View Full Version : CAPITALISM verse SOCIALISM
Libhater
02-10-2014, 09:37 PM
Capitalism verse Socialism
The following is a list of Romney's successful businesses using private monies:
* AMC Entertainment
* Burger King
* Burlington Coat Factory
* Clear Channel Communications
* Dominoes Pizza
* Dunkin Donuts
* Guitar Center
* The Sports Authority
* Staples
* Toys "R" US
* Warner Music Group
The following is a list of Obama's taxpayers invested monies:
* Solyndra--Bankrupt
* Ener 1--Bankrupt
* Beacon Power--Bankrupt
* Abound Solar--Bankrupt
* Amonix Solar--Bankrupt
* Spectra Watt--Bankrupt
* All of the aforementioned Companies were Obama's Campaign Contributors
Germanicus
02-10-2014, 10:36 PM
USA has Democratic Capitalism. Yes?
It is far too simple to reduce the isms to capitalism=private, socialism=public.
It is not as simple and base as that. There is more to it.
Libhater
02-10-2014, 11:00 PM
It is not as simple and base as that. There is more to it.
Do tell.......!
Green Arrow
02-10-2014, 11:05 PM
Oh, I hate these types of threads. You title it "capitalism vs. socialism," but then I read the OP, and it's just more of the Republicans vs. Democrats pissing match. There's no socialism in this thread. Your title is a bit of false advertising.
The Xl
02-10-2014, 11:12 PM
It's too bad Obama isn't a Socialist, Romney isn't a capitalist, and the fact that their policies and ideological beliefs were virtually identical.
Green Arrow
02-10-2014, 11:18 PM
It's too bad Obama isn't a Socialist, Romney isn't a capitalist, and the fact that their policies and ideological beliefs were virtually identical.
Actually, both men are capitalists. Corporatism is a form of capitalism, just as state socialism is (regrettably) a form of socialism.
The Xl
02-10-2014, 11:22 PM
Actually, both men are capitalists. Corporatism is a form of capitalism, just as state socialism is (regrettably) a form of socialism.
Perhaps, but not in the sense that is being implied by the TS.
Green Arrow
02-10-2014, 11:26 PM
Perhaps, but not in the sense that is being implied by the TS.
Well, of course. We know who the intelligent, thought-provoking folks are on this forum.
Libhater
02-11-2014, 07:17 AM
Oh, I hate these types of threads. You title it "capitalism vs. socialism," but then I read the OP, and it's just more of the Republicans vs. Democrats pissing match. There's no socialism in this thread. Your title is a bit of false advertising.
All of those business successes by Romney are the perfect exampes of capitalism. All of those failed start-ups by Obama are perfect examples of socialism done at the tax payers expense and an overreaching centralized government. If not capitalism by example and socialism by example then what is?
Gerrard Winstanley
02-11-2014, 07:22 AM
All of those business successes by Romney are the perfect exampes of capitalism. All of those failed start-ups by Obama are perfect examples of socialism done at the tax payers expense and an overreaching centralized government. If not capitalism by example and socialism by example then what is?
Socialism isn't channeling government funds into (formally) private business interests. Every Presidential administration, Republican and Democrat, has done that.
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 07:23 AM
All of those business successes by Romney are the perfect exampes of capitalism. All of those failed start-ups by Obama are perfect examples of socialism done at the tax payers expense and an overreaching centralized government. If not capitalism by example and socialism by example then what is?
It's corporatism, in the case you mentioned, which is a form of capitalism. You have not posted anything about socialism.
donttread
02-11-2014, 07:38 AM
Capitalism verse Socialism
The following is a list of Romney's successful businesses using private monies:
* AMC Entertainment
We are a neither a capitalist nor socialist society but rather corporatist. Under socialism the government controls business and under capitalism the market controls business under corporatism the megacorps control both the government and the market
* Burger King
* Burlington Coat Factory
* Clear Channel Communications
* Dominoes Pizza
* Dunkin Donuts
* Guitar Center
* The Sports Authority
* Staples
* Toys "R" US
* Warner Music Group
The following is a list of Obama's taxpayers invested monies:
* Solyndra--Bankrupt
* Ener 1--Bankrupt
* Beacon Power--Bankrupt
* Abound Solar--Bankrupt
* Amonix Solar--Bankrupt
* Spectra Watt--Bankrupt
* All of the aforementioned Companies were Obama's Campaign Contributors
donttread
02-11-2014, 07:41 AM
Our society is neither capitalist nor socialist. Under Socialism the government controls business and under Capitalism the market controls business. Under our system the megacoprs control BOTH the government and the market.
