[subego]

Well, if you're not going to use it anymore, can I have your gravy boat?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, if you're not going to use it anymore, can I have your gravy boat?

Only if you're going to use it strictly for gravy and NOTHING ELSE! It's sensitive

[besson3c]

Can I paint in your gravy boat?

[subego]

Since when did you ask first?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

Since when did you ask first?

I thought it would be polite. Are you inferring that I need not ask when it comes to your stuff?

[subego]

It's going to have to be a balance between politeness and getting the hot, gravy boat action you're looking for.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

As opposed to the lean government that Bush ran?

I'm not sure you can say "as opposed to" with regard to our current setup, more like "when compared to".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Again, not the tool's fault.

Okay... IMO socialism is a shitty tool for governing human kind. I take it you disagree.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay... IMO socialism is a shitty tool for governing human kind. I take it you disagree.

This is like saying a drill is a shitty tool to build a house.

You are correct, but it's not like you want to build a house without one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is like saying a drill is a shitty tool to build a house.

You are correct, but it's not like you want to build a house without one.

Exactly, I'm not sure why so few people seem to see it this way.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is like saying a drill is a shitty tool to build a house.

You are correct, but it's not like you want to build a house without one.

So you don't want to build a government without using some Socialism? Yikes.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you don't want to build a government without using some Socialism? Yikes.

What economic system would you suggest to fund, say, national defense?

I'm open to alternatives.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is like saying a drill is a shitty tool to build a house.

No, it's like saying a drill is a shitty tool to make cup cakes. It's a true statement.

-t

[subego]

Feel free to answer the question I posed to Big Mac.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, it's like saying a drill is a shitty tool to make cup cakes. It's a true statement.

-t

1) I didn't challenge the veracity of ebuddy's statement, my claim is it misses the point.

2) Hand mixers make for better cupcakes.

[Waragainstsleep]

A good drill with the right attachment is perfectly adequate for use as a mixer.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

A good drill with the right attachment is perfectly adequate for use as a mixer.

Adequate != right tool.

-t

[besson3c]

Reminds me of Johnny 5 mixing stuff.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Adequate != right tool.

-t

Again, what is the right tool to finance national defense?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Adequate != right tool.

-t

True enough, but try using a hand mixer to drill a hole in a brick wall.

Versatility can also make for the right tool.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Again, what is the right tool to finance national defense?

Spend 50% less and close all overseas bases. There. Fixed it for you.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Spend 50% less and close all overseas bases. There. Fixed it for you.

-t

And the remaining money should be put into private business to wage wars?

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Spend 50% less and close all overseas bases. There. Fixed it for you.

-t

And the other 50% would be financed by what?

Why is this such a difficult question for you to answer?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

And the other 50% would be financed by what?

Why is this such a difficult question for you to answer?

LOWER taxes than today.

Have I ever said I completely opposed to taxes ?

Really, subego, you're slipping as of recently.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by subego 

What economic system would you suggest to fund, say, national defense?

I'm open to alternatives.

Providing for the common defense of a country is not Socialism.

[turtle777]

He doesn't get it.

-t

[besson3c]

So, the principal of the government providing services rather than the private sector is not socialism when it comes to national defense, but it is socialism when it comes to, say, health care? Except for Medicare (given that conservatives haven't been yammering on about socialism under past governments for as long as Medicare/Medicaid has existed).

This is why it is so hard to pay attention to conservatives squawking about this stuff. There is sort of a point in there, but it is hard to get to it with such nonsense emotionally sort of language used as inaccurately and nonsensically as it is. It makes my brain hurt it is so idiotic.

National defense, health care, roads, schools, etc. administered by the government is not socialism. Socialism is when you take the earnings of people and redistribute them in order to allow the government to run a society based on their sense of equality. A government providing health care is not socialism, it is a government providing a service because people genuinely need health care and this is seen as the most effective and efficient way to do so (where this is so). You can vote to disband this.

America is not Socialist, nor has it ever been. Conservatives going on and on about socialism are just appealing to emotions and fears, and they should be called out for being morons.

What sort of makes sense is the *heading* towards socialism argument, but few people are this non-hyperbolic with their rhetoric. America is so laughably far away from socialism that socialism doesn't belong in most sentences when talking about America, unless you want to consider pretty much every other nation on the earth socialist.

America does the free market thing well. So well, in fact, that we really haven't figured out what to do when a corporation benefits from the free market so much that we have to ask "okay, now what" once they have grown so large and powerful that problems arise (see: banks, auto industry, Microsoft when it was abusing its monopoly power, etc). You can't be dealing with these problems yet simultaneously be talking about how we live in a socialist society or anything remotely resembling or approaching socialism. It just doesn't make any sense.

