Everyone realizes that republicans PURPOSELY have created this massive debt, correct?

[Proximity 10+ year member]

I didn't spout anything. I asked you a question that you conveniently didn't answer. Until you do, you admit you're just a loony lefty.

There are probably a million different answers based on how you want to look at it. It's not like every liberal knows exactly how many public sector jobs are needed to "support" a single public sector job. Like there is a concrete answer anyway.

There are approx 108 million total private employees with approx. 2.5 million government employees. If 6% of the government budget is payroll, then I guess you could say that 6% of those 108 million workers are needed to "support" a government employee. Which would put the number around 3 per. It's a pretty stupid question though as it has zero relevance to anything. Your point/implication is obvious, and that's what I responded to.

 

[ahole-ic]

The problem with capitalism is that it promotes greed, and creates an unneeded split in the social classes. With capitalism comes monopolies, corruption, and disparity. You've all been conditioned to believe that the only way to have a successful business is to beat out the competition, which is simply not true. If wealth was based on individual merit, rather than who was better at controlling other people, the world in general would be a better place.
No one knows what socialism really is, or what it can be. It's not completely perfect, but nothing's black and white. Communism =/= Socialism.

Liberalism is a belief of liberty and equal rights(who could possibly disagree with that? Oh, wait. I forgot. No one knows what liberalism is because of media and idiots.) How is that not America? America was founded on liberty and equal rights. The only reason all you morons say it's un-American now is because the education system is convoluted and teachers, parents, media personnel, and authority figures are fascists. You've all been brainwashed by "America", and it's pathetic.

Socialism is a system in which everything is based on the community. In its purest form, it's obviously a pipe dream. However, in itself it's better than capitalism, and there needs to be a shift from capitalism to some sort of lovechild of the two, although it would take a nationwide effort which won't happen. The country's financial and political state, and general health is not because of Republicans or Democrats, per se. It's because the conservative agenda is to scare the nation into believing change won't work. It would and can work, but with all of you morons fighting it, we'll all just crash and burn.

The power is in the wrong hands, that's for sure. The real problem is understanding how the power got to their hands, because the country certainly wasn't born with this group of the elite, ultra rich. If you look at history, especially in politics and economics, in the past 150 years, you will see that there has been corruption along the way(I'm not an economics major so I can't refer to specific Supreme Court hearings or anything of the like, but I'm familiar with monopolies of different goods). The country needs change, and liberalism is the way to go. Conservatism in nature tries not to change society. Supporting conservatism is supporting fascism and it's stupid.

I know this isn't exactly relevant, but I saw too many people making stupid claims.

The problem with your definition there is, we can't tax ourselves into utopia. That's the premise socialism is based on. Redistributing wealth from those that are more successful and hard working to those that are not to "level the playing field". The talk of "fairness" comes into play a lot. If no one knows what socialism is then who are you to talk about it? Also, it's been tried all over the world and failed everywhere it's been tried. Socialism rewards failures and punishes success. It cannot be sustained because those that are earning the wealth but cannot be rewarded for it, will soon stop earning that wealth. It doesn't take long before you have more on the receiving end of things than on the producing. Logic does not stand on socialism's side.

 

[ahole-ic]

There are probably a million different answers based on how you want to look at it. It's not like every liberal knows exactly how many public sector jobs are needed to "support" a single public sector job. Like there is a concrete answer anyway.
There are approx 108 million total private employees with approx. 2.5 million government employees. If 6% of the government budget is payroll, then I guess you could say that 6% of those 108 million workers are needed to "support" a government employee. Which would put the number around 3 per. It's a pretty stupid question though as it has zero relevance to anything. Your point/implication is obvious, and that's what I responded to.

I know it's "stupid" to you because it forces you to acknowledge something that liberals do not like to acknowledge.... that private sector jobs are what generates wealth, and they are needed to keep the public sector afloat.... which disproves the entire socialist, keynsian "stimulus" idea. It has PLENTY of relevance... unlike your last post.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Also, it's been tried all over the world and failed everywhere it's been tried. Socialism rewards failures and punishes success. It cannot be sustained because those that are earning the wealth but cannot be rewarded for it, will soon stop earning that wealth. It doesn't take long before you have more on the receiving end of things than on the producing. Logic does not stand on socialism's side.

