CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency. This comes from the competitive nature of Capitalism. The government has no one to compete with. In fact, the government wants less consumers (as we see with how it treats the issue of immigration).
While privatization isn't perfect, it sure as hell beats leaving the government to do all the work.
What should be privatized? Well, most likely things not granted to government through the constitution (a well regulated militia... but we can still create mercenaries and private security firms).
As for entitlements that liberals constantly like to bitch about, merely create a voucher program. Instead of spending billions of dollars on countless infrastructures, use less than half of that money to cover the same things through a voucher program. Users of the vouchers will be able to choose which program works for them (given that the private sector is in control of those programs, such as education and healthcare). This would create competition within those realms (unlike subsidization, which only takes away incentive to compete).
I understand that my views are extreme... but in Capitalism vs. Socialism, I choose the extreme that doesn't give power to an unstoppable corporation (government).
The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency.
I'm sorry, but that statement is patently ridiculous.
Please work through how we get the US interstate system without the public sector doing it.
Or how we get a space program.
Or how we get a military you'd actually want to have protecting the nation.
I see you mentioned "vouchers"... do tell how we use "vouchers" to build the interstate system or the space program or the military and what the end result would be. Please. I'm all ears.
The public sector hired contractors, who are from the private sector, to build railways and the interstate system.
Now, I actually disagree with the public sector contracting private entities since it causes an unfair advantage towards some businesses over others. This is how monopolies are formed in the first place.
Now, I really don't see how any of what you said defined how "private sector is not as good as public sector". The military and space program? If you are referring to how the private sector could have the same results with mercenaries and privatized space exploration with far less money and resources used... i don't see how that helps your argument.
The public sector hired contractors, who are from the private sector, to build railways and the interstate system.
And? Was there a point to that statement that you forgot to finish making? Something about how if the public sector hadn't been there to do that then the private sector would have still produced the interstate system seeing as you said the private sector can do all the jobs of the public sector and do it better and more efficiently?
You might want to start with what private sector entity is going to decide building the interstate system would be a profitable project to pursue, and what possible reasoning they would use to arrive at that conclusion.
If you are referring to how the private sector could have the same results with mercenaries and privatized space exploration with far less money and resources used
I'm really, really not seeing as there is no chance that would happen. But by all means, show otherwise by explaining how it would in just one of these circumstance. How would turning things 100% private sector in any of these circumstances have produced a superior outcome?
I was pointing out that the interstate system was built by the private sector and paid for by the public sector. So THEY were the ones who built it... in fact, most items used by the military and Nasa are built by the private sector.
Would it be profitable... that's up for them to decide. If society needs it, there is profit behind it. If society does not need it, there is no profit. We pay tolls, correct? Why would it be any different if the private sector had built it instead? Even with sunpass we see how the private sector leans more and more into the interstate system.
But in the end, you're merely saying that because government was the ones that hired these contractors, this somehow proves that public sector does it better... no, it only shows that the public sector is useless without the private sector. The same could not be said the other way around.
"I was pointing out that the interstate system was built by the private sector and paid for by the public sector. "
Which did not require pointing out. Nobody said the job in question that the public sector did better was the actual physical labor of construction.
Would it be profitable... that's up for them to decide. If society needs it, there is profit behind it. If society does not need it, there is no profit. We pay tolls, correct? Why would it be any different if the private sector had built it instead?
This is the kind of incredibly over-simplified reasoning I always encounter from people who try making this argument. You may want to read up on what the costs are and how the benefits to society of the system are distributed.
It is to the benefit of everyone, even those who do not directly personally drive on any one particular stretch of interstate in question, to have a well developed transportation infrastructure spanning the nation. You may not drive on it, but companies who provide you with goods and services transport goods across it, the people THEY do business with do the same thing, etc... having it there is a universal economic booster.
So, that being the case, it is profitable from a national perspective, when all the benefits are aggregated, to have an interstate system. Which is why the public sector will finance the project. it is what we refer to as "in the national interest".
Now, let's try it with the private sector, shall we?
Yes, the stretch of I-40 between SF and Reno existing directly benefits me in terms of the impact it has on the economy of the region.
I've driven on that road, personally, exactly one time in 12 years. So how are you planning on having ANY private sector entity charge me the equivalent value I derive from the existence of that road such that they can make up their costs and turn a profit constructing it? If they only charge the people who actually directly drive on it it will take them FOREVER to even make back their construction costs, let alone whatever maintenance costs they incur. And they can't just hike the tolls super high to make more money faster, that will just drive people off using the road... which will have a detrimental effect on all the people who are secondarily depending on the benefits it confers.
How many corporation do you know who will take on a multi billion dollar project on the premise that they can tell their stockholders that hey, 50 years from now it might possibly go into the black! You know... assuming it remains a major transportation conduit that entire time and our maintenance costs don't spike and blah, blah, blah...
Yeah, right.
The private sector doesn't do certain things well at all.
Private companies build toll rods only in very specific circumstances for a reason. They built them in high population density high traffic areas where they are guaranteed to be able to build relatively short stretches of road for minimal cost and thus have a decent chance of making those costs back through toll charges. This will NOT get you something like the 200+ miles of Interstate through the mountains between the Pacific and Nevada. No private corporation is taking on that project, because they're not stupid.
You see, you already helped my argument by pointing out the corporations that need an interstate to be built.
Here's how it would work, in a nutshell:
1. It is established by many businesses that they need to transport many goods for the customers.
2. They decide that the costs will be covered by raising the prices of some goods or charging service fees to customers who require certain items.
3. The interstate will be open to the public and would still charge tolls, which would generate even more profit.
Now, even if everything I said would never happen, your argument that the private industry would NEVER have built roads is kind of... speculative. The fact remains that the interstate system is already built. If YOU wish to destroy them all and set the system to a completely privatized system, be my guess. That's just going to take a while, though.
But what I find most important to point out is that I said that the private sector does things more efficiently and less costly, and you brought up the interstate system as an example as to why the public sector is better EVEN THOUGH the private sector is what built it. The Public sector hired contractors... who are a part of the private sector.
And this is what I find most important. That in the end, even using your example of the public sector's involvement in making the interstate system, they would have done nothing without the private sector. As stated in an earlier post, the public sector needs the private sector in order to get their needs finished, this can not be said for the other way around.
If you think I helped your argument you're not trying very hard to think this through. Yes, corporations need the interstate to be built... but it is a COLLECTIVE system. There is ONE national transportation network and EVERYONE uses it. So which specific corporation should take on all the costs of construction and how do you think they're going to make a profit doing it? Instead of just throwing around vague "they'll pay for it by passing on the costs somehow" statements how about trying some actual math and real analysis?
Just building the stretch of I-70 between Denver and Utah would cost, in present day dollars, at a VERY conservative estimate.. 12 billion dollars.
That. One. Section.
How long do you think it would take to make 12 billion dollars in additional profit above and beyond what any corporation normally would have been making before they built this road... as a result of their ownership of that single stretch of road?
And if you think that company is going to just somehow pass that cost along to their customers in the form of higher prices, how do you suppose they're going to compete with any other companies who didn't take on 12 billion dollars in road construction costs and can thus easily undercut their prices?
While they are trying to earn that 12 BILLION dollars, what do you supposed the maintenance costs are going to be that they are ALSO going to have to earn just to break even? how long do you suppose THAT would take? Please, break out some ballpark figures that any corporation would look at to come to the conclusion that it was even marginally sane to take on such a project and show me you're actually thought about this.
And accusing me of being "kind of speculative" while you go on and on about how the private sector would do all the jobs of government better when they.. .ummm... never have, ever... is a little silly don't you think?
And you're still speaking as if the interstate system doesn't already exist.
And you never explained why you disputed my very first post in the first place (because clearly the private sector is what built the interstate system in the first place).
Then tell me which team of corporations would do it and why in the world they would. The math doesn't change. And yes, you're damn right I'm speaking as if it didn;t exist because if we took your approach that the private sector should do everything because it's better at it than the public sector then IT WOULDN'T. That's the whole damn point!!!!
And no, the private sector did NOT build the damn interstate system. The government built it. They paid the workers, they made the plans, they directed the work. The private sector just provided the labor TO the public sector project. A project that wouldn't have ever existed if we used your approach to running a nation.
My approach? I have no approach. I merely said that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector... to you, this may imply an approach, but you would have to add words that show intent.
You are the one asking me how the private sector could build the interstate (alone, since they, along with the public sector contracting them, built it). I am providing you with examples as to how it could possibly have been done. However, it is impossible to imagine an alternative Universe where history was different and try to actually create an argument.
You may as well ask me how the West could conquer American territories if gun powder was never created... this is alternative history and a terrible form of argument. Good for science-fiction and literature, terrible for realistic debate.
Stop being deliberately obtuse to avoid dealing with the question.
The private sector can handle all of the jobs of the public sector, and it can do them much better with far more efficiency.
That's your view. If we actually believed that statement to true, if we had turned the development of the nation entirely over to the private sector because it can do ALL the jobs of the public sector better, we would have no interstate system.
We would have no space program.
We would have nothing remotely resembling the modern American military.
Etc...
And no, you are not providing me with examples of how it could be done, you're just claiming over and over that they would do it while avoiding digging into any details as to how they would actually pull it off. You are now going so far to avoid dealing with the question that you have resorted to claiming that it is impossible to use hypothetical scenarios. Which is just sad.
I appreciate your rhetoric. Especially the part where you claim that I should be able to explain how things would have happened in an alternative universe. I do not know if those programs would have started or not, and really, is it my duty to know? Nope. I do believe, however, that the private sector is better at doing things than the public sector... no doubt. If YOU believe that the public sector is NECESSARY, there is no argument. If you believe that the public sector is more efficient... I'd have to disagree. But your argument is neither...
"Especially the part where you claim that I should be able to explain how things would have happened in an alternative universe. "
There you go again, acting like explaining a hypothetical is like having some kind of supernatural power.
I do not personally own a company. However, if I were going to ask someone to lend me the money to buy me a company they might ask me to explain how, IF I OWNED THE COMPANY, I would expect to make it profitable.
According to you they would be unreasonably asking me to explain how I would behave in an alternate universe and that is just totally impossible.
You're being ridiculous. And yes, sad. You just keep saying over and over that the private sector does everything better than the public sector then when asked to explain how they would do a specific thing better acting like I've just asked you to cast a magic spell or something.
As stated, they did build the interstate system, so my position has been defended. What you're asking me is if they would have done it without being contracted by the public sector, and I do not know.
"What you're asking me is if they would have done it without being contracted by the public sector, and I do not know."
