Pure *anything* doesn't work on a large scale. Hybrid systems are stronger, just like mongrels compared to pedigrees.
Who here lived through the Cold War, fought Socialism/lived under it's terrible yoke?
- Thread starter bitfi3nd
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Pure *anything* doesn't work on a large scale. Hybrid systems are stronger, just like mongrels compared to pedigrees.
I don't think anyone would deny that the US has some very advanced medical technology, and could provide better healthcare than a lot of other countries.
The problem is, if you want access to this treatment, you have to pay a hell of a lot of money for it. As I understand it, if you want any kind of decent treatment for anything at all in the US, you need private health insurance. Now if you really think that those less fortunate are somehow not deserving of decent healthcare because they haven't worked hard enough to earn a decent living, I'm butting out of this conversation as abruptly as I butted in.
Nuck, I know people that can afford health insurance but, they perfer to go on a cruise, las vages, buy a real expense car, I could go on and on. They don't think they will ever get sick. It's the head in the sand syndrome. I got to pay for their greedyness.
We could live in a high $$$$$$ home but we have to pay for health insurance.
As for the school, you can't teach children that are not willing to learn and their parents don't care if they learn.
This SOMETHING FOR NOTHING is causing a breakdown of values in our country.
We could live in a high $$$$$$ home but we have to pay for health insurance.
As for the school, you can't teach children that are not willing to learn and their parents don't care if they learn.
This SOMETHING FOR NOTHING is causing a breakdown of values in our country.
Aha. Exactly.
The reason we have this advanced medical care is because people are willing and able to pay for it. If the medical profession were saddled with the yoke of socialism, these treatments would be unavailable, as they are in the more "enlightened" countries.
People don't stay awake nights compiling stats, playing with centrifuges, and inventing new treatments for a "Hero of the People, First Class" medal.
The very idea that people are able to draw a profit on these treatments is what allows them to be.
So exit, because the people who cannot afford the treatments do not deserve them, as the people who cannot afford the porterhouse steak at the local 5 star do not deserve them, etc. These wonderful things would not exist if it were not for the inventor/practitioner's ability to profit from them.
Do you work for free? What is a "fair" price for your job? What does the market think is a fair price for your job? Does your price differ? If so, stage a walkout and see if they capitulate to your salary demands. If they can fill your shoes for the same price or less, you aren't worth any more than that price.
Simple. Brutal. Natural. Fair. Life.
But please go on about the superiority of the Soviet/North Korean/NAZI/Cuban/Nicaraguan/Vietnamese/Cambodian (under Pol Pot) system. Everybody got the same! And it all SUCKED!
"Socialism makes the forest equal with hatchet and saw."-Unknown
Last edited:
No I'm not.
"Social Services" are paid for by taking money from the productive and making services available to the unproductive that they couldn't pay for on their own. It's only a matter of how much is taken that you are using to seperate the two in your mind. All laws are ultimately enforced at gunpoint. "Social Services" is just communism lite.
Social Security is a good example of a ponzi scheme that would put it operators in jail if anyone but the .gov ran something like it. Welfare has worked out wonderfully well for us too, hasn't it? We have multiple generations of families on welfare- that literally haven't worked for generations. Everything the .gov touches (that it isn't supposed to in the first place) turns into a leviathan of ****.
Yes, Fed-ex works, but mail is specifically mentioned as a duty of the Fed. .gov in the Constitution. It is considered "infrastructure critical". Even though private companies may be able to provide the services just as well for a lower price, it cannot be left up to market forces, because mail is critical for our nation to function.
Where in our Constitution does it allow the Federal government to provide medical services? Nowhere. And, if you read it, you'll see that the Constitution is a set of very narrow parameters that the Fed is allowed to operate in. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
A ridiculously broad reading of the commerce clause is how the Fed. .gov has been getting around this very specific limitation of power. It started with FDR. (Some would go back as far as Lincoln.) Slowly but surely, our Judicial branch has been reigning these unconstitutional agencies, laws and practices back in in cases that revolve around the commerce clause.
