happy to see that even you, celebrant of big government that you are, sees that Americans are overtaxed. That said, you can't say with a straight face that the poor are paying capital gains or estate taxes now, can you?

I was just listing various taxes paid out in this country. I am not so arrogant to say what the poor are or aren't paying in regards to those taxes. Can the poor not own property? Can the poor not own stocks? Or does the acquisition of those things in your mind suddenly make you "not poor"?

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is the crux of my disagreement with you on this. You clearly feel like people who don't want to share the money they've earned are greedy or in some way in the wrong. You, me, and everyone else are owed nothing from anybody.

Whats greedy is expecting or feeling entitled to the money others have made that you haven't earned.

Whats selfish is thinking that people really benefit in the long run from being coddled by the state.

That is unfortunate you feel that way. I've provided historic precedent that Socialism not only works in this country but has made it the best it has ever been (an opinion held by BOTH liberals AND conservatives at the time), but instead you just say I'm wrong and greedy.

Where is your evidence that trickle down economics works? All we see these days is the rich get richer and the income gap just keep getting higher and higher. I've also pointed out how the start of our financial troubles in this country can be traced right to trickle down economics, but you still defend its merits. All trickle down economics is, is the greedy redefining the morality around rampant greed.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FamCore

So how was the system overloaded in the 50's and 60's?

Come on, man. Totally different situation then and you know it. No international competition for manufactured goods, a huge military industrial complex that was running over 10% of the GDP was a factor, as well.

But our MIC is bigger now than it was in the 50's and 60's...

The nation had an affluence. Lots of jobs which translated into lots of revenue for the gov't. Abundance. One can be quite generous when has lots of cash. Productivity was the key. A healthy private sector HAS to be a factor as well.

Sounds like Socialism works to me then.

Sounds like our economy worked in spite of, not because of..

How so? Things were great until Reagan broke things with his "better" idea. To me, this looks like you are denying the obvious.

Really? I guess you weren't around when Carter ran the show, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment...turned around pretty fast and stayed that way for quite a while. One of us is denying the obvious.....

But wasn't that situation caused by the Iranian Revolution? Yep, it was. How can you blame a change of government half way around the world causing an oil supply shock on Socialism?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nice thread and exactly what the History forum should be all about.

As a UK member there was a lot I did not know about this topic.

It was a shame that it soon degenerated into a bunch of premade opinions about the present and could not remain an interesting discussion about history though, maybe ats is not quite ready for this forum after all.

I can't wait for a history of gun control

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Naturally, as we both know, no Republicans voted for the bill, but that doesn't mean Republicans weren't responsible in any way for the end product we got.

So the Democrats take a House bill, gut the original language, throw in Obamacare, lard it down with earmarks to make it palatable to so-called Blue Dog Dems, lose the 60th vote to a (R), 'deem' the bill to pass in the Senate and send back to the House to be voted on after midnight on Christmas Eve without a single (R) vote... and it's the GOP's fault.

Wow man. Just wow.

Are you guys purposely not getting what I'm trying to say here? The reason the bill was gutted was to try to compromise with the Republicans. If they hadn't of done that, we'd probably would have had a stronger ACA upon launch.

There's a reason Congress is considered ineffectual mate. It's because BOTH sides of the aisle can't compromise anymore. Please don't deny that obvious point.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Yes. I can't think of how we've lost any or which laws have stolen freedoms from us.

Every law passed is at the very least papercut to freedoms. They add up over time.

This is boring political rhetoric and not true. I asked for laws, not platitudes.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nice thread and exactly what the History forum should be all about.

As a UK member there was a lot I did not know about this topic.

It was a shame that it soon degenerated into a bunch of premade opinions about the present and could not remain an interesting discussion about history though, maybe ats is not quite ready for this forum after all.

Well I'm trying to be respectful, but it's hard to argue with history. So people generally deflect and get angry instead.

