- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do Socialism Deniers ignore the overwhelming evidence that Socialism doesn't work
Posted on 5/1/17 at 5:53 pm to germandawg
Posted on 5/1/17 at 5:53 pm to germandawg
quote:
No there isn't...there is no private sector equivalent to social security
Thank god, because it's a mess.
1
Posted on 5/1/17 at 5:55 pm to germandawg
quote:
Meritocracy and socialism is not mutually exclusive my friend...what about the military is privately owned
Socialism isn't a few elements in an otherwise private system. You're redefining it.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 5:56 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Meritocracy and socialism is not mutually exclusive my friend...what about the military is privately owned
Socialism isn't a few elements in an otherwise private system. You're redefining it
And the military isn't a meritocracy
Posted on 5/1/17 at 5:56 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
Bingo. I agree. I was trying to get to that point with these guys but you summed it up best. They started a whole thread about socialism and how liberals want it. This idea had no basis in reality
Yet you do not know what socialism or communism means.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 5:57 pm to germandawg
quote:
No there isn't...there is no private sector equivalent to social security.
My 401K manager will be shocked to learn this bit of information tomorrow.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 5:58 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
And the military isn't a meritocracy
True.
Posted on 5/1/17 at 6:01 pm to germandawg
You are using the definition of socialism from Oxford's dictionary. It's the first hit on google. I have nothing against Oxford's Dictionary; they do a great job. But even it will admit that it's definitions are broad and not academic in nature.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 7:57 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
No there isn't...there is no private sector equivalent to social security
Thank god, because it's a mess.
yes it is....it is mess because it is such a success that it flies in the face of the rights meme that all government is all bad all the time. SS is a SMASHING, un-parrelled success and as such has to be vilified attacked as often as possible.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 7:58 am to germandawg
quote:
SS is a SMASHING, un-parrelled success
LOL
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:01 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
My 401K manager will be shocked to learn this bit of information tomorrow.
Dude if you 401K manager is taking your money and sending it to retirees and orphans and the disabled as you pay it you need to fire that cocksucker IMMEDIATELY...
No damn wonder you are so angry and mad at the world....your 401K manage is mismanaging your 401K and you think it is normal....or could it be that you are just being dishonest for the sake of debate and you know good and damn well that a retirement account and SOCIAL SECURITY, which from day one was meant to pay a pension to retirees, orphans and the disabled, are not in any manner similar to one another....
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:07 am to Ebbandflow
quote:
Bingo. I agree. I was trying to get to that point with these guys but you summed it up best. They started a whole thread about socialism and how liberals want it. This idea had no basis in reality.
I will never understand how so many people on the right are so up in arms over "socialism" when they are not now nor will they ever be at the top of the food chain in a free market economy, or what passes for one in modern times. If you are employed by someone else and do not own your own business you are already waaaaayyyyyy behind the curve on the way to the top of the free market food chain....take away regulations and socialist elements of our economy and only one in a hundred million would be able to claw their way from their upper management position in someone else's organization to the top of the free market...it never ceases to amaze me that a wage slave, someone who is told when to be at work and what to do while there is so convinced of their invincibility that they wish....they truly dream of a day...when they can match their wits and determination against that of their competitors in a no hold brawl fight to the top...meanwhile they are skeered to the point of pissing their pants at the thought of striking out on their own now...it is truly amazing....the only group that is worse is the group of social security disability recipients who sit around and watch fox news all day cussing the gubmint....
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:11 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
You are using the definition of socialism from Oxford's dictionary. It's the first hit on google. I have nothing against Oxford's Dictionary; they do a great job. But even it will admit that it's definitions are broad and not academic in nature.
SO again, and keeping in mind that you have fricked around and handed your 401k over to some sort of con man who thinks it is the same thing as social security, why don't you enlighten us with a definition of socialism which would relate to any mainstream leftist idea in the United States....
If I were you though I would get off the computer and go see that 401K manager of yours and let that bastard know in no uncertain terms that, thanks to an anonymous poster on tigerdroppings you are one to him and he ain't going to give your retirement money to orphans and the disabled no more because you are already doing your civic duty on that front with SS...Id run and do that before I tried to shore up the tired old argument that democrats are socialists,...
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:11 am to germandawg
quote:
Dude if you 401K manager is taking your money and sending it to retirees and orphans and the disabled as you pay it you need to fire that cocksucker IMMEDIATELY...
Private retirement accounts (and disability insurance) are the market parallel to social security and SSDI. I'm not even sure how you can argue against it.
quote:
No damn wonder you are so angry and mad at the world....
I'm not angry; I just actually understand Socialism.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:20 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Private retirement accounts (and disability insurance) are the market parallel to social security and SSDI. I'm not even sure how you can argue against it.
So my friend tell me about this private retirement account that takes the money from those paying into the system and hands it over to orphans, retired people OTHER than the account holder and the disabled?
I have read your posts on these boards for a while and I may be wrong but I think you are intelligent enough to know that there is absolutely no similarity between social security and a private retirement account and there was never any intention for SS to be in any manner similar to a private retirement account.
But I will play along with your ruse....you claim that social security is socialism run amuk...and that, by any definition, socialism requires that the public (not the government but the people own the means of production, distribution and exchange of a good or service (you see here that left out the regulation part that seems to have some of your bumfoozled). How do you square the circle that the public owns the means of production, the distribution of and exchange for retirement accounts when you openly admit you have a private retirement account that is similar to the one mandated by the state? Does the public also own your private account? of course not...so it is not possible that SS is an example of socialism when there are alternatives available that are private and subject to the free market....can you explain this?
