Do we love socialism? (fast food, illegal, holidays, health care)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I look at labor unions as a microcosm of socialism. Labor unions are designed to provide a "one size fits all" set of work rules and pay scale on its members. Workers who go above and beyond are discouraged from doing so, and excellence reaps no rewards, while deficient or mediocre workers are protected and even defended with dues money paid by others. The productive are "taxed" through dues while the unproductive are helped.
Supporters of labor unions often like to discuss events 100 or more years ago, and how robber barons exploited workers, and all the other social pressures that were real 100 years ago. The problem today is that little of that is still true, and for the most part in today's society, if you are a hard, responsible worker who is highly competent in your job, you can demand more from your employer than others who are not in as high demand. Even in a recession with high unemployment, those with skills in demand can retain and even find new work easily. Take that picture and contrast it with the "jobs bank" that existed in the auto industry.
Socialism is the failure to accept and realize that people are not all equal in their ambition or their productivity. Some people (of all races and religions, both sex, etc) are better than others and are smarter, more capable, and should be able to reap the rewards of those talents. Socialism seeks to punish or limit that ability to reap rewards of success and instead takes the view that doing so is "selfish" or "greedy."
Many socialists don't believe in holding the unproductive or those who make bad decisions accountable for those decisions and choices, and instead they believe that society should take care of these people and that the productive and successful owe a portion of their income to that endeavor. Socialists feel guilty that some people aren't as smart, as driven, as educated, and they feel an obligation to give those people what they haven't worked for themselves. That would be OK if the money used was the personal money of the socialists, but often they want to confiscate wealth and use the power of the government and the courts to do it.
There are many Americans workers today that are exploited by Corporations- and still more are at the mercy of Insurance companies for sickness and health or life and death
Even Teddy Roosevelt from 100 a years ago would be appalled. For those who believe that those less 'gifted' to compete in a free enterprise system should be left alone to just 'disappear' this echos horribly with fascism in Europe. Socialists in the former USSR- still looked out after the weak. The 'weak' or those not measuring up to the standards of the 'Master race' in Fascist Germany- Jews homosexuals etc where duly exterminated.
Socialism is bad for innovation. Why work hard when you have to share it with someone who doesn't ?
You cannot get ahead with socialism because you'd have to drag everyone else with you. Who wants to do that ?
With socialism you have two classes..the wealthy who are above it and everyone else who is put on equal footing.
Many socialists don't believe in holding the unproductive or those who make bad decisions accountable for those decisions and choices, and instead they believe that society should take care of these people and that the productive and successful owe a portion of their income to that endeavor. Socialists feel guilty that some people aren't as smart, as driven, as educated, and they feel an obligation to give those people what they haven't worked for themselves. That would be OK if the money used was the personal money of the socialists, but often they want to confiscate wealth and use the power of the government and the courts to do it.
Then what the hell do you do with the freeloaders of society who act like the world owes them a living? Put them to death thru lethel injection?
But we must get to the root of the problem, and it is the legal plunder of the masses, by the few. Socialism must go. Property mustt be restored. Even if it means a new revolution. Hopefully peaceful, as peace always has a blessing. But the threat of war should never be removed. It was what our founders said, believed, and died for. They sacrificed everything for this grand experiement. Sadly, they left 2 things on the table,,slavery and tarriffs, and by these two sins, we have lost our republic. The laws that were formed around them, fill volumes. Wake up people! Please.
But back during the 1930's when there wasn't near as much socialism around the Great Depression came. I suspect there's no ideal system. They all start with something and then evolve to something else that eventually leads to downfall.
But back during the 1930's when there wasn't near as much socialism around the Great Depression came. I suspect there's no ideal system. They all start with something and then evolve to something else that eventually leads to downfall.
Yes, but the great depression would not have existed in the massive form that it did, had it not been for the laws, banks and corporations.
In 1913, when Woodrow Wilson started the Fed, he relinquished the sound money policy that had been in place for over 200 years. He put the policies in place for inflation, in which many people have money, but their buying power is limited, to deflation, in which less people have money, but the buying power is increased.
Ever read the bible? Genesis 47:13-25. Really, it is the blueprint for banking. Inflate the money, cause production to be increased, then deflate the money, and buy the production. Cause and effect, and this is why central banks are and were unconstitutional. It would eventually enslave the populace. Always been that way, and always will be that way.
Having studied this, I have come to the conclusion that it was by design that we entered into a depression that stripped he rural communities of their land, by buyouts for pennies on the dollar, and foreclosure to those who tried to withstand the drought.
How was this possible? Could it be the Federal Farm Loan Act in 1916, whereby farmers could borrow up to 50% of the value of their land. 50%?? So if they foreclosed on the land, the banks got it for half the "set value". Yes, Wilson thought he was helping the farmers, or so he had been told. The farmers could go head to head with the large farms, and keep up with the supply and demand. It worked until crisis hit. Then instead of forgiving debt until the crisis was over, bank assumed massive, massive quantities of land, selling them to giant corporate farms who were privy to the knowledge of the banks in setting up the policy from the get-go.
Sound familiar?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
