Socialism is winning!

Why is Obama sending everyone into poverty?

Makes no sense... I thought he was gonna pay for everyones mortgage and gasoline....

 

LOL. What a nonsense of commentary. Look we are going again into the laissez-faire capitalism, and look when it started, 90s, think which very important event succeed in that period.

 

It's winning?.....What a load of crap that is.....Anyone can proove it.!!!

Any countries people that would prefer having a socialitic goverment control their lifestyle. Deserves that concept of ruleing.

Their simple ignorant.

 

WHAT has been socialized in the US?

 

Yea, the free market has worked well here for gas prices. When oil hit $150 a barrell , gas got to $4.04. Now that its at $ 82 a barrell ,gas is at 3.49. For some reason those numbers don't look right. The free market is what shipped all our jobs overseas. But not to worry, the job creaters are still doing fine selling us those foreign goods. Pretty soon we are not going to be able to afford to buy them. I guess thats already happening isn't it. They have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

Note how the poverty rate shoots up in 1981 (Reagan elected), 1989 (Bush Snr), and 2001 (Bush Jnr).

 

exactly what I've been saying

 

Bankers losses?

 

Todays Liberals....They are actually believing the squirrels in their heads.

 

Well.. would you have them fail?

They haven't actually been socialized.. Receivership isn't socialism.

But, we were bleeding out 750,000 jobs a month in 2008.. That couldn't go on.

 

There is no correlation between rising inequality and recessions. It creates correlation equals causation, which is based on complete speculation. I'm left to believe that the article missed out on several points. The mains ones I'm going to list.

First: Rise in inequality doesn't create overproduction nor does it mean inequality. Overproduction happens when companies do not cut back on making their products but cut back on their employees. Thus the notion that people do not have enough money to buy the products that are being overproduced. The unemployment rate remained pretty steady during the 1920s.

​

Wages during that time were increasing among semi-skilled/non-skilled workers in manufacturing.

​

Second: To say that inequality caused the depression ignores the adjustment mechanism. Deficient demand for goods and services is caused by unequal distribution of income, then the price level would fall to cause the quantity of goods and services demanded to rise.

The point is that it cannot be used to truly show who is getting richer. It's just snapshot data. It doesn't account for the amount of people entering the labor force and the amount of people moving up and down the brackets every year.

I don't know why you keep quoting that paper. It doesn't show you anything. Not even so much as a graph, chart, table or even statistics.

This is

This is the average income among different income earners: 1988

This is the average income among different income earners: 2005

Wages and income went up if you compare the two years. And if you compare it to recent history wages increased slightly.

I don't know why you keep ignoring what I am saying. The bottom 10 percent of national income earns doesn't tell you anything about the bottom 10 percent. The only thing it tells you is that they're not making as much as the quintles above them. You're looking at the bottom 10 percent in absolute terms and it doesn't tell you about the absolute conditions of the poor. The bottom 10 percent comprises of all types of people. Who comprises the brackets matter more.

Did you know that wikipedia articles can be misleading?

Also when did I ever say that they'll become rich. I said that rich people are become richer and poor people are becoming. If you start out with a certain amount of income and gain more income over time you are indeed becoming richer. That's the whole premise. How quickly you become richer is up to you.

When did we start talking about poverty?

You can do that if you want, but you're not addressing individual needs and wants. That's how the Free Market works. Separate individuals going out and perusing their own separate interests. You can talk about "the bottom 40 percent" or "the poverty stricken" all you want. Who comprises these categories matter more than the fact that these categories exist.

That's because that's the total amount OF wage earners.

Your graph is just snapshot data. It doesn't show actual statistics. It doesn't show income between wage earns overtime. All it shows was what one group of people made 1 year and what the same group made the next year. It I have both PDFs above. This graph here shows wages have been increasing over time if you factor in health care benefits:

​

Again with the misleading wikipedia stuff. Since when did it become a valid source for information?

The war on poverty began during 1960s. Since then, the same amount of people are in poverty than ever.

First: Poverty rate comprises of a good amount immigrates, just like the bottom quintile of income earners.

Second: The poverty threshold was $21,834 for a four-member family with two children under 18. This was in 2008. Thier material well-being has improved overall. If you look at the average expenditures of the people within that income bracket they are able to spend just about as much on food as people with higher annual incomes. On top of this the ones on lower income brackets earn all types of credits, such as tax credits, food stamps, medicare, etc.

This is just scratching the surface on who is actually comprises of the poverty rate. It's not enough to look at statistics. You have to actually look at what the statistics are made of and track individuals. Who makes up the poverty rate matters. Not how many people are poverty stricken.

 

Marxism always loses in the end. How can so many people support such stupidity?

 

Propaganda.

 

I just don't know. In America, the definition of socialism is merely the middle class getting taxed more so the poor get thrown bigger scraps from the wealthy's state controlled table. Anyone with both eye's open can tell the "left" care as much for workers as the "right", and in theory socialism is supposed to be about the workers. Especially as more and more of the jobs become working poor, not even unions show up because they have no money for dues. The majority of American workers have ZERO representation at this point. You can't have globalism and the American dream. You are either lucky enough to have made gains before the current level of globalism occurred, or you are dust in the wind. It is now the American nightmare for most, since both camps support globalism. I hate to say it, but I think working Americans would be better off with a world government at this point, and I can't help feel that this was all by design.

 

Its propaganda that moved it from Marxism to socialism, its still Marxism but that puts a sour taste in all sensible people's mouths, so a new name was created and embraced, socialism. It has nothing to do with workers, everything to do with power. The epic failure of Marxism can always be found at its core, decisions require responsibility, that is completely absent in the group think models brought forth by the Marxists. It has failed in every single attempt and will continue to do so. By pretending it has something to do with workers, the poor and destitute see an opportunity to better themselves without effort, which inevitably leads to greater failure and even worse situations for those who were already destitute.