I can't wait for a history of gun control

You know what. That would be an interesting thread... I really try to avoid the gun debate but there are a few things that should be cleared up about that debate that are ignored

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now I'm sure many will tell me that Socialism is unsustainable, but I ask to you, how do you figure? When we had a stronger Socialist net, we did better than ever

but, how much of that better than ever was because of the socialist net, and how much was for other reasons? We came out of WW2 with pretty big advantage over Europe and the rest of the world. They were bombed out and practically destroyed, or third world nations that were living a century or two behind us. We were given the keys to the kingdom, a world to peddle our goods to and exploit to our convenience. while other countries were rebuilding their industrial base, we were using much of what was learned in the war to improve our product lines, and well, when one market became oversaturated with out products, we could just go open another market full of eager customers to buy what we offered. and well, that socialism wasn't just aimed at the US, but it circled the globe, helping to build these new markets.

but, well, we really don't create new products anymore for some reason, and much of the world is oversaturated with the old products and their industries are more than capable of producing those just fine. it seems that now, our biggest export is our debt. while we should have been nurturing our younger generations to think outside the box and be inventive and providing them with an easy access to the best education in the world to develop the skills and knowledge they need to bring those inventive ideas into reality. we have instead thrown more and more money towards wars to preserve the dollar's supremacy and left our kids with an outdated educational model with higher education costs that is leaving them so far into debt that they are unable to participate in the economy in the ways that their parents did.

and well, while many countries are taking steps into the 21st century, we seem to be content continuing our existence in the 20th, with the delusion of our former greatness. it's gonna take something new, revolutionary, to bring the world out of it's despair and while other countries are at least trying to come up with that new, we seem to be content with the old.

www.thebubblebubble.com...
the US needs a really good tulip!

a reply to: dawnstar

It should be noted that offering kids the best education possible is a Socialist ideal. Throwing money towards war isn't a Socialist ideal. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to tell me here. You seem to be in disagreement with Socialism being a factor in America's success (though more Americans with more buying power drives up any market), but then you talk about how our country has been stagnating due to non-Socialist reasons while promoting a Socialist idea to improve the country.

By the way, the countries you are talking about that are moving into the 21st century, are doing so because they have strong Socialist nets. Almost all the countries with better standards of living than the US have stronger Socialist nets than we do.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
maybe because I ain't disagreeing with you that much, if at all..
it's just that we had advantages then that we don't have now, so well, although socialism might have been an answer then, it doesn't really mean that it will be now. or maybe we need to just aim that socialism towards accomplishing new goals, I don't know. but we were put into a unique position after WW2, and that had alot to do the the years of prosperity that followed.

also, if you go back to before the wars, like say to the time of the czars of russia and the carpet baggers in the US, I think you would get a neat story also that might clarify history a tad bit more. I couldn't give you a rundown of it if I wanted to without leaving a few errors I am sure. I will try to track down some links for you.

a reply to: dawnstar

The idea of Socialism is to work together to improve the whole. Teamwork has always produced better results than going it alone. Why shouldn't it work on a political level?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it won't work as long as the politicians are misusing it to fit their own agenda? which I believe they are.

a reply to: dawnstar

Now this is true. Politicians are certainly trying to use it to their own ends, but even you've recognized the benefits of certain Social programs. Me, I find that what is breaking Socialism more in this country are the people actively claiming that it doesn't work then actively trying to sabotage it then point that sabotage as the reason it can't work. That's like an arsonist burning his house down then telling his roommate that they shouldn't be living there because the house can burn down.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

it won't work as long as the politicians are misusing it to fit their own agenda? which I believe they are.

I agree with this but can the same not be said of capitalism?

Or communism or any method of government?

a reply to: nonspecific and Krazysh0t

yes, it can, which makes me think that maybe we shouldn't be worrying so much which method we use (they could all work perfectly fine if those running the show were doing the job right more often and misusing their power less often! that's like the two roommates standing outside arguing over weather the house they rented should have been brick or wood while watching the arsonist carry the gas into the house pouring it throughout the house and lighting the fuse!
and well, at this point, I do believe that even the far right candidates running on their typical anti-welfare platform don't want to kill the safety net entirely since well, they have misused that system just as badly as the democrats to pad the pockets of their buddies and themselves. I think at this point, the entire economy is far too dependent on that misuse to be able to function without the programs.

think this is what I was referring to:

www.youtube.com...

starting at around 20-30 minutes. I am listening to it again, not really sure why I see it as being relevant to this discussion, but well.... still think it might help to go back a little in the history lesson.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you think our current government spends wisely?

And if not, why would you want to increase the amount of funds that they take?

I don't mind paying to protect other American citizens from hardship. Isn't that supposed to be the purpose of the government, to protect its citizens?

Then pay the government more. No one is stopping you. I think the government spends my money foolishly. I think they spend it poorly. It's great that you want to use your money to help government take care of people.

I don't.