The public sector doing the financing, planning, directing, etc... of that project and similar projects of national scope is THE JOB THE PUBLIC SECTOR DOES.
You said the private sector does every job better then the public sector and now you're saying you don't know if they could do their job at all (spoiler, they can't). Great. I consider your argument self-refuted.
Saying that I don't know if the private sector would bother with making an interstate system in the first place (like a collaboration of many businesses, which I brought up and you ignored) is not the same as saying "the public sector does things more efficiently than the private sector".
Would you please grasp this simple point I've been trying to hammer into your head all thread? It is not just that the public sector does things more efficiently than the public sector! (In some cases this is true, in most it is not). It is that the public sector does things the private sector DOES NOT and WILL NOT but which need to be done.
And I did not ignore your "collaboration of business" point. I specifically and directly addressed it, asked you to provide an explanation of what kind of "collaboration of corporations" would take on such a problem and how, and you dodged the question just like you've been dodging it all along.
Perhaps your couple days worth of deliberate willful ignoring of everything I say is managing to irritate me. That's just a theory.
One more time. The claim you made, which began this exchange, was that the private sector could do ALL THE JOBS the public sector does and do them better.
This is wrong. I have showed you over and over why it is wrong and challenged you to support your contention with any actual fact based analysis whatsoever. You have repeatedly refused to do so while simply repeating your claim again and again.
You have showed me nothing. You said "the interstate system", and when I explained that this how they could possibly do it (if they felt that the project would be worth it), you said "tell me when they've done that before". They haven't, because the interstate system already exists (built by the private sector, as well, ya know).
No I damn well did not ask you to show me "where they've done it before". I asked you to explain to my what possible profit generating mechanism they would use that could offset the construction costs and thus motivate them to actually undertake the project. And you dodged, the way you have been dodging all thread. You threw out vague hand waving "oh, they would have passed on the costs somehow" but when pressed to perform some real math you run for the hills every time.
Please work through how we get the US interstate system without the public sector doing it.
Or how we get a space program.
Or how we get a military you'd actually want to have protecting the nation.
For the first paragraph: Roads would actually be maintained even better if they were privately owned. People would be competing for more traffic.
Second paragraph: First of all, I don't even want my taxes going to the space program. Second, I believe Obummer joined with Russia on the space program.
Third paragraph: Why on earth would you want to take orders from a pencil pushing political leader? People don't want to fight a war just because some bimbo tells them too. Military's would be competitive. Whoever had the best training, weapons, etc.
1: Have no idea how much building an interstate costs.
2: Have no appreciation of what "competing for traffic" would have to entail. Massive useless redundancy in the traffic infrastructure "competing" with itself... which DWARFS any possible waste you might want to complain about by having the public sector build a single system.
3: I didn;t ask if you wanted your taxes going to the space program. Do you want satellite communications? Do you want GPS navigation capabilities? Do you want space based weather monitoring? Then you want A SPACE PROGRAM. Tell me how we get one without the public sector shouldering the initial costs of the research program, which were FAR beyond the capabilities or desires of any private entity considering there was no immediate return on investment possible.
Fourth: Did you just suggest it would be better if the military was in control of itself and not under civilian leadership? As in... the united states armed forces was run by a military junta and whichever armed camp of mercenaries could outgun the other ones held the power???? Are you completely out of your mind? If you like that situation try living in Somalia, seems to work great for them.
You do realize that much of what the military does is other than actual war fighting is accomplished through private contractors, right? Our weapons, contractors, our armor, contractors, our vehicles, contractors, maintenance, contractors, housing, contractors, admin, contractors and even some recruiting is done by contractors. The list goes on and on.
Well the sides are presented in a biased way, and I know for a fact you have no understanding of the underlying groundwork that socialism is founded on. Theft isn't the correct word to use for socialism as all product is the product of community. And rewards isn't the right word to use because capitalism by it's own foundation requires one to fail for the system to continue. The only reason I side with capitalism is because someone will always fail and be replaced, and that socialism is grounded on social theories for the most part, not economic theories.
Capitalism and socialism are broad categories with many meanings. I can agree that some forms of socialism are idealist, as are some forms of capitalism. An exact meaning of the two words have yet to be established.
I'm thinking:
Capitalism, private property resulting in private ownership of the common means of production in the hands of a few.
(which allows for good production ability, but in the mean while a number of social ills may take place)
Socialism, Common property resulting in common ownership of common means of production in the hands of the many.
( which carries a chance that common property may not be managed collectively or efficiently, and thus result as defacto being privately owned by their "managers" and also may result in social ills; but under the definition above it would stop being socialism when that happened)
A mix between the two is the best, in that they can help check each other's problems while still allowing for each other's benefits and may one day result in primarily widespread private ownership with some common ownership in the hands of the many. I can go into this more if you wish.
I'm not sure if I like the above definitions completely. They are open to change, what would be your changes to them?
"I can agree that some forms of socialism are idealist, as are some forms of capitalism. "
I have always seen the foundation of socialism to depend on a idealist level of human communication. With capitalism, I have seen accurate descriptions of what humans actually tend to do in economy
"Capitalism, private property resulting in private ownership of the common means of production in the hands of a few."
I agree up to the point of the hands of the few. I see capitalism as the empowerment of local business and the overall means become the standard of living for a populace, which range from good to bad however one or the other wouldn't affect another area of living. It is a deeply brutal system, but it's so much more likely to succeed then an idealist state.
Your definition of socialism seems good enough to me.
" I can go into this more if you wish."
You may if you like, but I respectfully disagree that a combination of the two would result in any good way. The systems are simply founded on two entirely separate ideals and viewpoints into the human condition.
Agreed. There's no real way of bringing only the benefits of each side without letting the flaws in as well, otherwise we would have done so and there would be no need for such a debate, right?
Yes, so we can have -limited- examples of socialist ideals materializing. However, this doesn't come without it's drawbacks. For example, common ownership leads to moral hazard, remembering the Tragedy of the Commons.
Moral hazards are more likely in certain types of power structures which can be avoided.
An analysis of the current material conditions should lead to the best solution. Current trends are towards large scale individual ownership(computer, phones etc), mixed with community ownership( information)
What if the economy changed? Most socialist literature I have read position a radical change in the economy, not merely in social relations.
Why then have large corporations flourished, even in smaller towns, for example walmart? If capitalism empowers local businesses, then economies of scale shouldn't allow for large corporations. Perhaps we are not currently capitalistic according to a more detail definition you would use?
I see them both as resulting from self-interest, their main difference is mainly on who's self interest is the primary and most effective one. Under capitalism, the capitalist has the advantages(so long as he remains competitive, ie stays a capitalist, or individual owner of capital) Under socialism, limited capital is owned and shared, which may allow for access to equipment which would be impossible for them to own individually. Consider a hackerspace, the members may have access to expensive machines they would otherwise have to rent for higher prices, and with more limited access. It is in their self-interest to own collectively. Private ownership, grants more control, and thus is preferred in most cases. However, currently, private ownership of many things is impossible for most people. Thus, in the name of their own self-interest, they may be interested in collective ownership.
The difference between the two systems mainly deals with how the wealth is distributed among the citizens. I must say that the is a socialist society pretending to be capitalist. If we were capitalist then why the wall street bailouts. This argument is generated to advantage the wealthy in the US. They want us to believe that we have a free economic system while they are spending their corporate welfare checks
actually if you don't work in a socialist country you will not be able to get luxuries from the money = to the labor power. although you will get free healthcare.
For all the flaws of a capitalism system, remember that socialism is dependant upon humanity rejecting human nature itself- it assumes everyone will be able to equally share everything, and that just isn't in our nature. Someone will want something different, or want a different status, and the whole socialist system will collapse slowly but surely from there.
There are distinctions but also similarities between the two- socalism is not far off communuism in many respects and like commumism human nature is the reason it fails.
Because in a group that small, everyone's watching everyone. Yes communism can work in small groups but when applied to a group larger than a single illager the system starts to break apart. You can get alway with it in large groups, becuse they have to have more impersonal governance.
it can still work in a large system, it depends on how you will put forward communism because Marx never really said how the system works he just said what it will have. Suppose you are right, you can have a lot of small groups, then have a bunch of people who don't really have power but keep the system working, keep the order and make sure the proper amount of commodities are made.
Someone should not be able to take what is YOURS... what you have earned.
Socialism is rejecting nature model......and the idea that the fittest survive. Socialist want to steal from people to redistribute the wealth, not so in nature.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
I'm also technically getting someone else's hard efforts too aren't I? If I do his job, and he does mine, then everyone's getting along fine. What's the point in keeping my product if it's of no use to me, but completely useful for my neighbour? That's just plain greedy.
You see, this was the problem with Marx's thinking, he assumed that everyone had equal ability, that nothing could possibly make anyone more productive than anyone else, that everyone deserved to be treated equally and that deep down, everyone wanted to give to the poor, because he said so. It doesn't work this way, in communism the hard-working feed the lazy, how does that work. The basic question is would ou rather live a rich man, with someone always better than him, or would you rather be poor, but have everyone around you also be poor.
There I changed it for the whiners. People pretending they don't show bias in their answers.....yea right.
Again different worldviews that divide....socialism/capitalism and what really made this country great. The values and principles that made people want to die for this country....where is the truth.
The past 50 years have been full of liberal elites who have been working hard to dismantle the morals of our nation. These elites mainly Democrats preach that there is nothing wrong with education...that money can't fix. They love multiculterism....all while tossing American culture out the window. They rewrite history, take God out of the equation relacing Him with secular humanism....and instead of capitalism...they love enviromentalism...socialism.
The American Dream came about because of capitalism and none of the above. The American Dream did not happen because the government had more control. The decades of evidence prove that when the state controls things....they run it into the ground. Government and private industry fail every time. ...because they work from different sides of the road. Private businesses, companies create wealth...and the governments responsiblity is to protect those persuing that dream. Private businesses make sure that every dollar has a return....and the government spends whatever it rakes in. Corporations are in bed with its shareholders and those who are buying the service and the government is in bed with the bureaucracy and special interst groups.....politicians and unions. And we have seen since Obama has taken office that the government meddles...just look at the Post Office...the car industry....health care. They love to tell us what we need,,,then regulate and redistribute the wealth as they see it. They redistbute to help the lazy and the unmotivated. Basically like I said when I started this debate.....they steal what we make. Not so with capitalism. It honors private ownership and freedom and responsiblity and it rewards those who WORK HARD something that socialism does not.
"There I changed it for the whiners. People pretending they don't show bias in their answers.....yea right."
