• Stop calling OBAMA a communist
    628 replies, posted
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084016']My problem is that although it doesn't initially, it leads to that as eventually the government has to get too involved with people's lives, has to increase taxes, etc, because of an over-all lack of money once less people work on their own. Socialism works in theory, just not in real life.[/QUOTE] Socialism works wonderfully. Just don't overdo it like Russia did. It's what we call being to far-left or "extreme socialism". But being far-right is just as bad. There's a reason why there were so many uninsured people while under the post-Bush Government. [QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084082']The thing that scares me is that this is what it looks like may be happening...[/QUOTE] Which is why every socialistic country is maybe 65-70% socialistic and the rest as capitalistic.
[QUOTE=StukovCA;17083921]Compromising good and evil only leads evil to win. Claiming that a virtue, such as production is a man's most ultimate vice is the true definition of immorality. Allowing leaches to lead the most productive of our society essentially to the sacrificial alter is immorality in it's work. When the most productive of our society are finally sacrificed, we can happily return to the dark ages of mysticism. If you think money is the root of all evil, then what is the root of money? The symbol of the productivity of man's mind and reason.[/QUOTE] When did I ever say money is the root of all evil? Look, all I'm saying is that as it is, in the USA, you're going to be shelling out tons of hard-earned cash if you have an accident and no insurance.
[QUOTE=Jet-fly;17084121]Socialism works wonderfully. Just don't overdo it like Russia did. It's what we call being to far-left or "extreme socialism". But being far-right is just as bad. There's a reason why there were so many uninsured people while under the post-Bush Government.[/QUOTE] I agree that being far right is bad to, but socialism almost always "evolves" into an extreme thing. It starts out good, but, like I said, it gets worse and worse as less people have the will to work. This stuff seriously scares me :frown: Socialism is a corrosive thing. It eats away at the countries that use it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17083723]All economies go up and down. It's the natural business cycle. You can't claim that the free market has failed us, when all economies drop and rise.[/QUOTE] When it drops, what has always brought it out? Socialism. [editline]05:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=StukovCA;17083753]"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine" Ayn Rand[/QUOTE] Ayn rand also loved rape.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084140']I agree that being far right is bad to, but socialism almost always "evolves" into an extreme thing. It starts out good, but, like I said, it gets worse and worse as less people have the will to work. This stuff seriously scares me :frown:[/QUOTE] I see your concern. Belgium has problems with overly socialist politicians, but that's only because Belgium has been extreme left since pretty much it became independent. The world would be a better place if politics weren't just a game of whoever has the most money. I say we should make people duel to the death to prove who's right and who's not. :v:
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084151]When it drops, what has always brought it out? Socialism.[/QUOTE] The US federal government seems to have thought up some wierd belief that they're destined to "save us" from bad economic times. Also, capitalism saved Russia after its soviet years.
Here is why he called a communist. Every time a drunk would walk in the er who pays for it? Us Every time a diabetic binges on ice cream and is brought to the er US. That's MedIcare yeah that's real fair.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084100']People didn't take the time to look into him. They just trusted what the media fed to them. People are already beginning to regret him, his approval ratings are slowly going down.[/QUOTE] It works both ways.
[QUOTE=Jet-fly;17084121]... Which is why every socialistic country is maybe 65-70% socialistic and the rest as capitalistic.[/QUOTE] I don't get why people can't understand that, you can have a mix. We've got government provided health care [b]and[/b] privately funded health care, they co-exist with each other fine. I was talking to a guy a few weeks ago that assumed in that situation every private insurance company would collapse, yet we've been doing it fine for decades and so have other countries.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;17084193]Here is why he called a communist. Every time a drunk would walk in the er who pays for it? Us Every time a diabetic binges on ice cream and is brought to the er US. That's MedIcare yeah that's real fair.[/QUOTE] That's one stupid post you got there. [editline]05:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17084192]The US federal government seems to have thought up some wierd belief that they're destined to "save us" from bad economic times.[/QUOTE] Because every American works together to fix an economy instead of the government, right? Regardless if you think they should or not, they have.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084203]It works both ways.[/QUOTE] It definitely does..... thats why i just watch a little bit of everything :v:
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084140']I agree that being far right is bad to, but socialism almost always "evolves" into an extreme thing. It starts out good, but, like I said, it gets worse and worse as less people have the will to work. This stuff seriously scares me :frown: Socialism is a corrosive thing. It eats away at the countries that use it.[/QUOTE] Not really.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084214]That's one stupid post you got there. [editline]05:08PM[/editline] Because every American works together to fix an economy instead of the government, right? Regardless if you think they should or not, they have.[/QUOTE] Russia is doing better now with its capitalism than it did thirty years ago in its socialism. Also, China is moving toward capitalism as well. I wonder why...
