The pathology of liberalism explained.

[GregW]

The misconception that socialism, as opposed to communism and Marxism, has to be tyrannical illustrates the effectiveness of the right wing propaganda starting well before the Cold War. Socialism is a not a political system. Socialism is an economic system that allows for and encourages economic growth while suppressing booms, bubbles and fraud. In a socialist economy the rich remain rich but not a much richer than they can get when they are perpetrating a massive fraud.

Socialism, accompanied by Liberalism, is not a societal pathogen but the greed and selfishness underlying the right wing conservative tyranny of the wealthy in this country certainly is.

[karfar]

Originally Posted by GregW

The misconception that socialism, as opposed to communism and Marxism, has to be tyrannical illustrates the effectiveness of the right wing propaganda starting well before the Cold War. Socialism is a not a political system. Socialism is an economic system that allows for and encourages economic growth while suppressing booms, bubbles and fraud. In a socialist economy the rich remain rich but not a much richer than they can get when they are perpetrating a massive fraud.

Socialism, accompanied by Liberalism, is not a societal pathogen but the greed and selfishness underlying the right wing conservative tyranny of the wealthy in this country certainly is.

I have to say, I never understood the fear over socialism. As you say, there's still the ability to be a rich person, what is the problem again?

[saganista]

Originally Posted by GregW

The misconception that socialism, as opposed to communism and Marxism, has to be tyrannical illustrates the effectiveness of the right wing propaganda starting well before the Cold War. Socialism is a not a political system. Socialism is an economic system that allows for and encourages economic growth while suppressing booms, bubbles and fraud. In a socialist economy the rich remain rich but not a much richer than they can get when they are perpetrating a massive fraud.

Socialism, accompanied by Liberalism, is not a societal pathogen but the greed and selfishness underlying the right wing conservative tyranny of the wealthy in this country certainly is.

Very well put. There is an essential misconstruction in this knee-jerk Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot-type reaction to suggestions of any sort of social or governmental activity at all, and such responses have indeed been kindled and nurtured by the right-wing disinformation media. True liberty and freedom do not depend on governmental inaction, but rather on governmental recognition, encouragement, and protection. We've spent about 30 years barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe some of our recent and current events will bring a few more toward such a realization. Managed capitalism has been the only thing that has worked over any sort of long run, and it may be the only thing that does...

[GregW]

The capitalists realize that they and their businesses cannot function without a legal system to restrain the speculators, shysters and thieves. So do the speculators, shysters and thieves but they label any law as socialism so they can manipulate the economy for their benefit to the detriment of all the investors? Socialism is just a label for laws that restrain the crooked. We need more of this kind of law.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by saganista

A better question might be to ask whether it is sensible to want either larger or smaller government out of context. The private sector is not magically efficient. The private sector is not exclusive in its access to markets. There are some things that the private sector does poorly. There are some things that the public sector does well. Why not look for the mix of public and private sector enterprise that provides best for everyone. Sometimes that will mean reining in government, and sometimes that will mean expanding it. Is there really any reason to believe that it all needs to be one way or the other?

Are we not in that type of government now? I think you called it quasi or something in another post. I just think we need to do something but I don't have 35+ year in tax policy or finance to really give or have any idea what it should be. The problem with government is it's greedy it want's the whole deal as it seems (to me) today. I'm working on understanding it as the GD section of the forum seems to have a lot better info in it. I had written it off until last night when I went over some post by you and Mircea.

[One Thousand]

Originally Posted by saga

Saga: No, it was a direct contradiction of your description of arguments claiming that "implied rights" were to be found in the text of the Constitution proper.

Would you please explain how my assertion contradicts the following:

Originally Posted by Federalist Paper 84

Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

Originally Posted by saga

Saga Considering that the theory was not formalized until several decades after the last of the founders had shuffled off this mortal coil, I would suggest that none of them shared in this or any other form of your personal paranoia.

I didn’t say “grasped communism.” I said “grasped the inherit evil of communism”, which is oppression.

Please reconsider the question.

Originally Posted by saga

Incoherent.

Where?

Originally Posted by saga

Saga What does any insurance company do with its reserves but invest them?

1K: I don’t know but I'm quite certain they don’t write policies that are inadequately funded because the current customer would like to burden a future customer with subsidizing their irresponsibilitiy.

Originally Posted by saga

Saga: The system will still be in a surplus situation through all of the years mentioned and well beyond.

1K: Are you saying that, at the end of 2019, if no changes have been made, under current predictions, the SSA will be receiving more from new contributions than is being paid to recipients? If so, please cite a source.

Originally Posted by sage

Saga Where have I said that?

“Not one penny of principal or interest has ever been defaulted on these securities.” Sounds to me like you’re saying “trust the government”.

Originally Posted by saga

Saga: If there was a case you wanted to put into evidence, the better idea would have been to cite it. Rambling on without basis could end up costing you Fan Club points.

I prefer “countrymen” to “Fan Club”... people who are willing to pour a little of their knowledge into the pool in order that we all understand oppression better.

Your question was answered by another.