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 07:48 AM
Our society is neither capitalist nor socialist. Under Socialism the government controls business and under Capitalism the market controls business. Under our system the megacoprs control BOTH the government and the market.
That is over-simplific and fails to take into account the many forms of capitalism and socialism.
zelmo1234
02-11-2014, 07:55 AM
Oh, I hate these types of threads. You title it "capitalism vs. socialism," but then I read the OP, and it's just more of the Republicans vs. Democrats pissing match. There's no socialism in this thread. Your title is a bit of false advertising.
I think that while you are technically correct, we also must look and see that the policies of those that lean toward socialism have been a catastrophic failure.
As we look to the nations of the world that supported Socialism they all failed, and it took a good dose of private investment and capitalism to bring them back!
And yet we as a nation follow the progressive leaders that push us ever more closely in that direction.
One colossal failure at a time
Captain Obvious
02-11-2014, 08:34 AM
Oh, I hate these types of threads. You title it "capitalism vs. socialism," but then I read the OP, and it's just more of the Republicans vs. Democrats pissing match. There's no socialism in this thread. Your title is a bit of false advertising.
Yeah, makes you want to dive right into that discussion, huh?
Captain Obvious
02-11-2014, 08:36 AM
Well, of course. We know who the intelligent, thought-provoking folks are on this forum.
Yeah - Cigar!
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130302233414/random-ness/images/9/99/Stewie_gun_mouth_super.jpg
Captain Obvious
02-11-2014, 08:36 AM
Thread actually turned into a bit of meaningful discussion after it's massive launch failure.
Chris
02-11-2014, 08:59 AM
To me, corporatism is not a form of capitalism but a corruption of it. Capitalism is the use of economic means in the marketplace. Corporatism is the use of political means in collusion with government to control the marketplace.
To me, the corresponding political term for this is social democracy. This is spelled out quite clearly in Robert Reich's The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits of the Productivity Revolution (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-answer-isnt-socialism_b_1491243.html).
Romney and Obama are social democrats engaged in corporatism.
The Xl
02-11-2014, 11:51 AM
All of those business successes by Romney are the perfect exampes of capitalism. All of those failed start-ups by Obama are perfect examples of socialism done at the tax payers expense and an overreaching centralized government. If not capitalism by example and socialism by example then what is?
All of Romneys ventures had a helping hand from government.
Libhater
02-11-2014, 12:25 PM
All of Romneys ventures had a helping hand from government.
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!! Not one of his ventures had govt involvement, not one! But lets take another look at the perfect comparison between capitalism and socialism from the OP. Read the OP again to see where Romney used all of his capitalist private monies to venture forth with those companies, while obummer used 100% of the tax payers monies to spend on various companies that all failed. Government or socialistic intrusion into the economy is always going to be wrought with failure.
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 12:27 PM
All of Romneys ventures had a helping hand from government.
I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like to see a source on that for my records.
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 12:29 PM
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!! Not one of his ventures had govt involvement, not one! But lets take another look at the perfect comparison between capitalism and socialism from the OP. Read the OP again to see where Romney used all of his capitalist private monies to venture forth with those companies, while obummer used 100% of the tax payers monies to spend on various companies that all failed. Government or socialistic intrusion into the economy is always going to be wrought with failure.
It's not "perfect" because you didn't compare capitalism to socialism, you compared a successful corporatist to a non-successful corporatist. Which isn't exactly a stellar point, because obviously Romney is a better corporatist than Obama. Romney has actually run corporations, so naturally he'd understand corporatism better.
Libhater
02-11-2014, 12:37 PM
It's not "perfect" because you didn't compare capitalism to socialism, you compared a successful corporatist to a non-successful corporatist. Which isn't exactly a stellar point, because obviously Romney is a better corporatist than Obama. Romney has actually run corporations, so naturally he'd understand corporatism better.