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084214]That's one stupid post you got there. [editline]05:08PM[/editline] Because every American works together to fix an economy instead of the government, right? Regardless if you think they should or not, they have.[/QUOTE] Thanks friend :downs: It's not just Republicans some demos Don't like him you don't drop 33% in approval rating in 6 months w have not had a good prez for 30 years
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084245]Not really.[/QUOTE] How doesn't it? It only works if the majority of poor people put a large effort into, and succeed in getting a job, and all the "rich" people persist in working. Although i'd like it to work this way, and if it did i'd love socialism, people just aren't that decent. [editline]12:13PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Zambies!;17084262]Thanks friend :downs: It's not just Republicans some demos Don't like him you don't drop 33% in approval rating in 6 months w have not had a good prez for 30 years[/QUOTE] Why? If you're going to post in something like this learn some English please.
This welfare thing is bull. Only the select few use it right. Hey kids want dinner. "YAY" No not really I just spent my welfare and myself you on your own.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;17084262]Thanks friend :downs: It's not just Republicans some demos Don't like him you don't drop 33% in approval rating in 6 months w have not had a good prez for 30 years[/QUOTE] And what was the last good 'prez'? So what? Same thing happened to Teddy Roosevelt. [editline]05:15PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17084259]Russia is doing better now with its capitalism than it did thirty years ago in its socialism. Also, China is moving toward capitalism as well. I wonder why...[/QUOTE] Russia and China were never communist or socialist. Russia is actually now more socialist then it was the last 80 or so years
[QUOTE=Zambies!;17084262]Thanks friend :downs: It's not just Republicans some demos Don't like him you don't drop 33% in approval rating in 6 months w have not had a good prez for 30 years[/QUOTE] you're a bad poster. i can't understand anything you write
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084303]And what was the last good 'prez'? So what? Same thing happened to Teddy Roosevelt. [editline]05:15PM[/editline] Russia and China were never communist or socialist. Russia is actually now more socialist then it was the last 80 or so years[/QUOTE] Ummmm.... russia, maybe, but china?? It was at least communist, if not a full-on dictatorship.
I saw this image on digg the other day and thought it was rather appropriate [IMG]http://i28.tinypic.com/14viqz5.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084303]And what was the last good 'prez'? So what? Same thing happened to Teddy Roosevelt. [editline]05:15PM[/editline] Russia and China were never communist or socialist. Russia is actually now more socialist then it was the last 80 or so years[/QUOTE] Russia was not socialist? "Union of Soviet [b]Socialist[/b] Republics"?