Read the Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers to see how the issues were debated back then. The abuses of power we live with today were forseen by the founders, and they did their best to put multiple controls on government in place to prevent them. You'll be very surprised at how insightful they were. We almost didn't get a bill of rights, since most of the framers considered the enumerated rights to be self-evident and a bill of rights would be redundant. Thank the stars the "just-in-case" crowd won out and drew one up for us.
The .gov has spent the last 200+ years trying to circumvent the law to grow it's power. If we attached a magnet to the founders corpses, and a coil around their caskets, we could probably generate enough power for several cities from the spinning going on in their graves.
i'm never going to understand why any american would ever want us to be the least educated and sickliest nation in the world
just boggles the mind
just boggles the mind
Well, as someone who had to take courses of Marxist/Leninist philosophy to be allowed to study English at a university, I have to say it does not sound great on paper either. I suppose those who like it never read those heaps of dung.
Worse, actually. The sweeper would have a higher lifestyle than you. Because he is a working class, you know. His kids would also get extra points for entry exams at schools (for "class origin"), he would get a coupon for holiday at the sea (albeit Bulgarian) while you stay at home , etc.
So I assume you support a tax-voucher system that would allow parents of any income level to send their kids to the school of their choice, the best school their kids could get into; and that you support our market-driven medical system, widely acknowledged to be the most advanced in the world?
An aside, but relevant to the discussion: Contrary to popular belief, nobody in the US goes withoput medical care. The law requires anyone seeking treatment in an emergency room to be treated, regardless of ability to pay. This has put many hospitals on the southern border states in dire financial straits, because of the high number of non-paying illegal immigrants abusing this well-intentioned law. Of course, the hospitals have to recoup the cost of the non-paiyng somewhere, so the cost of medical care for those who do pay is raised to cover the loss.
Or are you disagreeing with me?
Last edited:
Tomorrow I am going to try and get sonography exam again. Last two times I came at 8:45 (they work from 8-12) and 8:00 respectively, and I did not get in. Too many people before me. I will get up early and be there at 6am. This time I should get in. I pay about $50 health insurance for a family of 5.
This is socialism.
(BTW, the "private health insurance" in a socialist health care system means the bribe you give to the doctor. Then he works hard so that, for example, the mother does not die during labour. Last time I paid the standard "fee" was $500 for natural delivery, $1000 for Caesarean. All strictly illegal, widely known, completely ignored/tolerated.)
This is socialism.
(BTW, the "private health insurance" in a socialist health care system means the bribe you give to the doctor. Then he works hard so that, for example, the mother does not die during labour. Last time I paid the standard "fee" was $500 for natural delivery, $1000 for Caesarean. All strictly illegal, widely known, completely ignored/tolerated.)
Come to the US, Frankie. I'll sponsor you if you want to emigrate. We need people like you who understand what it's like to live in a socilist country, and want to make a better life for themselves through self-determination and hard work. It's not easy or quick, but it can be done.Or, conversely, if you want to get in quickly and without all the legal hassle, just come through Mexico and fill in your forms as a "hispanic".
We have a system of reverse-discrimination in place in this country that makes it easier for minorities to get ahead. I got extra money for school, and got in places I probably shouldn't have because of my racial background. Yes, it's unfair. Yes, I'm ashamed to admit
I took advantage of it. But I know better now and I'm trying to make amends by being a good, productive, loyal American- not a "Native American".
Now I just mark myself as "Other" and write in "American" as my race on those forms. The system of preferential treatment because of race is divisive and breeds discontent. I'm sure many of my fellow students in school resented me because of the extras I got simply because of my genes. It's got to stop somewhere.
So I assume you support a tax-voucher system that would allow parents of any income level to send their kids to the school of their choice, the best school their kids could get into; and that you support our market-driven medical system, widely acknowledged to be the most advanced in the world?
