Why Socialism never works!

You brought up Walmart, not me.

Most of the corporations you mentioned pay good wages for valuable people.

That means engineers or highly trained technicians or professionals with advanced training.

Why blame them for not wanting to pay uneducated Obama voters high a high salary for sweeping the floor?

 

Exactly.

 

Bull... companies like the ones mentioned off shore jobs for a variety of reasons, all having to with increasing shareholder value ..including labor costs. It also has to with enviromental regs, worker saftey standards, health care, tax burden (breaks). Even in the U.S companies will move from state to state shopping them against each other until they get states operating at aloss in order to get the jobs to come into thier jurisdictions. If you people think that the highly paid jobs arent leaving the U.S you have your heads up somewhere moist and smelly. The only jobs that remain in the U.S are the ones that are illegal to ship out because of trade regulations....or its just not profitable to do so at this time.

As far as educated people voting republican... you all know thats a load of garbage. Red states are generally the lowest income, the least educated and recieve the most federal government hand outs.

 

Great thing about a free country, if you don't like Walmart, don't buy from them.

 

If Walmart is guilty of those charges they will pay. But the fact remains, they have been able to offer more products to more people than ever before because of what they have achieved. The poor have more because items have been placed at affordable prices. If this was not the case they would have never become a powerhouse. Look at Sears, the once proud retailer who couldn't see what needed done. They are almost a ghost.

Walmart has helped the USA to have the richest poor in the world. They have helped redistribute opportunity by making more things available to more people. Now you have to love Walmart because I've been effective in connecting their efforts with the word "redistribute".

 

You are kidding right?

Medicare/medicaid, SS, EITC, food stamps, and HUD.

Lets see highways, roads, police, firemen, coast guard, military, and government in general.

On the opposite of what you just said tax breaks for the wealthy, bank bailouts, industry bailouts etc.

 

Nicely stated FC

It's interesting that people don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that our private sector commerce is a mirror-image of the consumer; 150 million people shop at Wal-Mart each week so this sends a loud and clear message to Wal-Mart that whatever they are doing...keep doing it...and do more!

The same holds true of our presidents and Congress; no matter how much some of us hate them, they are in their position, and they behave the way they do, because Americans keep re-electing them...which again sends the same message to keep up the same behavior. If they don't bring home the bacon, or don't pander to the political party politics, they eventually will be voted out of office.

Consumers buy...and voters vote...and if either don't like how things are going...then they need to change their buying and voting habits...it's really this simple...

 

To quote yourself:

 

Liberals usually object to Obama being called a Socialist. That must mean that these liberals have a definition of socialism in mind that they denying Obama IS.

I think YOU Jeff, deny that Obama is a socialist. So what definition of socialism are you denying that Obama IS?

Be thinking of it, please and answer with you def'n.

Actually, though, I think we could fairly say that certain people tend toward wanting to support a government which has a larger budget and wants to pay people out of this budget, --

--as opposed to people who tend toward wanting to support a government which has a smaller budget where the govt leaves it more to the private commercial sector to pay these same people out of the private commercial sector "budget" (or fund of money possessed by this sector).

The first group of people could be labeled 'socialists' and the second group not.

 

Or, you know, they deny it because he's......not.

 

Yes like reagan for example.

Well thats your opinion, but I wouldnt go that far to call reagan a socialist .

 

problem is, once there is a monopoly you don't have a choice.

 

Monopolies have been broken in the past. Bell comes to mind.

 

To do the same today though would take a reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt.

 

Don't depend on Barack Obama to do it.

He depends on too many wealthy CEOs to contribute vast sums of money to his re-election campaign!

 

Liberalism is socialism.

 

Calling Wal-Mart a monopoly is 100% incorrect!

You need to study the definition of 'monopoly'...

 

Whether we allow the Constitution to dictate the design of government today, or we fudge some and encourage a government on steroids, the question that no one likes to ask or answer is; What is the practical role of government?