Wrong again. Though Romney ran corporations he ran them as a capitalist. You see, not all CO's use the government as a crutch to run their business; Romney used all of his own money. He is afterall worth approximately a quarter of a billion dollars.
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 12:38 PM
Wrong again. Though Romney ran corporations he ran them as a capitalist. You see, not all CO's use the government as a crutch to run their business; Romney used all of his own money. He is afterall worth approximately a quarter of a billion dollars.
Where did I say Romney wasn't a capitalist?
Libhater
02-11-2014, 12:44 PM
Where did I say Romney wasn't a capitalist?
You said he was a corporatist. Here, look at Romney's saving of the 2002 Olympics. Despite the liberal cry that he used government to save the Olympics, the truth is much more easy to take by reading the entire article.
http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/08/how-mitt-romney-saved-the-olympics/
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 12:47 PM
You said he was a corporatist.
Yes, corporatism is a form of capitalism.
Libhater
02-11-2014, 01:03 PM
Yes, corporatism is a form of capitalism.
In your world, maybe.
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 01:06 PM
In your world, maybe.
No, in the world, period. I'm not surprised you don't know this, though.
The Xl
02-11-2014, 01:21 PM
I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like to see a source on that for my records.
Sure.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113
The Xl
02-11-2014, 01:24 PM
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!! Not one of his ventures had govt involvement, not one! But lets take another look at the perfect comparison between capitalism and socialism from the OP. Read the OP again to see where Romney used all of his capitalist private monies to venture forth with those companies, while obummer used 100% of the tax payers monies to spend on various companies that all failed. Government or socialistic intrusion into the economy is always going to be wrought with failure.
He isn't a free market capitalist, he was the beneficiary of tax loopholes and subsidies.
Libhater
02-11-2014, 01:30 PM
No, in the world, period. I'm not surprised you don't know this, though.
Don't feel like you're the only one who is woefully ill advised concerning capitalism, for there are others on this particular thread that think the same nonsense as do you.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Privately owned would suggest that
corporations have nothing to do with the capitalist endeavor of free will. So perhaps now you can see how mistaken you are by calling Romney a corporatist instead of calling him a capitalist. It could be that you are confusing crony capitalism and crony capitalists with real capitalism and real capitalists like Romney by trying to merge them in to the same ideology.
If you were to read the following 2-page link to its entirety there will be no way in hell that you'll ever dispute my findings and my fertile mind again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/12/07/capitalism-is-decidedly-not-corporatism-or-cronyism/
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 01:42 PM
Don't feel like you're the only one who is woefully ill advised concerning capitalism, for there are others on this particular thread that think the same nonsense as do you.
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Privately owned would suggest that
corporations have nothing to do with the capitalist endeavor of free will. So perhaps now you can see how mistaken you are by calling Romney a corporatist instead of calling him a capitalist. It could be that you are confusing crony capitalism and crony capitalists with real capitalism and real capitalists like Romney by trying to merge them in to the same ideology.
If you were to read the following 2-page link to its entirety there will be no way in hell that you'll ever dispute my findings and my fertile mind again.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/12/07/capitalism-is-decidedly-not-corporatism-or-cronyism/
Wrong. Capitalism is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) "an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy."
What you are doing is taking capitalism, an economic system, and turning it into a social system, which it is not.
Libhater
02-11-2014, 01:54 PM
Wrong. Capitalism is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) "an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy."[QUOTE]
And what part of that definition haven't I been trying to pound into your head. And what part of that definition even hinted at corporatist involvement? None, that's what part.
[QUOTE]What you are doing is taking capitalism, an economic system, and turning it into a social system, which it is not.
Capitalism is a social system as you just revealed by stating production is controlled by private owners with the goal to make profits. Private owners making profits. Sounds like a socio-econ ideal to me.
Green Arrow
02-11-2014, 02:08 PM
And what part of that definition haven't I been trying to pound into your head. And what part of that definition even hinted at corporatist involvement? None, that's what part.