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:25 am to roadGator
quote:
quote:
SS is a SMASHING, un-parrelled success
LOL
Yet another person who has fallen for the idea that social security is faltering because of its own failings...when in fact it has done EXACTLY what its intended and stated goals were from day one...and would be doings so in even greater fashion had it not been for politicians of all stripes dipping their beaks into OUR money, money which we have given, interest free, to our brothers and sisters who are no longer able to provide for themselves with the understanding that should we find ourselves in similar straits that we too could rely on our fellow working people to see to it that we have some manner of dignity and basic necessities of life.
The right can't have this because the ultimate goal of the right is to return the working people of this nation back to the 30's when we were forced to beg capital for scraps to survive....then along came Huey Long who showed the poor people of Louisiana that there was an alternative to going through life on your knees and with your hat in your hand and FDR saw what was about to transpire and made a slight course direction....
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:27 am to germandawg
quote:
SO again, and keeping in mind that you have fricked around and handed your 401k over to some sort of con man who thinks it is the same thing as social security,
Keep digging
quote:
why don't you enlighten us with a definition of socialism which would relate to any mainstream leftist idea in the United States....
First, mainstream leftists' descriptions in the U.S. are not the barometer by which to measure the accuracy of economic theory. This group has little to no understanding of basic economics and government structure (neither do most other people.) Over the course of several decades, they have bastardized the meanings of terms such as socialism, liberalism, progressivism, etc. by illegitimately describing them as their uneducated mind sees fit.
Now, socialism, according to its original describer, is an economic system with corresponding social parameters in which the means of production and distribution are owned by a central authority (the state although Marx's leaves room for the possibility of a theoretical private conglomerate) on behalf of the population at large, and under which that central authority undertakes central economic planning for the production of such goods based solely on use-value.
What is not described by socialism is the current system in the U.S. where the means of production and distribution are owned by private capital (capitalism) who determines production and distribution on a combination use vale, labor value, and exchange value principles, only after which certain redistributive programs are installed by a central authority in order to create social stability at lower socioeconomic levels.
I speculate that Karl would flat out disagree with your faulty premise because despite have redistributive properties, ownership of the means of production and distribution (the key element of the economic portion of his theory) are still held privately.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:29 am to germandawg
quote:
.you claim that social security is socialism run amuk
No, I claim that social security is in no way, shape, or form "socialism." It is simply a redistributive program within a capitalistic system.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:33 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
First, mainstream leftists' descriptions in the U.S. are not the barometer by which to measure the accuracy of economic theory. This group has little to no understanding of basic economics and government structure (neither do most other people.) Over the course of several decades, they have bastardized the meanings of terms such as socialism, liberalism, progressivism, etc. by illegitimately describing them as their uneducated mind sees fit.
Now, socialism, according to its original describer, is an economic system with corresponding social parameters in which the means of production and distribution are owned by a central authority (the state although Marx's leaves room for the possibility of a theoretical private conglomerate) on behalf of the population at large, and under which that central authority undertakes central economic planning for the production of such goods based solely on use-value.
quote:
What is not described by socialism is the current system in the U.S. where the means of production and distribution are owned by private capital (capitalism) who determines production and distribution on a combination use vale, labor value, and exchange value principles, only after which certain redistributive programs are installed by a central authority in order to create social stability at lower socioeconomic levels.
I speculate that Karl would flat out disagree with your faulty premise because despite have redistributive properties, ownership of the means of production and distribution (the key element of the economic portion of his theory) are still held privately.
DING DING DING DING!!!!! WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!!!!
You are absolutely correct my friend...the left in this country are not socialists and there is very little socialist elements in western democracies....and there has NEVER been a democratic candidate who has espoused ANY such idea...I knew you were smart enough to know better than to compare social security to socialism....good show my friend..good show!!!!
Again...read this part...for all of you who thing Obamacare is socialism or any other program in the US is a socialist program...and understand it comes from the right...not the left...
"
quote:
Now, socialism, according to its original describer, is an economic system with corresponding social parameters in which the means of production and distribution are owned by a central authority (the state although Marx's leaves room for the possibility of a theoretical private conglomerate) on behalf of the population at large, and under which that central authority undertakes central economic planning for the production of such goods based solely on use-value.
What is not described by socialism is the current system in the U.S. where the means of production and distribution are owned by private capital (capitalism) who determines production and distribution on a combination use vale, labor value, and exchange value principles, only after which certain redistributive programs are installed by a central authority in order to create social stability at lower socioeconomic levels.
WOW...no one could have stated it any clearer...there is no socialism in the American left, at least not on any scale....Good show my friend...good show....
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:33 am to germandawg
quote:
How do you square the circle that the public owns the means of production, the distribution of and exchange for retirement accounts when you openly admit you have a private retirement account that is similar to the one mandated by the state? Does the public also own your private account? of course not.
I never claimed that the public owned my retirement account. I claimed that it is the market parallel to Social Security (which it is). You incorrectly claimed that there was no private version of social security. You are totally wrong on that point. If you want to break down the various payouts of Social Security into pension, disability, and general welfare, you will see private parallels to each.
Posted on 5/2/17 at 8:34 am to germandawg
quote:
You are absolutely correct my friend...the left in this country are not socialists and there is very little socialist elements in western democracies....and there has NEVER been a democratic candidate who has espoused ANY such idea...I knew you were smart enough to know better than to compare social security to socialism....good show my friend..good show!!!!
So now you are backing out of your original position?
You:
quote:
There has to be a happy medium between communism and laisseze faire capitalism....and that is where socialism fits and it is the essence of western civilization, thank goodness....
This post was edited on 5/2/17 at 8:40 am
Page 8 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News