Answering this question makes no difference how people are politically labeled. How about if we have the private for-profit sector, and the private non-profit sector, and the government? What if most all social programming was accomplished in the private non-profit sector? This can include funding from private citizens, industry, and taxpayers.

I believe I would rather create and grow a private non-profit sector to manage all the social programming and maintain the government in a minimum form which provides services which apply to ALL AMERICANS.

Nothing can ever be accomplished as long as the entire debate is centered around group labels, political ideology, and politics. It's a 100% waste of time to debate liberalism, and capitalism, and socialism, and Obamaism, etc.! How about just debating the root issues and root solutions...

 

Sources please.

Without sources these are unsubstantiated and unsupported conclusions on your part

 

no dip sherlock. Obama, and every other pres and politician in the last hundred years have been (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)'s compared to TR. the amount of legend in that man could fill a thousand books (and it has).

 

I said "once there is a monopoly" you need to study literary comprehension.

 

No, it would take the failing of (*)(*)(*)(*) near every retailer except Walmart. They have a huge market share but hardly the only game in town.

 

here is the rub though. They got to where they are today by forcing the mom and pop groceries and retailers on the main streets of small town America out of business. Now that they have essentially eaten all the small fish they are going after the other big fish. Kmart and sears are going to either get swallowed up, or they will downsize themselves to point of obscurity. Then the others will be next... Target will probably be the hardest one to off.

 

Theodore Roosevelt said that greedy capitalists cause socialism, which is why he wanted to put some chains on them.

It can not too often be repeated that experience has conclusively shown the impossibility of securing by the actions of nearly half a hundred different State legislatures anything but ineffective chaos in the way of dealing with the great corporations which do not operate exclusively within the limits of any one State. In some method, whether by a national license law or in other fashion, we must exercise, and that at an early date, a far more complete control than at present over these great corporations--a control that will among other things prevent the evils of excessive overcapitalization, and that will compel the disclosure by each big corporation of its stockholders and of its properties and business, whether owned directly or thru subsidiary or affiliated corporations. This will tend to put a stop to the securing of inordinate profits by favored individuals at the expense whether of the general public, the stockholders, or the wageworkers. Our effort should be not so much to prevent consolidation as such, but so to supervise and control it as to see that it results in no harm to the people. The reactionary or ultraconservative apologists for the misuse of wealth assail the effort to secure such control as a step toward socialism. As a matter of fact it is these reactionaries and ultraconservatives who are themselves most potent in increasing socialistic feeling. One of the most efficient methods of averting the consequences of a dangerous agitation, which is 80 per cent wrong, is to remedy the 20 per cent of evil as to which the agitation is well rounded. The best way to avert the very undesirable move for the government ownership of railways is to secure by the Government on behalf of the people as a whole such adequate control and regulation of the great interstate common carriers as will do away with the evils which give rise to the agitation against them. So the proper antidote to the dangerous and wicked agitation against the men of wealth as such is to secure by proper legislation and executive action the abolition of the grave abuses which actually do obtain in connection with the business use of wealth under our present system--or rather no system--of failure to exercise any adequate control at all. Some persons speak as if the exercise of such governmental control would do away with the freedom of individual initiative and dwarf individual effort. This is not a fact. It would be a veritable calamity to fail to put a premium upon individual initiative, individual capacity and effort; upon the energy, character, and foresight which it is so important to encourage in the individual. But as a matter of fact the deadening and degrading effect of pure socialism, and especially of its extreme form communism, and the destruction of individual character which they would bring about, are in part achieved by the wholly unregulated competition which results in a single individual or corporation rising at the expense of all others until his or its rise effectually checks all competition and reduces former competitors to a position of utter inferiority and subordination.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29547&st=socialism&st1=#ixzz1th0Rtndq

 

Monopolies are not allowed in the USA...how can there be a 'once there is a monopoly'?