You're talking about pure socialism. The same kinds of arguments can be made for capitalism, pure capitalism that is. Neither pure capitalism or socialism is the way to go. Balance is the key. And guess what? The middle class is a socialist creation.

I should get window sticker for my car that says that.

 

[-01limited- 10+ year member]

When the politicians decisions start affecting them on the day to day then we can talk. But right now this world is all about "what can I do for myself"

 

[chunky cumz 10+ year member]

im rich bishes.

 

[disturbed471985 5,000+ posts]

Prox go do this //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/*******.gif.a649d21efc0d1fd4890a6428166586c1.gif

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

I know it's "stupid" to you because it forces you to acknowledge something that liberals do not like to acknowledge.... that private sector jobs are what generates wealth, and they are needed to keep the public sector afloat.... which disproves the entire socialist, keynsian "stimulus" idea. It has PLENTY of relevance... unlike your last post.

I don't even think you know what Keynesian economics is. It has nothing to due with private versus public sector jobs. It's simple the principle that when consumer spending falls (though lower income ie unemployment), the government is required to pick up the slack through unemployment benefits or works programs. It's what FDR tried during the Great Depression and it was working until he cut back on government stimulus spending and then there was a double dip recession.

You act like liberals argue that every private sector job should be removed. Epitome of straw man. Keynes was a socialist, but he was also a capitalist. He was not a pure capitalist, and likewise he was also not a pure socialist. Is it possible for you to reconcile these concepts?

 

[MisterDeadeye 10+ year member]

The problem with your definition there is, we can't tax ourselves into utopia. That's the premise socialism is based on. Redistributing wealth from those that are more successful and hard working to those that are not to "level the playing field". The talk of "fairness" comes into play a lot. If no one knows what socialism is then who are you to talk about it? Also, it's been tried all over the world and failed everywhere it's been tried. Socialism rewards failures and punishes success. It cannot be sustained because those that are earning the wealth but cannot be rewarded for it, will soon stop earning that wealth. It doesn't take long before you have more on the receiving end of things than on the producing. Logic does not stand on socialism's side.

I should have rephrased my statement to, "Most of the people against Socialism have no idea what it is, but many for it know what it can be."

Capitalism's premise is to make more money than your neighbor. Business and the distribution of goods and services shouldn't be about being the best and making the most money. It should be about helping everyone out. Have you seen the poor? Do you know what it's like to not have money? You work the hardest when you need any money you can get to survive. When you're living in a 20 bedroom, four story house with ten cars and are the heir to a company as large as Microsoft(just using Microsoft as an example; this isn't toward the Gates family necessarily). Capitalism is what causes people to take advantage of the system -- if they don't, they die. That's not fair, now is it? Yes, I think that the best thing to do is take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Call me some demonic robin hood if you will, but Capitalism makes life not fair. Life doesn't have to be unfair, and that's what Socialism proves. I don't care about the failed Socialist states; Capitalism isn't impervious either. That's the point I'm trying to make. Capitalism HAS failed, and the best example I can use is us. The country is in despair. We've consumed so much, and have given so much money to the rich, that the country itself is becoming poor. We're no longer the top of the food chain.

Socialism doesn't "reward failure" or "punish success". Socialism doesn't make everyone have the same amount of money -- that's a misconception. The objective is not wealth. It's the betterment of the country. In a Socialist nation, there is no upper and lower class. Everyone is paid based on what they do for their fellow man. Again, I said in its purest form Socialism can't happen. The only reason it can't happen is because of how established our current system is. What needs to happen is a movement to Socialism, whether it's just a nudge or a complete dismantlement of the economy as it is, and a complete rebuild.

 

[ahole-ic]

I don't even think you know what Keynesian economics is. It has nothing to due with private versus public sector jobs. It's simple the principle that when consumer spending falls (though lower income ie unemployment), the government is required to pick up the slack through unemployment benefits or works programs. It's what FDR tried during the Great Depression and it was working until he cut back on government stimulus spending and then there was a double dip recession.
You act like liberals argue that every private sector job should be removed. Epitome of straw man. Keynes was a socialist, but he was also a capitalist. He was not a pure capitalist, and likewise he was also not a pure socialist. Is it possible for you to reconcile these concepts?

