Cuba's Road too Serfdom...pay attention Progressive Socialists

[Libhater]

Americans concerned about Big Government threats to our freedom can learn much from the story of Cuba. The island nation offers a textbook example of what Hayek was talking about in The Road to Serfdom. Since Castro took over in 1959, millions have fled its harsh dictatorship, many swimming or rafting to the United States in shark-infested waters. Yet Cuba's totalitarian regime was initally perceived as having good intentions.

In the beginning, Castro was seen as a champion of the oppressed. His rise to power was viewed as a victory for "fairness."

Government essentially took over theentire economy--imposing wage and price controls, confiscating large private estates, and spending on public works programs to "create jobs." It imposed coercive laws and levies that are the dream of many people today on the American left. The result was a massive redistribution of the nation's wealth to the poorest 40% of the population. Lower-income people got jobs with higher salaries (labor contracts were renegotiated) and homes with lower rents.

About a million people were "given" jobs during the 1960s. Castro's communist government instituted stiff price controls that drastically drove down the prices of electricity, gas, and public transportation. Rents across the country dropped by 50 percent. Social services like education and health care, even burial services, were provided by the government for "free."

However, this massive coercion in the name of "fairness" ended up killing Cuba's economy and keeping people desperately poor. Many who had supported the revolution turned against their charismatic leader. But Cuba's Big Government, typical of brutal dictatorships, would brook no opposition. Not only have millions fled, experts estimate that at least a hundred thousand have died on account of the regime. Thousands of people have been shot by Castro's firing squads. Many more have been thrown in jail.

Cubans who remain live in grinding poverty with chronic shortages created by Big Government rationing and price controls. The Washington Post reported that ordinary citizens are forced daily to "go to the left," violating the law and risking jail by making back-alley deals to buy everything from basic food staples to illegal satellite dishes.

Government ended up forcing only misery on its citizens. In the Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek quotes Alexis de Tocqueville on the dangers of coercive "democratic socialism." What the French social observer said in 1848 could have been written today:

Freedom Manifesto by Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Ames

ps: Anyone notice the remarkable similarities between Castro's economy and obama's economy?

[Mainecoons]

Progressivism in one quote:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

[Libhater]

Progressivism in one quote:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Excellent quote and oh so apropos.

[darroll]

I COMMUNIST Cuba they have to ration toothpaste.
They have not figured out how to put the paste in the little hole in the tube. All the smart people left the country.

[Chloe]

Progressivism in one quote:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

that quote is true sometimes but there are also a lot of really positive things that can come from and have come from good intentions too.

[Chris]

that quote is true sometimes but there are also a lot of really positive things that can come from and have come from good intentions too.

If one bothers to consider the consequences and treads lightly and prudently.

[Chris]

And it's not just Cuba...

Venezuela: the Left's favourite 'socialist paradise' is sliding into poverty and dictatorship (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100260605/venezuela-the-lefts-favourite-socialist-paradise-is-sliding-into-poverty-and-dictatorship/)


How are things coming along in Venezuela, that paradise of democratic socialism? You must remember Venezuela. That's the country that Diane Abbott said was showing "a better way", which Owen Jones told us had proven that "you can lead a progressive, popular government that says no to neo-liberalism"? The apple in the eye of Marx, the last hope for humanity in a world of fat cat banksters and austerity Scrooges. The Copacobana of the international revolution. Viva!

How is Venezuela doing? Well, tens of thousands of protesters are in the streets, the army's been sent to crush revolt, an opposition leader has been arrested and supporters of the government just shot dead a former beauty queen. It's going to hell in a handcart, that's how it's doing....

[Chloe]

If one bothers to consider the consequences and treads lightly and prudently.

There are consequences to almost everything one way or another. I like to think that I consider those things before I choose to do things but everyone will make a mistake once in a while.

[Ravi]

that quote is true sometimes but there are also a lot of really positive things that can come from and have come from good intentions too.
In the meaning alluded to in this thread (not the original meaning, btw), it was first applied to Republican governance in the 1920s (cut taxes! the poor wealthy people!) which resulted in the great depression.