In their answers maybe, but not usually in the options.
"They rewrite history, take God out of the equation relacing Him with secular humanism....and instead of capitalism."
Because god is a negative impact to societal structure and with the variety of religions there is no respectful way to keep god in the mainstream of society. And you also fail to know that we are not a capitalist society. Far from it. We lack the brutal principles that make capitalism what it is.
Im not even going to waste my time on the other right wing bull you just posted.
".they steal what we make"
Actually all product is the result of community in socialism, so all product is the product of utilized social dependency. So it is not theft.
It obvious you don't understand the brutality of what actual capitalism calls for. I may be for it, but im surprised you and your "morals" would find such a system appealing.
Now for you link. I find it funny that the author tried to connect unrelated things, like executive communism and socialism, which couldn't be more different. Socialism is a form of money structure. One that has actually seen consistent decent success. Executive communism on the other hand has not. And like I have said elsewhere on this debate, no country has ever been allowed to follow true capitalism.
Why is god a negative impact? Because he tells us that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong? Because there is some form of morality with god and nothing without him...its subjective. God has always been in mainstream society. The largest religion in America is Christianity for crying out loud.
I agree that we lack capitalist principles...we have been taken over by humanists, who believe that we should be socialists.
It is theft if you pay the government almost half of what you make.
It is theft when you have to run your business the way the government wants you to run it. And they do this by restrictions. Socialism is a way of life...it has more to do with peoples lives than money.
Let me ask you this.....there is a family who is extremely poor who lives in your neighborhood. The husband can't work because he lost his job and the wife stays home to take care of their four children. They can't meet their bills. Would you support the government if they forced the neighbors to divide their bills and pay them? And for anyone that refused, they would face fines or jail.
Should you force someone to do something they don't want to do...even though that person needs help? Forcing someone to do this...is slavery. You hold to something you have no right to do. Who then is the victim?
However good the motive or act might be...its wrong. Obamas health plan forces people to purchase something they don't want to purchase.
Because of the Dark Ages, when you take things literally, nothing good comes out of it. Even if Christianity is embedded into America, that doesn't reunite Church and State. They run in completely separate ruts.
Jesus wouldn't of supported Capitalism, remember how he sent away the tax collectors and supported the poor? If anything, he hated money.
"It is theft if you pay the government almost half of what you make."
That's basically citizenship rent. I have no problem with paying rent.
"It is theft when you have to run your business the way the government wants you to run it. And they do this by restrictions. Socialism is a way of life...it has more to do with peoples lives than money. "
I support the businesses being forced to play on equal grounds. I support an equal chance for everyone, limitation brings creativity.
As for the neighbour situation, I would pay for them, because God taught me to love my neighbour. I like to think that it's better to support humanity as a whole, just like the saying "United we stand, divided we fall." Face it, if it were completely capitalist, we'd have a different America. An America with a much more vast wealth gap resulting in a lower standard of living. Besides, I'm Canadian, my health care is already free.
Because god as the majority of the population sees him is based on a ignorant pattern of thinking and promotion of close minded living.
" Because he tells us that killing is wrong, stealing is wrong?"
Killing has been against human laws in places way before the establishment of all the major religions. We have known killing is wrong longer then your fake god has existed.
"Because there is some form of morality with god and nothing without him...its subjective."
That morality you are referring to is non existent. It's not our problem if you lack the ability to maintain personal values without the aid of a fiction book.
"It is theft if you pay the government almost half of what you make."
That is not what happens in socialism.
"It is theft when you have to run your business the way the government wants you to run it."
That is not what happens in socialism.
"Socialism is a way of life...it has more to do with peoples lives than money."
Actually socialism is a money structure, so you wrong on that.
"hey can't meet their bills. Would you support the government if they forced the neighbors to divide their bills and pay them? "
That is not what happens in socialism. Socialism equates business taxes compared to and visa versa to the taxes of other sectors. It wouldn't run on the individual level unless it was changed, then it wouldn't be actual socialism.
"And for anyone that refused, they would face fines or jail."
Actually Im not sure they would refuse, if socialism were an actually workable system people wouldn't mind. That is the main problem with socialism. Not the structure, not the principles, the problem is the idea that humans will accept this system to its entirety, which I can guarantee they won't.
"Forcing someone to do this...is slavery"
Actually no its not, as slavery requires a higher caste system, which doesn't exist in socialism. All product is the product of community.
"You hold to something you have no right to do"
Again if it were an actual socialist state, they wouldn't care or refuse. Also, rights are dependent of the government, don't keep you puny biased mind in one section of thinking. These are world terms that aren't dictated by your ignorant sense of morality or consequence.
"However good the motive or act might be...its wrong."
Says you, the one who insists that abortion is wrong but supports the system that allows the economically inept and inservicable to die and be replaced.
They rewrite history, take God out of the equation relacing Him with secular humanism....and instead of capitalism...they love enviromentalism...socialism.
I find it hilarious to see someone talking about "taking God out of the equation" and championing capitalism in the same sentence.
Because , you know, Jesus was such a huge capitalist and all. I mean, the guy never stopped talking about the virtues of making as much money as you possibly could am I right?
oh... wait...
""Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
Or
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
Or
""People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
Or
""No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
Or
""If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Yeah... curse those liberals for ignoring God and not worshiping Capitalism!
Sheesh. Pick one or the other churchmouse, either you follow God or you follow Capitalism but don't pretend you can do both.
I'm going to say first that I'm definitely capitalism all the way. Now with that said,a part of me and most other people who choose capitalism is because of the fact that we're used to it. It's basically proven that people tend to always choose what they are the most used to because they fear what they do not understand or have no experienced. From the socialism that we have seen in places like China(And yes I'm aware that China is communist but it basically coincides with socialism) we know how dangerous socialism can be. But how can we be so sure that the same type of socialism would happen in America? As far as we know,our "socialism" might not go any further than losing private property(which admittedly is still pretty bad). I just think it's a good thing to keep an open mind about this situation but as I said,I'm a capitalist 100%. I like having freedom,rights,and liberty. I like making money and buying things for myself rather than making money for people who don't work. But that's just me,everyone has the right to their own opinion.
Bottom line: Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist. How many leaders of socialist nations adhere to the same restrictions and regulations they place upon the people? In a socialist society you are a subject, in a non-socialist society you are a citizen.
The difficult part of this debate is the fact that capitalism revolves around mostly economics and socialism more so, well social issues; hence (social)ism.
Granted, we are not entirely a capitalistic society, I doubt we have even allowed a free market to attempt to operate. It seems that every time the market showed any sign of instability the big hand of the government stepped in to try to correct it with out giving it a chance to correct itself.
No matter what form of government a nation has, there will always be an elite class that thinks of themselves as somehow above the rest. In a non socialist society the people are empowered to remove them and in the case of the US, we are empowered to remove the whole government should we so choose. I know of no socialist society that has that kind of power.
I have lived in Europe and seen socialism at work. German parents cannot name their children without first getting approval from "big brother". A government bureaucrat must first approve that name to ensure that the child will not be teased due to his name. Try going to a european hospital. Or how about your future beyond high school.
Look at history Rome was great because the invented and capitalism supports that. And again look at when the steam engine was created (Do to an inventor that made it) business was booming. And now look at Socialism. Mao in china took everything from farmer and put them under government control . People starved to death because of the low farms production.
Yes and when the iron curtain was lifted the entire world saw that the nigh-invulnerable engine of evil they were all fearing in fact had less food in all of Moscow than the the average american had in their pantry, after the first few years of communist rule everything was all down hill.
Socialism is for the unemployed and it doesn't work(one example: EUROPE IS BANKRUPT). Capitalism is for the employed and allows there to be the AMERICAN DREAM(one example:AMERICA(especially before Franklin Roosevelt)).
Lol, do you honestly think Europe is Socialist? this mistake being pointed out destroys your whole argument. And where is the American dream for those suffering hardships because they cannot get a job?
I think we've already established that the only point any socialist will ever have is a misquote from the bible (It never said "money is the root of all evil", but rather "the love of money is the root of many evils), and that it's based entirely on rejecting human nature, but what everyone seems to be ignoring is technology, so let's look at the Soviets' military advancements. First up we have the BTR-60, an armor troop transport, which they KNEW would be carrying people in warzones, which had a FREAKIN' SUNROOF, no roof, only a tarp and they had no technical reason to leave a roof out, they just weren't trying to limit casualties. The November class submarine, known for it's ability to spontaneously combust and it's reputation for putting out the fires by suffocating it's own crew. The 2B1 Oka atomic cannon, which was impossible to deploy, had no use on a battlefield, and would obliterate itself every time it fired. The Kirov, a ship which was never fired upon by anythin other than itself, it actually managed to torpedoe itself when it was tested, not one was ever sunk, because they were to afraid to fire and no one else thought it was worth the ammo. And finally, the Yak-38 Forger, the embodiement of every problem any plane has ever had. These were all put into production and meant to be used, proving that not only was the soviet government extremely poor at descision-making, but that they gave engineering jobs to people who are obvious not even qualified to face shelves.
They're better at different things and the question is too simple to allow that to be intelligently discussed, so technically I should abstain. But creating two debate position titles this ridiculously biased is so ridiculous I have to vote for socialism as a protest measure.
Point, usually I do that actually. Should have thought to here.
(I'm still going against Capitalism just because real, unrestricted free market Capitalism with a capital "C" is too volatile and economically hazardous. People who talk about things like the invisible hand of the market taking care of everything tend to overlook that that hand is perfectly fine crushing you under it's thumb to move the market to an equilibrium point. They act like if we just got out of it's way it would create some kind of economic utopia like a benevolent deity or something)
"Capitalism with a capital "C" is too volatile and economically hazardous. "
I actually find capitalism to be very stable in that it perfectly takes advantage of promised action. I feel it takes into account people's tendencies in business more so then socialism. The very ground socialism was founded on didn't have as good an insight to the human condition as capitalism did.
"They act like if we just got out of it's way it would create some kind of economic utopia like a benevolent deity or something)"
I agree, and I feel most people misunderstand what capitalism entails. It wasn't designed to make a nation with a general standard of living like socialism was, it was designed to make a a completely self dependent nation without any interruption by a higher authority in business(except in legal matters).
What part of a free country don't you understand? Big govt is a NO NO. Capitalism is what can save our country. Socialism=Communism. Economically hazardous are you for real? Its not called Economically hazardous is called letting the people create jobs and do what they need to do without the govt taxing a regulating them to death. If you don't believe in capitalism then America is just not your country! Go to a land where socialism works, the only reason a majority of dems dont go to a place like that is because it DOESN'T WORK. whats with socialist's stupid answers seriously!?