An aside, but relevant to the discussion: Contrary to popular belief, nobody in the US goes withoput medical care. The law requires anyone seeking treatment in an emergency room to be treated, regardless of ability to pay. This has put many hospitals on the southern border states in dire financial straits, because of the high number of non-paying illegal immigrants abusing this well-intentioned law. Of course, the hospitals have to recoup the cost of the non-paiyng somewhere, so the cost of medical care for those who do pay is raised to cover the loss.
Or are you disagreeing with me?
i am an odd sort... i'm a firm believer that VERY small amounts of socialism would do america quite ALOT of good...
i'm FAR from saying tax payers should fit the bill for poor kids to go to expensive private schools... i feel private schools should be left to thier own devices in funding and that's that... but i've heard alot of neocons stating that they don't even agree with the standard public school system...
it is much more in OUR interest to have a moderately educated population than it is to fund wars on foriegn soil over issues that quite frankly are none of our business..
on the medical issue... same deal... tax payers SHOULD be footing the bill in a general sense to accomodate the fact that sadly.. POOR PEOPLE GET SICK TOO.. and it is in our best interest to make sure they have healthcare provided... again... private practices can do what they want.. charge what they want and even give what they want.
food for thought.... everybody is oh soooooooo worried about a supervirus.. ie superflu, how bad do you think it will have spread by the time it gets from some poor homeless guy to the guy who can afford the insurance to pay for the dr. visit for what seems like a simple cold? are your taxes worth preventing that?
and addressing the illegal immigrant issue... for once i'm with the neocons... exactly which part of the words "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" ARE we paying attention to??
You misunderstand the tax voucher system. It takes the public (tax) money that would be spent on a student in a .gov school, and puts it in the parents hands as a voucher/check that can be spent on schooling. They can take that voucher, and use it to pay for school wherever they want, instead of being forced to send their kids to the local public school and live with the level of competence there.
It would be a much better way to use our education bound tax money to school our kids, because we all know that in poor areas, the public schools there are sub-standard, regardless of the amount of money we throw at them. Kids from the ghetto would take their tax money to a better (probably private) school, the best school they could get into. If parents were allowed to "shop" for the best school with their tax money, our general standards would necessarily rise, and the end result would be better educated students, probably at eventually reduced cost.
Freedom of choice. Spend your taxes where you think they ought to be spent, and get a better educated populace at the same time. Win-win. The only losers would be bad teachers and schools who don't make the cut when people are alllowed to shop for the best school.
On the health care issue, just listen to Frankie. He grew up under the Soviet system, and still has to deal with socialized medicine. Ask him how that works, he's already explained what he's going through right now for a sonogram.
hehe.. bad teachers... i'm gonna leave that one alone for the moment.. too much negative to think on atm...
ok.. i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that in the way you made it sound the school voucher thing sounds good... bear in mind.. i don't claim to be politicosavvy... <-- would that be a bushism?.. my question would be.. would this be a system that served ALL children? somehow i see that leaving alot of kids without an education unless taxes were raised enormously. again.. my argument is for SOME socialism... nothing pure.. nothing strongarm.
the least we could do on the medical end is still have private however expensive hospitals that deal with fully paid insurers... thus keeping an outlet for the FEW drs. that excell at being best of the best... but something needs to be done about those of us that are poor and need medical attention but cant afford to owe YET ANOTHER $500
i'll give a personal example... right about this time of year last year.. i'd been feeling rather beyond under the weather.. next thing i know.. i spend 2 ful days running a temp of 120F... now if i had insurance.. i would have at the very least made a dr appointment the minute it jumped that high.. but no.. im poor... i have no insurance... no cash.. no credit card.. and yet.. i AM working for a living. my money goes towards bills and feeding my two young children. so i put it off for two days because due to earlier sicknesses i already owe the local ER a few thousand dollars... guess it's a good thing i decided not to go to work on that third day and stopped at ER anyways... turns out i had pneumonia.. not REALLY bad case.. but on it's way.. what if i'd done that last day like i had the previous two..more worried that i'm tired of the collection companies calling me for money i DONT have... and YES.. i HAVE had the argument where some dippy bimbo kept repeating "well you did choose to get the service... you need to pay for it".. my answer.. "sorry i chose to LIIIIVE .....".. she hung up heheh
something NEEDS to be done..if it takes a few extra dollars of taxes.. so be it... i pay MY taxes too.. i'm quite sure there are things MY tax $$ are being used for that you agree with that I dont... mebbe it's time we concede that there's alot stupider things the money can be spent on that could be removed than the ones that are important for individual taxpayer well being..