Interesting to note that most Republicans didn't learn the lesson.

[Chris]

There are consequences to almost everything one way or another. I like to think that I consider those things before I choose to do things but everyone will make a mistake once in a while.

Yes, and you probably do. The trick though is to consider unseen consequences, unintended consequences.

[junie]

Progressivism in one quote:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."



funny i was thinking the very same thought in your anti-abortion thread yesterday. :thumbsup:




hellooo passage of personhood protection at conception would turn women into state controlled incubators.

keep on pushing the legal precedents here and watch the shadow of your personal privacy penumbra come back to bite you in the libertarian ass!

[Chris]

In the meaning alluded to in this thread (not the original meaning, btw), it was first applied to Republican governance in the 1920s (cut taxes! the poor wealthy people!) which resulted in the great depression.

Interesting to note that most Republicans didn't learn the lesson.



Interesting theory, one I never heard before, and it runs counter to historical facts.


...Keynes argued that if the national government spent more money to recover the money spent by consumers and business firms, unemployment rates would fall. The solution was for the Federal Reserve System to “create new money for the national government to borrow and spend” and to cut taxes rather than raising them, in order for consumers to spend more, and other beneficial factors.[2] Hoover chose to do the opposite of what Keynes sought to be the solution and allowed the federal government to raise taxes exceedingly to reduce the budget shortage brought upon by the depression....

...The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was instituted by Senator Reed and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law by President Hoover, to raise taxes on American imports by about 20 percent during June of1930. This tax, which aided towards the exceedingly damaged American income and overproduction, was only beneficial towards the Americans in having to spend less on foreign goods....

...From the point of view of today's mainstream schools of economic thought, government should strive to keep some broad nominal aggregate on a stable growth path (for proponents of new classical macroeconomics and monetarism, the measure is the nominal money supply; for Keynesian economists it is the nominal aggregate demand itself). During a depression the central bank should pour liquidity into the banking system and the government should cut taxes and accelerate spending in order to keep the nominal money stock and total nominal demand from collapsing.[67]

The United States government and the Federal Reserve did not do that during the 1929‑32 slide into the Great Depression[67]....

...Hoover pushed for measures (Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Home Loan Bank Act, direct loans to fund state Depression relief programs) that increased spending. But at the same time he pushed for the Revenue Act of 1932 that massively increased taxes in order to balance the budget again.[73]....

...In 1929 the Hoover administration responded to the economic crises by temporarily lowering income tax rates and the corporate tax rate.[83] At the beginning of 1931, tax returns showed a tremendous decline in income due to the economic downturn. Income tax receipts were 40% less than in 1930. At the same time government spending proved to be a lot greater than estimated.[83] As a result the budget deficit increased tremendously. While Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon urged to increase taxes, Hoover had no desire to do so since 1932 was an election year.[84] In December 1931, hopes that the economic downturn would come to an end vanished since all economic indicators pointed to a continuing downward trend.[85] On January 7, 1932, Andrew Mellon announced that the Hoover administration would end a further increase in public debt by raising taxes.[86] On June 6, 1932, the Revenue Act of 1932 was signed into law. It raised taxes on all brackets, tripling the tax rate on the poorest, and on the wealthy he increased taxes from 25% to 63%.[87][88] The higher taxes were first to be paid for the fiscal year 1933 when coincidently the long recession ended....

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression

[Chris]

funny i was thinking the very same thought in your anti-abortion thread yesterday. :thumbsup:



Yes, indeed, the progressive personhood argument is paved with good intentions. :rollseyes:

[junie]

Yes, indeed, the progressive personhood argument is paved with good intentions. :rollseyes:



eyeroll right back at ya. :rolleyes:



"Opponents of abortion are backing legislation across the country that would give legal rights to embryos from the instant of conception.
These efforts might be wrapped up in the rhetoric of dignity, but make no mistake: “Personhood” laws would weaken women’s rights. "

https://www.progressive.org/node/137571


A number of states have proposed legislation that would define human life as beginning at the moment an egg is fertilized. As shorthand, such measures are referred to as so-called "Personhood legislation”.



