Socialism Doesn't Work?

I Thinks Soviet now were Progressivism or Communism but first know in search was Socialism Before nuclear weapons.

 

No other country has more than 2 CBG's. We don't need ten which is what we really have

 

I'm probably wrong, but being from Milwaukee, the subject of (And I know it's a wobbly plank on the bridge, I'm no advocate per se) Limited Local Democratic Socialism, or majority party term governance, isn't necessarily a "Bad" thing.

Granted crime rates are usually higher.

What the problem is, over the last decade, we've seen such a far jump Right & Left at the Federal level.

And the media being "Soft" on covering the results of that mixing of localized Social, .... Let's say Focused ideologues, with even moderates of conflicting political/(at points religious) POV's.

 

Not sure it is the dollar they are protecting since they can't even keep track of how many they spend doing the "protecting". 8.5 Trillion unaccounted for now How much more after Trump gets done?

In any event, Norway does not suffer from the income inequality the US does, nor does it have an upper income bracket that has accrued for the 20% that is greater then that of the remaining 80%. According to studies in the United States the top 1% of households (the upper class) own 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%.

Prior to the Reagan era this was just the opposite where the 80% owned the vast majority of the wealth.

 

Most likely whatever passes for happiness in such countries bears a great resemblance to that conceived by Huxley for the inhabitants of Brave New World.

That's all very well if one knows what humanity is in the first place - which can hardly be said for advocates of socialism.

 

So they don't know they are happy? LOL

 

I do not speak for other Christians. I post what the Bible states. The New Testament deals predominantly with 2 subjects: how to enter the family of God, and how to live once in the family of God which includes guidance regarding Christian-to-Christian behavior. There are "rules" for Christians, these rules do not apply to non-Christians.

Obviously, the religion which claims the "Golden Rule" as its second most important law does not lack a concern for the well being of others. Christianity is decidedly not supportive of socialism either.

 

As usual, you seem completely unfamiliar with the teachings of Jesus.

 

And what of Jesus, or the Founding Fathers? Are you saying they did not know what humanity is?

 

This one of those paradoxes that always bothered me when I was a kid. Jesus basically says to give it all up. Make it so you have nothing for the thieves to steal. I think the thieves part is even repeated a few times. Sell it give it to the poor, just get rid of it. Food, Water? Don't worry about that, God will provide.

It's the absence of civilization.

 

Of course it is. However, to the carnal, or materialistic "christian", the teachings of Christ are limited to caring only for their own, and even then they do little having more concern for their own material goods then the well being of others. Christ never said that caring for the needs of others was limited to those who shared the same belief. And when Christ taught that one should give, and expect nothing in return, He again was not referring to solely "christian-christian behaviour since scripture says the believer should be neither lender, nor borrower, and to pay ones debts.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/socialism

 

Interesting, what is humanity then?

 

I like how you have to point out things that have been around for a very long time. With one exception the internet.
Internet is not a social program. I have put it in the ground for multiple private companies.
A grocery store is also private not a social program.

All of your claims have been around for some time now, and through administrations of both parties, so how does that have anything to do with policy of today?

 

See that wire coming out of your house? Now trace it to the pole. See that pole? It's sitting on something called an "easement." An "easement," of course, is a chunk of property carved out of private property in order to ensure public services can be available. Start digging near the pole and you're liable to find water lines, sewage lines, underground cables. So, yeah, even your internet access is supported by socialist programs.

Groceries? Did you drive on a public street to the store? How do you think the groceries got to the store? Star Trek "Transporters?" What about government subsidies for wheat, corn, and other items? Those subsidies serve to guarantee the availability of food stuffs at a reasonable price.

You are surrounded by socialism, you willingly accept socialist programs and participate in their usage.

Social programs have been around since the invention of government. The role of government is to protect the wealthy from the poor. Social programs are the benefits given to the people to encourage their acceptance of the status quo.

 

Well, sincerely - it does works, just needs to be in balance with other ideologies. It is important for country to have social programms and to have a certain amount of socialistic projects, aimed to improve level of life of people. Good free education, for exmple, is a must - it pays off in the end, since it creates skilled people with flexible mind and grain of critical thinking.That definitely benefits society.

Currently existing governments not always happy with that, but humanity as a whole does benefits.

 

long live the queen?

 

I stand corrected. The miniscule programs you have provided have been around for a long time. So yes, I took them for granite, but I mean C'MON. There are indeed some social programs that I believe are required for any civilization to prosper with consistency. However most government programs are the problem, and only vastly increase the deficit, and divide the people to the point of anger and hatred. That is something we obviously don't need.

 

huh. Here i thought you enjoyed being safe. You could always move to iraq- they have none.

 

well. Freedom isnt free.

 

They have all been brainwashed with "free stuff" so as not to realize they are all secretly miserable. Didnt you know?

 

In America and Isreal there is no such thing as a Jewish terrorist. Hes a patriotic freedom fighter!

 

Would 20 CBG's make us twice as safe? LOL

 

There are many types of Socialism
Socialism is not only Marxism-Leninism; for example China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and also North Korea are Socialist but they seem to be not Marxist at all

 

All government programs designed to deliver ANY service to private citizens are, by definition socialism.

Programs are/were created because WE decided WE need them. "Head Start," a "hated" program for some is a great example. It was found that poorer children often entered school well behind their less poor peers academically. Further study indicated they could not make up the difference and ended up under educated and unable to succeed as employees. Unable to earn sufficiently to enter the middle class these people constitute an ongoing "cycle of poverty." "Head Start" helps these children make up that lost ground and helps many break that cycle. This social program that WE decided WE need is an investment today that will pay off decades from now.

Perhaps a better thing would be for you to determine why you hate programs like Head Start.

 

The best education a child can have is that from their mother and father. The social skills acquired in public schools would be the only good thing to come out of them, and sometimes that's for the worse. The powers that be have built a system that today requires most fathers and mothers to work, simply to make ends meet. This allows the state and government to indoctrinate their young to fit their narratives. It is of my opinion that we need to get back to the mother taking care of the house chores and raising the children, while the father works for the money, and helps with house chores. To me this is very crucial, and with todays technology (internet) could easily be achieved.

American family homes have been devastated by the new world order agenda, and they have done a good job on the young (indoctrination) as to achieve their new world order.