Since the fact that that statement is false is not even remotely debatable, that one statement basically tells me everything I need to know about how well you understand the subject we're discussing. Come back when you get a basic education and we'll talk.
And "places like that" where socialism works are almost every other first world country on earth you moron. Most of Europe is what we refer to as "social democracies"... a.k.a. socialist states. Try visiting sometime and learn something.
Boy if you know so much about it then why isn't it working for America? Can you tell me that? Socialism falls under big govt which I can gaurantee you hasn't been working. You are pretty much right most of Europe is socialist land, BUT that is also why America is called "Land of the free" and they are not. Did you know that The poor in America have more than the working class in europe? We were not founded with socialist's thats why our ancestors left Europe dumbass! to get away from the socialist way of life! Which also falls under your statement "Most of Europe is what we refer to as "Social Democracies"...a.k.a. socialist states." So your proving my point with that statement and that's also why I have said there is no such place that has socialism that works! So before you call me a moron you should get yourself alot more educated on what "we're discussing". Again what's with the socialist's stupid answers?! seriously!
Ok is our govt running America more socialist like or capitalist like right now? Obama is socialist he wants big govt so technically our govt is socialist and 14 trillion dollar debt isn't helping the socialist arguement because obama has us in more debt than all the presidents combined yes that is a fact look it up. "America isn't trying it genius." Really? were not? big govt wanting to fund everything and tell you what your kids will eat at school and possibly taxing you for every mile you drive thats not trying it? Im sorry your undereducated but try to keep up k?
You cannot tell if a government is socialist or capitalist by it's SIZE. You have tell by the functions it performs and how it performs them. Socialism and Capitalism aren't matters of magnitude, they're about matters of economic policy.
"Big Govt" doesn't mean anything. It's just something some people slap on bumper stickers.
Ok china has a big govt why are there people so happy with it? and why do people come to America for a new way of life? China forces workers almost like slaves for pennies on the dollar, there govt has all the money the chinese people really have nothing and your telling me big govt "is just something people slap on bumber stickers." really? there is no reasoning behind it? Or lets go to Iraq saddam huessin had millions of dollars and mansions built of gold while his people and military had nothing and "Big Govt" means nothing? "You have tell by the functions it performs and how it performs them." You want to talk about functions? look at our govt spend spend spend, telling you what your kids are going to eat in school or giving taxpayer money bailouts to big corporations thats our economy and its 14 trillion dollar debt that has nothing to do with big govt? thats a function isn't it? Well i just told you the some of the functions our government is "performing" and it is socialism and it IS NOT working. Until you can get a little bit more educated you shouldn't argue about things that you are very undereducated about. Your wrong. Socialism is very stupid.
What part of this do you not understand? "Big govt" does not equal "Socialism". Socialism is an economic policy, not a measure of government size.
And yes... "Big Govt" doesn't mean anything. It's just a catchphrase. And yes, education spending and corporate tax breaks and national budget management are indeed functions the government performs! Congratulations! They're not "socialist" functions however.
If you want an example of a socialist government program refer to the U.K. national health service. Or the Canadian health insurance (NOT health CARE) system. Or for that matter... the American Medicare system. One very VERY isolated example of a U.S. program that actually does venture into socialism although it does so incompetently.
A person who clearly doesn't even understand the meaning of the words they are using lecturing me on being "very undereducated" about the subject we're discussing is an extremely amusing development I must say.
So if we had a small govt we would not be in 14 trilion dollar debt..correct! Thats why i said that "Big govt FALLS UNDER SOCIALISM" No lets not go to canada or the U.k lets go somewhere that has extreme socialist policies like IRAQ OR CHINA and tell me this yes or no are there people happy with there govt are they really? Why do people come to America for freedom? BECAUSE CAPITALISM MADE THAT POSSIBLE! Our four fathers were NOT SCOCIALIST THEY WERE CAPTIALISTS LEAVING THE SOCIALIST WAY OF LIFE IN EUROPE,What part of THAT didn't you understand? I never said you judge a govt by its size i said socialism 10 to 1 has everything to do with big govt, apparently your not reading everything im typing? "Those are not socialist functions" Well they are when the govt is dong it all. Why didn't the state of michigan give the taxpayer bailout with a vote of the people wheather they are aloud to do so? THAT IS A PURE EXAMPLE OF SOCIALISM. When did i say budget management? I said a 14 trillion dollar debt how is that managing the budget? EXPLAIN that for me since im the undereduated one who uses little facts for there argument and uses socialism like its freedom? O wait thats you! Big government is just a catchphrase? Our govt was designed to control the nations spending (which they have failed to do), protect the people by deployng the military when needed, and to protect the values and the constitution of the constitution itself. Where does it say that the govt can regulate you and tax you to the point where you can't run your business or truly be free? 99 times out of 100 big govt equals socialism. DUDE you don't know what your talking about that is the truly amusing thing, you really believe what your saying is correct when the fact of the matter is that it is very incorrect.
So if we had a small govt we would not be in 14 trilion dollar debt..correct!
No, not correct. Since the size of government also doesn't determine the ratio of it's revenue to outlays... which is what determines debt levels.
No lets not go to canada or the U.k lets go somewhere that has extreme socialist policies like IRAQ OR CHINA
This is simply yet another demonstration that you don't even know what socialism means. Which is making this entire discussion pointless. It's like arguing the finer points of Shakespeare with someone who doesn't know how to read...
Our four fathers were NOT SCOCIALIST THEY WERE CAPTIALISTS LEAVING THE SOCIALIST WAY OF LIFE IN EUROPE,What part of THAT didn't you understand?
No part of it... since we're not even discussing that. What part of that do YOU not understand?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA, When the govt is big it has a big desire to spend did you not look at ours lately? OK explain to me how discussing extreme socialist policies in Iraq or China shows I don't know what socialism is. Didn't you understand my point for posting that about our four fathers? We werent discussing THAT congrats but I was trying to show an UNDEREDUCATED RETARD like you that if our four fathers came to get away from socialism then WHY WOULD IT WORK FOR AMERICA? Why would be turn to socialist policies if the founding of our country was met to eliminate the socialist way of life? Since you argued with 0 facts in your last arguement I would just stop now if I were you, you know you lost a long time ago. Cause I can argue just as long as you presenting more facts than you because I am correct and YOU are not. "It's like arguing the finer points of shakespeare with someone who doesn't know how to read..." You just proved my point with that statement. Im not saying that canada or the U.K aren't socialist im saying they don't have EXTREME SOCIALIST POLICIES. Until you can put a true fact based arguement I would just stop. Capitalism is the way to go for a free country like America.
Thank you for pronouncing your ignorance again by making an obviously biased debate.
Capitalism is partially the reason for our current recession, because giant, fat corporate fuckers thought it would be fun to RAPE THE STOCK MARKET by taking a bunch of unnecessary risks that would allow them to acquire more money that they will never use.
You think capitalism gives people rewards? That it just up and gives people rewards? Bullshit. My senior citizen father has worked all his life and nearly to death over and over again. He made a few mistakes like any other person, but he still did nothing but work. He still hasn't been able to retire. Why? Because a giant capitalist corporation has enslaved him.
That's some reward, huh? Enslavement.
The only reward he's gotten is Social Security, which most can agree is a SOCIALIST CONCEPT.
Now, start arguing in that ignorant Republican way when you have no hope of winning, please. I will wipe the floor with you for acting like capitalism is amazing and perfect and socialism kills women and children by just existing.
"Capitalism is partially the reason for our current recession, because giant, fat corporate fuckers thought it would be fun to RAPE THE STOCK MARKET by taking a bunch of unnecessary risks that would allow them to acquire more money that they will never use."
That would be accurate..........if we were an actual capitalist state. We are not. We have a Frankenstein of a system in place that hasn't yet made up its mind of where it stands. We present ourselves as a capitalist state, but capitalism is just like communism in that it has never had a chance to to be used in it's original state. Capitalism isn't to blame for the recession, ill planning and care of the economy is to blame.
"Because a giant capitalist corporation has enslaved him."
You list a seemingly sad story, but fail to mention the exact problem he faces with retirement. We can't give sympathy without details.
" which most can agree is a SOCIALIST CONCEPT."
Debatable, but whether or not it is is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is a harm to the economy when not privatized(which isn't a socialist concept).
" I will wipe the floor with you for acting like capitalism is amazing and perfect and socialism kills women and children by just existing."
I will agree again that churchmouse has no ground for going to these areas of thought.
Very well, then I will instead refer to it all as 'corporatism' since it's not actually real capitalism. That doesn't make it suck any less, corporatism. In fact, I'm pretty sure it sucks even more now.
Ah yes, I did fail to say that, which is where I will add thus: credit. No, he did not fuck up in his credit. He was an honest man of credit who used it only when needed and always paid the bills a long time in advance. But nearing the recession, credit card companies made their interest rates go up overnight on just about anyone, even responsible people like my dad was.
Literally, I shit you not, his interest rate shot through the roof overnight while he was sleeping.
And the next day, he was billed by some sort of humongous late fee.
Since he was enslaved to a giant corporation that didn't pay him nearly enough, he had to bed his Union to give him a small paying job on the side. It didn't work. He couldn't pay the outrageous fees over and over again, and now he's in serious debt to a giant credit company he owes nothing to.
Also, he's enslaved to a giant company that has eliminated all of it's local competition, making his ability to get a different job nonexistent. So, he may have to work up for 5 or 10 more years in his senor citizenry in an abusive job before he finish paying the debt and have enough money to retire.
" That doesn't make it suck any less, corporatism. In fact, I'm pretty sure it sucks even more now."
I agree, the system we have now has its issues.
"where I will add thus: credit. No, he did not fuck up in his credit."
Hmmmm credit. Ranging from awesome to fuck over.
"He was an honest man of credit who used it only when needed and always paid the bills a long time in advance. But nearing the recession, credit card companies made their interest rates go up overnight on just about anyone, even responsible people like my dad was."
That sucks. That is the result of people in charge thinking with their money rolls, not their head. Bad business. However in a true capitalist state a company that takes such action would die off almost immediately since it wouldn't be held up by the government.
"Literally, I shit you not, his interest rate shot through the roof overnight while he was sleeping."
Higher interest rate's? Sounds like a republican's doing.
"And the next day, he was billed by some sort of humongous late fee."
A late fee? Was he actually late?
"Since he was enslaved to a giant corporation that didn't pay him nearly enough, he had to bed his Union to give him a small paying job on the side. It didn't work"
In my opinion Unions are becoming just as bad as what they were made to stop.
