Sig worthy....if only. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446
I'll have to find another place to put it. ;)
So, I was in a store that accepts EBT as payment. Guy walks in, looks like an oil tycoon, loads up a cart full of soda, chips, and candy. Of course he uses his government assistance card to pay... then loads up his "food" in his Escalade, and drives off. The cashier looks at me and says "Do you know who that guy is?"
Listen, I didn't know the guy, but i bet his boots alone cost more than the cashier makes in a month.
She said that's the biggest drug dealer in the city...
I'm tired of this BS socialism
I know this all too well. I too am from Tx. Lived down by the border around Brownsville area, biggest **** hole ever IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyM
We call those guys 'Mafioso". What they do is buy peoples food stamps on a 4 to 1 trade (4 stamps / $1) and the people go buy drugs with the $$$ which I'm sure you know where that money is going right back too :tard:
So their families starve and the drug dealers get richer. Then Tx. went to this stupid card which just made it easier for the dealers. Now they send the strung out people with a grocery list to get their produce for them.
There's no stopping it. :cuss:
Aside from participating in the social welfare system isn't a drug dealer really an example of capitalism?Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyM
I almost said pure capitalism but as Adam Smith defined capitalism the buyer and seller had to be free to enter and exit the market place and I am not sure that an addict qualifies.
I guess I have to ask AmyM, have you ever been to a Socialist country? How do you define Socialism? Additionally, if this article is correct I would say that a rate of fraud of 1% or less is something that I can live with if there are people out there that are getting help that actually need help.
I think very few people actually understand the Marxist concepts of socialism. They have simply become accustomed to the knee jerk "OMG thats socialist" reaction. Socialism and social welfare programs are not one in the same.
Please understand that my comments are not intended as defenses of socialism or communism. While I think they are neat ideas in theory they have been shown, repeatedly, to be utterly useless in practical application especially at a government level.
Not a confrontational response but how would you define People's Republic of China?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446
As being odd. The People's Republic of China is socialist in nature in that the means of production or (generally) owned by the state. To me that is the important element of socialism that is missed in the "OMG its socialist" responses. Socialism, as considered by Marx and practiced by Stalin, did not accept when people simply did not put into the good of the system and expected to collect from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by emcl29
The oddity of China is that they practice capitalism on the world stage - that is to say the act as a capalistic entity when procurring and selling products. That being said I don't see any way a socialist state would avoid this.
However I also beleive that any state that has to stop the free flow of information or make emmigration of its best and brightest illegal or unduly complicated has ultimately failed to allow individuals the rights of autonomy that are due each person.
Perhaps utterly impractical at a government level was an overreach. However I beleive it has required utilitarian practices that violate personal autonomy and are ultimately immoral. I beleive any system requiring such an immoral action cannot lest indefinetly.
Just to pursue this interesting discussion:
I think the reason most people simply refer to the redistribution of wealth or any other "nanny state welfare program (ex. universal healthcare) as "socialist" is simply because they (and I, for that matter) lack a more easy way to describe what that type of system is without writing a Master's Thesis on political science.
Even when one asks Google, "What is socialism?" it will tell you, "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole". It may not be precise to what our good friend Marx advocated or it might be missing the key detail you describe ("you must put into the system to take out") but I think the meaning and definition has simply been morphed by society or evolved to suit the times.
But ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange does not address the social welfare portion of it. I think people mistake social welfare programs as automatically being socialist in nature. They are not because these programs do not address the means of production.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahoeb
Theoretically socialism should operate very similarly to capitalism but with the community as a whole benefitting from any profits from the means of production. The fault lies that, without extrinsic motivation to create something of value (ie profit), advancement is slowed.
They are just adding a layer (the government) between the producers (taxpayers) and the consumers (welfare recipients). Our gubment welfare programs may not conform to the historical or ideal model of socialism but it still walks and quacks like the proverbial duck.
Cut off it's head quickly before it infects other threads!
The Obamaphone is so 2012....this is 2013, where we have an IRS that targets specific political beliefs, a DOJ that treats journalists like criminals and a government that refused to even try to help those in Benghazi and lied to the public about the reasons for the attack for weeks.
(Throws the match and walks away :) )