Redistribution in any form and or capacity is a form of socialism or communism.. want to help out the poor? Fine, then do away with ALL forms of redistribution and hand it over to charity.. Then YOU can give YOUR money to it.You do NOT have to steal MY money and MY liberty to hand it to someone I deem to be irresponsible and not caring that someone is taking out of MY pocket and giving it to them..That goes against the very fabric that made this nation great and that is liberty.. Maher is an ass
@SuperGuitarman69 those points are valid if you are rich, if your life could be easier if you recieved social benifits then you are not arguing for your own interest. Stop with the rightouss bullshit, and fight for what you need, not what some demigog asshole told you to fight for.
@ALPHAHXCORE What about the liberty of an individual who doesn't like planned parenthood, Acorn or the NRA? Or the national teachers association or big oil? Does that not cover those on both the left and the right? There are things I am sure you do not want your money spent on correct? Well then how about this? All government redistribution and subsidies ending, and we favor a flat tax.. Then, turn over all government programs to charity foundations.. Meaning this, you could Part 1
@ALPHAHXCORE in one fell swoop end all debate over redistribution.. You implement a flat tax on everyone.. Then, since all government enterprises whether it is subsidies, crony capitalism, corporate welfare or individual welfare are officially ended.. Every American (and THIS is true LIBERTY), can give to ANY charity they wish.. In fact, NO government official R or D can campaign one charity over the other. Then Americans get further tax breaks based on the percentage Part 2
@ALPHAHXCORE they are to be taxes on earned income, get a tax break based on their charitable donations.. Down to zero if they wish.. That is completely in the realm of liberty and fairness is it not? Then you start reigning in SS, Medicare and Medicaid as well to privatize them.. Giving people options with their retirement money. There is NO end to what could be achieved and you will then cut 80% of the budget, and restore America to the great country it is and everyone Part 3
@ALPHAHXCORE will be able to give to whatever cause they wish regardless of political ideology.. Another argument for this.. No matter what the program be it SS, Medicare, heathcare in general, Medicaid, welfare programs only 9 to 15% actually makes it to those in need.. Yet the majority of charities give upwards to 85% to charity.. It is a win win for everyone is it not? It restores liberty, are economic viability, and our compassion in one fell swoop.. Think about THAT America!
@ALPHAHXCORE that my friends is an America where we see true liberty, we see true compassion, we see right and left working together to provide for causes.. You take the politicians out of it completely.. You take away their ability to get rich off of crony capitalism, and you get the American people in charge of Americas compassion.. It is an America that EVERYONE will be winners.. THAT is an America I want to live in...
Arithmetic and math??? Leftist do NOT use arithmetic and math.. That is the reason why we are in this mess.. We climbed to the TOP of the economic food chain in the last 200 years because of capitalism.It is an outright LIE to say the socialism system is better than the capitalist system..And yes socialism, IS communism.. It all is a form of the "commune" socialists like to say no it is not it is a lighter version of communism. but skilled labor is still taxed at a progressive rate. So communism
The problem is that government has power and with lobbying they have "friends" that they give contracts that make THEM profit. Get your head out of your asses and realize that giving the government having power will always lead to your "elected officials" being bought buy the highest bidder.
@ringworks charity's aren't run for profit. So ur saying that all charity's and organizations that are for non-profit are failures? You Are A Dumbass!
Wow, a bunch of people with no respect for the rule of law or the US Constitution blathering away. I love how you have a room of people that couldn't collectively solve a single calculus problem applauding the "abandonment of arithmetic".
Those who refuse to acknowledge that our Social Security and Medicare systems are rapidly going bankrupt are the ones who are guilty of the abandonment of arithmetic.
SOLUTION: STARVE THE BEAST + BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT = HEALTHY AMERICAN ECONOMY.
@eosrk Actually Germany's, France's and Scandinavia's economy has been growing since Q42008, the euro has been the worlds strongest currency for the past 10 years and
Europe doesnt have a 13 trillion debt, USA does haha
You can even check the numbers on IMF's and WTO's websites :D
lol at some of the comment's on here.I feel sorry for your children,some you must also view them as a commodity.Hey i never knew the whole point of our existence is for us to be in competition with one another to see who can make the most meaningless worthless shit.It's a good job the big bang and our evolution happened the whole universe would implode if we didn't see which countries can produce the most shit while destroying the planet.LMAO
Socialism(matriarchi) is when a woman makes a sexual choice (Man cannot do it because gouverment took his money and gave it to single moms or other matriarchial couples) and chooses a partner (man) for his beauty. So the man becomes a bitch (lier does not love his gilfrend). The fact that men (and women are bitches by default) are bitches promotes corruption, so socialist societies require more regulation and more policing (up to dictatorship if they move to communism) and thus less productive.
They rule you with fear and consumption. That's how they control you, and yours.
Capitalism depends on growth being continuous, ad infinitum. Anyone with half a brain knows that that's impossible. The world and its resources are finite.
You seem to misunderstan wealth as a zero sum game where it is only a question of distribution. This is false, but typical for a leftist.
Yes, resources are limited. Growth is not. Your gram of silicium is limited, and can itself not grow in value (although demand can grow; but it can't become i.e. 2 grams).
But use it to build a smartphone and it suddenly grows in value. The element of the human idea is what creates growth. To take what is there and make it better
@Kuner1 You have one barrel of oil you use that oil and it's gone forever. What the fuck a smartphone has to do with anything. The worlds population keeps growing exponentionally using up what resources are left. You recon growth isn't finite, and somehow we'll magic up a super smartphone and we'll all be saved by a god type technological lifeboat. Well typical born again neo-con shit for brains thinking. Good luck with that.
oil is actually not a limited substance. it is a fossile fuel, so the challange here is to not consume more than the earth produces.
which would again require ideas and technology...
it's truly amusing how you left wing psychos simultaniously repeat the mantra of "green energy" like you are waiting for some messiah, but at the same time reject the notion that technology could actually create wealth.
@Kuner1 "energy is a form of wealth" you mean like oil, coal, iron ore, water, information and money.
If you think that joe public and the powers that be are going to use less of the earths resources. That's never going to happen neo con greed will fuck that straight out of the window
"like you are waiting for some messiah" If anybody believes that some supernatural being is going to pop up and save their sorry arses. Then you're even more stupid than I thought you were Secret Invisible Rapture
No, I mean purely in an economic sense. You can put a log of wood in a fireplace and will have both created and used energy and wealth. Wealth is not a static resource. It can be consumed (i.e. food), and created.
Thatcher summed it up "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".
Capitalism simply states that you cannot spend more than you have earned (yourself) or that someone out of his free will has loaned you.
@Kuner1 Socialism is a system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Thatcher said "There is no such thing as society", That was after she stole the milk, put more air in ice-cream and 3 million people out of work.
We have a National Health Service, thanks to Clem Attlee and a socialist government.
Capitalism as given us Goldmann Sachs and Enron. RAPTURE.lol
@Kuner1 "political elite" what like the Bushes! "One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009.
You're a christian fundamentalist, neo-con birther, who's waiting for 'The Secret Invisible Rapture'. Wait till the fuckwit Romney hits the Whitehouse. The Rupture may come sooner than rather than later. Now sod off or WHATEVER.
I am not a Christian, I detest Christianity and I hate the Bush clan.
Most of the republican establishment is little to no better than the Democrats. The republicans have long abandoned capitalism and are manipulating the markets and restricting personal freedom when it clashes with their sick religion
I agree with many aspects of liberalism. Gay marriage, no censorship of the arts, equal rights for men and women and environmentalism (as long as it's serious and not abused as some bullshit excuse to raise taxes).
I generally don't like government, organised religion or anyone else imposing their will on people.
Regarding what Bill Maher says here about government taking over hospitals in Europe.
Here in Germany the worst hospitals are the state run.
@GreenmanXIV That must be why Goldmann Sachs and Enron were such gigantic lobbyists who controlled many politicians in the central government. This has nothing to do with capitalism and free markets, but to do with statism and government monopoly.
That's all 'middle of the road' capitalism with government intervention can breed- cartel and monopoly.
Whereas Socialism can only produce destitution and despotism. When you abolish markets you abolish choice. Read up on the Calculation debate.
@Oyaji291 The only country that comes anywhere near to being socialist that I can think of is Sweden. Destitute ruled by despots I don't think so.
Watched a couple of documentaries on TV about American families living under bridges and in storm drains. Only surviving on with the help of foodbanks. You really need to get clued up.
Why did Dick Cheney go all out for the illegal invasion of Iraq, was it because he made 44 million dollars out of it as CEO of Halliburton. How much tax he pay on it?
@GreenmanXIV Sweden is a non sequitor. There are a million underlying factors that determine their relative success, least of which being their systematic push toward privatization as the years go by. It's either one way or another- toward despotism or away from it. They're wising up.
Your second comment is also a non-sequitor. America is an extremely interventionist economy with increasing control from the central governments. Quasi 'socialist' leaning more toward a soft fascism is America.
@Oyaji291 It's non sequitur. Might be an idea if you looked it up
Your second comment makes no sense at all "Quasi socialist" " soft fascism". American families are destitute, starving and being evicted. I've seen the pictures and read the reports. Where's the government intervention in that can of worms.
I see you make no comment on the third paragraph. Well how much tax did Cheney pay on his ill gotten gains.
@GreenmanXIV And your last comment is a red herring. I will, however, take the moment to express my deep-seated hatred for that war mongering scumbag Dick Cheney and hope that he may rot in hell.
