The Real Threat; Not Communism, but Big Gov't and the Left

[Harvard]

DerAdlerIstGelandet wrote:

Harvard I think you are trying to make something evil out of something that is not. The big thing you have in the United States is poverty. You dont see that as much over here, you know why, because the state helps people not be in poverty.

DerAdlerIstGelandet:

Interesting, so having very few people living in poverty implies gov't paid housing.

[Blackwatch]

I do not fear socialism, I despise it, along with communists....I do not make threats either.....socialism is part of the same old ways of thinking that prove they do not work..only capitalism has proven it works....it's ok for a socialist to insult me and say I am 'uninformed' and NO ONE critiques them/him/her, but when I state my opinion I am chastized....so be it....the poverity rate in the US is based largely on liberal left-wing economics that patiently have failed....

[pbfoot]

I think Black Watch and Harvard need to take a trip and see some of the world Black Watch I'm not chastizing you but amazed at how little that your aware of how the world is outside the US if your fortunate enough not to require any government assistance in any way more power to you but most of the world but I'll bet you get government assistance in ways your not even aware of roads, telecommunications defence etc I have little or no use for bureaucrats but they are there and have been and always will be the trick is to elect those that are not on the gravy train you cannot paint every left wing person a pinko just as you cannot say every right wing person is self centered its what makes the policy makers toe the line and give a fair and equal shot at creating fair and equitable laws for everyone including those less fortunate then yourself who maybe didn't get the bounces in life that you seem to have . How can you say that left wing economics are the cause of poverty the Republicans since 1968 have held sway in the US with the exception of Carter and Clinton for 12 years

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

How can you say that left wing economics are the cause of poverty the Republicans since 1968 have held sway in the US with the exception of Carter and Clinton for 12 years

Because they are enacted at the State Government level making states like Mississippi and Lousiana giant welfare states. Although much of the money comes from the Federal Government, many welfare programs are run at the state level. not going into details it give many welfare recipients no incentive to better themselves.


The current welfare system was set up in the 1960s during the Johnson administration.

[Harvard]

I think Black Watch and Harvard need to take a trip and see some of the world Black Watch I'm not chastizing you but amazed at how little that your aware of how the world is outside the US if your fortunate enough not to require any government assistance in any way more power to you but most of the world but I'll bet you get government assistance in ways your not even aware of roads, telecommunications defence etc

I see blackwatches point, but I don't think he argued it properly for this debate. I myself have been to Indonesia, Sweden, Finland and Mexico. Capitalism works the best through private enterprise, and socialism relies on gov't control.

I have little or no use for bureaucrats but they are there and have been and always will be the trick is to elect those that are not on the gravy train you cannot paint every left wing person a pinko just as you cannot say every right wing person is self centered its what makes the policy makers toe the line and give a fair and equal shot at creating fair and equitable laws for everyone including those less fortunate then yourself who maybe didn't get the bounces in life that you seem to have . How can you say that left wing economics are the cause of poverty the Republicans since 1968 have held sway in the US with the exception of Carter and Clinton for 12 years

That's a typical left wing argument. "Let's give up and just accept that that we can't change things, and some left wing folks are ok, ". "Let's accept corruption".

Listen to some speaches from these left wing guys. They make no sense. Everytime they are asked a question, they don't answer it clearly. Everything is pie in the sky, let's throw money at the problem. They make no sense in anything they say, and their points are meaningless. Look at how Kerry got exposed. He would change his mind at every whim, to the point that nobody knew what he really stood for.

As for Carter and Clinton, they really were just like statues sitting in the Whitehouse. It's like they weren't really there. Carter was so wishy washy in how he solves problems it's insane. He mentions a problem, and he always has the same solution "The gov't can solve it". Listen to the stuff he says. Really listen to it, it's phoney baloney. As for Clinton, he has little backbone. He accomplished very little during his 2 terms. The only thing he did was order a tomohawk missile attack, and the bosnia peace keeping. Other than that he was like a statue sitting in the whitehouse being paid.

All left wing folks I've listened to are indeed very liberal; they throw money at problems; they automaticly say the gov't can solve the problem w/o any attempt at a practical sol'n; they don't think of clear solutions to problems; they evade the truth; and they are incapable of clear logical thought. It's so funny to observe that they all share these same traits. Observe it, it's truely scary.

It's frightening to think that these folks are our potential leaders, and yes they are bureaucrats. Funny how closely big gov't, socialism, bureaucrats, and the power hungry seem almost like one in the same.