 

Careful, you are coming across as someone who compares workers to lazy and destitute people. I assure you that is suicide for an ideology. Workers are individuals. They want the most they can get. Only when owners find ways to implement their own vision of crap lifestyles they see as what the "workers" deserve do the workers strike back with collectivism. Ask yourself, do you pay the worker who does 3 times as much in production 3 times as much for a wage? If the answer is no, you are as responsible for collectivism as Marx himself.

 

I said its not about the workers. Its about power and destroying the current system of power. The chosen vehicles is the worker, usually the lowest paid and least educated, who see a potential gain for themselves at a minimal risk of loss, as they have so little to lose.

I work, but that doesn't mean I'll fall into the Marxist trap. How I pay employees is based upon what they do, we have a per job rate, so in essence the more you work the more you make. The lazy make less, the productive make more. If they tried to unionize I'd fire them all, using whatever excuses were necessary to avoid doing it for attempting to unionize, as there are always good reasons to fire people. I do nothing to allow for collectivist garbage to prosper, quite the opposite in fact.

 

Socialism defeats people, it degrades them, it makes dependents of them, it inspires mediocrity, it imposes weakness. Socialism is for those who are weak and have given up self respect and determination.

 

That was because the repeal of Glass-Steagal by Clinton, which forced banks to make loans to unqualified buyers, which revealed problems in Fannie and Freddie that Bush tried to address but Frank and Dodd would not allow out of commitee, and that lead to the crisis in 2008, it was leftist loser politics that led to the meltdown, not real Americans.

 

Marxism is a failure always everywhere everytime all the time without exception.

 

I agree completely. Thanks for such a thoughtful answer: (it's so nice to deal with people who can think!). I think that socialism; like communism is just an ideal. It sounds good on the surface, but it's just a selling point. I think that "socialism" as construct is actually what made this country; in that - under a monarchy, "the King" was supposed to cover you: if you paid taxes, if you fought for the king, if you gave everything to he and the church . . . And then some guys jumped up and figured out that they could do it on their own - and the rest is history.

There is no personal "identity" in a collective. Everything is owed to the state: monarchies are just like that.

Socialism is supposed to be: the people are the state, and the people take direct care of each other. But, the people always wind up in the gulag . . .

I say that "socialism" will never show in the US, because it's not an American idea. Which is exactly what you're saying.

Good post.

So, I ask you: what version of it controls us now?

 

I can see what you are saying. I can't stand people who don't do their job. And I assure you I am as anti-statism as anyone on this forum. Collectivism is but one of many varieties. Modern America is proof of that statement. I have never collected anything, whether you are talking unemployment, food stamps, etc. I haven't collected income tax returns for a decade. I don't need the federal government in my life. They can keep the 300 dollars or whatever they would give me for being working poor. All I know is for every 3 people who deserve to be at my level, there is a person with untapped potential. Life can throw some serious curve balls. One day I will be successful, this is a given. But I will never switch up. Also a given. Most of the people who talk trash about working poor are people who had the benefit of an America that had plenty of jobs with futures to offer. I don't know which is worse, them or the people who never struggled to get where they are at to begin with. My point was if all employers paid their employees on an individual basis, based upon skill verses position with variances for how long they have been employed, collectivism would die never to return.

 

What we are under now is producer controlled state socialism verses worker controlled. Globalism is the tumor. Verses just thinking of a new way to say it, I will post what I put in my profile as a response to someone who asked that same question to me.

"Very true. But you also must come to grips with the fact that the "capitalists" at the top are as much behind it as anyone. Contrary to popular belief, there are super wealthy in communist systems. Castro has billions. Middle class pay the majority of the taxes. Just like capitalists use middle class money in the form of farm subsidies to keep their food prices artificially high, they use the middle class taxes for welfare to keep unemployment artificially low. Without welfare, all those people would have to get a job. Add those on BS SS claims, the number goes through the roof. With everyone wanting a job, protectionism comes back over night or the greatest market the world has ever seen gets burnt to the ground overnight. Globalism/free trade/outsourcing is a cash cow unlike the uber wealthy have ever seen. The wealthy write legislation. The "socialism" that they have created is simply a way to tax the middle class to death, to pay for all the losses, while they keep all the rewards."

 

I am no Marxist. I have read his writings though. I'll read anyone's. I'd say he was delusional thinking production starts with workers. Production starts with innovation. Those who we deem genius, who can think outside the box, will always demand better treatment than the rest. Acknowledgment of their abilities, so to speak. Next comes capital, then a system of management, then labor. Labor is important. Labor is our brothers. Labor, well at least should be, is the next in line to innovate and go into business.(One of the major problems America currently faces. Producer controlled statism has made a playing field where no one can compete outside of major players.) The major flaw with socialism, is that you can train labor, you can train management, you can even have the state supply ample loads of fiat monies, but you can't train genius. Genius is as rare as a four leaf clover. Marxism doesn't allow for this reality. To be honest, this modern producer controlled statism doesn't acknowledge it either. Why movies to music seem so redundant. Hell, a horse hasn't won the triple crown in decades because only horses related to the right horses get to race. The progression of animals is hindered by nepotism at this point.

No sir, I am no Marxist. But I do acknowledge America as a nation, not a global state. I do acknowledge that our people are our greatest resource, and are being squandered by the millions. I would not give a bum a loan, but if he was American, I (*)(*)(*)(*) sure would give him a hug.