Socialism or capitalism is not an either or choice. The fairest democracies have the best of both. The US may be the best 'free market' capitalist democracy in the world but it is not the fairest.
This Maher is pretty funny, but chill everyone. I live in a country that has been socialist for almost a hundred years and we dont even think of ourselfs as socialists. Results? We are the best at quite alot of things. And at the moment we have a right wing party in power. Socialist country whit a right wing gouverment, that said. Our right wing isnt the same as in the US.
@tyskbulle Sweden? Maybe one of the other Nordic countries.
I'm sure it's a wonderful country. I suspect one of the keys to this has to do with the fact that it's a very homogeneous society. If people can agree, that's wonderful. In a largely immigrant country (e.g. the US), consensus is difficult. If I want my kids to be learn about Creation (instead of evolution) but you don't, what do we teach in schools?
It's only a problem if your kid has to learn there and you have to pay for it.
@grantcivyt Consensus is not as difficult here as you might think. Jews and Palestinians can be next door neighbors here and not care a wink about it. Same goes with many other groups that can't stand each other, if they were in their home countries. I would say Europe has a bigger problem with consensus, just look at how they've handled their economic problems over the last 4 years. No one can decide whose in charge, and they all want to be.
@bweazel I disagree regularly with friends, but I still like having lunch with them. We don't *have to* agree. That's the point.
Consensus is about agreeing to do something together. Like funding and operating a shcool. If the group agrees, that's great. If the group doesn't all agree, that can still be 'ok' -- just fewer participants. But if everyone is compelled to participate (as in public schools), then a lack of consensus breeds discord.
OOOOPPPSSS, we forgot to mention the fact that capitalism has something called "competition" which 99.99999% of the time produces a cheaper, better, and higher quality product than a "monopoly". He also forgot to mention that USA contributes more medical research and development than all of Europe combined, and 40% of the total worlds medical research(mainly due to "PRIVATE" investment). So you can kiss the cure for cancer goodbye if you want to trade it for failed social medicine.
Socialism relies on collectivism, which necessarily subordinates the rights of individuals to the whims of a group. What is a group but a number of individuals? It is no accident that it has always been those countries that push collectivism that ultimately become dictatorships. It's the nature of the system. Look up anything about the non-aggression principle. This is the only moral method by which to construct a political system.
@shaverbh An over simplification of socialism. I could use your collectivism statement to argue that the the US military is therfore socialist as the individual is subordnate to the group.
Many in the USA demonise the word socialism from ignorance and living in an a society that is isolationist and insular in it's outlook. I doubt most Americans would know where Europe is on a map. There are many degrees of socialism but some in the US seem to think Socialism = Communism. The most successful, responsible and fairest democracies in the world (Sweden, Denmark, Germany) all have a level of democratic socialism. It protects you from the excesses of a totally free market economy.
Maher's definition of socialism as selective government take-over of things that "should not be run for profit," ought to sound an alarm.
Greed is a constant. Capitalism channels greed (through profit-seeking) to satisfy the needs of individuals. When the government takes things over, the greed is still there. The difference is instead of satisfying customers, businesses have to satisfy regulators (often through bribery).
There are market failures, but we shouldn't assume government is a fix.
@grantcivyt I disagree, just look at the example of the great depression. Hoover tried to solve the problem by fostering private enterprise through his idea of associationism, but he soon found that corporations could not be relied on in times of economic need because their moral obligation was towards their stock holders rather than the common good. its not that the people running corporations are evil, its simply that private interest cannot be trusted to work towards a broader picture.
@forzainter72 I'm not sure how this ties into my earlier comment. I will say I'm not expert on the Great Depression.
I agree that private individuals working for their own gain cannot be relied on to work toward someone else's "broader picture." Note that it's not a given that the broader picture reflects the best interests of the people.
Incidentally, I'm given to understand that the role of government was substantial and exacerbated the Depression. It may be mistaken to blame businesses.
@grantcivyt actually the reason the depression was exacerbated was partly because of Hoover's trust of corporations to benefit the country rather than themselves, only very late in his presidency did he realize that the government needed to step in to put a roof on loans and create public works to stimulate the economy. Roosevelt soon stepped in and helped the country recover with restrictions on bank speculations, insurance on deposits and many welfare programs for the benefit of the people.
@forzainter72 I learned similarly in school, but I've become skeptical of that narrative.
Check out the Austrian view on the Depression for an alternate explanation of events. In fact, you can look up Milton Friedman on the Great Depression right here on YouTube. It's great!
"Bank speculations" keep banks honest. "Insurance on deposits" means I don't care what the bank does with my money. If you shield individuals and businesses from risk, you encourage profligacy.
@forzainter72 It was socialist policies that gave us the Great Depression. I love how you all behave as though the way to correct mistakes and problems of socialism, is by piling on more socialism and government control. That line of thinking is what got us to where we are today. Are you pleased with the way government's and countries operate today? Does it seem like a system of integrity, or a balancing act to you?
@bweazel does anyone read hitory books. It was conservative free market under regulation of the financial sector and the excessive high risk speculation by that sector that caused the stock market crash in 1929.
@paultheinept You know Paul, you can keep repeating that same line over and over again, but that doesn't make it a rebuttal of my argument. Rebut, please, or move on.
@paultheinept And what I just asked you is what made that high risk speculation possible. These businesses didn't all just start speculating for no reason, there's more to this than you're admitting.
@paultheinept Something presented businesses of that time with a moral hazard. I would say it was the Federal Reserve. People act differently when they think someone else is managing things.
@paultheinept The conservative free market? A conservative market? The markets of the 20s were anything but conservative. 1913 gave us the Federal Reserve, a very progressive idea of the time.
@bweazel We'll have to agree to disagree. Just tired of people demonising socialism as if it's all bad. Like capitalism it is complex and has it's good and bad elements.
@paultheinept And I'm just tired of people acting like more government intervention and less private ownership is a good thing, when too much government intervention is what gave us this mess in the first place. Hmmm, liberty or arbitrary control by a small group. Hmmmm..... hmmmmmmmm..... tough choice there. ;P
What is so complex about private ownership and using your money as your vote in the economy? At least in capitalism you have a vote in the economy, in socialism, nope.
@bweazel I also agree too much government intervention is bad. But you're talking in extremes. Both socialist and capitalist policies have got countries into lots of trouble, whether a large national debt or high unemployment. I dont like overly socialist goverments. I don't like the uncontrolled excesses of a totally free market economy. E.g. Disenfranchising people from healthcare based on their earning power is cruel and synical, especially from a so called Christian country.
@grantcivyt It is very mistaken to blame businesses. The Great Depression was a result of government intervention into the economy and the result of a centralized banking system set up only a decade before. The Federal Reserve is primarily to blame for the Great Depression and the length of it the depression. The boom from the 20's turned into the Great Depression of the 30s, because the initial boom in the 20's was not backed up by any real growth.
@bweazel Sorry to disagree but suggest you read a history book. The cause of the great depression was a market crash in 1929. Caused by under regulation of the financial sector and high risk speculation by banks that didn't seperate retail banking from high risk investment banking. Sound familiar? It was government intervention by Roosevelt's (the New Deal) that instituted programs of relief, recovery and reform. Democratic socialsm protects us from the excesses of capitalism
@paultheinept No need to apologize, we're just bouncing ideas off each other. Yes, and what caused Black Friday? Excessive credit from the Federal Reserve system. They gave a false sense of security.
@paultheinept Wrong. Socialism is what allows excessive capitalism. When you socialize risk, you take it away from the private sector, which presents them with a moral hazard.
@bweazel Are we overusing labels here? In the UK it was both conservative and liberal deregulation of banks that led to unchecked free market high risk speculation
@paultheinept I'm not the one using labels. It usually is a mix of them both, just saying, you adding conservative on there really does nothing to help your argument. They play off of each other. To behave as though the two are really different is a bit laughable.
@paultheinept Did it protect us against '08? No, it didn't. Socialist policies were the crux of the credit crisis. Fannie and Freddie and the Federal Reserve being the two largest.
American social democracy hasn't yet succeeded because we don't have a decent Socialist Party, we have 10 or so far-left parties, we don't have a British Labour Party, or a French Socialist Party, we have 10 tiny parties you can only find on Wikipedia.
Anyway, have fun with your warmongering in the Middle East while praising how much of a pacifist and good-willed your president is (just because you don't feel confortable in saying anything bad about an half-black guy *facepalm*)
at best we have a third wayist social-democratic system. Educate yourselves, either the means of production are privately owned or they aren't. Either a country is Capitalist or Socialist. There is no halfway, and West Europe and Scandinavia have always been capitalist. Also gotta love when some of you start labeling Obama and the democratic party as "the left", lol really, even the UK conservative party is more "liberal" than Obama and Hillary Clinton.
@vash8millenium "Either a country is Capitalist or Socialist." The world is not that black and white. Do they not sell color televisions in your country?
@midifromhell In this case it is. Social-democracy cannot be considered "grey" since it's still a capitalist ideology. In a true socialist regime there's not such thing as a private sector thus Europe can never be socialist. Americans calling Europeans socialist just because we have a better welfare state and our capitalism isn't as wild and unregulated as yours, it's like an anorexic telling an average weighting person that he's fat just because he's heavier. Get it now?
@vash8millenium You don't have a better welfare state, you just have less expenses that we pick the tab up for you. Get back to me when you all have to defend yourselves or fight for your own interests again and we'll see how well European socialism holds up then when they don't have the American tit to suckle on. Yes, we're all beginning to get it now. America works and Europe takes it easy and mooches like the little rebellious peasants they are.