on the side... here's a way to fix the whole thing.. including the defecit...
how about instead of an income tax.. we just pay a straight up fed tax on sales... then even the crack dealers and prostitutes who claim no income would finally paying thiers too.. and maybe for once the elite who pay less percentage of tax than my poor ... does but can afford to be buying $500000000.00 yachts would finally be paying thier FAIR dues.. btw.. those illegal immigrants would be paying into it too.. thus it wouldn't matter if the gov turned a blind eye to them... sure would save some money on that whole fence thing
ok.. i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that in the way you made it sound the school voucher thing sounds good... bear in mind.. i don't claim to be politicosavvy... <-- would that be a bushism?.. my question would be.. would this be a system that served ALL children? somehow i see that leaving alot of kids without an education unless taxes were raised enormously. again.. my argument is for SOME socialism... nothing pure.. nothing strongarm.
the least we could do on the medical end is still have private however expensive hospitals that deal with fully paid insurers... thus keeping an outlet for the FEW drs. that excell at being best of the best... but something needs to be done about those of us that are poor and need medical attention but cant afford to owe YET ANOTHER $500
i'll give a personal example... right about this time of year last year.. i'd been feeling rather beyond under the weather.. next thing i know.. i spend 2 ful days running a temp of 120F... now if i had insurance.. i would have at the very least made a dr appointment the minute it jumped that high.. but no.. im poor... i have no insurance... no cash.. no credit card.. and yet.. i AM working for a living. my money goes towards bills and feeding my two young children. so i put it off for two days because due to earlier sicknesses i already owe the local ER a few thousand dollars... guess it's a good thing i decided not to go to work on that third day and stopped at ER anyways... turns out i had pneumonia.. not REALLY bad case.. but on it's way.. what if i'd done that last day like i had the previous two..more worried that i'm tired of the collection companies calling me for money i DONT have... and YES.. i HAVE had the argument where some dippy bimbo kept repeating "well you did choose to get the service... you need to pay for it".. my answer.. "sorry i chose to LIIIIVE .....".. she hung up heheh
something NEEDS to be done..if it takes a few extra dollars of taxes.. so be it... i pay MY taxes too.. i'm quite sure there are things MY tax $$ are being used for that you agree with that I dont... mebbe it's time we concede that there's alot stupider things the money can be spent on that could be removed than the ones that are important for individual taxpayer well being..
on the side... here's a way to fix the whole thing.. including the defecit...
how about instead of an income tax.. we just pay a straight up fed tax on sales... then even the crack dealers and prostitutes who claim no income would finally paying thiers too.. and maybe for once the elite who pay less percentage of tax than my poor ... does but can afford to be buying $500000000.00 yachts would finally be paying thier FAIR dues.. btw.. those illegal immigrants would be paying into it too.. thus it wouldn't matter if the gov turned a blind eye to them... sure would save some money on that whole fence thing
Taukimada,
On the fence thing...that would do NOTHING. What we need to control illegal immigration is massive fines for the EMPLOYERS of illegal immigrants. Like 50K per employee the first time you get caught, double fines and mandatory one year in jail per employee the second time. That would stop it dead in it's tracks, with no fences.
The tax voucher system wouldn't leave any student in the cold unless the parent didn't enroll them in school. You'd be surprised how much we spend per student in public schools. It's on par with some very expensive private schools. There would be plenty to go around, especially as the market adjusted the price per student as new schools pop up.