[pbfoot]

Its time to take your blinders off pal there is a time and place for all points of view and you take the best of each and you run with it you can't make blanket statements that all people who disagree with your warped outlook on life and government are pinkos the dummies who did the stunt in Oklahoma city were anti government and it sounds like your akin to them without government you would have anarchy and if you don't like the govrtnment you have elections and you make your statement at the polls in the US its every four years here it is when ever to a maximum of 5years but more often less if you want vote Libertarian its your right but please don't try and foist your warped outlook on your government on me I'm almost willing to bet when you travelled you refused to exchange your greenbacks for the local "funny money or play money" If I have offended any normal Americans I apolgize in advance

[Harvard]

Hi pbfoot:

I think you're responding in anger. I've made logical and careful arguments, nothing unfair. If you disagree w/ what I've said you can make a valid counter to it. If not, maybe I've won the debate

[pbfoot]

I really don't think of this as debate did you even investigate what other posters have stated? and say to yourself or others or admit that they "might" have a valid point. Do you know how other govts are selected and options we have available? .NO .Did when you go to Scandanavia fear for your freedom in those bastions of socialism were the pinko Swedes lining up to leave because of their high taxes were they scared of their police NO Maybe us "liberals" think of everyone like as being on the same team rather then ME There is not a soul here that wants to pay taxes and given my choice I wouldn't work either . This is more like discussing geography with a believer in the flat earth society then a debate

[Harvard]

I really don't think of this as debate did you even investigate what other posters have stated? and say to yourself or others or admit that they "might" have a valid point. Do you know how other govts are selected and options we have available? .NO .Did when you go to Scandanavia fear for your freedom in those bastions of socialism were the pinko Swedes lining up to leave because of their high taxes were they scared of their police NO Maybe us "liberals" think of everyone like as being on the same team rather then ME There is not a soul here that wants to pay taxes and given my choice I wouldn't work either . This is more like discussing geography with a believer in the flat earth society then a debate

"I really don't think of this as debate did you even investigate what other posters have stated? and say to yourself or others or admit that they "might" have a valid point. Do you know how other govts are selected and options we have available?"

Some have a valid point, but I'm talking about you right now. Also, I am stictly speaking in terms of definition, not analysis in detail of particulars in any nation. This is about defining what we are observing about our own gov'ts in this discussion.

"Do you know how other govts are selected and options we have available? .NO .Did when you go to Scandanavia fear for your freedom in those".

Tell us about it, we want to hear it, and let me argue for or against it. So far, We've been able to show the differences in tax rates in Germany, Britain, Canada, and the US. We've also been able to analyze the bureaucrats, how they think, and what power does to them.

"Did when you go to Scandanavia fear for your freedom in those bastions of socialism were the pinko Swedes lining up to leave because of their high taxes were they scared of their police NO"

The Swedes live a quiet life, but there are very few who have anything else other than a home. There is little opportunity to get rich over there. The taxes are too high.

In Norway taxes are terribly high, in Sweden they are approaching 50%.

They aren't scared of the police, but there is little need to be. In a socialist land the gov't takes care of you, no need to fear them.

"Maybe us "liberals" think of everyone like as being on the same team rather then ME There is not a soul here that wants to pay taxes and given my choice I wouldn't work either . This is more like discussing geography with a believer in the flat earth society then a debate"

Really? How do Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Mr.Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, Carter, and Kerry think? Do they really they think team? They are very far "out there" with no ryme or reason behind anything they say or propose. Again I argue, do you want these people to be your leaders? Would you trust them with your tax dollars?

Well you can pay higher taxes or pay much less and have more power to decide where your money goes. Those are your choices. If you are a smart investor you can muster the will power to use what would have gone to taxes to invest in charity and your own medical insurance.

No this is a discussion with a few capitalists, amongst a few socialist true believers.

[pbfoot]

you think im a socialist?

[FLYBOYJ]

Harvard, when you hear a Canadian or brit say "Liberal" you're thinking in terms of what a Liberal is in the US - far from it....

[plan_D]

I'm glad you have joined in Joe. I was waiting for one of the Americans on here to show me that they're not all clueless on international politics, and foreign political thinking.

Havard, and Blackwatch, what exactly are you assaulting? The whole socialist regime? Or the individual points? Or just socialist people? Because both of you are saying a lot without saying anything. The only point seen from both of you is basically; "My money is mine," - that's it.

It's all well and good saying that capitalism is the only way to go, but you're being extremely vague. The only government that will ever work, is one that examines point for point what is good, what is bad.

If I were in charge of Britain, the only foreigners living here would be those with expertise that could benefit the country. They'd be nationalised systems that are important to the country (Rail, Police, Health, Fire, Mail etc. etc.). They'd be benefits for the disabled. They'd be job seekers allowance for people, but it'd only last six months. We'd have a larger military.