Personhood legislation can come about in two ways: (a) via a bill in the state legislature, or (b) via a ballot initiative that the citizens vote on. Sometimes the legislation is designed to amend the state’s Constitution to confer constitutional rights on embryos; sometimes the mechanism is a statute that is “on the books.”



The first stand-alone personhood legislation arose in Colorado in the form of a ballot initiative in 2008. This Constitutional amendment would have given all persons, "from the beginning of [their] biological development," i.e., from the moment of sperm-egg fertilization, inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law protection under the Colorado Constitution. It was rejected by Colorado voters both in November, 2008, and when presented again in November, 2010, by margins of 2 to 1.



Mississippi’s “Initiative 26”, another ballot initiative, gained the most national media attention. In November 2011, the voters of Mississippi were asked to vote for or against the following proposal:

“As used in this Article III of the state constitution, The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”


In other states, bills with different language but the same goals have been proposed. Below are examples of the range of linguistic approaches to personhood legislation:

http://www.resolve.org/about/personhood-legislation.html

[Chris]

eyeroll right back at ya. :rolleyes:



"Opponents of abortion are backing legislation across the country that would give legal rights to embryos from the instant of conception.
These efforts might be wrapped up in the rhetoric of dignity, but make no mistake: “Personhood” laws would weaken women’s rights. "

https://www.progressive.org/node/137571


A number of states have proposed legislation that would define human life as beginning at the moment an egg is fertilized. As shorthand, such measures are referred to as so-called "Personhood legislation”.



Personhood legislation can come about in two ways: (a) via a bill in the state legislature, or (b) via a ballot initiative that the citizens vote on. Sometimes the legislation is designed to amend the state’s Constitution to confer constitutional rights on embryos; sometimes the mechanism is a statute that is “on the books.”



The first stand-alone personhood legislation arose in Colorado in the form of a ballot initiative in 2008. This Constitutional amendment would have given all persons, "from the beginning of [their] biological development," i.e., from the moment of sperm-egg fertilization, inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law protection under the Colorado Constitution. It was rejected by Colorado voters both in November, 2008, and when presented again in November, 2010, by margins of 2 to 1.



Mississippi’s “Initiative 26”, another ballot initiative, gained the most national media attention. In November 2011, the voters of Mississippi were asked to vote for or against the following proposal:

“As used in this Article III of the state constitution, The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”


In other states, bills with different language but the same goals have been proposed. Below are examples of the range of linguistic approaches to personhood legislation:

http://www.resolve.org/about/personhood-legislation.html



Any argument based solely on the semantics of personhood, be it viability, be it when the heart first beats, etc, etc, is a personhood argument. The argument orginates in the progressive movement. I don't doubt that opponents have adopted the rhetoric.

It's like pro-choicers adopting the libertarian argument it's their body and thus their choice.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Castro, Marx, and all the bossy snobs who created the Left are children of the same rich parasites that the pathetic flunkies of our ruling aristocracy worship. The only way to get rid of this deceptive movement is to cut off Heirheads from Daddy's Money when they are 18. If we have to do it on our own, so must they, or these spoiled brats must suffer the consequences.

Because their Daddies tell them they are genetically superior, Heirhead guillotine-fodder have a "Born to Rule" attitude. Everyone knows that those who take over Leftist college student groups are those who live off an allowance and have time to run them, whereas the other members have to spend most of their free time trying to earn enough money to make living expenses.

Because Daddy never said No to these false-flag "Leftists," they don't allow dissent. Again, "Power Corrupts" is a lie. Anyone who has dealt with these brats when they are powerless students knows that they are born totalitarians even at the beginning of their political careers. And why are practically all Marxists hiding out in the University, which is an obsolete aristocratic institution designed solely for those with independent incomes? Suffocating under our ruling class's mind control, no one is allowed to make the connection that the snobs' outsider movement's goal is to impose their own Wall Street of State Capitalism and oppresses the working class just as much as Capitalism, which itself is Communism for the Rich.