"He couldn't pay the outrageous fees over and over again, and now he's in serious debt to a giant credit company he owes nothing to."
And such asswholes are defended by the government when instead they should out of commission.
"he's enslaved to a giant company that has eliminated all of it's local competition"
That also normally wouldn't happen in a true capitalist state, which would be dependent on local.
All in all it just goes to show our system an be fucked up.
Far from it. Socialism is a very fair and just form of society. The only problem with it is that it requires a form of human thought that simply doesn't exist in order for the system to work in its intended way.
"but the person doing the work should benefit from his efforts"
You misunderstand the system of product in socialism. Socialism is a form of money distribution that involves taxes and increased benefits. Money earned from labor is more or less unaffected. You seem to be referring to communism, as capitalism and communism are the systems that deal with labor.
Of course that's what you want to believe, that our system is better then socialism and that our system doesn't enslave people like what you think socialism does.
Here's the real picture: Real socialism doesn't enslave people. Our system does enslave people. I'm hoping to your God that Libertarian was correct when he said that we don't have real capitalism, because I don't want something so glorified to be THIS bad.
Capitalism allows people to fail. So that the good business men , smart stock holders, good corporations,and good employees win. And Thats good because then there's no idiots in the system. Like you Chatturgha.
Our corporatism allows for only the reckless, sinister, and dishonorable succeed. There are no exceptions. The rich in our system always ruin people's lives to get to the top. This is okay up until a certain point, because up until a certain point, natural selection is acceptable for businesses.
But in our system, people not only have the ability to fail, they have the ability to succeed more and continue to rape the less lucky and more morally naive of everything they know and love. Like you. Someone who is so eloquently brainwashed into thinking corporatism is perfect that you will likely either be raped or be the rapist. Nice choice, isn't it?
You're sole point would appear to be that having power makes you evil, but you cannot assemble a socialist government without giving it even more power than corporations over your country. Assuming that power does indeed corrupt people and that governments are comprised of people, then logically a socialist government is by it's vary nature evil, as it cannot exist without having a vast amount of power.
Actually dumbass that shows you how stupid you and your grandfather were, who forced him to work there? and why didn't he quit his job and get a different one where he could retire? Are you retarded? Look at my arguement with (gcomeau) above your comment and read the whole damn thing that should save me some time with you.
Actually dipshit, that shows how stupid you are for not writing an argument specifically tailored to combat me. I'm not going to go looking for some shit you wrote. Whoever I am, I'm not the other person you were arguing with, so don't be a lazy twat and just write a real argument against me. I do it all the time, since I'm not so narcissistic as to expect people I insult to go looking for my previous arguments with other people they aren't related to.
Father, not grandfather.
Who forced him? The corporation. I know you like to believe that our system of corporatism allows for freedom, but ever since the first robber barons first came into existence, all of that potential for freedom vanished. There is no freedom under corporate fascism; not when giant companies can sneeze in the general direction of a small town and instantly rape it of all it's well-being.
He didn't quit his job because he couldn't. There was no other establishment that would hire a senior citizen of his veteran skill for a pay that would allow him to support my mother after me and my brother grew up. That's because there are no longer any small businesses wealthy enough to pay him a salary he needs since all of the businesses were raped nearly to death by corporations.
Simply, because of corporatism, he has no choice to but to keep his job. He has no other options, and he had even less options then that once the recession started.
Now, once again, I will politely tell you to go fuck yourself. If you think you can argue with me AND use insults, you will at least do it respectfully and do some writing. If you can't do that, then you're a lazy, arrogant coward.
This is a free country asshole nothing absolutely nothing held your father back from quitting his job,why didn't he start his own business? huh tell me that? The corporation just strongly suggested that he stay with the company. "He didn't quit his job because he couldn't." Bullshit if he was so experienced why didn't he start a business himself? It's a pure example of being a dumbass, unless it was the military keeping him thats different but no business's can force their worker's to stay simple as that. Im not here to insult you or your father but it's kinda showing how the both of you are dumbasses there are other options but im sure he was so stuck in his own train of thought that he didn't know there was. Did he ever think other than staying there all his life why didn't he launch his own business why he was still working there , and once his small business got strong enough to pay the salary he desires then he CAN quit his job. Now I know your going to give me another bullshit arguement but you and your father must remember this is AMERICA if he didn't like big corporations why did he start there in the first place? Couldn't he ask for a promotion or a raise? Im going to respectfully ask you to tell me why capitalism sucks? This is beside our previous arguement. Im not going to tell you to go "fuck yourself" but i am asking you to admire other options now your right he couldn't leave the corporation but if it was so bad he could admire other options. Im tired of arguing with people who really don't know what they are talking about (im not targeting you on that). And I appriciate the fact that you have the balls to tell me how it is but "some shit you wrote" well it's not shit it's facts and maybe it's not related to this arguement it explains how capitalism works instead of redistributing what I already said you can just scroll up and read it then we can take off from there. I wrote my arguement you just need to look at it. Now im not so stupid because i got my "lazy arrogant coward" ass and wrote something because i got on this website to write 2 sentences for everything uhh no. We can argue like children and call each other names or we can argue with each other like adults and argue with facts? Its your choice we can contine arguing like children. Im willing to be civil and agree to disagree. When did I say I believe that "our system of corporatism allows for freedom.." When did I type that? Now this is "some writing" read it.
Nobody is free under fascism, the unified collaboration of big business and big government controlling the people of a country. We have 1 of 2 prerequisites of fascism. It's sad that you are brainwashed to the point that you don't want to see this.
...nothing absolutely nothing held your father back from quitting his job.
Except the fact that the big business that hired him destroyed all of the competition that would hire my dad.
Why didn't he start his own business?
Because he had to support a family of 4 on a factory wage and his credit card company tanked and raped his bank account even though he was a very responsible customer.
The corporation just strongly suggested that he stay with the company.
Yes, and they did this by making it impossible for any company to hire my father at the minimum wage required to support even 2 people.
Bullshit if he was so experienced why didn't he start a business himself?
Because many years of experience on the workforce isn't going to make the money stolen from you appear out of thin air so that you can pay off all your unfounded debt and then start a business.
It's a pure example of being a dumbass
My father wasn't Einstein, but he was obviously smarter then you. Heck, you probably dropped out of highschool
But no business's can force their worker's to stay simple as that
Yes they can. I've just explained why. So I'll just end that thought on the simple fact that if businesses couldn't do this, Labor Unions wouldn't exist.
I'm not here to insult you or your father
Too late. You're fucking ignoramus and a hypocrite. Pull your head out of Fox New's ass you cheap twat.
I'm sure he was so stuck in his own train of thought that he didn't know there was.
He was stuck on his train of thought, which was a good idea considering his train of thought was the reality of his situation. He had no options except his current job. You're not going to let yourself realize this, but it's fine. I'll just sit here and laugh when you get enslaved by corporatism.
Did he ever think other than staying there all his life why didn't he launch his own business...
Because stolen money doesn't grow on trees.
Now I know your going to give me another bullshit argument...
Good to know that redneck hicks are arrogant enough to think they know anything beyond the brainwashing shit they're told by certain portions of the political media.
Your father must remember this is AMERICA if he didn't like big corporations why did he start there in the first place?
Good to know redneck hicks also have a double standard about this country that include them thinking that this place is perfect.
Also, my father didn't start here. My father's father's father started here in 1903.
Couldn't he ask for a promotion or a raise?
No. The corporation knew they were the only place he could make an eating salary at, so they had no trouble psychologically abusing him. Corporations don't care about the little people, they only care about making money they will never use.
I'm going to respectfully ask you to tell me why capitalism sucks.
My friend made is clear to me that I was using the term 'capitalism' incorrectly, because this country isn't capitalist. So just jot down in your memory that I don't think capitalism sucks, I think corporatism sucks.
I'm not going to tell you to go "fuck yourself"...
Then I'll refrain from insulting you also. I did so in a previous paragraphs since you had no trouble acting like you're better then me and my father, both of which I suspect are your seniors.
But if it was so bad he could admire other options...
No, he couldn't. The only other options in town couldn't pay him enough to support a household of 4 or even 2 people. His bosses know this, so they have no trouble abusing him and paying him the minimum eating wage.
And I appreciate the fact that you have the balls to tell me how it is but "some shit you wrote"...
I didn't read it because it was necessarily irrelevant, I didn't read it because you don't have any right to expect me to read it. If you want to explain how this country's system doesn't suck, then do it to my face, don't give me some link to something else you said.
Also, we aren't a capitalist country, so I don't care to read about how capitalism works. We are capitalist in the same way the Soviet Union was communist. Neither were neither of those things, and still aren't. With that said, your other argument very well might be entirely irrelevant if you're promoting capitalism and not our current system. Our current system is not capitalism.
We can be civil, but only if you refrain from acting above me like you did in your earlier reply and half of your last reply.
This is a free country it is and thats not necessarily fascism its more socialism and im sorry your too brainwashed to see this.
If all the competition was destroyed then why didn't he move? There are options I agree big government is a terrible thing but I can imagine there are other options, why didn't your mother get a job also?
When you say a responible customer you mean?.. Credit card companys just don't "rape" bank accounts for no reason so that part is not adding up?
Again I go back to why didn't he leave the area or why did your mother not get a job?
If he can have a credit card then why can't he take a loan out? You socialist types usually would think that spending more money would help debt.
If he was smarter than me then why didn't he excell in any of the options listed above it's not completly impossible. And btw IM STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL and I can keep up with you..? Soo?
So if I worked at McDonalds (which I don't) they could physically keep me there? Bullshit.
Explain to me how IM the ignoramus or a hypocrite? Like id watch cnn,cnbc,msnbc,nbc they are better? again, bullshit.
When i get enslaved by corporatism? IM not the "person" who stayed with a freakin company for so many years and didn't even attempt to make a change? And IM going to get enslaved by it?..Bullshit.
But loans can be a temporary fix until you can excell in a personal business.
Yes im a hick not a redneck, two different things btw. Well this hick seems to be telling you off?
Ok if your GRANDFATHER started there in 1903 by did you neglect telling that in your main argument.
Wow im suprised that you can tell me that there were 0 jobs that would fulfill his salary in that area at all? Wow.
This country is capitalist it is i can promise you that we are just using socialist policies.
Did I once say I was better than you? Once? Everybody is equal other than fags. Congrats you are both my seniors but your the first ive met with 0 wisdom.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA im not going to sit here and tell you that corpratism doesn't suck because it does but corps do produce jobs and wheather most of us like it or not it puts food on the table.