That's because corporatism is a form of capitalism, so it's not going to be in the general definition of capitalism. You look at the definition of socialism, you won't find anything in there about government control, and you know why? Because state socialism is a form of socialism. There are many other forms of socialism that are anti-government, so defining socialism as pro-government would ignore many forms. Describing capitalism in general as corporatist would ignore the many different forms of capitalism that are not corporatist.
Capitalism is a social system as you just revealed by stating production is controlled by private owners with the goal to make profits. Private owners making profits. Sounds like a socio-econ ideal to me.
Capitalism is only a social system in the sense that economics is technically a social function. In politics, however, a "social system" is separate from economics. Since capitalism is only economics, it can't be a social system in the context of political discussions.
donttread
02-11-2014, 06:35 PM
That is over-simplific and fails to take into account the many forms of capitalism and socialism.
Well yeah, it was a message board comment not a 1,000 word summary of findings report. I noticed one thing you didn't call it was WRONG
Chris
02-11-2014, 07:54 PM
Speaking of capitalism...
The Man Behind the Hong Kong Miracle (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-man-behind-the-hong-kong-miracle#axzz2sxQea2Tu)
Three cheers for Hong Kong, that tiny chunk of Southeast Asian rock. For the twentieth consecutive year, the Index of Economic Freedom—compiled by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation—ranks Hong Kong (HK) as the freest economy in the world.
Though part of mainland China since the British ceded it in 1997, HK is governed locally on a daily basis. So far, the Chinese have remained reasonably faithful to their promise to leave the HK economy alone. What makes it so free is music to the ears of everyone who loves liberty: Relatively little corruption. An efficient and independent judiciary. Respect for the rule of law and property rights. An uncomplicated tax system with low rates on both individuals and business and an overall tax burden that’s a mere 14 percent of GDP (half the U.S. rate). No taxes on capital gains or interest income or even on earnings from outside of HK. No sales tax or VAT either. A very light regulatory touch.
No government budget deficit and almost nonexistent public debt. Oh, and don’t forget its average tariff rate of near zero. That’s right—zero!
This latest ranking in the WSJ/Heritage report confirms what Canada’s Fraser Institute found in its latest Economic Freedom of the World Index, which also ranked HK as the world’s freest. The World Bank rates the “ease of doing business” in HK as just about the best on the planet.
To say that an economy is “the freest” is to say that it’s “the most capitalist.” Capitalism is what happens when you leave peaceful people alone. It doesn’t require some elaborate and artificial, Rube Goldberg contrivance cooked up by tenured central planners in their insular ivory towers. But if we are to believe the critics of capitalism, HK must also be a veritable Hell’s Kitchen of greed, poverty, exploitation and despair.
Not so. Not even close.
Maybe this is why socialists don’t like to talk about Hong Kong: It’s not only the freest economy, it’s also one of the richest. Its per capita income, at 264 percent of the world’s average, has more than doubled in the past 15 years. People don’t flee from HK; they flock to it. At the close of World War II, the population numbered 750,000. Today it’s nearly ten times that, at 7.1 million.
Positive Non-Interventionism
The news that the HK economy is once again rated the world’s freest is an occasion to celebrate the one man most responsible for this perennial achievement. The name of Sir John James Cowperthwaite (1915–2006) should forever occupy top shelf in the pantheon of great libertarians. Some of us just write about libertarian ideas. This guy actually made them public policy for millions of citizens.
The late Milton Friedman explained in a 1997 tribute to Cowperthwaite how remarkable his economic legacy is: “Compare Britain—the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the nineteenth-century economic superpower on whose empire the sun never set—with Hong Kong, a spit of land, overcrowded, with no resources except for a great harbor. Yet within four decades the residents of this spit of overcrowded land had achieved a level of income one-third higher than that enjoyed by the residents of its former mother country.”
...
Libhater
02-11-2014, 09:36 PM
Speaking of capitalism...
The Man Behind the Hong Kong Miracle (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-man-behind-the-hong-kong-miracle#axzz2sxQea2Tu)
Great example of what true and free capitalism is all about. Its my belief that if we didn't have leftists in our country getting in the way of free market competitive capitalism--that our economy would soar to new heights, but as long as we have these nitwits like obummer in positions of power to take away America's greatest strength(s) of economic growth, chances of our nation returning to the good old daze will be hard if not impossible to replicate.