Originally Posted by saga

Saga: Pure fiction. There is no possibility of SS becoming bankrupt anytime in the foreseeable future. If your generation… feels that its own retirement prospects appear gloomier than desirable and that something should be done about expanding SS coverage or benefits on that account, do what the baby boomers did...come up with a plan that will actually work. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

1K: Do what they did? Raise the tax further and screw more generations? No thanks. I want my generation to be the last oppressed by the idiocy FDR.

The issue is oppression. That the system is going to break or tax us heavier is only the demonstration of how socialism doesn't work. All you're saying is "suffer the oppression."

Originally Posted by saga

Saga:Let me understand: Are you saying that you could think of no means by which to rebut the information presented on how bond sales work, so you chose to post THIS instead? Why?

1K: Yes.
To answer “why?” I had no disagreement with that portion of your post. However, it seemed to me to be drifting into left field and I was wondering why you were posting it.

I think you answered my question earlier in the post I'm responding to. It seems you think it's okay to under-tax a group and then force the next group to pay the portion they failed to pay.

Originally Posted by saga

Saga: … don't be so vain as to go around pulling the rug out from under the one sure thing that so many others will have to rely on in their senior years …

That "one sure thing" is me being raped. It's my happiness being infringed upon by people who want me to be responsible for their poor choices.

Where is the morality in forcing me to pay for them? Does fairness matter?

Originally Posted by saga

Saga: Indecipherable. The fact remains that in 1997, SSA projected that the SSTF would be exhausted in 2029. In 2008, they projected that would happen in 2042. Explain it. These are the very numbers that you and the hack, right-wing writers you've been reading base your woe-is-us, gloom-and-doom arguments on. Either stand up here or sit down.

The significance of the two years is that if we focus on the far off date, we're implying that we have that many years to raise the tax. If we focus on when payments exceed income, those of us in my (and surrounding generations) know when we're really getting screwed.

That's significant in my book.

Originally Posted by saga

Saga: I certainly get that antisocialists use words like FREEDOM and LIBERTY as code words to cover for others such as SELFISH and GREEDY. If you want to enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized society, you have to pay your dues. Period. If you prefer the freedom and liberty implicit in the law of the jungle, there is still some jungle out there. Knock yourself out. Have a great time.

1K: Not me. I use “freedom” and “liberty” to reflect a sense of fairness. You get rewarded on the basis of what you do.

Living in a socialist society isn’t necessarily civilized. Further, living in a free society isn’t uncivilized.

There is nothing uncivilized about offering a basic welfare program for the elderly who have chosen not to prepare for their old age by raising decent children or by saving. However, we don’t have that. We have an oppressive system that demands 12.4% (excluding the train-wreck of MC) from the time you’re entering the workforce until the day you’re eligible. (Please don’t mention that half is paid by employers—if you’re so disposed to be someone else’s property—it’s still friction against wage increases and productivity.) Further, it’s not funded so that recipients have paid a fair amount into it. The result is that my generation—who certainly doesn’t need to be paying 12.4%-- is further imposed upon by the preceding generations.
It’s financial rape; not civilized society.

Stop raping us and calling it civilized to let you do it.

Originally Posted by Karfar

I have to say, I never understood the fear over socialism. As you say, there's still the ability to be a rich person, what is the problem again?

1K: Socialism causes friction to class ascension. If, when I was 20, I hadn’t had to pay SS/MC, I’d have been in the position to apply that money to something immediately rewarding and reinvest it. Today, unless I plan my earnings and expenses just right, all taxes and legislated costs of doing business (permits, etc.) I'll pay from 45 to 60% in taxes (more than a quarter of that is for SS/MC.) That's a huge burden for anyone who has desire to do better for themselves than someone happy working for the corp and living according to someone else's rules.

Every facet of society that socialism wins is a facet that oppresses those with ambition. That’s the fear… Average people commanding with the threat of government force how I should live.

Another issue is that when a segment is oppressed, at some point, they start to fight back. Typically, that means cheerleaders and voters like me who support Bush when he's tanked the economy because I want you to suffer for oppressing me.

More severe, and the reason I believe socialists want to disarm the country, is that people go out and just start killing others because you're better off dead than too severely oppressed (if you desire freedom.)

Basically, socialism is a declaration of natural war against a portion of the citizenry.

Originally Posted by GregW

The misconception that socialism… has to be tyrannical…

It does have to be tyrannical. It’s one segment of the population forcing another portion to live according to the first segments values.

In practice, it means having to run a business the way the government thinks it should be run. It means saving for retirement the way the government thinks it should be done. And where does it stop?

Last year the state of California was trying to stop home-schoolers. The notion of robbing parents of the choice to risk their children’s well-being in order to inoculate them against STD’s is being put into the government’s hands.

It is tyrannical because even when it does something good, something bad is right around the corner… unless you don’t think for yourself. If you believe the group is always right; if you don’t think there’s anyone smarter or more able than the group, socialism is always good.

Originally Posted by Saga

Managed capitalism has been the only thing that has worked over any sort of long run, and it may be the only thing that does...

1K: That’s redundant. To be capitalism is to be managed.

You’re correct about the mis-information on the right, but it’s no better on the left about what capitalism is and isn’t