If your father was not willing to follow other options then he should have just grew a set of nuts, manned up and delt with it the best he could. And you have no right to tell me what I can and can't say on here. And im not cheap and I don't appriciate that expectation therefore your telling me your better than me?
I can be civil but you have to admire the options America provides.
Freedom is a human idea. Believe in it too much and it'll be that much easier to take it away from you. Which is why not only this country isn't as free as some people think due to a horrible market system, but is also why you are so brainwashed into not realizing that you have no rights in comparison to someone that has more money then you.
If all the competition was destroyed then why didn't he move?
Because money doesn't grow on trees, and the housing market has a bad reputation of being horrible most of the time.
...why didn't your mother get a job also?
Because we never had enough money to hire a baby sitter when me and my brother were children, and when we were grown up enough to take care of ourselves, my mother was too sick to get a job that would relieve her and my father's financial stress.
When you say a responsible customer you mean?
He used the card only when needed and always paid the credit card bills on time.
Credit card companies just don't "rape" bank accounts...
In the beginning when the recent recession hit, one of the primary problems that was a result of it was that the credit card companies began to tank and increase their interest rates universally on most or all of their customers, sometimes overnight. This is suppose to be common knowledge. Because of the credit card companies having to do this, my father's bank account was raped over night by sudden late fees and high interest rates despite the fact that he was a responsible customer.
Again I go back to why...
I just explained why: money doesn't grow on trees and my mother got too sick with age and illness.
If he can have a credit card then why can't he take a loan out?
He did. A few times, because he needed to stop himself from letting his family become homeless. He's still in debt to the banks because of this. Luckily the recession is theoretically over, so he hasn't had to recently.
You socialist types usually would think that spending more money would help debt.
I don't believe in socialism necessarily, I just use the tag.
Also, government spending does help the economy, which is why we aren't in a serious recession anymore. I shouldn't have to explain why government spending helps the economy, but I will if you ask me nicely.
And for the record, government spending has nothing to do with socialism.
If he was smarter than me then why didn't he excel in any of the options listed above? It's not completely impossible.
I don't entirely understand the question, but if you mean 'why wasn't he able to start a business'... then, frankly, I don't need to answer that question. I've already explained to you possibly more then 4 times that money doesn't grow on trees when you're only making enough money to pay the bills and eat and do nothing else.
And btw I'M STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL and I can keep up with you...?
Ah, of course you're in high school.
Keep up with me? Perhaps your mental stamina can, but your arguments aren't keeping up. You're obviously loosing in the eyes of any objective observer of this argument, mostly because you're logic is faulty and you aren't paying attention to some of my points (since you keep asking the same questions over and over again)
So if I worked at McDonald's (which I don't) they could physically keep me there? Bullshit.
Of course they can't, you're a teenager. You don't need money. But theoretically, they could, if you were in the following situation: If you were a single teenage father that was emancipated, and you and your child were extremely tight on money to the point where you were under the threat of homelessness and starvation, and if McDonald's was the only business that would hire you and give you a salary that would allow you and your child to not suffer, making McDonald's the only option you had to help your child survive... then yes, they could physically, emotionally, philosophically, and psychologically keep you there. Enslave you. And if they were cruel enough to realize that they were your only option, they could torture you.
And you could do nothing.
Because they would be your only option for your offspring to survive.
Now, imagine that situation, except proportionally larger and older in relation to a married adult man with 2 children and a chronically ill wife.
Explain to me how I'M the ignoramus or a hypocrite?
You're ignoramus because you imply that you think money grows on trees, or that supporting 4 people is cheap and easy, or that businesses care about your well being if they have the ability to hold onto and squeeze your testicles.
You're a hypocrite because you're a very young man who thinks he knows everything about this country and it's economics and what it's like to be a struggling father of 2 and the lover of a woman who is suffering an incurable illness when the very fact you admitted to being in high-school means that you know next to nothing about the world in comparison to me.
But loans can be a temporary fix until you can excel in a personal business.
They were a temporary fix for my father, since they stopped his family from becoming starving homeless people.
Yes I'm a hick not a redneck...
I don't care about the difference, nor do either seem like compliments to me.
Well this hick seems to be telling you off?
If 'telling me off' means arguing poorly and arrogantly, yes, you are. And this accomplishes what?
OK if your GRANDFATHER started there in 1903 by did you neglect telling that in your main argument.
Great grandfather, I.E. ancestor. What does my ancestor have to do with my argument? If you think it has anything to do with my argument, then you apparently have no idea what I'm arguing about. How ironic that you think you know more about what I'm talking about then I do.
Wow I'm surprised that you can tell me that there were 0 jobs that would fulfill his salary in that area at all?
Why is it so surprising to you that someone from a different part of the country grew up in a town that has been raped by big business, considering you haven't seen barely any of the world to speak of? That's very naive of you.
Since it's so surprising, I'll say it again: because big business eliminated so much of it's competition, there was not a single job left in town that would hire a veteran mechanic for a wage that could support 2 to 4 people and also pay off unfounded and justifiable debt over time so that the employed mechanic and his family would not have to suffer homelessness and starvation.
This country is capitalist it is I can promise you that we are just using socialist policies.
That comment was so stupid I don't care about respecting you anymore.
You're a fucking idiot, kid. That was the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. What you just said was self-contradiction. We can't be capitalist AND use socialist policies at the same time. That's like saying 'This fish right here is a lizard, I assure you, is just has gills is all.'
And for the record, capitalism is like communism in the sense that they are both perfect as a concept, but in real life, neither of them will ever work, because humans are evil and take advantage of the system. Capitalism is meant to allow everyone to have the ability of free and equal sovereignity over the market, the problem is that capitalism is not supposed to allow big businesses the rights to have more power then smaller businesses. Capitalism is freedom and equality. Our system does not have freedom and equality that capitalism is supposed to provide, and this is because capitalism doesn't truly work in reality because people are too evil and greedy and selfish.
Did I once say I was better than you?
No, but you're acting like it. We have words for that: arrogance, narcissism, self-absorption, elitism, etc. Unless you're autistic, which I'm sure you aren't since I have autistic family members (and therefore I know what they're like), then you have no way to excuse your obvious arrogance.
Everybody is equal other than fags
You're right, fags like you aren't supposed to be equal.
... Wait, did you mean homosexuals? Oh, well, I actually knew that, but I regret to tell you that you're using the word incorrectly. It's unfair to say gays are fags; just because you're gay doesn't necessarily make you a fag.
You, on the other hand, are a fag for discriminating against gays by assuming they're all fags like you.
Congrats you are both my seniors but you're the first I've met with 0 wisdom.
How so? It seems to me that with your revealed bigotry, arrogance, painfully young youth, and obliviousness to my arguments, that I at least have 100% more wisdom then you. You have not provided sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA I'm not going to sit here and tell you that corporatism doesn't suck because it does, but corps. do produce jobs and whether most of us like it or not, it puts food on the table.
Corporatism does suck, but you're incorrect with everything else you've said.
Corporations do not produce jobs, they provide jobs. Jobs are produced by the combined cycle of supply and demand; the needy, poor, and Middle class provide demand for jobs and corporations provide the supply. You can't have one without the other.
Also, corporations don't put food on the table, people's back-breaking labor does. Money is a measure of people's physical and sometimes mental labor. If you don't do either of that sort of work to get money the money is worth less, or even absolutely nothing. (which is why the rich's hording of money has made the value of the American dollar go down since the dawn of our country's mock capitalism)
If your father was not willing to follow other options then he should have just grew a set of nuts, manned up and delt with it the best he could.
You're an elitist twat. I've explained half a dozen times that he had no options. If you're not willing to open your mind to the plight some people have to go through due to our failed mock capitalism, then I suggest you grow a set of nuts, man up, and deal with the humongous amount of hardship you're going to have to pay for during your adult life for your uncanny stupidity during the period of your life that you're supposed to grow up.
And you have no right to tell me what I can and can't say on here
Remind me of what I said that provoked this response from you. I don't have good memory when you don't want to bother quoting what you're replying to.
And I'm not cheap and I don't appreciate that expectation therefore your telling me your better than me?
Remind me again what I said to provoke this reaction, especially the expectation part. But for the record, I don't expect anything of you. Fuck up your own life if you want, I don't care; learning the hard way is still learning. And if you still don't learn even the hard way, I have no problem having your DNA being removed from our gene pool.
Also, I don't think I'm better then you, I do on the other hand think I'm smarter, wiser, more knowledgeable, more compassionate, more realistic, more mentally healthy, was more successful, and am more likable to more people then you.
And I am more honest then you, undoubtedly, because I am truthfully not being sarcastic when I say that those things I said above does not make me better then you. I don't believe I am and I don't expect you to believe I'm better then you. I do think I am all of those things I just described.
I can be civil but you have to admire the options America provides.
I do admire the options America provides, but I also scorn the amount of freedom America lacks. I feel bad for you, who feels like the only problems in this country have to do with socialism. Oh Your God, I do feel bad for you...
So I'll try to open your mind by saying this: problems this country face will never be because of a single concept or person or set of people. The problems this country will face will always have to do with suffering; the suffering of anybody who does not deserve it, and the people who cause the suffering.
Socialism is not only not causing a problem in this country, it is not the source of the problems of this country.
The problems of this country are being caused by our horrible economic and political system, because our horrible economic and political system at the moment cause innocent people to suffer horrible, excruciating pain and fates.
Son, if you don't soon realize that suffering is caused by things that are right in front of our faces, as opposed to concepts that have almost nothing to do with reality, then you will have to be a very lucky boy to avoid being one of the people who ends up suffering himself.
I know I was cursing and being mean to you earlier, but I'm feeling more compassionate now, because I don't think a young man like you is above being saved from this horrendous brainwashing bullshit that is "this country is perfect".
This country will never be perfect as long as its systems allows innocent people to suffer. Even if it means we be less "free", it's better that no innocent suffers. Ever.
I want you to realize this and at the very least save yourself and your loved ones, future and present, from fates like my family has had to suffer at the hands of government neglect/corporate fascism.
Capitalism is not perfect but at least it allows freedom. Where is the freedom when the government tells you how you will make money and how much you will keep? When the government takes all your money to support people who mainly are moochers....how is that freedom?
People enslave themselves...we do not need to government to do it for us.
We have the choice of what jobs we want to do, what education we will get and we determine how hard we will work to get what we want.
