An experiment in socialism

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Cuervo

 

You're right in one aspect, Czar Cuervo. My wife and I make above that threshold. We buy gold, silver, and are saving for our retirement because we don't trust the government to provide. Now our "saved" money will be spent, on a new house (we love Wyoming) and food, and goodies for our children, and ammo for my guns, and perhaps an alternate power supply for our home.
It all gets spent.

But it gets spent how we decide. When we decide. And to whom we decide.

I hear you. I'm not even at that threshold and I'm buying tons of silver, too. In light of the economy, what we are doing is actually pretty harmful to the nation. Unfortunately, they will have to earn back some faith and trust before people will start spending indiscriminately again.

Originally posted by beezzer
I just gave you another star from someone who went to the library and spent three weeks going over old newspaper clippings to discover how a common weed can cure everything. But they had too many stars.

If I had something in my mouth, I would have spit it out.


All in all, I'm a socialist. I'm also against centralized government spanning an entire continent. I want liberals to run my state and anarcho-capitalists to run the nation. I guess I'm one of those "progressive liberals" who'll be partying it up with you conservative types if Dr. Paul ever gets in office.

Originally posted by TechVampyre
Why not distribute some truth?.. Funny thing about truth, it requires no meaningless stars, and flags to impress the masses..

This is the thing that keeps ATS alive.
Every once in a while,
someone posts the truth.

Unfortunately I've noticed that our newer members don't give each other stars very much. It's almost like the don't realize the function is there. One can always tell nights when a lot of the old timers are on. Threads blow up with stars quick.

I suggest if the newest generation
were to pitch in a little more . . .


David Grouchy

Originally posted by Openeye

I don't approve of socialist programs that can be exploited by the lazy. But I approve of the ones which give opportunity's to the economically disadvantaged, or those who do not have an education who wish to have one. We must seek middle ground, If we do our country will prosper...right now there are to many extremes.

Money is useful for weeding out the slackers.

Education = math.

Anyone who says otherwise is actually talking politics. And since politics doesn't belong in the classroom except as a subject it is unwise to think that any other form of testing has merit. Particularly when dealing with fundamentals.

The fact that you used the phrase "economically disadvantaged" informs me that this comment on education is one riddled with compromise and half measures.

Money is useful for weeding out the slackers,
but every citizen should receive an expensive dinner.

We have the technology.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by TechVampyre
A star or a flag is pointless.. Words are key.. use them wisely, and distribute truth widely.. It ain't all stars and glamor.. But hey it's the truth!

And then we shall all be rich with knowledge.

Spoken like a prophet!


Let the stars and flags flow.
If you are still a first year ATS'er
remember to hunt for a post to star!


David Grouchy

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by beezzer

 

I think that's a fabulous idea. Once you have so many stars and flags, you cease to continue to the forum economy (thoughtful posts# and just rely ride on their reserves to influence people into giving them even more stars and flags.

Just like money. You get so much and you stop contributing to society with it but, instead, invest it into damaging industries to make yourself more wealthy.

Money makes money and, in concentration, does not help society.
Stars and flags makes more stars and flags and, in concentration, does not help the forum.

You stumbled upon an excellent analogy. Star and flag for you!

Huh,
I think I just realized what's wrong with money.
How it's broken I mean.
It feels better to get it than to spend it.
I mean for the big predatory earners.
They like accumulating it with much greater satisfaction
than the urbane charms of actually spending it.

Otherwise they would take some time off and enjoy splurging.
But they don't, always moving on to the next bigger deal.

Social instability makes even billionaires worried for the future of their wealth.

:#
David Grouchy

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
I would like to ask this question too, but even harder and mean like.

Why does the money given to Government always dissappear?

David Grouchy

Because they don't enter it back into the economy. They use it to grow larger. They use it to perpetuate itself.
(please forgive 1st person singular/plural usage. . . )

reply to post by Cuervo

My friend, I have more respect for people that are honest, than to people who dress themselves in colours they don't feel. If you are a socialist, then we may disagree. But we will do so honorably.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
I would like to ask this question too, but even harder and mean like.

Why does the money given to Government always dissappear?

David Grouchy

Because they don't enter it back into the economy. They use it to grow larger. They use it to perpetuate itself.
(please forgive 1st person singular/plural usage. . . )

Money given to the Government doesn't go back into the economy?

But giving tax breaks to the rich creates jobs right?

reply to post by Jezus

Who provides more jobs?

The private sector?
or
The government?

Will wait for your response, and take stars away from a thread that discovered a cure for male pattern baldness.
You can have them.

reply to post by beezzer


The distinction is an illusion.

Right now taxing "the rich" more and spending it through "the government" will create more jobs.