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084278']How doesn't it? It only works if the majority of poor people put a large effort into, and succeed in getting a job, and all the "rich" people persist in working. Although i'd like it to work this way, and if it did i'd love socialism, people just aren't that decent. Why? If you're going to post in something like this learn some English please.[/QUOTE] Half of that made some sense, the other: you lost me. Follow your own advice. [editline]05:17PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17084334]Russia was not socialist? "Union of Soviet [b]Socialist[/b] Republics"?[/QUOTE] Same way the "democratic republic of the congo" was not a democratic republic. [editline]05:18PM[/editline] [QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084329']Ummmm.... russia, maybe, but china?? It was at least communist, if not a full-on dictatorship.[/QUOTE] Dictatorship is a polar opposite of Communism. As was China and Russia.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084336]Half of that made some sense, the other: you lost me. Follow your own advice.[/QUOTE] :sigh: By that i meant that socialism only works if all the poor people try to get jobs and all the people who work keep working. Most of the poor people in America have no desire to work, and most of the working people are loosing so much money that they become poor.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084357']:sigh: By that i meant that socialism only works if all the poor people try to get jobs and all the people who work keep working.[/QUOTE] k... Guess so. You do realize most unemployment rates of European countries is averaged around 6, right? I hardly think the poor people make up 6% of a country.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17084390]k... Guess so. You do realize most unemployment rates of European countries is averaged around 6, right? I hardly think the poor people make up 6% of a country.[/QUOTE] I'm talking primarily about America, and with an unemployment rate of almost [highlight]10%[/highlight] (9.7%, gotta love that google tab), in a country of millions, that's a lot of people.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17083755']No. Socialism fails. Here is why: A large portion of socialism revolves around taking money from people with greater income and giving it to those with less. Why is this bad? As the people who make money begin to realize they can still make money without working, they begin to stop working themselves, and collect that which is given out to them. As time goes on, less and less people actually work, until eventually, almost nobody does. When this happens, [highlight]there is no more money to give out.[/highlight] Now everybody is hopelessly poor, the government is practically bankrupt, and, now, to keep the country from falling apart, they have to force people to work, and heavily tax the little bit which you make. (essentially communism in its early stages, although i'm not calling Obama a communist) So, [highlight]Socialism FAILS.[/highlight][/QUOTE] The biggest flaw with this argument is that the people who do work will obviously be making a lot more money than the people on benefits. If they did choose to stop working and live off benefits their quality of live would dramatically decrease. Therefore no one would actually chose to stop work because they would end up with nothing but the bare essentials. As well as that fact there are the people who like doing their job, those who are proud of having a job in the first place and people who need a daily routine in thier lives to keep them occupied. The people who actually can work but don't are a very small minority.
[QUOTE=theenemy;17084444]The biggest flaw with this argument is that the people who do work will obviously be making a lot more money than the people on benefits. If they did choose to stop working and live off benefits their quality of live would dramatically decrease. Therefore no one would actually chose to stop work because they would end up with nothing but the bare essentials. As well as that fact there are the people who like doing their job, those who are proud of having a job in the first place and people who need a daily routine in thier lives to keep them occupied. The people who actually can work but don't are a very small minority.[/QUOTE] Well, that's not entirely true. The people on welfare often don't have to pay taxes. Although working people would get some loss, many people would rather just sit on their buts, not having to pay taxes, collecting checks. Now, few people will initially do this. But the more people that do this, the more the people who are still working have to pay, until eventually, going on welfare would benefit them. At that point the rate of unemployment increases, people are paying more, the government steps in, and BOOM, communism, and the government is bankrupt.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084489']Well, that's not entirely true. The people on welfare often don't have to pay taxes. Although working people would get some loss, many people would rather just sit on their buts, not having to pay taxes, collecting checks. Now, few people will initially do this. But the more people that do this, the more the people still working have to pay, until eventually going on welfare would benefit them. At that point the rate of unemployment increases, people are paying more, the government steps in, and BOOM, communism, and the government is bankrupt.[/QUOTE] That could happen if the amount of people who didn't work by choice were a much larger part of the population than they are now. It would be good however if governments were more restricted on who receives welfare benefits. They could set a deadline for the person to get a job, after that times up the amount they get goes down etc until they find a job for them.
[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084418']I'm talking primarily about America, and with an unemployment rate of almost [highlight]10%[/highlight] (9.7%, gotta love that google tab), in a country of millions, that's a lot of people.[/QUOTE] Mostly caused by the recession. It was about 6% as well before it. To best that, it was 4% when Clinton left office. [editline]05:39PM[/editline] [QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17084489']Well, that's not entirely true. The people on welfare often don't have to pay taxes. Although working people would get some loss, many people would rather just sit on their buts, not having to pay taxes, collecting checks. Now, few people will initially do this. But the more people that do this, the more the people still working have to pay, until eventually going on welfare would benefit them. At that point the rate of unemployment increases, people are paying more, the government steps in, and BOOM, communism, and the government is bankrupt.[/QUOTE] what?
[QUOTE=theenemy;17084590]That could happen if the amount of people who didn't work by choice were a much larger part of the population than they are now. It would be good however if governments were more restricted on who receives welfare benefits. They could set a deadline for the person to get a job, after that times up the amount they get goes down etc until they find a job for them.[/QUOTE] Well, the problem is that the population of people not working by choice is growing rapidly. And, alot of people who lose work simply choose not to try to get another job.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.