Socialism isn't channeling government funds into (formally) private business interests. Every Presidential administration, Republican and Democrat, has done that.
Well, not all of them. This is a fairly recent phenomenon. Recent as the years from the founders until now at any rate.
The word socialism has the word social in it. Supposedly an act for the greater good of the public is good and amounts to socialism. Not fully defined of course, but the gist is it is for social needs or assumed needs.
This country must be defended when attacked. To defend the country can be stated to be socialism since the nation supports it and participates in self defense.
So, what do you think qualifies as socialism?
Chris
02-12-2014, 07:58 AM
Great example of what true and free capitalism is all about. Its my belief that if we didn't have leftists in our country getting in the way of free market competitive capitalism--that our economy would soar to new heights, but as long as we have these nitwits like obummer in positions of power to take away America's greatest strength(s) of economic growth, chances of our nation returning to the good old daze will be hard if not impossible to replicate.
You mean people like Bush, Obama, even Romney, and many before them, in power promoting corporatism and undermining the free market? For the same Index of Economic Freedom has dropped the US to 12th "mostly free."
Chris
02-12-2014, 08:15 AM
Well, not all of them. This is a fairly recent phenomenon. Recent as the years from the founders until now at any rate.
The word socialism has the word social in it. Supposedly an act for the greater good of the public is good and amounts to socialism. Not fully defined of course, but the gist is it is for social needs or assumed needs.
This country must be defended when attacked. To defend the country can be stated to be socialism since the nation supports it and participates in self defense.
So, what do you think qualifies as socialism?
It's been happening for decades at an increasing rate, corporatism--what Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, calls conservative socialism as opposed to democratic, the one the redistribution of wealth through regulation, protectionism and nationalism to either maintain the status quo of or enrich the rich, democratic being the social welfare that allows people to purchase what the corporations sell.
The word socialism is tricky. It doesn't necessarily mean Marxism or communism as there is a long history of voluntary socialism. The essential ingredient is, I think (I'm not a socialist) no private property, which is clouded by the allowance for personal property and in cases, I believe, acceptance of ownership of the fruits of one's labor, just not the fruits of others' labors. IOW, under it, you cannot own the capital wherewithal to contract with others to work for you.
The word capitalism is also tricky because all too many use Marx's definition of it, and, technically, historically, he did coin the usage. I tend to use free market capitalism, but then there are those who will retort with there's no pure free market just as there are those who retort there's no pure anarchy.
"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."
Gerrard Winstanley
02-12-2014, 02:04 PM
Well, not all of them. This is a fairly recent phenomenon. Recent as the years from the founders until now at any rate.
The word socialism has the word social in it. Supposedly an act for the greater good of the public is good and amounts to socialism. Not fully defined of course, but the gist is it is for social needs or assumed needs.
This country must be defended when attacked. To defend the country can be stated to be socialism since the nation supports it and participates in self defense.
So, what do you think qualifies as socialism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Libhater
02-12-2014, 02:34 PM
You mean people like Bush, Obama, even Romney, and many before them, in power promoting corporatism and undermining the free market? For the same Index of Economic Freedom has dropped the US to 12th "mostly free."
Two out three ain't bad, but Romney is the epitome of a true capitalist who did nothing to promote corporatism.
Green Arrow
02-12-2014, 02:38 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121105205238/glee/images/3/37/83701_Oh_my_God_Thank_God.gif
I'm not alone anymore.
Green Arrow
02-12-2014, 02:39 PM
Two out three ain't bad, but Romney is the epitome of a true capitalist who did nothing to promote corporatism.
Right, and I'm the bloody Queen.
The Xl
02-12-2014, 02:41 PM
Romney is a proven corporatist. This can't even be debated.
Chris
02-12-2014, 03:28 PM
Two out three ain't bad, but Romney is the epitome of a true capitalist who did nothing to promote corporatism.
Sorry but Romney was just another clone.
Libhater
02-12-2014, 03:52 PM
Sorry but Romney was just another clone.
Romney is anything but a clone; he is what we call an entrepreneur extrodinaire.
