Incidentally, why do I get the distinct impression you have absolutely no idea what "communism" and "socialism" actually mean? And that the fact that they don't mean at all the same thing is totally lost on you?
Bosses don't create jobs, customers do.
Last edited by CoolWalker; May 29 2012 at 06:00 AM.
"If Republicans wanted to Destroy America, they would Vote Democrat."
Actions have consequences in the real world, for real people. Playing political games with the economy by its very nature will always mean crushing people's lives underfoot. Is that sort of person you are? Is that sort of person you want to be? If you have a choice between taking a political loss in the process of helping people and wining a political victory at the cost of hurting people, which is the moral choice to make?
Being a moral adult means understanding the consequences of your actions and doing your honest best to make those consequences as positive for everyone as you can. And yes, that's a hard thing to do. Yes, that means putting a lot of work into thinking and questioning and understanding. And yes that means that sometimes you're going to have to make personal sacrifices. And yes that means that sometimes you're going to have to change ideas that you hold near and dear. and yes that means putting cold, hard, unpleasant reality above how you think things ought to be. It's not easy. But that's what it means to be a good person.
If you really want to see more people working and off the public dole, the way to accomplish that is by getting the economy going again. And the way to do that is with stimulus. That's not an opinion, that's not a political view, that's a fact. 80 years of economic history prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.
And no, you don't have the faintest idea what socialism and communism actually mean. Socialism is the idea that society as a whole has a responsibility to its members. It's the idea that people working together as a whole can accomplish more then individuals all acting purely in their own self interest. It's the idea that organizations supported by and accountable to society as a whole can do real and lasting good. Socialism does not envision a classless society where everyone is equal. Nor does it wish to abolish private property or private employment. What socialism does advocate is using government (or an analogous organization) to correct the problems and injustices caused by a completely unrestrained free market.
Communism, on the other hand, wants to do away with government completely. "In the end, the state shall wither away." Communism wands to get rid of elites and aristocracies. It wants to put control of the means of production in the hands of the people who actually do the producing. Communism is actually the logical extreme of egalitarianism and libertarianism. It's also (in my opinion) completely impractical and unworkable, but that's another discussion.
We've tried pure, unrestrained laissez faire capitalism, in the late 19th and early 20th century. The result was an economy that spent 45% of the time in recession, compared to 15% of the time since WWII. It gave us the Long Depression - a roughly twenty year period of a stagnant to receding economy. It gave us the Great Depression. It gave us grinding poverty and precious little social mobility. It gave us child labor and horrendous working conditions where people were routinely maimed or killed by their work. There's a reason the period is called the Gilded Age. The shiny exterior was only skin deep.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the reason you find it nearly impossible to respond to me is not because I'm twisted, but because you haven't put the thought and effort into your positions to make them able to stand up to a critical analysis. There may be nothing more tragic then the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact, but there is also nothing more essential to successfully dealing with the real world.
Bosses don't create jobs, customers do.
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03
No, we can't.
The socialist policies of the New Deal had a good long life, but it's time to put them to rest before they bankrupt the country. We can't afford them.The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
Alex Brandon, AP
The Capitol in Washington, D.C., is seen with a marble chimera rhyton that stands in front of the Rayburn House Office Building in the foreground.
The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.
This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.
Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.
STORY: Government's mountain of debt
Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.
Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.
The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $528,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.
"The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Institute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."
Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.
"The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.
USA TODAY has calculated federal finances based on standard accounting rules since 2004 using data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and the little-known audited financial report of the federal government.
The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs.
"The progressive is a self-appointed social redeemer, leading a movement to destroy his own society and liberate the masses. This political mission provides him with immense moral indignation and, therefore, moral superiority, dispositions from which, in turn, he derives tremendous emotional gratification. His whole belief system provides him with a sense of belonging, since he has joined other social redeemers, as well as victims, real or imagined, who wait for him to break their chains."