@vash8millenium There can be no private sector in socialism? You sure about that? That's the fun with socialism, so long as you agree with the powers that be, you're gains will be your gains at the expense of the public. Socialism is the mantra of the day: Socialize the loses, privatize the gains. You'd think as Europeans, you all would see how socialism worked in Nazi Germany and back away from the idea a bit, but alas, Europe is still crazy for socialism
@vash8millenium Well said. You've made the point I was trying to make about the incorrect, misguided, oversimplified and unfair hijacking of the word socialism or socialist by many Americans.
@paultheinept Then what to you is a fair definition of the word? I don't feel I've said anything different than you. Are you happy with the kind of socialism we practice today in Europe and America?
@bweazel I'm never totally happy with any form of government, whether in America or Europe. There is no such thing as the perfect political system whether it be socialist or capitalist. The best democracies usually have the elements of both. You can have a socially democratic society with some intervention, that still allows private ownership and a free market. Just because most of Europe has a better welfare state than America doesn't mean Europe is socialist.
@bweazel I'm never totally happy with any form of government, whether in America or Europe. There is no such thing as the perfect political system whether it be socialist or capitalist. The best democracies usually have the elements of both. You can have a socially democratic society with some intervention, that still allows private ownership and a free market. Just because most of Europe has a better welfare state than America doesn't mean Europe is socialist.
@paultheinept Sadly, yes, we are a socially democratic union. We're supposed to be a constitutional republic, which is supposed to protect individuals, but we opted for the good feelings of "saving" (some would call it condescending) everyone, instead of protecting the individual.
What do you consider a fair definition of socialism? Especially if you don't think what we have already is socialism.
@bweazel Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@bweazel And that's the problem and point I'm trying to make. There is no clear definition of socialism. One definition is state control of production. Dead against that! Another is redistribution by taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy. Different governmants implement varying degrees of that redistribution. I dislike over regulation/taxation. But good social democarcy is fair distribution and regulation
@paultheinept Then I don't understand how you could make a statement like this "about the incorrect, misguided, oversimplified and unfair hijacking of the word socialism or socialist by many Americans." without first having the proper definition. If you don't even have a definition for it, how can you be upset with Americans for what the majority of them feel socialism is? But that's how it's defined, sir. State ownership and/or control of the means of production.
@bweazel You've made my argument for me. That lack of understanding of the complexities of what socialism is is the root case of that misguided feeling. You've done it again and simplified it by sying it is state ownership and/or control of the means of production. That is only an extreme. Many of the social democracies across Europe are based on a free market economy but with some elements of state regulation where it is required to control the extremes of a free market economy.
@paultheinept I have not made any argument for you, I'm asking you to explain how you can condemn other people for the misuse of a term that you can't even define yourself. No, see, that's the thing, it's not complex, you all try to delude the truth of socialism by trying to make it complex, but it's actually quite simple. You cannot have social control or ownership without an authoritative arbiter, which is the part that you guys always try to cloud over with "complexities".
@paultheinept Then correct me, if not state ownership. Then whose? And don't try to slide out of that by just saying "social ownership", that's a cop out. No, I'm not talking about extremes, you keep treating me like I am, but I'm simply asking you, if it isn't state ownership, then who owns it? And if it's just ownership by a group, how is that any different than the private ownership we already have?
Socialism always sounds good, until you get into the "how".
@paultheinept I think you'll find that more often than not, the "extremes" of the free market only arise due to special privilege awarded by government and/or government granted monopolies in the name of convenience at the expense of true competition. It makes me a bit sad to see you describe voluntary exchange and mutual consent as an "extreme" that needs to be curtailed if we are all going to live a "fair" life.
@bweazel Agrre with your first statement. Haven't a clue what your talking about with voluntary exchange and mutual consent in the context of what I said.
@bweazel Agree with your first statement. Haven't a clue what your talking about with voluntary exchange and mutual consent in the context of what I said.
@paultheinept And what is "fair"? Who decides? Correct, a small group of people. Whatever way you try to define it, you can't get away from the fact that it IS government control of some or all of the means of production, without that government control, you cannot institute the socialist policies, therefor cannot have socialism.
You guys are a bit disingenuous. I've talked to many self-proclaimed socialists while on here, all of you try to distract away from that truth of government control
@bweazel We are talking about social democracies here not communist states! Why are you so dead against some level of government regulation or control? What about the military, prisons, national parks, planning, etc. If you left those all to private business you'd have unaccounatble private police forces that only offered policing to those that could afford it, condos in the Grand Canyon and so on.
@paultheinept Ok, paul. So you have no intent of answering very simple questions about how socialism operates, but instead keep trying to accuse me of confusing socialism with communism even though I haven't brought up communism a single time.
Stop wasting my time, just say it: "Yes, I prefer state ownership over personal liberty, because I don't trust individuals and would happily give up my liberty if that meant they didn't have any either."
@paultheinept I'm getting real tired of you people that try to condescend others who call out socialism for what it is: state control. That's what you're argument started off as, that is wasn't state control, now that you cannot describe socialism without using the state, your argument has turned into trying to shame me for being against already existing social programs. (Which I'm not, there are some social services I consider useful and necessary).
@paultheinept .I'm no socialist by the way. I just think you can take the best from both ideologies. I'm moving on by the way as we're never going to agree. Enjoyed the discussion though.
@paultheinept Socialists always try to downplay the government's involvement in their utopia. They try to replace government control with words like social control, or they replace it with "the people", etc. But they never go the extra step and explain how "the people" will actually own these things, nor do they ever explain how their ideas of "social ownership" differ from private ownership. Again, it seems very disingenuous to me how most proponents of socialism describe their ideal.
Actually "Social Democracy" is; according to my German dictionary, a form of Socialism. Which also explains why in the EU parliament the social democrat parties are part of the "Party of European Socialists".
As to how well we are doing in Europe... well you should be able to answer that question yourself.
a. It is a little ludicrous to make the claim that Social-Democracy is not Socialism because it is not "pure" Socialism. Using your own logic it is not Capitalism because it is not laissez faire.
b. "thus Europe can never be socialist" This is a rather nonsensical statement. Again, SD is Socialism. But even if it were not, you haven't even attempted to explain why Europe could never be "tru[ly] socialist."
c. Your weight analogy is utterly wrong. A better example is you (cont.)
arguing that a morbidly obese individual is not fat simply because they are not the heaviest person on the planet. The welfare state is a de facto abolition of property. If my property is seized against my will and given to others without some good or service given in return (whether a public good or private good) then that property is not in fact my own. Therefore you are certainly correct that SD is not "pure" Socialism. But it is in fact closer to Socialism than to Capitalism.
@vash8millenium You're babbling and not making any sense. Europe has been in the middle of a currency and fiscal crisis for the past year and a half. Greece's social welfare system just collapsed and Italy is on its way next.
And America's entire economy is bogged with mounds and mounds of regulations. Recently there was a healthcare mandate which basically granted rights of privilege to the already regulated medical industry. This is one anecdote.
Obama is a warmongering neoconservative who extended the patriot act, signed ndaa, started Libya, Yemen, and Syria, is keeping troops in Iraq DESPITE "withdrawal" (lol). any "leftist" or "liberal" who supports obama at this point should be euthanized. And government owning the means of production is state capitalism, since the political class is a separate class.
@fountainherz Obama comes to me more as a keynesian conservative, which is in my honest opinion the worst of both worlds in the left/right paradigm. Also, state capitalism is an inherent part of the socialist process, you should know that. Anarcho-communism (like Marx and Engel intended) is an utopia anyway, there will always be political bureaucracy and authoritarianism in these sort of regimes.
Neo conservatism uses conservative keynesian economics. And state capitalism (bureaucrats owning and controlling MoP) is self-defeating because of what you pointed out - there will be political bureaucracy and authoritarianism. The political class is a separate class.
You americans are so fucking dumb when it comes to politics. My country's communist party would laugh their asses of if they ever watched this video. Listen you idiots just because some things have the word "public" attached to it doesn't mean it's socialism. Just so you know, the welfare state model we have in europe was created by a prussian anti-socialist CONSERVATIVE politican. Other than during the East Bloc years, EUROPE WAS NEVER SOCIALIST you ignorant fools (continues)
capitalism isn't fine there r holes in our system like da rich people n wall street dey r greedy corporate ceos who r feeding off of us failing republicans r calling dem job creators much lyke job destroyers cuz dey ship jobs overseas in china a totalirian country where dey can underpay workers instead of helping their country America n their suppose 2 be patriots take mitt romney for example he keeps his money in da cayman islands he's evading paying taxes.
Ratigan is completely correct about Rethugs trying to redefine words -- that's called LYING. And Bill is completely right that Rethug voters don't even have definitions in the first place. What a fucking menace these dumbass bat-shit crazy right-wing stumps are.
look at the tyrannys and communistic governments in the last 200 years. socilism allows the government to control your medicines to beat prisoners unlawfully in prisons. it allows the governments and corporations to be powerful over the people. it is unfree to consider such knowing history and how socialism works. all socialistic countrys have failed not one is working strong in todays world or a superpower. quit trying to call evil good and good evil democrats you corrupt freedom
Socialism isn't bad in and of itself. No form of government is, really. It's when those who control a government infringe on the general public's freedom that it becomes a poor mode of government. We saw this with Hitler in Fascism, with Gorbechev, et al in Communism, and now we're seeing it with Obama, et al in Capitalism.
