[besson3c]

I've come to realize that a vibrant economy is a healthy mix of both left-wing and right-wing economic approaches...


The idea of suffocating and starving off government programs until they rot and implode is both expensive and damaging to our society. The down trodden consume resources, and are an economic burden to our society - they are not contributing back to the economy. The right wing approach of just ignoring them, short changing education, and other social programs designed to level the playing field is damaging.

On the other hand, trying to level the playing field too much is also damaging. As much as I don't particularly like to shop at Walmart, Walmart's low prices are exactly what is needed to help bring the down trodden up so that they can join the ranks of the middle class and start contributing to the economy.

However, in order for Walmart to be able to sell stuff so cheaply, we need to rely heavily on China and other countries where these goods are produced, which takes money out of our economy. So, Walmart becoming so big that there is nothing else but Walmart is also damaging.

What is really needed is a healthy balance. I grow tried of people flinging around ideas like "left wing charity handouts". This is just another hot button term intended to manipulate which takes none of this into account. I hope that someday we wakeup and figure out the benefits to supporting the growth of the middle class, while at the same time don't go too far as to damage the growth of the businesses needed to help realize these goals.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The idea of suffocating and starving off government programs until they rot and implode is both expensive and damaging to our society.

What programs are suffocating or starving? Some real examples please.

The down trodden consume resources, and are an economic burden to our society - they are not contributing back to the economy. The right wing approach of just ignoring them, short changing education, and other social programs designed to level the playing field is damaging.

The "right wing" is often in favor of what the so-called downtrodden are in favor of themselves- an alternative to being forced into the same crappy, gang-ridden school systems that can't possibly educate anyone. It's a liberal myth that just tossing more money into such terrible systems will automatically fix them, and that competition from private schools is a terrible idea.

I grow tried of people flinging around ideas like "left wing charity handouts".

Sounds like you're just pissed off that in another thread someone pointed out that the facts show conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals tend to be. So rather than actually address that, you're now trying the (incredibly ridiculous) tact of trying to miscast the ideas of giving to charity vs. "just let the government do it".

[Railroader]

I wish welfare would be abolished completely and people would actually step up to the plate to help those in need instead of forcing the wealthy to unfairly carry the burden essentially at gunpoint*. But unfortunately the left has decided that forcing people to do things is better. "Land of the Free" - HA!



BTW: I work for a charity that helps those in need. Without a single cent of US Tax Payer Money. And about 99.99999% of revenue coming from evangelical right-wing Republicans.





*Gunpoint=jail sentence.

[BadKosh]

Perhaps starting back in the grade scools and NOT doing all that stupid social engineering (everyone is special etc) and actually demand the students work hard? Sometimes parents don't have a clue about raising and teaching kids (liberal or religious indoctrinations) so the schools SHOULD take the lead, not the unqualified parents. SECOND - get some better teachers, not just english majors who otherwise were unemployable. Actually teaching kids the skills and background required so they won't become welfare cases is better than trusting the slimebucket politicians to do it in an honest fashion. Maybe drop those "English as a second language" classes too.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I wish welfare would be abolished completely and people would actually step up to the plate to help those in need instead of forcing the wealthy to unfairly carry the burden essentially at gunpoint*.
*Gunpoint=jail sentence.

The irony here is that if welfare were abolished completely people in need would have to step up and force the wealthy to fairly carry their burden essentially at gunpoint*.
*Gunpoint = gunpoint.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Perhaps starting back in the grade scools and NOT doing all that stupid social engineering (everyone is special etc) and actually demand the students work hard? Sometimes parents don't have a clue about raising and teaching kids (liberal or religious indoctrinations) so the schools SHOULD take the lead, not the unqualified parents. SECOND - get some better teachers, not just english majors who otherwise were unemployable. Actually teaching kids the skills and background required so they won't become welfare cases is better than trusting the slimebucket politicians to do it in an honest fashion. Maybe drop those "English as a second language" classes too.

Teachers are not trained to be parents. If we are to expect this of teachers, we need to train them and pay them more. We are already expecting them to fulfill a growing number of roles (e.g. security, any number of counseling/psychologist type roles, adviser, careful handling of racial differences, etc.). Many are stretched thin as it is, and in some areas of short supply. I'm not sure this is fair to ask of them... If you want better teachers, maybe we need to find ways to make the teaching and learning environment more positive and productive? Certainly, burdening teachers with the responsibility of being parents to these kids is not a way to do this, as far as the teachers are concerned. What next, lawsuits for teachers that provide bad "parental" advice?

