Some self-proclaimed socialists are damaging the cause!

Post Reply New Topic

www.soviet-empire.com

It is a discussion board. I've been active on that forum a while back.

I left it, because I could not agree with the majority of its members who found North Korea and the Soviet Union to be "paradise".

In case of the execution of Kim's uncle, and his family (who have now also been killed, so I read in the news), the Soviet-empire members are actually supporting Kim's efforts.

And today, when I went in to read it, I stumbled upon someone with the logo of Assad, with a text that indicates that these members are also supporting Assad's regime in Syria, responsible for
mass-murder (Assad is a self-proclaimed socialist, the Baath party in both Syria and during the former Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, was also socialist, in name).

I am a socialist, and I DO NOT support North Korea, Assad, or the former Saddam Hussein's regime.

I believe that these self-proclaimed socialists are damaging the cause of socialism, and I also highly suspect that they may in-fact be right wingers who are volunteering to troll
socialism. They made Soviet-Empire.com in order to make socialism look bad!

Probably, but they needn't bother. Socialism looks bad on its own.

How is providing welfare and ensuring equal opportunities of health care and education bad on its own?

The price of socialism ..

In the United States more people are means-tested welfare recipients than work full time.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... umber-full

Quoted: "Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year-round full-time workers, according to data released this month by the Census Bureau. They also out-numbered the total population of the Philippines. There were 108,592,000 people in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2011 who were recipients of one or more means-tested government benefit programs, the Census Bureau said".

"The Fed asset-purchase program to $75 billion per month starting in January". Thus, the treasury is "borrowing" 75 billion of printed money each moth beyond the regular debt.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-ta ... 2014-01-08

Uncontrollable Debt in every government program
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The U.S. Post Office is Broke and requires bailouts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/us/po ... arter.html

More Amercians give up citizenship
"The number of Americans giving up their citizenship has rocketed this year - partly, it's thought, because of a new tax law that is frustrating many expats".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24135021

Americans Turn in their U.S. Citizenship to Avoid Taxes
http://www.gobankingrates.com/tax/wealt ... igh-taxes/

I dont know about your societies statistic, but that can be rather normal for certain countries. In my country its quiet similar without any extremes about it.

The normal couple has here about 1,5 children. That already makes 1,5 non workers on 2 working people. (Supposed that both are working.) Additional they normally have by statistic to care for about 2 elderly person, that are already in rent. And to that comes additionally, people like disabled of injured ones, that cant work out of disability or illness.

I think far more relevant then the ratio of people working, paying for people non working, is the general unemployment rate of people, being able to work. If you have an unemployment rate of 50% then this is high, because it means that tons of people that were ABLE to work, dont get the opportunity to do so. But neither can I expect an child to work, nor someone being in hospital, nor 80 year old people that are in rent. (As well that specially the older ones normally are still engaged in community welfare, as family childcare and knows hell what.)

The above statistic does not include children because children cannot be "means tested" and presumably would not be full-time workers.

The people working cannot pay for the government spending, so the government borrows about 1 trillion to 2 trillion per year in form of newly printed money and deficient spending.

So whats the solution you are suggesting? Watching people die and wait that anarchy starts and armed groups go plundering throught the streets for food? I dont see the benefit in it for me.

I am not into romantic stuff, so people in midi-age were not expected to spend money for food-stations, because of that being so christianic, but simply out of the historic fact, that otherwise riots are starting. The majority of people will not be willing to die silently in an corner, while food is practically available for them.

If suddenly my government would not need my taxes any more, I will definitely not go crying to them, that I can spend now more money for me. But beside "Paying taxes is sh***y." what kind of solution do you offer, that does not include, becoming a Mr. Scrooge, not caring for his elderly and diseased neighbors dying?

Why are people so worried about government debt? No one has given me any evidience to suggest that it is possible for it to go bankrupt. Why should gov debt be prioritized above people?

The problem is that the American standard of living is too high.

The U.S. federal reserve has printed 4 trillion since 2008, and will print another trillion dollars this year, so their solution is to devalue the money and thus, bring the standard of living down.

The postal service is being crippled by a Republican-authored pension program designed to bankrupt them so private companies can swoop in and take over everything.

Welfare recipients are going through the roof because the manufacturing sector is gone, and all that's left is to sell the crap that China's making. Those companies actively encourage their employees to use government resources to make up for the wages they'll never make.

Dodging taxes isn't even close to being a new thing. Why do you think Mitt Romney has so much money in the Cayman Islands?

Republicans are scum. Sure.

Manufacturing, and anything that can be outsourced is being outsourced. Thus, many are on unemployment or welfare. Sure.

Tax dodgers existed before. Sure.

Companies want to turn their entire employees over to the ACA. Sure.

However, we are still going bankrupt, so something has to change to resolve this.

I've toyed with the idea of adopting isolationist economic policies that compel anyone making products they want to sell in America to manufacture them in America. I'm sure there are a million reasons why that's not feasible, but I'll leave that up to the economists.

Given that someone at some point thought that Juche and Stalinism were good ideas and implemented them, have you considered that they may really support those regimes?

Or were you just going to go with the "no true Scotsman" idea, because it's unthinkable that anyone would have an ideal of socialism that isn't the same as yours?

A little Socialism for those who need it, a little Capitalism for those who can manage it, and a lot more Liberty for those who enjoy it.

Let's remember, all of that new money that has been printed has been bought and paid for on the credit of the United States. The Federal Reserve can only issue dollars when it holds United States debt to underwrite it. Far from devaluing the currency, the US dollar is actually demonstrating significant strength. The long and the short of it is that people are still buying dollars.

Manufacturing is gone? US multinationals produce about 70% of their goods and services within the United States. Manufacturing has dropped from about 20% of US GDP in 1980 to about 12% in 2010, but during that time GDP grew significantly. In nominal terms, there has been almost no net loss of manufacturing activity, it simply hasn't grown at the same pace as other economic areas. This stands to reason, of course, since entire new industries have come into existence in the meantime.

And countries like China and India don't exist simply as suppliers for the United States. Well over 50% of all US multinationals' production outside of the US goes to domestic markets--only 10% comes back into the United States. When China is examined alone, 70% of US multinationals' production in China stays in China, less than 9% is exported to the United States.

Yes, there is economic disruption. But the United States economy has time and again demonstrated itself to be resilient enough to accommodate change. The transition from a largely agricultural workforce to an industrial workforce involved huge social challenges. It's perfectly understandable that the transition from an industrial economy to a service economy is going to have similar challenges.

Social programs are the mechanism by which government eases those transitions. They serve a crucial function in bridging the gap when business and industry are too slow to retool and retrain. Thus it has ever been.

^^^ Sounds a bit too much like the British line at the turn of the last century...

The key is not to scrap free trade, but to demand fair trade. American workers cannot compete with Asian workers at near slave wages. We need to demand better standards from our trading partners and those American companies who outsource labor.

Fair trade helps everyone except the greedy bastards at the tippy, tippy top.