Left unmonitored, any government will corrupt itself eventually. Such is entropy....
it's insane how socialism it turned into a naughty word. The founding of this country was clear, promote the common welfare. America was designed to be a socialist democracy from the start, there is meant to be a balance with elements of both socialism and the free market. People forget that the democrats and republicans are both supposed to have validity, their philosophies represent the core issues in need of being balanced in our government. Both are necessary.
@evilyig Promoting the common welfare meant protecting our civil liberties to most of our founding fathers. Civil liberties are not the intention of socialist governments. We have socialism (corporatism) in this country for the elites, while the rest of us enjoy a hodgepodge of other isms. The elites are bailed out while enjoying the benefits of our debt creating system owned by private bankers called the Federal Reserve and whose lobbyists own policy makers and accountable to no one.
Wow this guy is insane. I may be called a right wing nut, but I dont like people having control over my life. This is what he wants is the government to become more powerful and to control every aspect of what is our daily lives. If you just read a history book and see how well socialism has done in every country that has used it, you would know its a very bad idea. Stalin believed in socialism and he also killed over 20 million. Hitler was apart of the socialist party and he killed 6 millionjew
@irishgodfatherchris "Hitler was a part of the Nazi Party, it just happened to have the word Socialist in its name, he belonged to the far-right"
See, now that is among the most stupid things socialists say. It completely ignores that the far-right Hitler and the far-left Stalin and Mao were dictators in total-state collectivist regimes.
The "left/right" paradigm as its used is complete nonsense. What really matters is how much or how little The State regiments a society.
@skxek You're not even listening to what was said, you're addressing a straw man you created. The question is not if socialism is bad, it's how much socialism. Why don't you complain about socialized roads? Why don't you object to socialized water treatment facilities? You look foolish presenting the only alternative to your position in the most extreme and radical context possible. America was founded from the beginning to be a socialist democracy, promoting the common welfare.
".. and things that should not be run for profit.." Take away profit and it all goes to shit, Bill. Money talks, whether you like it or not. So let's have it talk for good causes as well, like education.
What they don't mention is where that money comes from to pay for the social programs. In our current society it is from state taxation that is enforced through threat of imprisonment. That is immoral. I don't mind socialism, as long as it is not state socialism.
@Geckuno The government has failed to control something as simple as the postal service in the US, why would it stand a chance handling something as complex as health care? It already attempts to regulate health care now and we can see how much that has driven up prices.
@5382021 hımm I didn't know that. In that case you may be right. But theoretically I believe that some places like schools, hospitals etc. shouldn't be run by private companies at least without any control
@Geckuno The great thing about a free economy is that it allows the consumers to pick the service that suits them best. With government run institutions you are given a one-size-fits-all service. While I am not opposed to State-run funding programs for those who can't afford basic necessities, having the government (especially federal) run these institutions does more harm than good.
@achristos123456 In the US,over the last century, Government has ruined public education, access to health care, and has given us the highest per-capita incarceration rate in human history.
You can not have just a little bit of cancer. You either have it or you don't. And if you have it, and you don't get rid of it, it will spread and grow until it has killed you.
@irishgodfatherchris If after giving what I wrote any serious consideration and you truly believe my statements to be false then you are so so far gone there is absolutely no hope for you.
The likelihood is that you haven't given it any consideration at all and are going with your gut-feeling; mostly from fear of discovering all you have believed to be true for so long is the real lie.
@HaroldRehling uh huh I'm sorry but I cant take anyone seriously when they support someone as extreme and ignorant as Ron Paul. This is a man who openly accepts donations from Neo-Nazi's because Ron supports the so called right for a person to refuse a person entry to their business based solely on skin colour. I also live in a country with UHC and unlike the system in the US it actually works and is not designed to make money.
@irishgodfatherchris Well, it's good to know that you're prepared to force people at gunpoint to behave as you believe they should. It's pretty typical of a socialist to want to kill people they disagree with. Tell me again, how does this differ from the neo-nazis and racists who you claim to hate other than conscience (rather than ethnicity) being the mark of a sub-human?
@irishgodfatherchris What part of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers Party is it that YOUR history books neglected?
Or maybe its that you never learned about gulags, reeducation centers, and internment camps.
Perhaps your gov't schools missed that in the 20th century Socialist regimes have murdered over 100 million of their own citizens.
Who cares as long as you don't have to pay the Dr. when you get a boo-boo.
Talk Property Rights with them and see where it goes.
America has hundreds of millions of guns and gun ownership is going up; there is no way on gods green earth your getting people to give up there guns. We got enough bullets here in this country to kill every man women and child on the planet. Fact!
@Seattle206723 nobody cares about gun ownership or has for 20 years almost, it's a total fucking non issue that idiots like you can have presented to them because it presses emotional buttons, shut up already
@cryjesuscry Socialisim will never exists in America not in 1000 years my friend! Take that thought to your dying grave; and remember this I Seattle206723 said so!
Dylan speaks of fact and logic to properly guide the people in debate as opposed to using fear and other manipulative tactics, but Bill begins with referring to his opponents as teabaggers. Is name calling not just a tactic to undermine ones credibility so the name caller does not have to acknowledge logic and fact given by the opposition? Is Bill not undermining Dylan's theory of arithmetic and fact with the use of name calling? Does this not contribute to the debate problem?
Socialism is an uncontrollable monster. The more you feed it the more it grows. Eventually it is essentially communism. "the goal of socialism is to achieve communism." -----Saul Alinsky
@1whtcobra44 Saul was American, so as much as I respect what he did (this is coming from an Australian) he did not know what Socialism is, Australia during the 30's and 40's was very socialist and we did just fine
There was only south American country, that came close to Socialism. That was Chile, under Salvador Allende. Then the good old CIA, fucked with Democracy, and Augusto Pinochet. neo nazi bastard took power. You know him, no concentration camps. but you just disappear into the jungle.
Redistribution in any form and or capacity is a form of socialism or communism.. want to help out the poor? Fine, then do away with ALL forms of redistribution and hand it over to charity.. Then YOU can give YOUR money to it.You do NOT have to steal MY money and MY liberty to hand it to someone I deem to be irresponsible and not caring that someone is taking out of MY pocket and giving it to them..That goes against the very fabric that made this nation great and that is liberty.. Maher is an ass
SuperGuitarman69 1 day ago
@SuperGuitarman69 those points are valid if you are rich, if your life could be easier if you recieved social benifits then you are not arguing for your own interest. Stop with the rightouss bullshit, and fight for what you need, not what some demigog asshole told you to fight for.
ALPHAHXCORE 1 day ago
@ALPHAHXCORE What about the liberty of an individual who doesn't like planned parenthood, Acorn or the NRA? Or the national teachers association or big oil? Does that not cover those on both the left and the right? There are things I am sure you do not want your money spent on correct? Well then how about this? All government redistribution and subsidies ending, and we favor a flat tax.. Then, turn over all government programs to charity foundations.. Meaning this, you could Part 1
SuperGuitarman69 1 day ago
@ALPHAHXCORE in one fell swoop end all debate over redistribution.. You implement a flat tax on everyone.. Then, since all government enterprises whether it is subsidies, crony capitalism, corporate welfare or individual welfare are officially ended.. Every American (and THIS is true LIBERTY), can give to ANY charity they wish.. In fact, NO government official R or D can campaign one charity over the other. Then Americans get further tax breaks based on the percentage Part 2
SuperGuitarman69 1 day ago
@ALPHAHXCORE they are to be taxes on earned income, get a tax break based on their charitable donations.. Down to zero if they wish.. That is completely in the realm of liberty and fairness is it not? Then you start reigning in SS, Medicare and Medicaid as well to privatize them.. Giving people options with their retirement money. There is NO end to what could be achieved and you will then cut 80% of the budget, and restore America to the great country it is and everyone Part 3
SuperGuitarman69 1 day ago
@ALPHAHXCORE will be able to give to whatever cause they wish regardless of political ideology.. Another argument for this.. No matter what the program be it SS, Medicare, heathcare in general, Medicaid, welfare programs only 9 to 15% actually makes it to those in need.. Yet the majority of charities give upwards to 85% to charity.. It is a win win for everyone is it not? It restores liberty, are economic viability, and our compassion in one fell swoop.. Think about THAT America!
SuperGuitarman69 1 day ago
@ALPHAHXCORE that my friends is an America where we see true liberty, we see true compassion, we see right and left working together to provide for causes.. You take the politicians out of it completely.. You take away their ability to get rich off of crony capitalism, and you get the American people in charge of Americas compassion.. It is an America that EVERYONE will be winners.. THAT is an America I want to live in...
SuperGuitarman69 1 day ago
Arithmetic and math??? Leftist do NOT use arithmetic and math.. That is the reason why we are in this mess.. We climbed to the TOP of the economic food chain in the last 200 years because of capitalism.It is an outright LIE to say the socialism system is better than the capitalist system..And yes socialism, IS communism.. It all is a form of the "commune" socialists like to say no it is not it is a lighter version of communism. but skilled labor is still taxed at a progressive rate. So communism
SuperGuitarman69 1 day ago
The problem is that government has power and with lobbying they have "friends" that they give contracts that make THEM profit. Get your head out of your asses and realize that giving the government having power will always lead to your "elected officials" being bought buy the highest bidder.
polevaultrockstr 2 days ago
@ringworks charity's aren't run for profit. So ur saying that all charity's and organizations that are for non-profit are failures? You Are A Dumbass!
raptornuggets 2 days ago
"Things that should not be run for profit"?
So they should be run as a failure?
ringworks 2 days ago
@ringworks NOT for proit does not mean for failure
MassimoPiai 2 days ago
Wow, a bunch of people with no respect for the rule of law or the US Constitution blathering away. I love how you have a room of people that couldn't collectively solve a single calculus problem applauding the "abandonment of arithmetic".