Sorry to hear about your medical problem, but medical treatment costs money. Yeah, you have bill collectors hounding you, but you are alive. In a socialized system, a comittee of bureaucrats would assess your need to be treated and when, and literally hold the power of life and death over you. Obama's "stimulus" bill had provisions for that got struck at the last minute. they were scary as hell. Basically, it would have stopped "life extending" treatments for people deemed "too old", and another group of bureaucrats would have been second-guessing your doctor at every turn as far as your medical needs go.
You were saved by our system, now you have to pay for it. It's expensive, huh? But better than being dead. So I do not understand your complaint. How about cutting off you high-spped web access, your cable TV, selling your car and buying a cheaper one, a motorcycle or scooter,or taking public transportation. Eating cheaper, no frozen microwave meals, cooking at home from scratch, foregoing your electronics, etc. I'm sure you could afford your bills if you cut some fat out. If you aren't willing to dial down your luxuries to pay for yourself, why should everybody else be expected to pay for you?
If you are posting from the library, your friend bought you your e-cigs, and you've done all of the above then kudos, and I wish you all the best.
If you aren't sacrificing your unnecessary luxuries to help pay your medical bills, I can't say I have any sympathy. Expecting others to pay for you in that situation is just plain uncool.
People who can afford to buy yachts are paying way more than their "fair due". Wealthy people use very little in the way of public services, and employ a great many people. I have never gotten a job from a poor person. A flat tax on income, regardless of level would be fair. I would prefer to abolish income tax altogether and just impose a 50% sales tax on everything but food. That you could control how much you pay in taxes buy controlling your comsumption, leaving the people who are willing to live simply plenty of money for investment to insure their future.
I have nothing but disgust for people who think people who earn more than them should be punished because they are jealous. The politics of envy is a very ugly thing and has no place in our classless American society.
On the fence thing...that would do NOTHING. What we need to control illegal immigration is massive fines for the EMPLOYERS of illegal immigrants. Like 50K per employee the first time you get caught, double fines and mandatory one year in jail per employee the second time. That would stop it dead in it's tracks, with no fences.
The tax voucher system wouldn't leave any student in the cold unless the parent didn't enroll them in school. You'd be surprised how much we spend per student in public schools. It's on par with some very expensive private schools. There would be plenty to go around, especially as the market adjusted the price per student as new schools pop up.
Sorry to hear about your medical problem, but medical treatment costs money. Yeah, you have bill collectors hounding you, but you are alive. In a socialized system, a comittee of bureaucrats would assess your need to be treated and when, and literally hold the power of life and death over you. Obama's "stimulus" bill had provisions for that got struck at the last minute. they were scary as hell. Basically, it would have stopped "life extending" treatments for people deemed "too old", and another group of bureaucrats would have been second-guessing your doctor at every turn as far as your medical needs go.
You were saved by our system, now you have to pay for it. It's expensive, huh? But better than being dead. So I do not understand your complaint. How about cutting off you high-spped web access, your cable TV, selling your car and buying a cheaper one, a motorcycle or scooter,or taking public transportation. Eating cheaper, no frozen microwave meals, cooking at home from scratch, foregoing your electronics, etc. I'm sure you could afford your bills if you cut some fat out. If you aren't willing to dial down your luxuries to pay for yourself, why should everybody else be expected to pay for you?
If you are posting from the library, your friend bought you your e-cigs, and you've done all of the above then kudos, and I wish you all the best.
If you aren't sacrificing your unnecessary luxuries to help pay your medical bills, I can't say I have any sympathy. Expecting others to pay for you in that situation is just plain uncool.
People who can afford to buy yachts are paying way more than their "fair due". Wealthy people use very little in the way of public services, and employ a great many people. I have never gotten a job from a poor person. A flat tax on income, regardless of level would be fair. I would prefer to abolish income tax altogether and just impose a 50% sales tax on everything but food. That you could control how much you pay in taxes buy controlling your comsumption, leaving the people who are willing to live simply plenty of money for investment to insure their future.