These malignant mutant tumors also have a subconscious desire to justify their Daddies' Right Wing rule by making Communism an even worse alternative. We must outlaw this class that created such a hopeless situation for the rest of us. It is the only way out of serfdom to the aristocracy, whether it pretends to be Conservative or Liberal. Brain-dead sheep who believe that both the Left and Right are sincere are worthless weaklings. They can be bypassed; they are just a decoy from focusing on direct attacks on the puppetmasters.

[nathanbforrest45]

Notice how when an icon of the left is shown to be devastating to the people the topic is always changed. The topic of this thread is Cuba and socialism. Somehow it has turned to another pro abortion screed.

[junie]

Any argument based solely on the semantics of personhood, be it viability, be it when the heart first beats, etc, etc, is a personhood argument. The argument orginates in the progressive movement. I don't doubt that opponents have adopted the rhetoric.

It's like pro-choicers adopting the libertarian argument it's their body and thus their choice.



you keep missing the point, apparently on purpose, which is very strange but par for the course with you...

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."


anyway the thread is about cuba so i'm done. :kiss:

[Chris]

you keep missing the point, apparently on purpose, which is very strange but par for the course with you...

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."


anyway the thread is about cuba so i'm done. :kiss:



You had a point? You seem only to want to attack people. Pathetically so, because next, passive-aggressively, you'll fake being attacked.

[Bob]

eyeroll right back at ya. :rolleyes:



"Opponents of abortion are backing legislation across the country that would give legal rights to embryos from the instant of conception.
These efforts might be wrapped up in the rhetoric of dignity, but make no mistake: “Personhood” laws would weaken women’s rights. "

https://www.progressive.org/node/137571


A number of states have proposed legislation that would define human life as beginning at the moment an egg is fertilized. As shorthand, such measures are referred to as so-called "Personhood legislation”.



Personhood legislation can come about in two ways: (a) via a bill in the state legislature, or (b) via a ballot initiative that the citizens vote on. Sometimes the legislation is designed to amend the state’s Constitution to confer constitutional rights on embryos; sometimes the mechanism is a statute that is “on the books.”



The first stand-alone personhood legislation arose in Colorado in the form of a ballot initiative in 2008. This Constitutional amendment would have given all persons, "from the beginning of [their] biological development," i.e., from the moment of sperm-egg fertilization, inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law protection under the Colorado Constitution. It was rejected by Colorado voters both in November, 2008, and when presented again in November, 2010, by margins of 2 to 1.



Mississippi’s “Initiative 26”, another ballot initiative, gained the most national media attention. In November 2011, the voters of Mississippi were asked to vote for or against the following proposal:

“As used in this Article III of the state constitution, The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”


In other states, bills with different language but the same goals have been proposed. Below are examples of the range of linguistic approaches to personhood legislation:

http://www.resolve.org/about/personhood-legislation.html

I have been married and divorced from two women.

Each bore us a child.

When I read this anti child argument, where when does the child get any rights, be it at conception or a later date, it reminds me of what both wives said to me.

We are going to have a baby they both said.

Neither said, I have an embryo that will later be a fetus which upon birth becomes human.

Nope,

Both women called our two darling daughters babies.

I mean as soon as each knew she was pregnant.

I think of abortions as the most inhumane way one can treat their own off spring.

It is a sick shame what happened in the Supreme court where the Roe v Wade ruling was entirely based on privacy and not about abortion.

And the woman that got the law ruled on, regrets it to this day and is sick at what she managed to do.

[Ravi]

Interesting theory, one I never heard before, and it runs counter to historical facts.



@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
Too little, too late. Fact of the matter is that before the depression, Republicans lowered taxes after WW1 because they falsely believed that lowering taxes would create jobs. Just the opposite happened.

Republicans to this day still play the same stupid game.

[Ravi]

I have been married and divorced from two women.

Each bore us a child.

When I read this anti child argument, where when does the child get any rights, be it at conception or a later date, it reminds me of what both wives said to me.

We are going to have a baby they both said.

Neither said, I have an embryo that will later be a fetus which upon birth becomes human.

Nope,

Both women called our two darling daughters babies.