Those who refuse to acknowledge that our Social Security and Medicare systems are rapidly going bankrupt are the ones who are guilty of the abandonment of arithmetic.
SOLUTION: STARVE THE BEAST + BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT = HEALTHY AMERICAN ECONOMY.
publicanimal 2 days ago
last I checked Europe is flat fucking broke and needs a bailout itself
eosrk 2 days ago
@eosrk not all of Europe is broke and they are broke for varying reasons.
irishgodfatherchris 2 days ago
@eosrk Actually Germany's, France's and Scandinavia's economy has been growing since Q42008, the euro has been the worlds strongest currency for the past 10 years and
Europe doesnt have a 13 trillion debt, USA does haha
You can even check the numbers on IMF's and WTO's websites :D
syntaxed2 1 day ago
lol at some of the comment's on here.I feel sorry for your children,some you must also view them as a commodity.Hey i never knew the whole point of our existence is for us to be in competition with one another to see who can make the most meaningless worthless shit.It's a good job the big bang and our evolution happened the whole universe would implode if we didn't see which countries can produce the most shit while destroying the planet.LMAO
oppressednation 3 days ago
this sounds like you guy are changing words
joeldewitt 3 days ago
Socialism(matriarchi) is when a woman makes a sexual choice (Man cannot do it because gouverment took his money and gave it to single moms or other matriarchial couples) and chooses a partner (man) for his beauty. So the man becomes a bitch (lier does not love his gilfrend). The fact that men (and women are bitches by default) are bitches promotes corruption, so socialist societies require more regulation and more policing (up to dictatorship if they move to communism) and thus less productive.
gbondify 4 days ago
They rule you with fear and consumption. That's how they control you, and yours.
Capitalism depends on growth being continuous, ad infinitum. Anyone with half a brain knows that that's impossible. The world and its resources are finite.
GreenmanXIV 1 week ago
@GreenmanXIV
You seem to misunderstan wealth as a zero sum game where it is only a question of distribution. This is false, but typical for a leftist.
Yes, resources are limited. Growth is not. Your gram of silicium is limited, and can itself not grow in value (although demand can grow; but it can't become i.e. 2 grams).
But use it to build a smartphone and it suddenly grows in value. The element of the human idea is what creates growth. To take what is there and make it better
Kuner1 6 days ago
@Kuner1 You have one barrel of oil you use that oil and it's gone forever. What the fuck a smartphone has to do with anything. The worlds population keeps growing exponentionally using up what resources are left. You recon growth isn't finite, and somehow we'll magic up a super smartphone and we'll all be saved by a god type technological lifeboat. Well typical born again neo-con shit for brains thinking. Good luck with that.
GreenmanXIV 6 days ago
@GreenmanXIV
oil is actually not a limited substance. it is a fossile fuel, so the challange here is to not consume more than the earth produces.
which would again require ideas and technology...
it's truly amusing how you left wing psychos simultaniously repeat the mantra of "green energy" like you are waiting for some messiah, but at the same time reject the notion that technology could actually create wealth.
energy is a form of wealth
Kuner1 6 days ago
@Kuner1 "energy is a form of wealth" you mean like oil, coal, iron ore, water, information and money.
If you think that joe public and the powers that be are going to use less of the earths resources. That's never going to happen neo con greed will fuck that straight out of the window
"like you are waiting for some messiah" If anybody believes that some supernatural being is going to pop up and save their sorry arses. Then you're even more stupid than I thought you were Secret Invisible Rapture
GreenmanXIV 5 days ago
@GreenmanXIV
No, I mean purely in an economic sense. You can put a log of wood in a fireplace and will have both created and used energy and wealth. Wealth is not a static resource. It can be consumed (i.e. food), and created.
Thatcher summed it up "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".
Capitalism simply states that you cannot spend more than you have earned (yourself) or that someone out of his free will has loaned you.
Kuner1 5 days ago
@Kuner1 Socialism is a system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Thatcher said "There is no such thing as society", That was after she stole the milk, put more air in ice-cream and 3 million people out of work.
We have a National Health Service, thanks to Clem Attlee and a socialist government.
Capitalism as given us Goldmann Sachs and Enron. RAPTURE.lol
GreenmanXIV 5 days ago
@GreenmanXIV
Socialism gives control and ownership to society? You mean a certain political elite who claims to act in the interest of society.
You will have elites in any system, the difference is in capitalism the elites actually earned the money and power they have.
And quite frankly, I'd prefer to have a government run by Goldman Sachs than a Goldman Sachs run by the government.
The subprime mortgage crisis showed what happens, when politics dictates lending policy
Kuner1 5 days ago
@Kuner1 "political elite" what like the Bushes! "One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009.
You're a christian fundamentalist, neo-con birther, who's waiting for 'The Secret Invisible Rapture'. Wait till the fuckwit Romney hits the Whitehouse. The Rupture may come sooner than rather than later. Now sod off or WHATEVER.
GreenmanXIV 5 days ago
@GreenmanXIV
I am not a Christian, I detest Christianity and I hate the Bush clan.
Most of the republican establishment is little to no better than the Democrats. The republicans have long abandoned capitalism and are manipulating the markets and restricting personal freedom when it clashes with their sick religion
Kuner1 5 days ago
@Kuner1 Well at least we agree on something.
GreenmanXIV 4 days ago
@GreenmanXIV
I agree with many aspects of liberalism. Gay marriage, no censorship of the arts, equal rights for men and women and environmentalism (as long as it's serious and not abused as some bullshit excuse to raise taxes).
I generally don't like government, organised religion or anyone else imposing their will on people.
Regarding what Bill Maher says here about government taking over hospitals in Europe.
Here in Germany the worst hospitals are the state run.
Kuner1 4 days ago
@GreenmanXIV That must be why Goldmann Sachs and Enron were such gigantic lobbyists who controlled many politicians in the central government. This has nothing to do with capitalism and free markets, but to do with statism and government monopoly.
That's all 'middle of the road' capitalism with government intervention can breed- cartel and monopoly.
Whereas Socialism can only produce destitution and despotism. When you abolish markets you abolish choice. Read up on the Calculation debate.
Oyaji291 4 days ago
@Oyaji291 The only country that comes anywhere near to being socialist that I can think of is Sweden. Destitute ruled by despots I don't think so.
Watched a couple of documentaries on TV about American families living under bridges and in storm drains. Only surviving on with the help of foodbanks. You really need to get clued up.
Why did Dick Cheney go all out for the illegal invasion of Iraq, was it because he made 44 million dollars out of it as CEO of Halliburton. How much tax he pay on it?
GreenmanXIV 4 days ago
@GreenmanXIV Sweden is a non sequitor. There are a million underlying factors that determine their relative success, least of which being their systematic push toward privatization as the years go by. It's either one way or another- toward despotism or away from it. They're wising up.
Your second comment is also a non-sequitor. America is an extremely interventionist economy with increasing control from the central governments. Quasi 'socialist' leaning more toward a soft fascism is America.
Oyaji291 8 hours ago
@Oyaji291 It's non sequitur. Might be an idea if you looked it up
Your second comment makes no sense at all "Quasi socialist" " soft fascism". American families are destitute, starving and being evicted. I've seen the pictures and read the reports. Where's the government intervention in that can of worms.
I see you make no comment on the third paragraph. Well how much tax did Cheney pay on his ill gotten gains.
GreenmanXIV 6 hours ago
@GreenmanXIV And your last comment is a red herring. I will, however, take the moment to express my deep-seated hatred for that war mongering scumbag Dick Cheney and hope that he may rot in hell.
Oyaji291 8 hours ago
I can understand what Ratigan is trying to say but he, in fact anyone, cannot compare words w/ numbers.
Bmanritchie 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Socialism or capitalism is not an either or choice. The fairest democracies have the best of both. The US may be the best 'free market' capitalist democracy in the world but it is not the fairest.
paultheinept 1 week ago
This Maher is pretty funny, but chill everyone. I live in a country that has been socialist for almost a hundred years and we dont even think of ourselfs as socialists. Results? We are the best at quite alot of things. And at the moment we have a right wing party in power. Socialist country whit a right wing gouverment, that said. Our right wing isnt the same as in the US.
tyskbulle 1 week ago
@tyskbulle Sweden? Maybe one of the other Nordic countries.
I'm sure it's a wonderful country. I suspect one of the keys to this has to do with the fact that it's a very homogeneous society. If people can agree, that's wonderful. In a largely immigrant country (e.g. the US), consensus is difficult. If I want my kids to be learn about Creation (instead of evolution) but you don't, what do we teach in schools?
It's only a problem if your kid has to learn there and you have to pay for it.
grantcivyt 1 week ago
@grantcivyt Consensus is not as difficult here as you might think. Jews and Palestinians can be next door neighbors here and not care a wink about it. Same goes with many other groups that can't stand each other, if they were in their home countries. I would say Europe has a bigger problem with consensus, just look at how they've handled their economic problems over the last 4 years. No one can decide whose in charge, and they all want to be.
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel I disagree regularly with friends, but I still like having lunch with them. We don't *have to* agree. That's the point.
Consensus is about agreeing to do something together. Like funding and operating a shcool. If the group agrees, that's great. If the group doesn't all agree, that can still be 'ok' -- just fewer participants. But if everyone is compelled to participate (as in public schools), then a lack of consensus breeds discord.
Better to make it so people don't need to agree.
grantcivyt 1 week ago
@grantcivyt "Better to make it so people don't need to agree" That could be taken more than one way ;)
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel Hm...you're right. I meant that in a non-dictatorial way.