Like many Republicans, it sounds like your basic approach here is a basic "tough as nails" disciplinary thing? What do you do about students or kids that don't care about your authority? What do you do about all the kids that do, and are hard workers? How do you keep school a positive experience for them while at the same time locking everything down and providing no wiggle room?

[tie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Perhaps starting back in the grade scools and NOT doing all that stupid social engineering (everyone is special etc) and actually demand the students work hard? Sometimes parents don't have a clue about raising and teaching kids (liberal or religious indoctrinations) so the schools SHOULD take the lead, not the unqualified parents.

Totally agree. Also, professionals should take the lead, not politicians. When the politicians interfere, we end up with classes who don't understand basic principles of biology, like evolution, or physics, like the big bang, global warming. Politicians only listen to voters (the extreme religious types you mention) and campaign contributors (oil companies who don't care about the future).

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've come to realize that a vibrant economy is a healthy mix of both left-wing and right-wing economic approaches...

No. That's a recipe for an unqualified mess. They're incompatible.

One of them posits the job of government is to fix the inequities inherent in the economic approach, the other posits the government is the economic approach.

One of these ideas, while self-admittedly is not ideal, actually functions as advertised. The other admits no flaw and is terminally broken.


Edit: to put this a completely different way, there is no such thing as a "middle wing". Politics is origin dependent. Your philosophy must begin at one of the extremes because it's only at the extremes where politics exists as a philosophical ideal.

You have to pick sides whether you want to or not. Someone who is an absolute centrist starting from the right will be totally different from an absolute centrist starting from the left.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

No. That's a recipe for an unqualified mess. They're incompatible.

One of them posits the job of government is to fix the inequities inherent in the economic approach, the other posits the government is the economic approach.

One of these ideas, while self-admittedly is not ideal, actually functions as advertised. The other admits no flaw and is terminally broken.

Show me an economy that functions without a substantial government sector.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Show me an economy that functions without a substantial government sector.

I'm not quite sure I see what you're getting at, and would need some definitions of the subjective terms anyways.

You can just come right out with your point. I promise I won't bite.

[peeb]

My point is that there are no successful economies that do not have substantial public sectors. Any argument that an economy would be more successful were it not mixed is entirely speculative.

[Face Ache]

Compromise is never perfect but it's often tolerable.

[Chongo]

politics is the art of comprise

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

My point is that there are no successful economies that do not have substantial public sectors. Any argument that an economy would be more successful were it not mixed is entirely speculative.

It depends on what you've decided you're mixing and how you look at it.

Mixing socialism with anarcho-capitalism makes your statement unequivocally true. It also implies that any instrument of the state is by definition a left wing concept.

Mixing socialism with classical liberalism (or minarchism) makes your assertion far more hazy. At the very least you have to define where a right wing state institution stops and a left wing one begins. Even though your statement will likely remain true, this mix will have a totally different proportion of ingredients.

I think the former is easier to work with, but the latter provides more accurate analysis.

[peeb]

Well let me ask it this way, which economies in the world most closely approximate what you're proposing?

[subego]

What I'm proposing are the components used to define "mixed", or the plan I'm proposing our economy should follow?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by subego 

One of these ideas, while self-admittedly is not ideal, actually functions as advertised. The other admits no flaw and is terminally broken.

Show me an example of the one that functions as advertised in the real world.

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Show me an example of the one that functions as advertised in the real world.

This is a much easier one, they all do.

Capitalism advertises it's flaws. It explicitly needs certain conditions to work properly and has models for how things won't work if those conditions aren't met. It also shows there are conditions where even a perfectly competitive market doesn't serve society's best interest.

[peeb]

So, my original question was 'show me a country that has an economy that does not have a substantial socially owned / government sector'. My understanding was that you were taking issue with the claim that I made that there are no successful economies that are not mixed to a substantial degree. Far from being 'better' than socially owned economic activity, it is different, and no one has built a successful economy using only one type. Perhaps I am wrong though - I was asking you to show me a capitalist country that has no substantial socially owned / government sector

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Perhaps I am wrong though - I was asking you to show me a capitalist country that has no substantial socially owned / government sector

If we're on the same page about the meaning of "substantial", there isn't one.