The government HAS NO RIGHT TO REDISTIRBUTE TAXPAYER MONEY TO THE POOR or anyone else....there should be no free anything for anyone but the handicapped, the mentally disabled. Sure we should take care of people, we should be compassionate in times of need, but that does not mean take from the rich and give to the poor. We always have relied on kind and generous people who dontate to help out. Look at the donations that poured out after Katrina. We are a generous people and we not only take care of our own but send billions all over the world helping them when they need it. Government does not always need to come to the aid of everyone.
You look at our economic crisis today...look at the collapse of the housing market. Why did this happen? It never would have collapsed under free market capitalism. The government should have no involvement in homeownership at all. Today the manipulation is happening from the goverment across the board. Regulations. Regulations. Regulations. We should solve our problems not from the top down but from the bottom up. Get the government politicians OUT...and put the power with the business owners. Get out of the car industry. Look at what happened to the US Postal Service when the government took over. Amtrak is so successful aren't they?
And look at our failing public, government controlled schools....that would get a lot better with a voucher system in place. COMPETITION........not so with socialism. Today they are costly disaster areas run by teachers they can't get rid of because of unions...who wont reform. Government is bad for education. But its the only way to control the masses and that is what socialism does. Its what Obama wants to do. His buddy Willie Ayers (communist and American hater, murderer) gave a speech alongside Chavez and said something to the point that education is the force of revolution. Its the perfect place to indocrinate kids. So our schools today support an agenda...that tips its hat towards socialism. They care more about holding a kids hand and telling him grades don't matter when he fails a test than to actually educate. I heard the other day that the majority of high school kids could not even locate Iraq on a map.
"Capitalism is not perfect but at least it allows freedom."
Not necessarily. Capitalism dictates business and money flow. Laws are still extreme variables.
"Where is the freedom when the government tells you how you will make money and how much you will keep?"
That is not socialism.
"People enslave themselves...we do not need to government to do it for us."
True, but socialism doesn't depend on the government any more then the system we have in place now does.
"We have the choice of what jobs we want to do, what education we will get and we determine how hard we will work to get what we want.
"
Nothing you just listed is absent in socialism.
"The government HAS NO RIGHT TO REDISTIRBUTE TAXPAYER MONEY TO THE POOR or anyone else"
Tax payer money belongs to the government, nothing in our laws say they can't choose to redistribute it.
"there should be no free anything for anyone but the handicapped, the mentally disabled."
You are assuming socialism hands you a get a of jail free whenever you get want card. It doesn't.
"We always have relied on kind and generous people who dontate to help out. Look at the donations that poured out after Katrina."
Donations are not present in one system and not the other. And in a true capitalist state, people are even less likely to donate money, just so you know.
"You look at our economic crisis today...look at the collapse of the housing market. Why did this happen? It never would have collapsed under free market capitalism"
That's because under a capitalist state housing markets would be separated into local areas and wouldn't be dependent on each other. Such a state would be hard to set up with such a large population.
"Today the manipulation is happening from the goverment across the board. Regulations. Regulations. Regulations."
Because our system sucks.
" COMPETITION........not so with socialism."
Socialism has competition in it too. You are quite ignorant of its structure.
"But its the only way to control the masses and that is what socialism does. "
It seems to me that you have executive communism in mind. Almost nothing you are saying applies to socialism.
"Its what Obama wants to do"
Oh here we go with the right wing bull.
"They care more about holding a kids hand and telling him grades don't matter when he fails a test than to actually educate."
I personally don't think grades matter either, I believe in a completely individualized education, which unfortunately is not really achievable with such a large population.
"I heard the other day that the majority of high school kids could not even locate Iraq on a map."
Because kids these days are stupid, a lot as a result of things passed by the republicans who ran the mentality that a higher grade scores meant smarter kids, and to achieve that they made the tests easier. Real smart right?
It is not the republicans that have run the schools the past fifty years.
Kids today are stupid because of our schools...and what they offer, and what they expect. I can not believe that you would blame REpublicans for this. The NEA runs the schools...they are in BED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. They spew left wing liberal crap and indoctrinate impressionable kids. The basically threaten the Democrats. Our way or see what happens......If you attack the NEA go against their worldview...ya better watch out. And the unions have been in bed with the Democrats forever.
I love how you ignored my whole post except the end. Way to go the lengths.
"It is not the republicans that have run the schools the past fifty years."
No, but all the changes to standardized test for the most part have been republicans doing.
" I can not believe that you would blame REpublicans for this. "
Believe it, they are responsible for lowering our standards compared to the rest of the world. That is not saying that the NEA is good in any way though. Both of the accused are guilty in this.
" And the unions have been in bed with the Democrats forever."
I agree that Unions have become just as bad as what they were originally meant to fight.
"Is it about teaching for the NEA.....not on your life"
Makes the NEA look like ass wholes, but doesn't affect my statement one bit.
What does changing the tests have to do with the overall education of our children who are attending our failing public schools.
This is what I found about what you accuse Republicans of doing. Could you site your source I would be interested in reading it.
"Republican Bryan Holloway, a substitute teacher, convinced his colleagues to abolish end-of-course tests in history, civics and physical science. A handful of Democrats joined with House Republicans to end the tests and nobody really defended them."
The recent events in Wisconsin, in which unionized teachers behaved like third-world mobs, is a stark reminder of what a grave mistake it was to permit government employees to unionize. Since government employees have always had job security and benefits that many workers in the private sector couldn’t dream of getting, there was no need for government employees to unionize unless they wanted to use union power to intimidate legislators and extort more money from the taxpayer.
In fact, the sole purpose of unionization is political power, even among teachers. Indeed, it was Sam Lambert, Secretary of the National Education Association, who told the teachers in 1967 that “The NEA will become a stronger and more influential advocate of social changes long overdue…. The NEA will become a political power second to no other special interest group…. And, finally, NEA will organize this profession from top to bottom into logical operating units that can move easily and effectively and with power unmatched by any other organized group.”
Although the NEA had been established in 1857 as a professional organization, it wasn’t until 1962 that it became a labor union, after which it drafted model collective bargaining statutes covering teachers, which by 1980 were enacted into law by 31 states. Unionization also led to unified membership — meaning that a member of a local affiliate was forced to join the national organization and pay its dues.
Forced membership increased the number of NEA members from 713,994 in 1959-60 to 1.7 million in 1983, to 3.2 million in 2011. The NEA’s budget increased from $5 million in 1957 to $67 million in 1979-80, to $307 million in 2006-07. The NEA was also able to get school boards to automatically deduct from teachers’ salaries their union dues which were automatically deposited in the union’s bank account, all at taxpayer expense.
Before the 1960s, only a small portion of public school teachers were unionized. But, ironically, that began to change in 1959 when Wisconsin became the first state to pass a collective-bargaining law for public employees. In those days, Wisconsin basked in the warm sunlight of progressivism. Little did they know that they were creating a potential Frankenstein.
While the Wisconsin teachers have been part of the mobs demonstrating in favor of their collective bargaining rights, their curriculum is no bargain for the children they teach. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress test given in 2009 only 32 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned a “proficient” rating in reading, while another 2 percent earned an “advanced” rating. The other 68 percent of Wisconsin public school eighth graders earned ratings below “proficient,” including 44 percent who earned a rating of “basic” and 22 percent who earned a rating of “below basic.”
In other words, Wisconsin public schools are turning out functional illiterates by the thousands. Indeed, the test showed that the reading abilities of Wisconsin public school eighth graders had not improved at all between 1998 and 2009 despite the increase in the amount of money spent per pupil each year.
In 1998 the cost of educating a public school pupil in Wisconsin was $4,956. In 2008 it was up to $10,791. So money is not the problem. It’s teacher incompetence. Obviously the taxpayer is being cheated by teachers unable to do their jobs but using collective bargaining to make it difficult to fire them.
Too bad Wisconsin’s public school children can’t organize a protest against being taught to read by methods that produce dyslexia and reading disability. Unfortunately, they aren’t unionized.
For unions, power is the name of the game. Ninety-five percent of NEA’s political contributions go to Democratic candidates and the few liberal Republican RINOs who support NEA interests. Teachers, who pay hundreds of dollars in annual dues to national, state, and local affiliates, have no control over the NEA’s endorsement of candidates or advocacy of socialist policies. In 28 states teachers risk losing their jobs if they refuse to join a union.
The NEA has long advocated leftist policies leading to a world socialist government. The NEA was responsible for creating UNESCO as a future world board of education. As early as December 1942, the NEA was advocating world government. In an editorial entitled “The United Peoples of the World,” the editor of the NEA Journal wrote:
“In addition to a framework of government, the world needs…a world system of money and credit; a uniform system of weights and measures; a revised calendar; a basic language; a police force; a board of education; a planning board.” And much more.
The latest resolutions adopted by the NEA at its July 2010 convention, tell the story. They favor initiatives leading to the end of American sovereignty: Global Education. Education on Peace and International Understanding. Peace and International Relations. International Criminal Court. International Court of Justice. Global Climate Change. Linguistic Diversity. Environmental Education. Multicultural Education.
They oppose Home Schooling, Education Vouchers, Tuition Tax Credits, Right to Work Laws..
They favor Same Sex Marriage, Free education for children of illegal immigrants, Early childhood education in public schools for children from birth to age eight. Abortion rights. Sex education that includes birth control, family planning, diversity of sexual orientation, homophobia, etc. They favor celebrating Earth Day.
They oppose: Prepublication critiques of text books. Privatization of Social Security. The use of ID cards for voting at elections. Designating English as the official language of the United States.
There is only one truly effective way to reduce the power of the NEA, and that is for parents to remove their children from the public schools and place them in good private schools or home school them. By now about two million families have done just that. But it is unlikely that the vast majority of parents will follow suit. And so we shall have to accept the increase in functional illiteracy and learning disabilities among our children.
In November 2007, the National Endowment for the Arts released its report on the decline in American literacy, Reading at Risk. According to the report, the number of 17-year-olds who never read for pleasure increased from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004. About half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 never read books for pleasure.
Endowment Chairman Dana Gioia stated: “This is a massive social problem. We are losing the majority of the new generation. They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor reading.” The survey found that only a third of high school seniors read at a proficient level. “And proficiency is not a high standard,” said Gioia. “We’re not asking them to be able to read Proust in the original. We’re talking about reading the daily newspaper.”
Chairman Gioia declined to say what was causing the problem, although the cause has been known since 1955 when Rudolf Flesch wrote Why Johnny Can’t Read. The educators threw out the alphabetic-phonics method of teaching reading and replaced it with a method that teaches children to real English as if it were Chinese, a look-say, sight method. That method causes dyslexia and reading disability.
