BubberMiley Posted June 24, 2012 Report Posted June 24, 2012 Open your eyes, Bubber. When his vision of society is to redistribute the wealth then who owns it? There's always been some form of wealth distribution in society since taxes were first collected. If he's a socialist, so is Reagan. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Jack Weber Posted June 24, 2012 Report Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) Open your eyes, Bubber. When his vision of society is to redistribute the wealth then who owns it? That occurs increasingly until you eventually have to admit you have a society where private property is no longer a reality and you can virtually say the people own the means of production, all share in it equally, distributed by the government. We call that socialism. He would never openly reveal his true intentions to the American people, they aren't socialized enough yet. Obamacare, his national healthcare plan, is a big step in the evolutionary process towards the total State. It will most likely get tossed out but if it isn't the socialists will become emboldened by it, just as they are emboldened by his constant rhetoric to "make the rich pay their fair share". It's called "the occupy movement". Be careful,Pliny... The Pinko's are hiding under your bed!!! The Marxist hordes are on your tail demanding your "freedom" as ransom for your existence!!! Edited June 24, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
BubberMiley Posted June 24, 2012 Report Posted June 24, 2012 Obamacare, his national healthcare plan, is a big step in the evolutionary process towards the total State. . Yes, the individual mandate, which conservatives loved until Obama signed onto it. The individual mandate, which Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts, that forces the masses to...buy insurance from their corporate overlords. Again, very sneaky of those socialists to act in what appears to be a completely anti-socialist manner. That way we will never know they are among us until it's too late. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Guest Manny Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Seems to me, with bailouts for the wealthy to order of 100's of billions of dollars, what we have is in fact a kind of reverse socialism. Quote
Pliny Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) There's always been some form of wealth distribution in society since taxes were first collected. If he's a socialist, so is Reagan. Oh yes. that makes it all clear now. Reagan and Obama were both socialists. Look at what they attempt to accomplish during their Presidential terms and you can see their goals for government. When Reagan said it was morning in America again he meant to gert government off the backs of the American people. He summed up the American attitude at the time with his famous most feared nine words in the American language,"We're from the government and we're here to help."Reagan was one of the few that put the brakes on a bit, actually. Even Bill Clinton in his second term with a Republican congress cooperated with stemming the tide somewhat, once Hillary was side-lined and she stopped meddling. Obama thinks that he is the man to solve all of America's problems with government and socialist principles top his list such as "from those according to their ability and to those according to their need". It isn't a smooth, quick and obvious process to the total State, Bubber. You can tell tyranny is on the horizon as soon as the State takes over control of the money supply though, and that process started in the US in 1913 and culminated, 58 years later, in 1971. It's that fact alone, the institution of a fiat money system, that today allows irresponsible and economically illiterate politicians to run up trillion dollar annual budget deficits. Don't get me wrong, Bush was no economic whiz kid either. It isn't a partisan evolution. Democrats and Republicans both contribute to the process, each growing government for their own special interests. Edited June 25, 2012 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Be careful,Pliny... The Pinko's are hiding under your bed!!! The Marxist hordes are on your tail demanding your "freedom" as ransom for your existence!!! Someone needs to ring the bell, Jack. Many people are waking up...WE don't need any more poems that start off with, "First they came for the..." and ends with.."When they came for me no one was left to speak out for me." Am I an alarmist? I get that you are content with just making some new demands when your contract expires, retiring with a cola pension and that's what life is all about. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 Seems to me, with bailouts for the wealthy to order of 100's of billions of dollars, what we have is in fact a kind of reverse socialism. What we have is an increasingly worthless dollar. Government has the ability to create money out of thin air. When it does that the first people on the lines to get that money are the banks, the bankers, Wall street and other well-positioned individuals and corporations, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and GM and their Executives come to mind. It eventually gets to the folks on Main Street but with a lower value - that's inflation. The middle and lower classes are not going to get ahead without a sound money system. As to reverse socialism what is that? Big government without government services? You may be thinking of "Corporatism" or "crony capitalism" which could be likened to Fascism but they are all centralized authorities. Obama has been accused of crony capitalism for his role in funding companies like Solyndra and his bailout of GM, essentially trying to pick winners and losers in the market. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Posted June 25, 2012 What we have is an increasingly worthless dollar. Government has the ability to create money out of thin air. When it does that the first people on the lines to get that money are the banks, the bankers, Wall street and other well-positioned individuals and corporations, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and GM and their Executives come to mind.... So what? If the dollar is "increasingly worthless", what's the point in that? The first people in line are actually those receiving entitlements on a recurring basis. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Pliny Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 So what? If the dollar is "increasingly worthless", what's the point in that? The first people in line are actually those receiving entitlements on a recurring basis. I'm not clear on your question here. Your last sentence seems to answer your last question. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 I'm not clear on your question here. Your last sentence seems to answer your last question. Why would "well positioned people and corporations" play a greedy game of hoarding "increasingly worthless" dollars? Your position is incongruent. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 No socialism is simply an economic scheme where the workers directly or indirectly own the means of production. No, you're thinking of communism. Quote
dre Posted June 26, 2012 Report Posted June 26, 2012 No, you're thinking of communism. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
socialist Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 i'll be very scared of obama doesnt win. obama is diffrent then other politicians. he understands the people. he understands the enviroment. he understands gays. he treats everyone with respect. i would vote for obama to be prez of the world if i could. Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
BubberMiley Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 he treats everyone with respect. Except maybe those who are collateral damage from his drone strikes. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
socialist Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 Except maybe those who are collateral damage from his drone strikes. i dont like the drones. but some right wing nut is telling him to use these drones. obama is a great president and he is friends with one of the greatest educators taht i look to for ideology Mr. william ayers. mr. ayers is the person who mademe want to become a public school teacher. he knows there is more to public schools than the useless 3 r's Quote Thankful to have become a free thinker.