Remember what Romney said about corporations calling them 'PEOPLE' as to
bring the definition of such down to a more personal and believable level.
Corporatist is a label best suited for one who does business with the help of
the government. Romney did business el solo with his own private stash of $$$.
Chris
02-12-2014, 03:59 PM
Romney is anything but a clone; he is what we call an entrepreneur extrodinaire.
Remember what Romney said about corporations calling them 'PEOPLE' as to
bring the definition of such down to a more personal and believable level.
Corporatist is a label best suited for one who does business with the help of
the government. Romney did business el solo with his own private stash of $$$.
All I remember is the debate in which he stood and looked into the camera and pretty much said the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." He repeated them at convention...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6E9l0akaTI
I heard that and headed for the hills.
Libhater
02-12-2014, 05:38 PM
All I remember is the debate in which he stood and looked into the camera and pretty much said the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." He repeated them at convention...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6E9l0akaTI
I heard that and headed for the hills.
I don't know what you heard, but I didn't hear one word about government in that audio video.
C-mon Chris, I'm not one of those no/low information obummer voters who can easily be fooled by a smooth talker.
Chris
02-12-2014, 07:52 PM
I don't know what you heard, but I didn't hear one word about government in that audio video.
C-mon Chris, I'm not one of those no/low information obummer voters who can easily be fooled by a smooth talker.
Good lord, his promise was if elected he would help you and your family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA
Germanicus
02-12-2014, 08:13 PM
I hate people that say Socialism = "workers owning the means of production." God.
Not many people will admit that Hitler was a socialist. And maybe he wasnt. Hitler had it easy because before the National Socialists took power things were very bad. He improved the lives of the people with welfare and by creating employment. But the key to his success has making all National Socialists proud of who they were. A capitalist likes to make fun of the poor and tell them that they are stupid and lazy and to stomp on them for fun. Hitler gave these people a reason to feel proud of who they were and this made them want to contribute to society and to be good citizens.
In my opinion Hitler was indeed a socialist. He was in favour of private property. National Socialism is nominally socialist. The State does not need to actually own private property, just to have final say over all matters. The National Socialist State offers virtual ownership of the means of production to the public. And it is not as though Hitler didnt create an environment that had positives for business owners. He made strikes illegal and removed resentment between classes. I have seen funny footage of some German high hats sitting and eating with workers. (:
National Socialism is about a State that works for all citizens. The removal of democracy removed constant conflict.
National Socialism is a happy medium that all parts of society can accept. A hybrid system is the way of the future. The State Capitalism of China is a modern version of National Socialism in my opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61snFdFVNcw
Western Democracy ensures constant conflict and division. A system inspired by National Socialism does not need to be racist. The CPC are nationalist but not at all racist. They also are non-threatening. Also, unlike German National Socialism, China sees isolationism as a dead end road. China wants to be part of the global community and understands that it has to be. And China is not an unreasonable nation. The SOE reforms as well as so many other reforms prove that.
A hybrid system that melds socialism with capitalism is the future. Democratic Capitalism is absurd and unsustainable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKzjOgzQbOU
What is the thinking behind 6 hours of manual labour thing from the commies? To try to create a situation where the white collar and wealthy citizens can understand the manual/low skilled worker. ( only 6? (: Sounds like nothing to a worker. Outrageous to the 'intellectual'. (: )
Why does the CPC make their 'princlings' take posts early in their careers in peasant villages? To help them appreciate the lives of the workers.
In the west our ruling class are fucking disgusting and clearly believe themselves to be superior to the workers. And worse, the western ruling class seems to take joy in spitting on the poor. How will that end? Not well in my opinion.
See this is why politics in the west is so out of touch with the common man. And the common man sure as hell still exists and in great numbers. And they are getting angrier and more mad as hell by the day.
In the west it is considered an insult to be working class. How does a society like that survive? Westerners dont want 'shovel ready' jobs.
Libhater
02-12-2014, 09:12 PM
Good lord, his promise was if elected he would help you and your family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA
What in the world do those words of Reagan's have to do with Romney and with any government involvement concerning Romney?
Lets get on the same page here, okay?
Chris
02-12-2014, 09:20 PM
What in the world do those words of Reagan's have to do with Romney and with any government involvement concerning Romney?