I have nothing but disgust for people who think people who earn more than them should be punished because they are jealous. The politics of envy is a very ugly thing and has no place in our classless American society.
Well here's one of the richest people in the world disagreeing with you Bit.
Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com
Warren Buffett employs a hell of a lot of people through his company; probably not too many directly. I would go as far as say that there are very few wealthy individuals in the US that employ a lot of people directly. Most of them are involved in a corporation that employs people.
Flat taxes are incredibly regressive. I see nothing wrong with a VAT though.
You think insurance companies aren't making treatment decisions now? Think again... They are also refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and under our system of the insurance going with the job, those that get laid off might never be able to get insurance for those pre-existing conditions again.
A few years ago I had to have two surgerys within two weeks. Both were outpatient surgeries, both were common procedures, both were pre-approved by my insurance company. I had the best insurance my employer offered, and was paying a hefty premium. I ended up owing over $15,000. I was fortunate enough to have a job where I could pay it off within a couple of years. Most people aren't that lucky.
Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities - washingtonpost.com
Warren Buffett employs a hell of a lot of people through his company; probably not too many directly. I would go as far as say that there are very few wealthy individuals in the US that employ a lot of people directly. Most of them are involved in a corporation that employs people.
Flat taxes are incredibly regressive. I see nothing wrong with a VAT though.
You think insurance companies aren't making treatment decisions now? Think again... They are also refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and under our system of the insurance going with the job, those that get laid off might never be able to get insurance for those pre-existing conditions again.
A few years ago I had to have two surgerys within two weeks. Both were outpatient surgeries, both were common procedures, both were pre-approved by my insurance company. I had the best insurance my employer offered, and was paying a hefty premium. I ended up owing over $15,000. I was fortunate enough to have a job where I could pay it off within a couple of years. Most people aren't that lucky.
jesus i don't even know if should even say anything going off what i've read so far.
i don't think a lot of people understand that our basic economic infrastructure is so heavily influenced and dependent on the state and it's, to quote jefferson, "large private banks," that we are basically a fascist state - economically speaking, not "beat you over the head for talking smack about so and so" in that regard.
also, the biggest issue the US has to deal with and canada and finaland don't have to worry about is our self-anointed task of being a world power. there is a lot of property and capital we have to worry about keeping or at least looking into gaining, which costs us tax money.
" In 2007, some 22 percent of the budget, or $590 billion, went to pay for defense, homeland security, and security-related international activities. While roughly $125 billion went to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities."
that may not seem like much, but that's an overwhelming portion of money that's going just to keep our legitimacy of power in place. if even a third of that went to education or, as discussed, our currently broken health care system, it would make a huge quantifiable difference across the board for its own citizens.
also, all this talk about the dangers of socialism and communism seems a bit misplaced. like i said, if we're talking economics, we're not much different. now, that being said, there's a HUGE misunderstanding as to what communism really is. yea, marx is full of **** and he basically reiterated years of work done by other economists and writers before him but using different terms to explain his "theory." what we have to take into account is the actual history of the development of "communism" as we know it. first off, we have to remember that there were TWO revolutions in russia during 1917. the first was in february when the autocratic government was removed by force and replaced by a provisional government. then, there was a counter-revolution in october of that same year by the bolsheviks where they dismantled everything that even remotely appeared like socialism in action. why? because lenin, being a staunch marxist, knew that the rise of communism would only take place from the eventual breakdown of a capitalist state. problem is, russia had never been a capitalist state; it had been a feudalist third-world state for centuries, but never a capitalist one. so, going by the book so to speak, he reverted all communist regiments and installed what can easily be called a state run capitalist system hoping that it would eventually progess to its "eventual" conclusion of communism. obviously this never happened and lenin was ousted only to have his authoritarian view on governance and vanguard-run government go unchecked and continue to run the state up until the eventual demise of the ussr. now, that being said, there's a lot to say about a third world state like russia becoming a large world power (enough to garner respect or fear from the us) from literally nothing over a span of time as little as half a century. if anything, this is not a gleaming beacon of the capacity of communism - which was touted by many during the cold war as a basis for their fear of the "spread of communism" as it were - but in fact an example of how powerful a state-run capitalist country can and will become. or you can look at a better example here at home.