[turtle777]

No, it's much easier than that.

If the government programs are specifically designed to benefit one group, at the expense of another, chances are, it's Socialism.

National defense benefits EVERYONE.
A universal catastrophic health insurance would benefit everyone.

Providing cheap mortgages through government sponsored entities, paid for by EVERY taxpayer, benefits only homeowners, at the expense of everyone. SOCIALISM.

And if there is any doubt whether it benefits everyone or not, then rather leave it be. THAT'S how you control spending.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, it's much easier than that.

If the government programs are specifically designed to benefit one group, at the expense of another, chances are, it's Socialism.

That's not the accepted definition of socialism (although mine wasn't either). Public schools don't benefit me directly since I'm out of school and don't have kids.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

[hyteckit]

National defense benefits EVERYONE.
National healthcare benefits EVERYONE.
Public roads benefits EVERYONE.
Public schools benefits EVERYONE.

So socialism is good.

[aristotles]

All forms of "state" socialism are evil including corporate welfare.

Companies should rise or fall on their own merit within their own local market. They should not receive any money from the state and they should pay a fair tax rate since their benefit from the shared infrastructure that they state provides.

Personal charity, on the other hand, is a laudable thing. We should be willing to help our fellow man however we can outside of the confines of the "state" as an act of "free will".

I find it hilarious when I end up arguing with people who also claim to support capitalism and yet they defend stupid things like subsidies for companies. They even go as far as to suggest that tariffs are bad but subsidies are good and that tariffs are "reverse subsidies". What? Subsidies involve paying local industry using tax payer money whereas tariffs are charged on "foreign" imports to protect local industry from countries which use subsidies to create an unfair advantage. It also protects local workers from having to compete with slave level wages and/or nationalized companies and industries.

A tariff is a form of "tax" and as such, provides a potential source of "revenue" for the government whereas a subsidy is a "handout" which is a "cost" for the government.

I see tariffs as another way of protecting the sovereignty of a nation and the border from foreign powers and influence. It is the duty of the government to defend taxpayers and if local companies paid their fair share of tax then they should be protected by their government.

In capitalism, there is no requirement for a society to have "free trade" with other nations. You can have freedom "within" the countries and protectionism in international trade.

hyteckit, I think you are confused. None of that is "socialism". Socialism concerns state control of the internal "economy" of a nation state. All national governments provide basic services for their nation.

[hyteckit]

National defense scares CONSERVATIVES. Need guns to defense against government tyranny!
National healthcare scares CONSERVATIVES. Death panels!
Public roads scares CONSERVATIVES. Damn socialists telling me I can't drive big gas guzzling trucks and drive fast!
Public schools scares CONSERVATIVES. Damn socialists liberals brainwashing kids!

CONSERVATIVES stick to their God, Guns, and Gold.

Problem isn't socialism. Problem is that CONSERVATIVES are paranoid and fearful people.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Okay... IMO socialism is a shitty tool for governing human kind. I take it you disagree.

Or conservatives fear that socialism is a pink color tool that might turn them gay.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, it's much easier than that.

If the government programs are specifically designed to benefit one group, at the expense of another, chances are, it's Socialism.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's not the accepted definition of socialism

Both these definitions have way too much baggage.

The part about Socialism which matters is it's a planned economy, just like the part which matters about Capitalism is it's a market economy.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yes because it's so logical that national defense would be handled by private industry.

Don't you libs ever get tired of coming up with the same tired old non-arguments?

Nations always have militaries and nations always reserve the power to defend themselves and project power though force- they have since the dawn of time, and it's something that would NEVER, EVER be handled via private industry.

Claiming something that's been a natural function of government since the dawn of time= socialism just shows that the person making such a dumb claim is incapable of mounting an actual argument.

Now of course we know this automatically about the forum-gnat, but really, some of the rest of you could do better.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

All forms of "state" socialism are evil including corporate welfare.

State socialism is also quite scarce around the world. I'm not sure why corporate welfare is included here though, it's a separate thing. The goal of corporate welfare isn't to redistribute wealth to the entire population, directly at least, but to finance a subset of the population. I guess you could argue that it finances the entire population indirectly though, in some cases.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Problem isn't socialism. Problem is that CONSERVATIVES are paranoid and fearful people.

