06 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAs I have said, there is no oppurtunity for a political figure to carry out ONLY socialist policies in an economic system that is not purely socialist. However, it is possible to slowly change the system at hand by implementing socialist like policies. This is all that is being said here and by comparing "W" to other Presidents, he has by far gone that direction more often than others before him.
Only because your definition of "socialism" is delusional.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeySpending more is not a "socialist direction".
As I have said, there is no oppurtunity for a political figure to carry out ONLY socialist policies in an economic system that is not purely socialist. However, it is possible to slowly change the system at hand by implementing socialist like policies. This is all that is being said here and by comparing "W" to other Presidents, he has by far gone that direction more often than others before him.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey, I've been hearing the same BS about this social program or that social program going "broke" since I was in grammar school. I've heard the "country is going bankrupt" baloney for about the same amount of time. It's all hysterical nonsense. The sky ain't falling, Chicken Little.
The issue is not really about helping people. The issue is about fiscal responsibility. For example, people give money to charitable organizations accoridng to how they are able. However, would you expect someone to take out a loan to do so? Would you expect them to give if they can barely afford their living expenses or food expenses or maybe not meeting ...[text shortened]... ntitlement even though it may save a few dollars short term, it will cost us far more long term.
Your assertions are, as always, laughable.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserWhere does this money come from? From the economic system the society puts into place. If society insists on recapturing some of the money for use for social purposes from those that have benefited from the system society put in place, they have no legitimate gripe.
Socialism is spending other peoples money. Is that delusional?
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by no1marauderSo the social security system will continue on forever? Considering all politicians in this country, and everyone else but you, knows it is going to go broke, you must be having one hellaciously funny private joke going on in your head.
Whodey, I've been hearing the same BS about this social program or that social program going "broke" since I was in grammar school. I've heard the "country is going bankrupt" baloney for about the same amount of time. It's all hysterical nonsense. The sky ain't falling, Chicken Little.
Your assertions are, as always, laughable.
07 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by joe beyserWhatever, nitwit.
So the social security system will continue on forever? Considering all politicians in this country, and everyone else but you, knows it is going to go broke, you must be having one hellaciously funny private joke going on in your head.
How much would you care to wager that the social security system NEVER "goes broke"?
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWe will have a whole new system going by then. No bet. I have at times thought there was some scaremongering going on about it, but all ponzi schemes will end. You... You... um you dunce.
Whatever, nitwit.
How much would you care to wager that the social security system NEVER "goes broke"?
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyDo they want to privatise or nationalize?
Just like Obama and "W" were not socialists. LOL.
It just strikes me odd that you don't question whether "W" and Obama are capitalists. Do you really think they are "true" capitalists just like the USSR were not "true" socialists? My only contention is that Obama and comapny are leaning towards socialism. Whehter or not they fit your perfect definiti ...[text shortened]... tempted to take these economic paths successfully.
This is what I hear you saying.
Do they want to wager wars in third world countries or not?
Are they religious?
Are they diverting MORE power to the producing classes or diminishing the power of the producing classes (i.e. moving power from singular rich people to many workers)?
It would seem to me that by asking these four simple questions, you get a rough idea of whether a government is more capitalist or socialist.
As with the USSR, as with Bush, you will see that they are anything but communist.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe system won't go broke if and because they'll do something about it. If nothing's done, in 30 years, the social security trust fund will be depleted.
Whatever, nitwit.
How much would you care to wager that the social security system NEVER "goes broke"?
I have no problem with Obama's idea to have the payroll tax pick up again at $250,000 of income. I just hope they don't have to do that AND raise the age or lower the benefits.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by shavixmirIn your mind their are "true capitalists" that have failed but not "true communists". In your mind "true communism" has never succeeded because it has never been tried but I contend it is simply unattainable because it fly's in the face of human nature. This is because mankind cannot help but to seek power and secure power and then seek even more power. We see this time and time and time again no matter the form of government.
Do they want to privatise or nationalize?
Do they want to wager wars in third world countries or not?
Are they religious?
Are they diverting MORE power to the producing classes or diminishing the power of the producing classes (i.e. moving power from singular rich people to many workers)?
It would seem to me that by asking these four simple questions ...[text shortened]... socialist.
As with the USSR, as with Bush, you will see that they are anything but communist.