You'll have a more civil, cooperative and welcoming society if you strive to minimize compulsory activities.
And if you act now, we'll throw in less corruption as a bonus!
grantcivyt 1 week ago 2
OOOOPPPSSS, we forgot to mention the fact that capitalism has something called "competition" which 99.99999% of the time produces a cheaper, better, and higher quality product than a "monopoly". He also forgot to mention that USA contributes more medical research and development than all of Europe combined, and 40% of the total worlds medical research(mainly due to "PRIVATE" investment). So you can kiss the cure for cancer goodbye if you want to trade it for failed social medicine.
jamesanton1231 3 days ago
Socialism relies on collectivism, which necessarily subordinates the rights of individuals to the whims of a group. What is a group but a number of individuals? It is no accident that it has always been those countries that push collectivism that ultimately become dictatorships. It's the nature of the system. Look up anything about the non-aggression principle. This is the only moral method by which to construct a political system.
shaverbh 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shaverbh An over simplification of socialism. I could use your collectivism statement to argue that the the US military is therfore socialist as the individual is subordnate to the group.
paultheinept 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many in the USA demonise the word socialism from ignorance and living in an a society that is isolationist and insular in it's outlook. I doubt most Americans would know where Europe is on a map. There are many degrees of socialism but some in the US seem to think Socialism = Communism. The most successful, responsible and fairest democracies in the world (Sweden, Denmark, Germany) all have a level of democratic socialism. It protects you from the excesses of a totally free market economy.
paultheinept 1 week ago
Maher's definition of socialism as selective government take-over of things that "should not be run for profit," ought to sound an alarm.
Greed is a constant. Capitalism channels greed (through profit-seeking) to satisfy the needs of individuals. When the government takes things over, the greed is still there. The difference is instead of satisfying customers, businesses have to satisfy regulators (often through bribery).
There are market failures, but we shouldn't assume government is a fix.
grantcivyt 1 week ago
@grantcivyt I disagree, just look at the example of the great depression. Hoover tried to solve the problem by fostering private enterprise through his idea of associationism, but he soon found that corporations could not be relied on in times of economic need because their moral obligation was towards their stock holders rather than the common good. its not that the people running corporations are evil, its simply that private interest cannot be trusted to work towards a broader picture.
forzainter72 1 week ago
@forzainter72 I'm not sure how this ties into my earlier comment. I will say I'm not expert on the Great Depression.
I agree that private individuals working for their own gain cannot be relied on to work toward someone else's "broader picture." Note that it's not a given that the broader picture reflects the best interests of the people.
Incidentally, I'm given to understand that the role of government was substantial and exacerbated the Depression. It may be mistaken to blame businesses.
grantcivyt 1 week ago
@grantcivyt actually the reason the depression was exacerbated was partly because of Hoover's trust of corporations to benefit the country rather than themselves, only very late in his presidency did he realize that the government needed to step in to put a roof on loans and create public works to stimulate the economy. Roosevelt soon stepped in and helped the country recover with restrictions on bank speculations, insurance on deposits and many welfare programs for the benefit of the people.
forzainter72 1 week ago
@forzainter72 I learned similarly in school, but I've become skeptical of that narrative.
Check out the Austrian view on the Depression for an alternate explanation of events. In fact, you can look up Milton Friedman on the Great Depression right here on YouTube. It's great!
"Bank speculations" keep banks honest. "Insurance on deposits" means I don't care what the bank does with my money. If you shield individuals and businesses from risk, you encourage profligacy.
But seriously...Friedman.
grantcivyt 1 week ago
@grantcivyt Well said. Socialism begets moral hazard.
bweazel 1 week ago
@forzainter72 It was socialist policies that gave us the Great Depression. I love how you all behave as though the way to correct mistakes and problems of socialism, is by piling on more socialism and government control. That line of thinking is what got us to where we are today. Are you pleased with the way government's and countries operate today? Does it seem like a system of integrity, or a balancing act to you?
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel does anyone read hitory books. It was conservative free market under regulation of the financial sector and the excessive high risk speculation by that sector that caused the stock market crash in 1929.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept You know Paul, you can keep repeating that same line over and over again, but that doesn't make it a rebuttal of my argument. Rebut, please, or move on.
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept And what I just asked you is what made that high risk speculation possible. These businesses didn't all just start speculating for no reason, there's more to this than you're admitting.
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept Something presented businesses of that time with a moral hazard. I would say it was the Federal Reserve. People act differently when they think someone else is managing things.
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept The conservative free market? A conservative market? The markets of the 20s were anything but conservative. 1913 gave us the Federal Reserve, a very progressive idea of the time.
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel We'll have to agree to disagree. Just tired of people demonising socialism as if it's all bad. Like capitalism it is complex and has it's good and bad elements.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept And I'm just tired of people acting like more government intervention and less private ownership is a good thing, when too much government intervention is what gave us this mess in the first place. Hmmm, liberty or arbitrary control by a small group. Hmmmm..... hmmmmmmmm..... tough choice there. ;P
What is so complex about private ownership and using your money as your vote in the economy? At least in capitalism you have a vote in the economy, in socialism, nope.
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel I also agree too much government intervention is bad. But you're talking in extremes. Both socialist and capitalist policies have got countries into lots of trouble, whether a large national debt or high unemployment. I dont like overly socialist goverments. I don't like the uncontrolled excesses of a totally free market economy. E.g. Disenfranchising people from healthcare based on their earning power is cruel and synical, especially from a so called Christian country.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept And I don't like salad bars ;)
bweazel 1 week ago
@grantcivyt It is very mistaken to blame businesses. The Great Depression was a result of government intervention into the economy and the result of a centralized banking system set up only a decade before. The Federal Reserve is primarily to blame for the Great Depression and the length of it the depression. The boom from the 20's turned into the Great Depression of the 30s, because the initial boom in the 20's was not backed up by any real growth.
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel Sorry to disagree but suggest you read a history book. The cause of the great depression was a market crash in 1929. Caused by under regulation of the financial sector and high risk speculation by banks that didn't seperate retail banking from high risk investment banking. Sound familiar? It was government intervention by Roosevelt's (the New Deal) that instituted programs of relief, recovery and reform. Democratic socialsm protects us from the excesses of capitalism
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept No need to apologize, we're just bouncing ideas off each other. Yes, and what caused Black Friday? Excessive credit from the Federal Reserve system. They gave a false sense of security.
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept Wrong. Socialism is what allows excessive capitalism. When you socialize risk, you take it away from the private sector, which presents them with a moral hazard.
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel Are we overusing labels here? In the UK it was both conservative and liberal deregulation of banks that led to unchecked free market high risk speculation
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept I'm not the one using labels. It usually is a mix of them both, just saying, you adding conservative on there really does nothing to help your argument. They play off of each other. To behave as though the two are really different is a bit laughable.
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept Did it protect us against '08? No, it didn't. Socialist policies were the crux of the credit crisis. Fannie and Freddie and the Federal Reserve being the two largest.
bweazel 1 week ago
Socialism will not save your country though lol your debt is far to high
Reido2828 1 week ago
Obama is a socialist
SeanDumont 1 week ago
American social democracy hasn't yet succeeded because we don't have a decent Socialist Party, we have 10 or so far-left parties, we don't have a British Labour Party, or a French Socialist Party, we have 10 tiny parties you can only find on Wikipedia.
sapzap96 1 week ago
Holy shit these people are idiots.
TheMrwindowseal 1 week ago
Anyway, have fun with your warmongering in the Middle East while praising how much of a pacifist and good-willed your president is (just because you don't feel confortable in saying anything bad about an half-black guy *facepalm*)
vash8millenium 1 week ago
at best we have a third wayist social-democratic system. Educate yourselves, either the means of production are privately owned or they aren't. Either a country is Capitalist or Socialist. There is no halfway, and West Europe and Scandinavia have always been capitalist. Also gotta love when some of you start labeling Obama and the democratic party as "the left", lol really, even the UK conservative party is more "liberal" than Obama and Hillary Clinton.
vash8millenium 1 week ago
@vash8millenium "Either a country is Capitalist or Socialist." The world is not that black and white. Do they not sell color televisions in your country?
midifromhell 1 week ago
@midifromhell In this case it is. Social-democracy cannot be considered "grey" since it's still a capitalist ideology. In a true socialist regime there's not such thing as a private sector thus Europe can never be socialist. Americans calling Europeans socialist just because we have a better welfare state and our capitalism isn't as wild and unregulated as yours, it's like an anorexic telling an average weighting person that he's fat just because he's heavier. Get it now?
vash8millenium 1 week ago 17
@vash8millenium You don't have a better welfare state, you just have less expenses that we pick the tab up for you. Get back to me when you all have to defend yourselves or fight for your own interests again and we'll see how well European socialism holds up then when they don't have the American tit to suckle on. Yes, we're all beginning to get it now. America works and Europe takes it easy and mooches like the little rebellious peasants they are.
bweazel 1 week ago
@vash8millenium There can be no private sector in socialism? You sure about that? That's the fun with socialism, so long as you agree with the powers that be, you're gains will be your gains at the expense of the public. Socialism is the mantra of the day: Socialize the loses, privatize the gains. You'd think as Europeans, you all would see how socialism worked in Nazi Germany and back away from the idea a bit, but alas, Europe is still crazy for socialism
bweazel 1 week ago
@vash8millenium Well said. You've made the point I was trying to make about the incorrect, misguided, oversimplified and unfair hijacking of the word socialism or socialist by many Americans.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept Then what to you is a fair definition of the word? I don't feel I've said anything different than you. Are you happy with the kind of socialism we practice today in Europe and America?