I'm well versed in keynesian economics... and that is patently obvious. Reconcile concepts? There's nothing to discuss there until you say something specific. Speaking in those generalities really makes that point difficult to debate. At any rate, taking money out of the private sector, and then putting it back into the private sector and then expecting the economy to boom is what a "stimulus" is. It could never work. It never has and it is a flawed premise. It logically doesn't even make sense.

 

[ahole-ic]

I should have rephrased my statement to, "Most of the people against Socialism have no idea what it is, but many for it know what it can be."
Capitalism's premise is to make more money than your neighbor. Business and the distribution of goods and services shouldn't be about being the best and making the most money. It should be about helping everyone out.

No.... it shouldn't.

Have you seen the poor? Do you know what it's like to not have money?

Of course. The government has all of mine.

You work the hardest when you need any money you can get to survive.

I work hardest when the fruits of my labor are coming directly to me. All of it... not just some. I work WAY less hard when I know i only get but a small percentage of what I actually earned.

When you're living in a 20 bedroom, four story house with ten cars and are the heir to a company as large as Microsoft(just using Microsoft as an example; this isn't toward the Gates family necessarily).

This is class envy. It's not for you to say what someone else can have. They or their family earned it and it's not for you to take away. Try to emulate... not hate.

Capitalism is what causes people to take advantage of the system -- if they don't, they die.

Not true. Capitalism allows us to have the freest nation the world has ever known. This is the land of opportunity where if a person cannot find work, they can MAKE work. They can start their own business. They can rake leaves, mow lawns, or whatever skill they have to offer.

That's not fair, now is it?

Of course it is.

Yes, I think that the best thing to do is take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Call me some demonic robin hood if you will, but Capitalism makes life not fair.

Those that work to earn money get it and those that don't get none isn't fair? It honestly can't get any more fair than that.

Life doesn't have to be unfair, and that's what Socialism proves.

socialism proves that life IS unfair because it takes from those that earn it and gives it to those that do not.

I don't care about the failed Socialist states; Capitalism isn't impervious either.

It's the reason the United States has grown to the world's only super power. It's why we are the greatest nation ever to exist on planet earth.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Capitalism HAS failed, and the best example I can use is us.

Yeah... clearly we've failed. We are the best nation on earth. OBVIOUSLY a failure.

The country is in despair. We've consumed so much, and have given so much money to the rich, that the country itself is becoming poor. We're no longer the top of the food chain.

The country isn't poor. It's that we have a government that is taxing and spending like crazy... so those that are business owners. The risk takers. The ones that employ the rest of us do not want to risk their money... because they know they will be taxed to death and the liklihood of succeeding in any risks right now is very slim. socialism is the reason for our problem right now. It's why we're in this mess.

Socialism doesn't "reward failure" or "punish success". Socialism doesn't make everyone have the same amount of money -- that's a misconception.

By taking the profits from those that take risks and create wealth, and giving it to those that don't take risks and make no wealth, you are by definition punishing success and rewarding failure. For if you weren't punishing success, you would allow those that made the money to keep it, and you would allow those that did not to keep what they had.

The objective is not wealth. It's the betterment of the country.

So "not wealth" = the country is better? Wrong.

In a Socialist nation, there is no upper and lower class. Everyone is paid based on what they do for their fellow man.

lol

Again, I said in its purest form Socialism can't happen. The only reason it can't happen is because of how established our current system is. What needs to happen is a movement to Socialism, whether it's just a nudge or a complete dismantlement of the economy as it is, and a complete rebuild.

That is not only scary but it's ignorant.

 

[Bettr n' Revrse 5,000+ posts]

This is the thunderdome, I can talk about what the fuck I want. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

Just gets old seeing people like you come on here and that's all you do is spout of some BS in the dome and never once help in the yech section or have anything FS... I understand it's the dome but it's still in an audio forum...

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

socialism is the reason for our problem right now. It's why we're in this mess.

So how did socialism cause the great depression?

 

[chunky cumz 10+ year member]

ish getz butthurted 4 rizle

 

[chunky cumz 10+ year member]

ish getz butthurted 4 rizle