Lets get on the same page here, okay?
Nevermind, if you didn't get it the second time. You're a partisan.
Libhater
02-12-2014, 10:37 PM
Nevermind, if you didn't get it the second time. You're a partisan.
Didn't get what? You make no sense here.
The Xl
02-12-2014, 10:58 PM
I don't know what you heard, but I didn't hear one word about government in that audio video.
C-mon Chris, I'm not one of those no/low information obummer voters who can easily be fooled by a smooth talker.
Incorrect.
Libhater
02-12-2014, 11:16 PM
Incorrect.
Oh no, another one who heard Romney say government in that 35 second or so video. Are you people smokin sumptin or did they bring back LSD to keep the people hallucinating?
The Xl
02-12-2014, 11:45 PM
Oh no, another one who heard Romney say government in that 35 second or so video. Are you people smokin sumptin or did they bring back LSD to keep the people hallucinating?
Naw, I just posted a link in this thread proving, with evidence, that Mitt Romney is a corporatist.
Green Arrow
02-13-2014, 12:02 AM
I don't know what you heard, but I didn't hear one word about government in that audio video.
C-mon Chris, I'm not one of those no/low information obummer voters who can easily be fooled by a smooth talker.
Says the guy taken in by a smooth talker.
Common
02-13-2014, 12:13 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that capitalism is the way to go, socialism has most always failed.
Having said that I believe that Unbridled unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as socialism and thats exactly where we are at right now in this country. Unbridled unrestrained capitalism has destroyed the middle class, its shrank significantly vastly increased the numbers of homeless, poor and unemployed.
This country does not need a far right Teaparty, it does not need a far left progressive agenda it doesnt need Libertarianism which represents the worst of both sides. This country needs to get right back smack in the middle where its always prospered, where the middle class always flourished and the middleclass could kept the economy it steaming right along. The middle class is dieing, thus the economy dies
The Xl
02-13-2014, 01:25 AM
Says the guy taken in by a smooth talker.
With either the inability to read, or poor reading comprehension, to boot.
Green Arrow
02-13-2014, 01:30 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that capitalism is the way to go, socialism has most always failed.
Having said that I believe that Unbridled unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as socialism and thats exactly where we are at right now in this country. Unbridled unrestrained capitalism has destroyed the middle class, its shrank significantly vastly increased the numbers of homeless, poor and unemployed.
This country does not need a far right Teaparty, it does not need a far left progressive agenda it doesnt need Libertarianism which represents the worst of both sides. This country needs to get right back smack in the middle where its always prospered, where the middle class always flourished and the middleclass could kept the economy it steaming right along. The middle class is dieing, thus the economy dies
There are people in this country who want a far-right Tea Party, far-left progressivism, and libertarianism, and you have no right to prevent them from taking action to get what they want.
zelmo1234
02-13-2014, 06:43 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that capitalism is the way to go, socialism has most always failed.
Having said that I believe that Unbridled unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as socialism and thats exactly where we are at right now in this country. Unbridled unrestrained capitalism has destroyed the middle class, its shrank significantly vastly increased the numbers of homeless, poor and unemployed.
This country does not need a far right Teaparty, it does not need a far left progressive agenda it doesnt need Libertarianism which represents the worst of both sides. This country needs to get right back smack in the middle where its always prospered, where the middle class always flourished and the middleclass could kept the economy it steaming right along. The middle class is dieing, thus the economy dies
I would agree with you, except we don't have unbridled capitalism, And it is not Corporations that have killed the middle class, it is the government taxations and regulations that have killed expansion and caused off shoring, and Socials safety net that promotes government dependency that has killed the middle class
Chris
02-13-2014, 09:40 AM
"Unbridled unrestrained capitalism"
What does that even mean? Must mean unbridled, unrestrained by government. Can you imagine that. Think of it. Decoupled from government, corporations, unions, etc would be left with no political means of getting government to coerce what they want, they would be left only with economic means of competing in the market to produce goods and services people value in order to profit. Come on, you really don't want that, do you, to provide people what they want? No, let's have none of that. Let's grow government, increase regulation, more bridling, more restraining, so people are provided what they do not want!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.