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel I'm never totally happy with any form of government, whether in America or Europe. There is no such thing as the perfect political system whether it be socialist or capitalist. The best democracies usually have the elements of both. You can have a socially democratic society with some intervention, that still allows private ownership and a free market. Just because most of Europe has a better welfare state than America doesn't mean Europe is socialist.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@bweazel I'm never totally happy with any form of government, whether in America or Europe. There is no such thing as the perfect political system whether it be socialist or capitalist. The best democracies usually have the elements of both. You can have a socially democratic society with some intervention, that still allows private ownership and a free market. Just because most of Europe has a better welfare state than America doesn't mean Europe is socialist.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept Sadly, yes, we are a socially democratic union. We're supposed to be a constitutional republic, which is supposed to protect individuals, but we opted for the good feelings of "saving" (some would call it condescending) everyone, instead of protecting the individual.
What do you consider a fair definition of socialism? Especially if you don't think what we have already is socialism.
bweazel 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bweazel Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 week ago
@marionetemanJ *yawn*
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel And that's the problem and point I'm trying to make. There is no clear definition of socialism. One definition is state control of production. Dead against that! Another is redistribution by taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy. Different governmants implement varying degrees of that redistribution. I dislike over regulation/taxation. But good social democarcy is fair distribution and regulation
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept Then I don't understand how you could make a statement like this "about the incorrect, misguided, oversimplified and unfair hijacking of the word socialism or socialist by many Americans." without first having the proper definition. If you don't even have a definition for it, how can you be upset with Americans for what the majority of them feel socialism is? But that's how it's defined, sir. State ownership and/or control of the means of production.
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel You've made my argument for me. That lack of understanding of the complexities of what socialism is is the root case of that misguided feeling. You've done it again and simplified it by sying it is state ownership and/or control of the means of production. That is only an extreme. Many of the social democracies across Europe are based on a free market economy but with some elements of state regulation where it is required to control the extremes of a free market economy.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept I have not made any argument for you, I'm asking you to explain how you can condemn other people for the misuse of a term that you can't even define yourself. No, see, that's the thing, it's not complex, you all try to delude the truth of socialism by trying to make it complex, but it's actually quite simple. You cannot have social control or ownership without an authoritative arbiter, which is the part that you guys always try to cloud over with "complexities".
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept Then correct me, if not state ownership. Then whose? And don't try to slide out of that by just saying "social ownership", that's a cop out. No, I'm not talking about extremes, you keep treating me like I am, but I'm simply asking you, if it isn't state ownership, then who owns it? And if it's just ownership by a group, how is that any different than the private ownership we already have?
Socialism always sounds good, until you get into the "how".
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept I think you'll find that more often than not, the "extremes" of the free market only arise due to special privilege awarded by government and/or government granted monopolies in the name of convenience at the expense of true competition. It makes me a bit sad to see you describe voluntary exchange and mutual consent as an "extreme" that needs to be curtailed if we are all going to live a "fair" life.
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel Agrre with your first statement. Haven't a clue what your talking about with voluntary exchange and mutual consent in the context of what I said.
paultheinept 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bweazel Agree with your first statement. Haven't a clue what your talking about with voluntary exchange and mutual consent in the context of what I said.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept And what is "fair"? Who decides? Correct, a small group of people. Whatever way you try to define it, you can't get away from the fact that it IS government control of some or all of the means of production, without that government control, you cannot institute the socialist policies, therefor cannot have socialism.
You guys are a bit disingenuous. I've talked to many self-proclaimed socialists while on here, all of you try to distract away from that truth of government control
bweazel 1 week ago
@bweazel We are talking about social democracies here not communist states! Why are you so dead against some level of government regulation or control? What about the military, prisons, national parks, planning, etc. If you left those all to private business you'd have unaccounatble private police forces that only offered policing to those that could afford it, condos in the Grand Canyon and so on.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept Ok, paul. So you have no intent of answering very simple questions about how socialism operates, but instead keep trying to accuse me of confusing socialism with communism even though I haven't brought up communism a single time.
Stop wasting my time, just say it: "Yes, I prefer state ownership over personal liberty, because I don't trust individuals and would happily give up my liberty if that meant they didn't have any either."
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept I'm getting real tired of you people that try to condescend others who call out socialism for what it is: state control. That's what you're argument started off as, that is wasn't state control, now that you cannot describe socialism without using the state, your argument has turned into trying to shame me for being against already existing social programs. (Which I'm not, there are some social services I consider useful and necessary).
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept .I'm no socialist by the way. I just think you can take the best from both ideologies. I'm moving on by the way as we're never going to agree. Enjoyed the discussion though.
paultheinept 1 week ago
@paultheinept Likewise.
bweazel 1 week ago
@paultheinept Socialists always try to downplay the government's involvement in their utopia. They try to replace government control with words like social control, or they replace it with "the people", etc. But they never go the extra step and explain how "the people" will actually own these things, nor do they ever explain how their ideas of "social ownership" differ from private ownership. Again, it seems very disingenuous to me how most proponents of socialism describe their ideal.
bweazel 1 week ago
@vash8millenium Exactly. I totally agree with you.
Social Democracy=Capitalism mixed with strong welfare
Socialism=Capitalism is almost non-existant and everything is ruled and owned by the people.
Bobloblawman 1 week ago
@vash8millenium
Actually "Social Democracy" is; according to my German dictionary, a form of Socialism. Which also explains why in the EU parliament the social democrat parties are part of the "Party of European Socialists".
As to how well we are doing in Europe... well you should be able to answer that question yourself.
Kuner1 6 days ago
@vash8millenium If in a true socialist regime there's not a private sctor, what is a true comunist regime?
eugstefan22 6 days ago
@vash8millenium
a. It is a little ludicrous to make the claim that Social-Democracy is not Socialism because it is not "pure" Socialism. Using your own logic it is not Capitalism because it is not laissez faire.
b. "thus Europe can never be socialist" This is a rather nonsensical statement. Again, SD is Socialism. But even if it were not, you haven't even attempted to explain why Europe could never be "tru[ly] socialist."
c. Your weight analogy is utterly wrong. A better example is you (cont.)
sgtkpf 6 days ago
@vash8millenium
arguing that a morbidly obese individual is not fat simply because they are not the heaviest person on the planet. The welfare state is a de facto abolition of property. If my property is seized against my will and given to others without some good or service given in return (whether a public good or private good) then that property is not in fact my own. Therefore you are certainly correct that SD is not "pure" Socialism. But it is in fact closer to Socialism than to Capitalism.
sgtkpf 6 days ago
@sgtkpf
well spoken
Kuner1 5 days ago
@Kuner1
Thank you. I thought so as well.
sgtkpf 4 days ago
@vash8millenium You're babbling and not making any sense. Europe has been in the middle of a currency and fiscal crisis for the past year and a half. Greece's social welfare system just collapsed and Italy is on its way next.
And America's entire economy is bogged with mounds and mounds of regulations. Recently there was a healthcare mandate which basically granted rights of privilege to the already regulated medical industry. This is one anecdote.
Stop relying on platitudes, instead cite facts
Oyaji291 4 days ago
@vash8millenium
Obama is a warmongering neoconservative who extended the patriot act, signed ndaa, started Libya, Yemen, and Syria, is keeping troops in Iraq DESPITE "withdrawal" (lol). any "leftist" or "liberal" who supports obama at this point should be euthanized. And government owning the means of production is state capitalism, since the political class is a separate class.
fountainherz 1 week ago
@fountainherz Obama comes to me more as a keynesian conservative, which is in my honest opinion the worst of both worlds in the left/right paradigm. Also, state capitalism is an inherent part of the socialist process, you should know that. Anarcho-communism (like Marx and Engel intended) is an utopia anyway, there will always be political bureaucracy and authoritarianism in these sort of regimes.
vash8millenium 1 week ago
@vash8millenium
Neo conservatism uses conservative keynesian economics. And state capitalism (bureaucrats owning and controlling MoP) is self-defeating because of what you pointed out - there will be political bureaucracy and authoritarianism. The political class is a separate class.
fountainherz 1 week ago
You americans are so fucking dumb when it comes to politics. My country's communist party would laugh their asses of if they ever watched this video. Listen you idiots just because some things have the word "public" attached to it doesn't mean it's socialism. Just so you know, the welfare state model we have in europe was created by a prussian anti-socialist CONSERVATIVE politican. Other than during the East Bloc years, EUROPE WAS NEVER SOCIALIST you ignorant fools (continues)
vash8millenium 1 week ago
@vash8millenium
I'm American and I agree with you, but tone it down a notch. Geez.
lol
DivinelyMochaDipped 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
capitalism isn't fine there r holes in our system like da rich people n wall street dey r greedy corporate ceos who r feeding off of us failing republicans r calling dem job creators much lyke job destroyers cuz dey ship jobs overseas in china a totalirian country where dey can underpay workers instead of helping their country America n their suppose 2 be patriots take mitt romney for example he keeps his money in da cayman islands he's evading paying taxes.