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by beezzer

 

The distinction is an illusion.

Right now taxing "the rich" more and spending it through "the government" will create more jobs.

A progressive talking point. Explain!

Or else I will remove a star from a thread aboiut kittens and unicorns.

They can have my flags and my stars and my way cool silver banner when they pry them from my COLD DEAD FINGERS!!!


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e3ad2cc1a91f.gif[/atsimg]


Anyway, I tend to be pretty liberal with my distribution of stars and flags, flinging them out to anyone who provides even a tiny little bit of entertainment in my dull life. Heck, I even make it a point to flag every intro thread I see to get the newbies started.

The way I see it, I've already done my part.

reply to post by beezzer

Who creates jobs, the private sector or the corporate sector (which are not the same thing, btw)?

The private sector is the job-creator, while the corporate sector is the job-destroyer. Every time a corporation buys out a private firm, jobs are destroyed, and not replaced.

Corporations are about creating more profits for fewer people through downsizing and outsourcing, i.e., fewer jobs. The private sector is about creating wealth for more people through increased employment.

To answer the question as you've framed it, though, the proper answer is the government. The government creates far more jobs than the corporate world ever has.

reply to post by FortAnthem

Thanks to your post, I almost spewed some 12 year old scotch all over my computer.

I will star you but take it away from a thread that discussed slapping tiny squirrels with spatulas.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by beezzer

 

Who creates jobs, the private sector or the corporate sector (which are not the same thing, btw)?

The private sector is the job-creator, while the corporate sector is the job-destroyer. Every time a corporation buys out a private firm, jobs are destroyed, and not replaced.

Corporations are about creating more profits for fewer people through downsizing and outsourcing, i.e., fewer jobs. The private sector is about creating wealth for more people through increased employment.

To answer the question as you've framed it, though, the proper answer is the government. The government creates far more jobs than the corporate world ever has.

Prove it or a planet Nirubu thread loses seven flags.

reply to post by beezzer


Prove it?

Open your eyes.

Should I prove also that breathing is required for good health?

Show me how many net jobs the corporate sector has provided in the US over the past ten years...by my count they are in negative territory.

You prove your assertion.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by beezzer

 

Prove it?

Open your eyes.

Should I prove also that breathing is required for good health?

Show me how many net jobs the corporate sector has provided in the US over the past ten years...by my count they are in negative territory.

You prove your assertion.

So you can't prove it. Okay. (Google disappointed you ?)
Progressive tactic 101
Change the narritive
Divert the topic

How many points and stars and flags are YOU willing to give up?

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by beezzer

 

Who creates jobs, the private sector or the corporate sector (which are not the same thing, btw)?

The private sector is the job-creator, while the corporate sector is the job-destroyer. Every time a corporation buys out a private firm, jobs are destroyed, and not replaced.

Corporations are about creating more profits for fewer people through downsizing and outsourcing, i.e., fewer jobs. The private sector is about creating wealth for more people through increased employment.

To answer the question as you've framed it, though, the proper answer is the government. The government creates far more jobs than the corporate world ever has.

GAAAAAH! And who pays the salaries an benefits of these Govtcreated "jobs"? Tax payers maybe? Government jobs don't produce any income! they don't support themselves.

If I go back to work in the motorcycle service dept, my shop owner can bill my time and skills to a customer. Oout of that"profit enter" my wages and taxes are taken . the goobermint takes money from me; you and beezer and gives It to some bureaucrat.

Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by beezzer

 

Can I just ask for my stars and flags? Or do I have to fill out large quantities of bureaucratic paper work to see if a qualify? Can I only make a certain amount of posts a day if I get accepted to the S&F welfare program?

This is confusing I'm just going to earn my S&F's the good old fashion way.


P.S.

I don't approve of socialist programs that can be exploited by the lazy. But I approve of the ones which give opportunity's to the economically disadvantaged, or those who do not have an education who wish to have one. We must seek middle ground, If we do our country will prosper...right now there are to many extremes.

I don't think you will have any problem earning them the "old fashion" way! I agree with your P.S.

reply to post by beezzer



I'll happy do it! I was concerned about getting enough so that I can post threads, once I have that necessary minimum, I have no reason to cling to the excess. I'll give that excess to others, no problem. Maybe some of them will then have the opportunity to start posting their own threads. I don't especially care if they are long and well researched articles- sometimes just a dumb question can provide an ooportunity for people who have more info to reply and share their articles! It would make for less of a separation between "those who post" and "those who only reply", but I do'nt necessarily see that as bad. Having less separation of classes and a bigger middle class can be quite nice. At least it is in the country I live in, which the unedcuated and ignorant americans love to call a "socialist" country.