I mean as soon as each knew she was pregnant.

I think of abortions as the most inhumane way one can treat their own off spring.

It is a sick shame what happened in the Supreme court where the Roe v Wade ruling was entirely based on privacy and not about abortion.

And the woman that got the law ruled on, regrets it to this day and is sick at what she managed to do.
You must be proud. Two divorces???

[Bob]

You must be proud. Two divorces???

Must I?

Projecting again are you?

[Chris]

Too little, too late. Fact of the matter is that before the depression, Republicans lowered taxes after WW1 because they falsely believed that lowering taxes would create jobs. Just the opposite happened.

Republicans to this day still play the same stupid game.



Too little too late, lol. Ravi, you claimed the Great Depression was cause by cutting taxes: "it was first applied to Republican governance in the 1920s (cut taxes! the poor wealthy people!) which resulted in the great depression." The opposite was true, Republicans, Hoover, raised taxes and that led to the Great Depression. Even having the facts right before your eyes you deny them.

[Bob]

Too little, too late. Fact of the matter is that before the depression, Republicans lowered taxes after WW1 because they falsely believed that lowering taxes would create jobs. Just the opposite happened.

Republicans to this day still play the same stupid game.

It has worked well in previous times, so why not now?

Will you please show us your sources to demonstrate how republicans slashed taxes to the bone in the 20s and how that caused a crash?

Actually during the 20s, it was great for jobs and great for investing.

At the end of WW1, the politicians and even economists did not have such a formula then. That idea comes much later.

It depends on the tax bite of the nation as to what is believed to be the best rate. If taxes were low, you would find republicans wanting them increased. Democrats simply like to bleed the public till they come close to dying and only then back off.

I have asked many democrats over these past 20 years of engaging them to name the higher tax they desire to pay. They always shift it to others and say they pay enough. But to please them, they want somebody else to pay a tax they won't pay. As it is in this country, about half the public escapes federal income taxes so we are carried forward by the rich. But then the loathing of the democrats kicks in. It is like children trashing Santa Claus. Go figure.

[darroll]

In the meaning alluded to in this thread (not the original meaning, btw), it was first applied to Republican governance in the 1920s (cut taxes! the poor wealthy people!) which resulted in the great depression.

Interesting to note that most Republicans didn't learn the lesson.
Also the stock market crashed and did not help things.

[Mister D]

funny i was thinking the very same thought in your anti-abortion thread yesterday. :thumbsup:

What?


hellooo passage of personhood protection at conception would turn women into state controlled incubators.

keep on pushing the legal precedents here and watch the shadow of your personal privacy penumbra come back to bite you in the libertarian ass!

If the state was forcing women to have sex and get pregnant that might make some sense but it isn't so it does't.

[Mister D]

US tax policy caused a global depression?

[Bob]

I am waiting for proof that low taxes caused the great depression.

[Ravi]

Too little too late, lol. Ravi, you claimed the Great Depression was cause by cutting taxes: "it was first applied to Republican governance in the 1920s (cut taxes! the poor wealthy people!) which resulted in the great depression." The opposite was true, Republicans, Hoover, raised taxes and that led to the Great Depression. Even having the facts right before your eyes you deny them.caused not cause

[Mister D]

caused not cause

That was lame, Ravi. Yeah, even for you. So tell us more about how US tax policy caused a global depression. :grin:

[Chris]

Too little too late, lol. Ravi, you claimed the Great Depression was cause by cutting taxes: "it was first applied to Republican governance in the 1920s (cut taxes! the poor wealthy people!) which resulted in the great depression." The opposite was true, Republicans, Hoover, raised taxes and that led to the Great Depression. Even having the facts right before your eyes you deny them.


caused not cause



That was deep, ravi. IOW, you've abandoned your earlier argument

[Chris]

I am waiting for proof that low taxes caused the great depression.


Wait no longer, she just quit the field.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Also the stock market crashed and did not help things.

It crashed because the plutocrats don't put money back into the economy. Sick gamblers always looking for a Powerball payoff, they flock to the Wall Street casino and blow all the money they had sucked out of their workers.