ShottyBlast11 1 week ago
Ratigan is completely correct about Rethugs trying to redefine words -- that's called LYING. And Bill is completely right that Rethug voters don't even have definitions in the first place. What a fucking menace these dumbass bat-shit crazy right-wing stumps are.
jdarrah17 1 week ago
@jdarrah17 Please. Don't insult stumps.
blackkakari 1 week ago
@blackkakari That cracked me up LOL!! Seriously, my apologies to stumps everywhere...
jdarrah17 1 week ago
Capitalism works if you have money and socialism works if you have people with jobs paying taxes.
wovokanarchy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
look at the tyrannys and communistic governments in the last 200 years. socilism allows the government to control your medicines to beat prisoners unlawfully in prisons. it allows the governments and corporations to be powerful over the people. it is unfree to consider such knowing history and how socialism works. all socialistic countrys have failed not one is working strong in todays world or a superpower. quit trying to call evil good and good evil democrats you corrupt freedom
jacosoft666 1 week ago
Socialism isn't bad in and of itself. No form of government is, really. It's when those who control a government infringe on the general public's freedom that it becomes a poor mode of government. We saw this with Hitler in Fascism, with Gorbechev, et al in Communism, and now we're seeing it with Obama, et al in Capitalism.
Left unmonitored, any government will corrupt itself eventually. Such is entropy....
darkridr25 2 weeks ago
I liked the part where he said "arithmetic and fact."
gunterdak 2 weeks ago 23
@gunterdak A staggeringly good comment.
ARichardSwann 1 week ago
@gunterdak WOOO! WOOOOOO!
edomiteslayerkenobi 1 week ago
it's insane how socialism it turned into a naughty word. The founding of this country was clear, promote the common welfare. America was designed to be a socialist democracy from the start, there is meant to be a balance with elements of both socialism and the free market. People forget that the democrats and republicans are both supposed to have validity, their philosophies represent the core issues in need of being balanced in our government. Both are necessary.
evilyig 2 weeks ago
@evilyig Promoting the common welfare meant protecting our civil liberties to most of our founding fathers. Civil liberties are not the intention of socialist governments. We have socialism (corporatism) in this country for the elites, while the rest of us enjoy a hodgepodge of other isms. The elites are bailed out while enjoying the benefits of our debt creating system owned by private bankers called the Federal Reserve and whose lobbyists own policy makers and accountable to no one.
DTK5689 2 weeks ago
@evilyig no it will soon be a pure socialist order for 'us'. The real rulers of America. You?
You're not in control. So vote for obama, ensure my power.
ilIuminaughty 1 week ago
Wow this guy is insane. I may be called a right wing nut, but I dont like people having control over my life. This is what he wants is the government to become more powerful and to control every aspect of what is our daily lives. If you just read a history book and see how well socialism has done in every country that has used it, you would know its a very bad idea. Stalin believed in socialism and he also killed over 20 million. Hitler was apart of the socialist party and he killed 6 millionjew
skxek 2 weeks ago
@skxek Hitler was a part of the Nazi Party, it just happened to have the word Socialist in its name, he belonged to the far-right
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@irishgodfatherchris "Hitler was a part of the Nazi Party, it just happened to have the word Socialist in its name, he belonged to the far-right"
See, now that is among the most stupid things socialists say. It completely ignores that the far-right Hitler and the far-left Stalin and Mao were dictators in total-state collectivist regimes.
The "left/right" paradigm as its used is complete nonsense. What really matters is how much or how little The State regiments a society.
HaroldRehling 2 weeks ago
@skxek You're not even listening to what was said, you're addressing a straw man you created. The question is not if socialism is bad, it's how much socialism. Why don't you complain about socialized roads? Why don't you object to socialized water treatment facilities? You look foolish presenting the only alternative to your position in the most extreme and radical context possible. America was founded from the beginning to be a socialist democracy, promoting the common welfare.
evilyig 2 weeks ago
".. and things that should not be run for profit.." Take away profit and it all goes to shit, Bill. Money talks, whether you like it or not. So let's have it talk for good causes as well, like education.
torgyman 2 weeks ago
What they don't mention is where that money comes from to pay for the social programs. In our current society it is from state taxation that is enforced through threat of imprisonment. That is immoral. I don't mind socialism, as long as it is not state socialism.
anonwoohoo 2 weeks ago
Manipulative by spreading fear? Sounds like religion.
DaPs166 2 weeks ago
Great idea, let's have the same government that runs the Postal Service run our hospitals...
5382021 2 weeks ago
@5382021 you would probably have a better health care system
Geckuno 2 weeks ago
@Geckuno The government has failed to control something as simple as the postal service in the US, why would it stand a chance handling something as complex as health care? It already attempts to regulate health care now and we can see how much that has driven up prices.
5382021 2 weeks ago
@5382021 hımm I didn't know that. In that case you may be right. But theoretically I believe that some places like schools, hospitals etc. shouldn't be run by private companies at least without any control
Geckuno 2 weeks ago
@Geckuno The great thing about a free economy is that it allows the consumers to pick the service that suits them best. With government run institutions you are given a one-size-fits-all service. While I am not opposed to State-run funding programs for those who can't afford basic necessities, having the government (especially federal) run these institutions does more harm than good.
5382021 2 weeks ago
to put it simply:
people controling and making money on education, health, war, prisons and social servises....BAD
goverments taking care of it with the greater good in mind GOOD
all having equal rights to education ----->GOOD
not sending your soldiers to war all the time where thei die ------>GOOD
health care for all ------>GOOD
prisons helping people go back to society and not just locking them up -----> GOOD
achristos123456 2 weeks ago
@achristos123456 In the US,over the last century, Government has ruined public education, access to health care, and has given us the highest per-capita incarceration rate in human history.
HaroldRehling 2 weeks ago
Communism was, in fact, Socialism.
Fascism was, in fact, Socialism.
Nazism was, in fact, Socialism.
All, of course, to varying degrees.
You can not have just a little bit of cancer. You either have it or you don't. And if you have it, and you don't get rid of it, it will spread and grow until it has killed you.
HaroldRehling 2 weeks ago
@HaroldRehling thats not only misleading its a flat out lie
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
@irishgodfatherchris If after giving what I wrote any serious consideration and you truly believe my statements to be false then you are so so far gone there is absolutely no hope for you.
The likelihood is that you haven't given it any consideration at all and are going with your gut-feeling; mostly from fear of discovering all you have believed to be true for so long is the real lie.
Would-be despots love people like you.
HaroldRehling 2 weeks ago
@HaroldRehling uh huh I'm sorry but I cant take anyone seriously when they support someone as extreme and ignorant as Ron Paul. This is a man who openly accepts donations from Neo-Nazi's because Ron supports the so called right for a person to refuse a person entry to their business based solely on skin colour. I also live in a country with UHC and unlike the system in the US it actually works and is not designed to make money.
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
@irishgodfatherchris Well, it's good to know that you're prepared to force people at gunpoint to behave as you believe they should. It's pretty typical of a socialist to want to kill people they disagree with. Tell me again, how does this differ from the neo-nazis and racists who you claim to hate other than conscience (rather than ethnicity) being the mark of a sub-human?
Remember, Nazi = National SOCIALISM.
HaroldRehling 2 weeks ago
@HaroldRehling wow is that what your masters taught you, to re-write history to suit your ideology.
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
@irishgodfatherchris What part of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers Party is it that YOUR history books neglected?
Or maybe its that you never learned about gulags, reeducation centers, and internment camps.
Perhaps your gov't schools missed that in the 20th century Socialist regimes have murdered over 100 million of their own citizens.
Who cares as long as you don't have to pay the Dr. when you get a boo-boo.
The State is a cancer,
HaroldRehling 2 weeks ago
@HaroldRehling NURSE!!!, he's off again
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
There out in the open selling NAKED Socialism.
Talk Guns with Socialist and see where goes.
Talk Property Rights with them and see where it goes.
America has hundreds of millions of guns and gun ownership is going up; there is no way on gods green earth your getting people to give up there guns. We got enough bullets here in this country to kill every man women and child on the planet. Fact!
Seattle206723 2 weeks ago
@Seattle206723 nobody cares about gun ownership or has for 20 years almost, it's a total fucking non issue that idiots like you can have presented to them because it presses emotional buttons, shut up already
cryjesuscry 2 weeks ago
@cryjesuscry Socialisim will never exists in America not in 1000 years my friend! Take that thought to your dying grave; and remember this I Seattle206723 said so!
Seattle206723 2 weeks ago
@Seattle206723 it already exists here and has since the day our country was born, you are stupid if you can't see that
cryjesuscry 2 weeks ago
@cryjesuscry You do understand that a lot of things exist in the world. To have political influence over laws of the land is another... enjoy.
Seattle206723 2 weeks ago
Dylan speaks of fact and logic to properly guide the people in debate as opposed to using fear and other manipulative tactics, but Bill begins with referring to his opponents as teabaggers. Is name calling not just a tactic to undermine ones credibility so the name caller does not have to acknowledge logic and fact given by the opposition? Is Bill not undermining Dylan's theory of arithmetic and fact with the use of name calling? Does this not contribute to the debate problem?
CAWilliams01 2 weeks ago
Socialism is an uncontrollable monster. The more you feed it the more it grows. Eventually it is essentially communism. "the goal of socialism is to achieve communism." -----Saul Alinsky
1whtcobra44 2 weeks ago
@1whtcobra44 Saul was American, so as much as I respect what he did (this is coming from an Australian) he did not know what Socialism is, Australia during the 30's and 40's was very socialist and we did just fine
irishgodfatherchris 2 weeks ago
There was only south American country, that came close to Socialism. That was Chile, under Salvador Allende. Then the good old CIA, fucked with Democracy, and Augusto Pinochet. neo nazi bastard took power. You know him, no concentration camps. but you just disappear into the jungle.
GreenmanXIV 2 weeks ago