Basically, I believe in socialism for my nation, for my nationals. I don't care about foreigners. I'm a National Socialist, in the true definition of the words - not in Hitler's Nazism sense. But I reckon that's going to confuse a lot of people on here ...

[plan_D]

In fact, in your world, buying a friend a drink must be socialism, is that right Havard?

For example, I snapped my cash-card recently. I didn't have any money to go out but my friends were buying me drinks, and they even paid for my taxi. Are they all socialist? Do they consider me a scrounger? No. Because I never asked for the money, they're just decent friends - and they're not so stuck up on money. But in your planet, they're SOCIALIST SCUM THAT SHOULD BE EXECUTED INSTANTLY.

Tell me, Havard and Blackwatch, do you believe in democracy?

[Harvard]

Havard, and Blackwatch, what exactly are you assaulting? The whole socialist regime? Or the individual points? Or just socialist people? Because both of you are saying a lot without saying anything. The only point seen from both of you is basically; "My money is mine," - that's it.

I appreciate your genine interest in listening to what we have to say. I've said a lot more than "my money is mine", because the problem w/ big gov't goes far deeper than that. The trouble with big gov't, ie. socialism is you are giving more power to the gov't. Power to decide what is best for the people. Power in the hands of more unknown bureaucrats. Power corrupts, like I said earlier. Big gov't adds up to more power for more people, and more opportunity to misuse that power. I don't care how nice a bureaucrat may seem, you give someone power and they will misuse it eventually. This is why we have limited terms for the pres., and other officials.

It's all well and good saying that capitalism is the only way to go, but you're being extremely vague. The only government that will ever work, is one that examines point for point what is good, what is bad.

No, the point is most gov't doesn't work. The best gov't is a small one, which puts almost all the power in the hands of the people. From what I've read the concept of early America relied on personal responsibility. People in concept were highly intelligent and took responsibility for their actions. They didn't need large gov't regulation. What I'm seeing of socialist countries, is a mindset that "the gov't will take care of us".

Here's an example:

The ideal small gov't nation:

A small police force is all that is required, because the people are very responsible and behave well. In fact the whole nation requires little governance, because they are self governing.

In contrast, you need a large gov't when the people need to be watched, controlled, and herded like cattle.

[plan_D]

I agree, the governments of most developed countries need to be smaller. There's too many positions in the British government, that shouldn't exist. This is where I agree with what you're saying. However, ideas such as the NHS do not create a problem for me in this way, because I consider it a good idea - and some governers are required to run a government system.

However, on your second point, I cannot agree. I cannot because I do not have faith in people, as much as you obviously do. A self-governing nation is anarchy, it's something else that does not work. It still hands power to the people, because there always needs to be a centralised control. The vast majority of the human population is not smart. A system that you're suggesting is relying on all people to be intelligent and decent ... but not all people are like that.

Early America was a collection of settlements that ran on settlement control. There were still people in power. It was basically a minor advance on the tribal system of centuries earlier. It works, if you want to stay in the exact same situation. The only reason mankind has developed is because tribes found alliance, shared intelligence and wealth ...developed, grew stronger, became a nation ... going back to anarchism (which is what some Republicans in Spain wanted in the Spanish Civil War) would create a whole host of problems. It's non-centralised Capitalism ... do you want settlements, individuals to make the roads better? Who pays for the police? Are the police on a paid basis from the people? Do the police not answer your calls if you haven't got insurance? Or is the police a nationalised system? What if one settlement has a tragedy? Do you help? Or is the system of personal responability going to let those fellow countrymen die? Does each town have autonomy? Or is it each state? Do people handle all their money? Or do you give some to the government? What about the military? Defence? Your next-door neighbour invades? Does the country bind to defend itself? Or did no one pay the insurance? The police is smaller...but people are jealous because other's are richer ...the basis of financial crime ... but where's the police while you're getting mugged in the street? Do you all carry guns? Well, you can't draw the weapon if your opponent didn't warn you before shooting you. What of justice? You don't care about prisons, so you didn't pay the insurance...do the criminals just get cast out like in Native American tribes? Do you wall off all settlements because the outside world don't pay for you. What about trade? Personal responsability doesn't pay for the wheat you're importing.

Captialism has to exist, I agree. Nothing else will ever work. To be rich gives people a goal to aim for. To have money, is to want more money - and I like it that way. I am now constantly striving to earn more, but I also have that line that was drawn. I don't want an extra £10 a week if it means someone in this country that has caught cancer is either going to die, or be bankrupt ... because I wanted an extra ...what? Four pints of beer a week.