But my point was that just because something is socially owned doesn't mean it's based on socialism. That was why I brought up the bit about mixing minarchism and socialism. With this mix, you have to determine if the program in question is minarchist or socialist.

My original statement was that you shouldn't mix philosophies. This doesn't mean there is no government sector, it means that your socialist programs are going to be incompatible with your minarchist programs. They're going to make a big mess as they slam into each other.

I will freely admit that there are times when that kind of mess is the only solution to the problem, however I think people are very mistaken that throwing these different philosophies together should be standard procedure.

I mean, that's what I was taught in school. Upon much reflection, the idea is barmy. It's like mixing oil and water.

[peeb]

Help me out and give me some examples of the difference between socially owned and socialist, would you?

[Chongo]

they are one in the same

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.

examples of socialized/nationalized industries (Many have been privatized)
Nationalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Help me out and give me some examples of the difference between socially owned and socialist, would you?

Off the top of my head? Roads and parks.

Defense is publicly owned, if not controlled.

[peeb]

So what are you saying, that the US does not have socialized roads, parks and defense? How are those things not being privately owned not socialist?

[subego]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So what are you saying, that the US does not have socialized roads, parks and defense? How are those things not being privately owned not socialist?

I hope you don't think I'm intentionally going in circles here, but it depends on how wide of a definition of socialism you are using.

If any government program is by definition socialist, then there you go, roads are socialist too. If that's not the definition you're using, then things are up in the air.

As I said in an earlier post, I absolutely think there's a difference between right wing programs (like roads) and a left wing programs (like welfare). I'll freely admit I don't have a bulletproof system to determine which is which, but the difference in attitude between them seems enormous, and one can often use this attitude as a determinate.

[peeb]

Yes, I think that social ownership is socialist - that's the very definition of socialism. You can't go around picking things that you like, socializing them, and pretending that is not socialism. What you are trying to do is define socialism as socialized things that don't work very well.
Why are roads 'right wing'? The US has many, many privately owned roads. Most people agree that a large network of socially owned roads is a good thing though. That's socialism working pretty well.

[Chongo]

parks and infrastructure are not "means of production"

[RAILhead]

The bottom line is that if I earn $10, I ought to keep every damn bit of it to spend how I want -- not have Big Brother take a portion and give it to someone else he (Big Brother) has decided needs it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

The bottom line is that if I earn $10, I ought to keep every damn bit of it to spend how I want -- not have Big Brother take a portion and give it to someone else he (Big Brother) has decided needs it.

What do you say to the idea that you earned that $10 with help from others in our society that have supported you and made this possible in the first place? We are a community that utilizes its collective resources, there is no denying that.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What do you say to the idea that you earned that $10 with help from others in our society that have supported you and made this possible in the first place? We are a community that utilizes its collective resources, there is no denying that.

I say it's hogwash, but more to the point, the next schmoe can do the same thing I did and get his/her own $10.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

The bottom line is that if I earn $10, I ought to keep every damn bit of it to spend how I want -- not have Big Brother take a portion and give it to someone else he (Big Brother) has decided needs it.

That's the beauty of the Fair Tax. If you make $10 an hour, you take home $400 (on a 40 hr ww), not $300 after all the taxes are taken from it, even less if you live in cities like New York where they have a city income tax.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I say it's hogwash, but more to the point, the next schmoe can do the same thing I did and get his/her own $10.

No it's not.

Could you earn that $10 if you had to gather your own food? Make your own clothes? Take care of your own shelter? Single-handedly provide your own transportation? Somebody has to work the sweat shops in order to provide for you, the question is who?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

parks and infrastructure are not "means of production"

How is infrastructure not an essential part of the means of production? Try producing anything without a transportation network!

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No it's not.

Could you earn that $10 if you had to gather your own food? Make your own clothes? Take care of your own shelter? Single-handedly provide your own transportation? Somebody has to work the sweat shops in order to provide for you, the question is who?

Yes it is. It's hogwash because we all have an opportunity to work all those jobs, be it the manager of a billion dollar company, or the guy/gal that puts brads on denim jeans. The manager should take every penny of his money home, whatever the amount -- and so should the assembly jockey.

My using my $10 to by goods is what provides for the employee via demand for his/her work. Because I want something, someone has to make it -- and that demand provides the need for a job, and they fill that spot -- just like I do at the company I work for.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

The manager should take every penny of his money home, whatever the amount -- and so should the assembly jockey.