And very ideologically narrow. Some liberals are paranoid and fearful, but I think the powers influencing conservatives at least this election cycle have really focused on appealing to emotions such as paranoia and fear far more than any other emotionally manipulative tactics I've ever seen, and it seems to have been working.

I don't know if this is unique to this election cycle though? Were you around for the campaigns against Clinton? Was he as scary as we are supposed to be with Obama? Bush was made to be scary, but 52% of the opposing voting population in states like Mississippi didn't think absolutely crazy things like he was Muslim.

Conservative talking heads/politicians really need to demonstrate that they aren't a bunch of emotionally wrought semi-insane half wits if they are going to appeal to moderate and independent voters, me thinks.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Providing for the common defense of a country is not Socialism.

If it's using taxpayers' money to provide for the 'common' good, it is socialism.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yes because it's so logical that national defense would be handled by private industry.

Don't you libs ever get tired of coming up with the same tired old non-arguments?

Nations always have militaries and nations always reserve the power to defend themselves and project power though force- they have since the dawn of time, and it's something that would NEVER, EVER be handled via private industry.

Claiming something that's been a natural function of government since the dawn of time= socialism just shows that the person making such a dumb claim is incapable of mounting an actual argument.

Now of course we know this automatically about the forum-gnat, but really, some of the rest of you could do better.

Haha...

Socialism == Taxpayer's money paying for a common good/service


Conservative logic:

Socialism is bad.
National defense run by government and paid by taxpayers is a good idea.
Thus it is not socialism.

Circular logic.

[ebuddy]

You cannot cite one example of a socialist model within a much broader system and claim the entire economic system of a country is socialist. The fact that folks can avail themselves of the definition and still remain in the dark just highlights the impossibility of agreement between two people.

When conservatives decry socialism, they're decrying the momentum toward greater, centralized control of assets and the means of production within the broader system. i.e. the broader system that governs the country is either moving toward socialism or it is not. The time to decry socialism is not when it has become the more pervasive economic model governing the broader system any more than advocating a single-payer option is important only after most are without health care. Military growth can contribute to this momentum yes and conservatives would do well to be wary of growth in this sector within the broader system as well. And often are BTW, if you've been listening to them.

For those who insist the military is a socialist model;
- is this the housing you want?
- is this the health care that you want?
- is this the pay that you want?
- is this the occupation you've always wanted?
- are these the rights you've always wanted?

If yes, enjoy your socialist model.

Like I said, socialism is a shitty tool for governing human kind. It might be the way to manage people you'd rather just do what they're told though, particularly when it comes to killing people and blowing things up.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by gradient 

I've never understood why so many westerners, especially North Americans and most often (it seems) Americans, treat the ideals of socialism like it's one of the worlds great evils. Not only is it derided commonly but when the word is spoken and read by many, the word itself is meant to imply a level of unacceptability that continually astounds me.

Why is this? I'm genuinely interested. It might be difficult but my intention here is definitely not to start an argument over whether socialism is good or bad or to start the usual partisan pillow fight. I just to get to the heart of why it is perceived as bad by so many people.

Does it do anyone harm?
Does it stop anyone from enjoying life and living their lives to the fullest?

I don't think that it does either of these things.

Can it not healthily coexist with democracy?
Can it not healthily coexist with capitalist ideals?

I do think that it can do both of these things.

Anyone care to weigh in?

My stances on it is a middle ground stance. Pure socialism is no good. Just as pure capitalism is no good. Either at the extreme is bad for different reasons. I believe in a healthy mix of both. For large massive things that benefit every one, which can be considered a public resource like bridges, ferries, water works, roads, healthcare, fire and police protection those should be under a socialism model of tax paid public owned non profit entities. When it comes to private business of goods and services that are mostly a luxury the free market and capitalism should rule.

You can easily see the failures of both though when used in the extreme. Soviet Union under the socialism model for economics was a absolute failure. Socialism in China with a capitalistic market that isnt yet a free market is thriving in some areas and has lots more potential. Then you can look at the US where capitalism is proving to be a social failure in the extreme and while has not happened yet has the potential to ruin the country if left unchecked as it gains more and more absolute free market power. You can look at Canada as a healthy mix of Socialism and Capitalism free market. Overall Canadian Middle class has it much better then American middle class. Canadian Poor absolutely have it better then American poor. American wealthy have it much better then Canadian wealthy.

I think a healthy amount of socialism helps keep things middle ground, while full capitalism leads to Poor and Rich, have and have not's. Those that support full socialism are blind to the problems of socialism for productivity and sustainability. Those that are in full support of capitalism are blind to the inequalities it creates. Both socialism and capitalism are ideological views where a practical view takes both into consideration.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When conservatives decry socialism, they're decrying the momentum toward greater, centralized control of assets and the means of production within the broader system. i.e. the broader system that governs the country is either moving toward socialism or it is not.