i don't think a lot of people understand that our basic economic infrastructure is so heavily influenced and dependent on the state and it's, to quote jefferson, "large private banks," that we are basically a fascist state - economically speaking, not "beat you over the head for talking smack about so and so" in that regard.
also, the biggest issue the US has to deal with and canada and finaland don't have to worry about is our self-anointed task of being a world power. there is a lot of property and capital we have to worry about keeping or at least looking into gaining, which costs us tax money.
" In 2007, some 22 percent of the budget, or $590 billion, went to pay for defense, homeland security, and security-related international activities. While roughly $125 billion went to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities."
that may not seem like much, but that's an overwhelming portion of money that's going just to keep our legitimacy of power in place. if even a third of that went to education or, as discussed, our currently broken health care system, it would make a huge quantifiable difference across the board for its own citizens.
also, all this talk about the dangers of socialism and communism seems a bit misplaced. like i said, if we're talking economics, we're not much different. now, that being said, there's a HUGE misunderstanding as to what communism really is. yea, marx is full of **** and he basically reiterated years of work done by other economists and writers before him but using different terms to explain his "theory." what we have to take into account is the actual history of the development of "communism" as we know it. first off, we have to remember that there were TWO revolutions in russia during 1917. the first was in february when the autocratic government was removed by force and replaced by a provisional government. then, there was a counter-revolution in october of that same year by the bolsheviks where they dismantled everything that even remotely appeared like socialism in action. why? because lenin, being a staunch marxist, knew that the rise of communism would only take place from the eventual breakdown of a capitalist state. problem is, russia had never been a capitalist state; it had been a feudalist third-world state for centuries, but never a capitalist one. so, going by the book so to speak, he reverted all communist regiments and installed what can easily be called a state run capitalist system hoping that it would eventually progess to its "eventual" conclusion of communism. obviously this never happened and lenin was ousted only to have his authoritarian view on governance and vanguard-run government go unchecked and continue to run the state up until the eventual demise of the ussr. now, that being said, there's a lot to say about a third world state like russia becoming a large world power (enough to garner respect or fear from the us) from literally nothing over a span of time as little as half a century. if anything, this is not a gleaming beacon of the capacity of communism - which was touted by many during the cold war as a basis for their fear of the "spread of communism" as it were - but in fact an example of how powerful a state-run capitalist country can and will become. or you can look at a better example here at home.
Why didn't you just trot out George Soros instead? He's a very wealthy advocate of socialism, as it always works outt, anyhow. For the "little people anyhow.
And yes, insurance companies do make decisions now, but at least you have more than one to choose from. Imagine the drivers license bureau X 20, only for doctor's appointments. That's what you are going to get.
Dr, Fell, I agree mostly with your assessment of our situation, but I usually leave that stuff out (because it tends to devolve the argument with people who do not understand...and the material my hat is made from becomes the debate instead.) along with my desire to do away with the Fed. Res. and go back to a gold backed currency, not borrow anymore, and close down all of our bases.
I am vehemently not anti-military, I'm just sick of the spending of both cash and American blood to try to solve everybody else's problem. We use our ability to project military force to protect private financial interests, which is totally reprehensible.
There are a hell of a lot of holes in our boat. The current administration is fixing it by punching more, bigger, better holes. If we can fix the economy by spending trillions, why don't we just fix it REALLY well and spend quadrillions? Bazillions? All we have to do is print more money! Just like Rhodesia...ahem, I mean, Zimbabwe.
Screw it, There is way too much to all of this to even try to discuss. Suffice to say that we're all doomed.
- Status
Similar threads