So you favor the total elimination of income taxes? Great. Income taxes are far more progressive (when structured right) than most alternatives, so they're here to stay.

[RAILhead]

I favor elimination of any "income tax" that goes toward any government funded/run "social program."

When will people understand that hand-outs aren't the answer? The Libs have been lambasting the Big Government of Fat Republicans for ages, but guess who wants more government? The Dems and Libs. It's all about social programs and increasing how much Big Brother can get his fingers into the American populace. Couple that with 48 million illegals already looking for freebies, and there's no question as to why our country is going straight down the toilet.

For all of you ranting about how bad our government is and how much it sucks, you sure do want to give it a lot of control over your life.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

How is infrastructure not an essential part of the means of production? Try producing anything without a transportation network!

Capitalism’s Gravediggers - Unsupported Browser
The means of production is a term which is difficult to clearly define. However, the basic concept is easy to understand.

A simple definition: anything which through ownership generates ongoing income for the owner.

The means of production includes:

* Factories.
* Income-generating land and real estate.
* Transportation systems such as railways, trucking lines, commercial airlines, and shipping lines.
* Banks.
* Commercial enterprises.

Today roads could fall under means if production in the sense they are needed to move material to and from factories. I'm not sure Marx was talking about roads, but the vehicles themselves. (What money was spent to build the ocean?)

[peeb]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I favor elimination of any "income tax" that goes toward any government funded/run "social program."

When will people understand that hand-outs aren't the answer? The Libs have been lambasting the Big Government of Fat Republicans for ages, but guess who wants more government? The Dems and Libs. It's all about social programs and increasing how much Big Brother can get his fingers into the American populace. Couple that with 48 million illegals already looking for freebies, and there's no question as to why our country is going straight down the toilet.

For all of you ranting about how bad our government is and how much it sucks, you sure do want to give it a lot of control over your life.

This is pretty funny. The Republicans have presided over the biggest increase in government spending in history. Corporate welfare is at an all time high.

[Chongo]

Definition of Socialism: Intermediary phase between Marxism and Communism.
Definition of Socialism:

And old ideology involving "collectives" and collective control of power, and collective ownership of the means of production, favoring a strong sense of egalitarianism over individual rights, i.e., freedom.

(Note that when man achieves total equality with all other men, he has given up all rights, with the sole exception of one right: the right to be exactly the same as everyone else.)

With the advent of Marxism, the term Socialism was largely taken over to describe the "evolutionary" (but really, revolutionary) phase of society known as the "dictatorship of the Proletariat (worker class)" leading to eventual Communist Utopia.

Description of pure Socialism - the ideal that all Socialism is driving toward.

The ideal Socialist situation follows:

* The government should provide me with an education comparable to that of everyone else.
* The government should provide me with housing comparable to everyone else’s housing.
* The government should provide all of the food and other necessities of life and make them available in the market place.
* The government should provide me with a job, and provide payment for the job that is equitable and comparable to that of everyone else.
* The government should provide me with subsistence payments during periods of unemployment, and this pay should be comparable to working wages.
* The government should provide me with decent health care.
* The government should provide all the tools, factories, raw materials, farm implements, etc., which are necessary to sustain society.
* The government should provide me with a decent retirement income, comparable to that of everyone else.
* The government should provide me with all that I need, from the cradle to the grave.
* The government should take care of me and make me feel secure, and not let my world change.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Capitalism’s Gravediggers - Unsupported Browser
The means of production is a term which is difficult to clearly define. However, the basic concept is easy to understand.

A simple definition: anything which through ownership generates ongoing income for the owner.

The means of production includes:

* Factories.
* Income-generating land and real estate.
* Transportation systems such as railways, trucking lines, commercial airlines, and shipping lines.
* Banks.
* Commercial enterprises.

Today roads could fall under means if production in the sense they are needed to move material to and from factories. I'm not sure Marx was talking about roads, but the vehicles themselves.

It doesn't make much sense to break out cars and roads, they are one system.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

(What money was spent to build the ocean?)

Well, port construction.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is pretty funny. The Republicans have presided over the biggest increase in government spending in history. Corporate welfare is at an all time high.

And that has what to do with ALL the Dems talking about "College for Everyone," "$5000 Baby Bonds" and all the other government handouts that will be financed by punishing the wealthy for amassing their wealth?