Then why don't they can the stupid hyperbolic Glenn Beck-esque hysterics and just say this?

Maybe the same reason why Obama is apparently a secret socialist elitist Muslim not born in this country? I.e. there are a lot of vocal loons given a platform? For ****'s sake, there are *still* people questioning Obama's birth certificate.

ebuddy, it would make me happy for a sane person like yourself to acknowledge the perception that a lot of people seem to have that a sizable population of the right has gone too far with these emotional hysterics. Jeb Bush seems to agree with me. I'm not saying that there aren't left wing hysterics, but the right wing hysterics have gotten a lot more attention.

It makes it a lot harder to take conservative voices seriously when this smells like just an extension of the Jeramiah Wright, flag pin, etc. hysterics that existed before Obama's first day in office.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When conservatives decry socialism, they're decrying the momentum toward greater, centralized control of assets and the means of production within the broader system.

Which, BTW, is why I'd place the military under that banner. The assets are centrally controlled, as is the means of production.

The most important attribute of the military in regards to this discussion is it's a planned economy, and one will note the military suffers from exactly the same problems other planned economies suffer from.

One can also note that these are the exact same problems people have with Socialism, because when it comes right down to it, the problems with Socialism are due to it being reliant on a planned economy. Massive waste, huge bureaucracy, lack of financial incentive, etc.

We can say it isn't Socialism, but it sure walks and talks like it.

[Athens]

so in your perfect world, Fire departments would compete against each other for business, police departments would compete against each other for business, what is considered public schools now would compete for business. And of course lower costs of doing business by cutting corners every where it could, 40-50 students per class room, reduced heat in the halls, user fees for all and every kind of supply used, infraction tickets, lower paid teachers. And of course because its profit driven charge for each student and at a rate higher then it was as a public system because profit is now a requirement. Sounds wonderful for a private company that makes the money from it and awful for every one else involved. Sticker shock will be the new association with 911 calls. Call the cops and get a $300 bill...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

so in your perfect world...

I know I've scored when I start getting it from both sides.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

The most important attribute of the military in regards to this discussion is it's a planned economy, and one will note the military suffers from exactly the same problems other planned economies suffer from.

In light of that, one could say that socialism should be avoided wherever possible, and there are certain niche roles (like police, fire, military, roads, etc already listed in this thread) in which it's not possible to avoid. However these functions were implemented long ago (everywhere), and in modern times there is no reason you'd want to transition something TO socialism from something else, because by definition socialism is not "unavoidable" in that circumstance.

Now I don't argue for or against this, I'm just a bystander, but I am interested how would you argue that this is inaccurate, without contradicting what you said already?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In light of that, one could say that socialism should be avoided wherever possible, and there are certain niche roles (like police, fire, military, roads, etc already listed in this thread) in which it's not possible to avoid. However these functions were implemented long ago (everywhere), and in modern times there is no reason you'd want to transition something TO socialism from something else, because by definition socialism is not "unavoidable" in that circumstance.

Now I don't argue for or against this, I'm just a bystander, but I am interested how would you argue that this is inaccurate, without contradicting what you said already?

If I understand your question properly, I don't have an issue transitioning something to Socialism if it's a better alternative.

Philosophically, I'd say it's never a better alternative, but philosophy tends to break down somewhat once the rubber meets the road.

[subego]

As an addendum, I should point out that even if I think a particular problem would benefit from a Socialistic solution, as someone with a general philosophical opposition to Socialism, I'm going to come up with a much different policy than someone who philosophically agrees with Socialism.

To put it another way, where someone places on the left-right spectrum is less important than how the person gets there.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In light of that, one could say that socialism should be avoided wherever possible

As long as you don't have to squint your eyes and resort to a lot of wishful thinking to fail in this criteria. For instance, a lot of people seem to think that disbanding public education would be fine because it is possible to replace it with private education. This might be possible, but a good idea?

I would say that the criteria has more to do with keeping from bashing square pegs into round holes, and being open minded to practicalities rather than rigid ideology.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As long as you don't have to squint your eyes and resort to a lot of wishful thinking to fail in this criteria. For instance, a lot of people seem to think that disbanding public education would be fine because it is possible to replace it with private education. This might be possible, but a good idea?

I think it could be. It would have to suck pretty hard for it to be worse than what we have now.