Moonlight Graham Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 No, you're thinking of communism. Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
BubberMiley Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 mr. ayers is the person who mademe want to become a public school teacher. he knows there is more to public schools than the useless 3 r's Do you have any right-wing sock puppets? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. Communism is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism Quote
Pliny Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 Why would "well positioned people and corporations" play a greedy game of hoarding "increasingly worthless" dollars? Your position is incongruent. As long as there is a law that makes it "a legal tender", and thus a claim on goods, they will collect them. Well-positioned people can ride inflation a lot longer than the lower and middle classes. It doesn't matter to them much how much things cost. And they believe that things will continue along if they simply contribute to the right political party. Unfortunately, things happen, and it necessitates government to prop up the system by bailing out those well-positioned people and corporations and they create more and more dollars to save themselves and they have full faith in the government to do so but eventually it gets out of control, history has a full account of what happens when a government takes over control of the money system. But really, the true test of sound "money" is whether or not it needs a law to make people use it as money. Governments are so whimsical, leave it to them and what's money today may not be money tomorrow. Americans couldn't own gold from 1933 to 1975 for example. In 1933 gold was still money. In 1971 gold was no longer money. I guess in 1975 it was ok for you Americans to own gold since it was no longer money anyway. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 There is a bit of discussion about socialism and communism here and defining them in terms of the ownership of the means of production. Firstly, Communism is a form of "socialism" and works to achieve the same end through revolution. Secondly what does the ownership of the means of production mean? Does that mean those who own the means of production own the production? Does it mean the ones that own the production should own the means of production? In a democracy, and there isn't a totalitarian socialist country that does not have democracy as one of its tenets, the people are represented by the government. The more ability the government has to take production from some and give it to others the more it has "ownership" of production. That is basically an "indirect" ownership of the means of production. In Canada, it owns the means of the production of healthcare and education and the more it engineers society the more it controls the means of production. Saying that healthcare and education are just "social programs" is an attempt to skirt around the idea that they are socialist concepts. It owns the means of production because it determines how the industry will operate. There is no competitiveness so there is no means to set costs and the costs spiral upward while service spirals downward. Communism starts with revolution and installing the total state. Somehow over time the role of government is supposed to dwindle away to being merely a matter of administration. That hasn't happened yet and I don't see how it could - unless the underground economy destroys the administration. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 As long as there is a law that makes it "a legal tender", and thus a claim on goods, they will collect them. No...you are confusing legal tender with money, which takes many forms. Do you really think big corporations operate principally on "legal tender"? Well-positioned people can ride inflation a lot longer than the lower and middle classes. It doesn't matter to them much how much things cost. Correct...but inflation benefits all debtors, regardless of class. But really, the true test of sound "money" is whether or not it needs a law to make people use it as money. Governments are so whimsical, leave it to them and what's money today may not be money tomorrow. Americans couldn't own gold from 1933 to 1975 for example. In 1933 gold was still money. In 1971 gold was no longer money. I guess in 1975 it was ok for you Americans to own gold since it was no longer money anyway. Americans can have "money" in many forms, and always have. Today there is virtual money on the internet. The mere fact that you are so worried about what the US dollar may or may not do only underscores its continued value as the world's reserve currency. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bleeding heart Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 Specifically targeted geostrategic realms? Sounds pretty conspiratorial! Do you have evidence of this? Evidence? That wars, attacks, military interventions occur? And that specific regions are targeted? "Conspiratorial," indeed. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
TedF Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 Quite recently I came across some amusing info that our smart heads in D.C. are alarmed over radioactive pollution in the Arctic region. That's just loony bin imo! Safety of polar bears is of greater importance for them than ours! They'd rather cast their eye on our similar domestic challenges, right here in California state! You see, that was really a scaring discovery for me when I read somewhere that there are regular nuclear leakages, radioactive gas releases and malfunctions on 50 (!) out of 65 NPPs in this country!! Being a doc by profession I can suspect that the evident rise in blood diseases with the kids in California is definitely due to regular radioactive steam leakages occurring on San Onofre nuclear generating facility more known as SONGS you know. Fancy, they lack funds to upgrade the obsolete plant's steam generators! And they experience no such shortages when it comes to doing some radioactive pollution research in faraway Arctic region ! Quote
Pliny Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 No...you are confusing legal tender with money, which takes many forms. Do you really think big corporations operate principally on "legal tender"? There is no such thing as "legal tender" there is such a thing as "a legal tender" Why is "a" important? You have to know what a legal tender is, many don't. Correct...but inflation benefits all debtors, regardless of class. An excellent reason to acquire debt. Americans can have "money" in many forms, and always have. Today there is virtual money on the internet. The mere fact that you are so worried about what the US dollar may or may not do only underscores its continued value as the world's reserve currency. Sorry. Money has two requirements to be called money. It must satisfy a contract completely and it must be a store of value. What you call money is simply a fiat currency, or an electronic entry on a balance sheet. There is a difference. Hereis an interesting site on fiat currencies. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted June 28, 2012 Report Posted June 28, 2012 Evidence? That wars, attacks, military interventions occur? And that specific regions are targeted? "Conspiratorial," indeed. "Targeted" sounds conspiratorial. Who is targeting who? Wars occur because governments can create money out of thin air. If they were forced to go to the citizens to pay for their wars most of them wouldn't have occurred. It behooves all people of Earth to demand of their government sound money. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.