Way to dodge, man.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Yes it is. It's hogwash because we all have an opportunity to work all those jobs, be it the manager of a billion dollar company, or the guy/gal that puts brads on denim jeans. The manager should take every penny of his money home, whatever the amount -- and so should the assembly jockey.

My using my $10 to by goods is what provides for the employee via demand for his/her work. Because I want something, someone has to make it -- and that demand provides the need for a job, and they fill that spot -- just like I do at the company I work for.

I agree that everybody has the opportunity to work these jobs, but my point is that *somebody* needs to work those lower jobs. Agreed?

If so, what sense is there in building a system that doesn't support the people working in these lower jobs so that they can continue to do so? If we increase their taxes too much, they'll go on welfare, putting strain on our economy. Increase them even more and they may be forced to turn to crime, or may die out. Then who will do those lower jobs for us?

The thing is, we need to keep these people alive and out of bankruptcy, They are a backbone of our society, and make your opportunities possible.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I favor elimination of any "income tax" that goes toward any government funded/run "social program."

When will people understand that hand-outs aren't the answer? The Libs have been lambasting the Big Government of Fat Republicans for ages, but guess who wants more government? The Dems and Libs. It's all about social programs and increasing how much Big Brother can get his fingers into the American populace. Couple that with 48 million illegals already looking for freebies, and there's no question as to why our country is going straight down the toilet.

For all of you ranting about how bad our government is and how much it sucks, you sure do want to give it a lot of control over your life.

I actually do not want government having over-reaching control over us, I hope your generalization wasn't meant to include me.

However, I also recognize that cutting and underfunding the social programs we have so that they are dysfunctional and border line useless is in many cases more costly than giving them the leadership deserved to actually make them work.

That's the problem with going too far in the direction you are preaching here. The bottom line is, we need some social programs in our country, the only question is in finding a balance. The arguments should be about finding this balance rather than debating whether we should have them at all. I feel that if we are going to do something, we need to do it right and not half-baked. In many cases, it might be better to axe some programs than have them wither in a very half baked fashion. However, there are programs that shouldn't be axed (public education, for example).

The fact that there is so much talking past each other when it comes to these issues is what is ruining America, and all political affiliations are to blame.

[RAILhead]

Why do "they" need support? They can live within their means just like I do. It's not my fault they didn't have the same opportunities in life that I had, and that I'm able to afford a quality of living that some see as more comfortable than that of those we're talking about.

Why would I increase their taxes? I never said that at all.

The bottom line is, why should I be financially punished/burdened because the guy next to me didn't get my education or opportunities? That's total crap. You can't grade papers with re dink anymore because red's too harsh. You can't let you team beat the other by more that 50 points because it's demoralizing. You have to give 38 million lawbreakers amnesty because they just want a better life.

PURE CRAP.

And there's part of your problem: the people you're wanting to "help" -- poor Americans -- are getting screwed by the same open-border crap you're wanting to support by all these hand outs. Another example is the SCHIP bill that THANKFULLY got vetoed. If you were a family of 4 and made less that $82,000 per year, you would have qualified for GOVERNMENT ASSISTED HEALTH CARE.

WHAT?!?!

When will people learn that Big Brother screws-up everything he touches, and quit trying to get him more involved?

[RAILhead]

Yes, when I say "you" I'm speaking in general terms.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree that everybody has the opportunity to work these jobs, but my point is that *somebody* needs to work those lower jobs. Agreed?

If so, what sense is there in building a system that doesn't support the people working in these lower jobs so that they can continue to do so? If we increase their taxes too much, they'll go on welfare, putting strain on our economy. Increase them even more and they may be forced to turn to crime, or may die out. Then who will do those lower jobs for us?

The thing is, we need to keep these people alive and out of bankruptcy, They are a backbone of our society, and make your opportunities possible.

The company I work for employed their own janitorial staff. They were paid quite well, the same as the production associates. They were laid off and replaced by an outside contractor that paid 1/3 what they made and employs what are most likely illegals

[RAILhead]

Which is one reason we need to end incentives for illegals, and we need to nail the companies that hire them.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Why do "they" need support? They can live within their means just like I do. It's not my fault they didn't have the same opportunities in life that I had, and that I'm able to afford a quality of living that some see as more comfortable than that of those we're talking about.

Well, if you are not swayed by moral reasons, then the pragmatic argument is that having a huge underclass is destabilizing and dangerous. Especially if they can vote or bear arms.

[RAILhead]

Define "underclass."

[Chongo]

Workers of the world unite!