"What does changing the tests have to do with the overall education of our children who are attending our failing public schools."
Curriculum is based on what is on the standardized tests all the way into college.
"This is what I found about what you accuse Republicans of doing. Could you site your source I would be interested in reading it."
Tell you what, when you address my actual arguments concerning THIS debate, I will be happy to begin source listing. However if you want to debate on school politics I suggest you create another debate. I can't say I feel the need to respond to you with any level of dedication when you ignore every other piece of my comment. I give you the courtesy of contesting your entire argument when I respond. Also, I believe I have already said I disagree with modern Unions as well, the post you just made me read accomplishes nothing. My point was that the standardized tests they are replacing as of now were the work of republicans. Don't twist that to me saying the democrats are doing anything right.
Again, I love how every other comment has gone unanswered. You love to go the extra mile to establish your base.
Our country's corporatism does not allow for freedom. The freedom isn't taken away by the government, the freedom is taken away by the corporations... the rich people themselves.
When the government takes all your money to support people...
Moochers wouldn't exist without the rich and their corporations taking what they don't need. Our system allows the extremely rich to exist, and therefore is allows the extremely poor to exist.
People enslave themselves...
The government naively allows our system to exist the way it is, meaning that both the government and the people allow people to be enslaved. But ultimately, WHY ARE YOU ACTING LIKE SLAVERY IS GOOD FOR ANY REASON?
We have the choice of what jobs we want to do...
No we don't... not in all cases. If you knew what giant corporations have done to some small communities, you'd see that you are incorrect.
The government HAS NO RIGHT...
Well, since the poor are poor because of the rich, I see it's only fair that the wealth of the rich be redistributed to the poor. There is a certain threshold of wealth in which you will never spend another sent of money for the rest of you and your family's life. Once the rich reach this threshold of wealth, all of their remaining wealth should be given to people who need it. If they don't give it to them and they never use this excess money, they are just hording money that could be used to help the economy and the needy. If you firmly believe that the rich deserve to horde money that they will never use, especially since they had to ruin the lives of hundreds of people to obtain it, then I'm sorry to say that such a belief is fascist and immoral.
Donations are nice, but the problem is that the rich corporate cats that decide go past the wealth threshold do so because they are greedy and glutenous and want more of what they don't need. If they want to take what they don't need and make people suffer, I see no reason why the government can't enact justice and reallocate these horded funds back to the poor people they raped it from in the first place.
So, why SHOULDN'T the government come to the aid of people who need it? I see it only logical, since it's their job to make us happy and keep us safe.
You look at our economic crisis today...
Our current (actually previous) crisis was caused by a war we shouldn't have fought and couldn't pay for, but was also caused by giant corporations like ENRON molesting the stock market and general market with their risks and illegal advantages.
Regulations. Regulations. Regulations...
What are you talking about? Corporations still control our entire economy. The government still has too little a role in it, just short of stopping corporations from outright murdering each other with hit men and security forces. I don't know what makes you think the government is controlling the market even a little, especially considering all of the obvious bribes that have been made to Congress in the past 11 years. The little things Obama has done for the market during his term hasn't done scant shit in comparison to the power giant corporations still have over it. The only way the government would have control would be if Obama has declared war against corporatism, which he won't, because he's naive, unfortunately.
Obama bailed out the car companies because if he hadn't, WE WOULD HAVE BECOME A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!
I'm not surprised you said that though; it had a denseness to it that was unmistakably you.
And look at our failing public, government controlled schools...
You can't have your cake and eat it to. We have public and a private school program so that parents have the freedom to choose to have their children to compete by sending them to a public school. This way, parents can have their children either get the normal treatment of a public school, or they can spend more money and take the risk of putting their children forward in the job market. That's capitalist enough.
If we have a universal voucher system, nothing will be solved whatsoever. Either one, all private schools will become the new public schools, or two, public schools will tighten the prerequisites for attending them and stop more people from going to them. Either way, nothing will be accomplished. If you want to improve education, improve all of the public schools. The purpose of private schools is nonexistence if everyone had the ability to attend them.
I'm not going to reply to the rest of your last paragraph, because it's all complete cockery. Anyone who believes that the president has a socialist agenda is not worth finishing responding to. Have fun in your fantasy world for me, okay? I'll enjoy the day some Democrat, Obama or not, performs yet another stupendous feat akin to getting us out of the Great Depression. You brainwashed fascist.
"Moochers wouldn't exist without the rich and their corporations taking what they don't need. Our system allows the extremely rich to exist, and therefore is allows the extremely poor to exist."
And Socialism would fix this how? In case you haven't noticed, socialism is for the people not the socialist. If you are implying that socialism can provide an even distribution of wealth you are being naive. Even in socialist societies there are those who are better off than others and usually it is the socialists themselves.
"People enslave themselves..."
I can't really ague with this because it is true. We enslave ourselves through our own selfishness and vanity.
"We have the choice of what jobs we want to do...
No we don't... not in all cases. If you knew what giant corporations have done to some small communities, you'd see that you are incorrect."
Yes, we do. More so than many socialist societies. As with any society people will follow the industry. Take the Pacific NW. For many years timber and fishing were the primary employers of the region. That has changed as Boeing and computer software took over the main employers. We make a choice.
"The government HAS NO RIGHT...
Well, since the poor are poor because of the rich, I see it's only fair that the wealth of the rich be redistributed to the poor."
How is that fair? The poor are not poor because of the rich. It's the rich who create jobs. I have never been given a job by a poor person. Have you? Everyone has a right to the fruits of their labor, no one else. The poor have no right to my earnings. Now, I am with on the charity part but this "wealth threshold" idea is ridiculous. So what if they can never spend their all their money. The majority of their worth is wrapped up in assets anyhow. By the by, the US is the most charitable nation. We give more both privately and through the form of federal aid than any other nation.
I don't advocate socialism, I just use the tag since I don't care about changing my tag to some other one. Whether you are referring to real socialism of the Republican brainwashed socialism, it's irrelevant.
I can't really ague with this...
Good to know you aren't a complete fool.
Yes, we do...
Labor Unions wouldn't've come into existence if we had enough of a choice in comparison to the rest of the world.
How is that fair?
Because the rich don't earn their money in a way proportional to the amount of work they do.
The poor are not poor because of the rich...
Right, because the rich became rich because they did all of the manual labor of their company by themselves at the expense of nobody's health but their own, thus becoming rich only off their own work, and the poor became poor because they never worked their entire lives and just stood around feeling like working and earning money proportional to their effort isn't worth it in comparison to the wonderful world of starvation.
What a fantastically nice world to live in. Too bad it's a fantasy.
It's the rich who create jobs.
No, the Middle and Lower class create jobs by providing the demand for them. The rich are obligated to provide the supply of jobs because without both the supply and demand, the rich wouldn't be able to become rich in the first place. You cannot have one without the other. If one stops, the entire system breaks.
Everyone has a right to the fruits of their labor...
Correct. To bad that people don't because of corporatism. The rich steal all of their fruit from the labor of their workers. You can't look me in the eyes and tell me that a rich fat CEO works harder then the coal miner that labors for him in the mines. If you can, then you're a sick, stupid fuck.
The poor have no right to my earnings.
They do if you earned money off their labor.
So what if they can never spend their all their money.
Money doesn't come from nowhere. Money is a measurement of the of the amount of work you do in your job. If money came from nowhere, it would be worth nothing. Since our entire country hasn't collapsed yet, you can only assume that all of our money is worth something; that all of our money is worth the proportional work of somebody, somewhere. Therefore, all of that money that the rich never use on anything is money that people worked to produce. By hording the fruit of people's labor, that value will never return to the market, or more importantly, the people who worked for it in the first place, which in turn makes the money worth less and less, which then makes everyone's physical labor be worth less and less. To horde money is to not only steal from lesser classes and damage the country's market, but to also make the work effort of laborers be worth less and less over time by never spending that money.
I don't expect you to understand. But good for you if you do. Too bad you're probably going to be a dumb twat and keep arguing against this set of facts.
The majority of their worth is wrapped up in assets anyhow
And this changes the fact that lower and middle class laborers are having their money stolen by fat asses with hot tubs, how?
By the by, the US is the most charitable nation.
That doesn't make up for the horrendous sins of the rich that include them profiting from other people's labor and then sitting on top of that profit and doing nothing with it in the first damn place.
You ignorant bastard. The reason we are in this shit hole is the government putting its overly sized nose into the private sector. Go back and take economics.
And please explain these Risks taken by capitalist.
As for your Father, embrace the horror and stop your whining. That is my advice to you.
And what type of capitalism are you talking about? State Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Mercantilism, Intervention Capitalism, or are you blaming free market capitalism? FREE?
Oh and while your at it. Explain to me what you think capitalism even means?
I'm ignorant? Really now? That's odd, considering you obviously don't realize that the government has never had any amount of power over corporatism to the point of effecting it even a little bit. Go back and look at history.
In fact, you have everything reversed. We're in this economic shit hole because of fat corporate cats bribing politicians the last 11 years into doing absolutely nothing about them taking more and more and more from the market.
Risks taken by corporations: stock market gambling, hording, staying afloat only on the labor of the Middle Class, exploitation of loopholes, bribing Congress, etc...
Right, OH! I HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW MY FAMILY IS SUFFERING UNJUSTLY UNDER A HORRIBLY FLAWED SYSTEM. That is so realistic and such a good argument. Thank you, dickstain. For the record, I can complain if I want, because I choose to fight against what's unjust as opposed to just sitting around getting raped by economic criminals.
I'm talking about corporatism, which I will refer to it as from now on when talking to you and certain others. I heard a very good terminology point from a friend of mine, pointing out that we are not a capitalist country in the first place. Thusly, I'm actually complaining about our sham of a capitalist system: corporatism. I have been being told we had capitalism for so many years that the definition in my mind was scewed into believing that our shitty system was in fact capitalism. I'm glad that that notion is incorrect.
What world do I want to live in? A just world, of course. Where nobody is too wealthy and nobody is too poor, where everyone gets along and there is world peace. But I can't imagine that world ever being achievable if you're going to sit here asking as stupid a question as 'what kind of a world do you want to live in?'
History speaks for itself, communism cannot work, it's just simple human nature. Look at the soviet union, they were a communist regime, and what happened to their economy, it destroyed itself. Humans work to benefit themselves, in capitalism they benefit from working, in communism, they don't, they are expected to work for the sake of working, as such in communism people do not work hard, because they know they can float by without lifting a finger, and everyone else wants a free ride, so they stop working as well. Because no one's working, no one's making anything, so no one gets anything, because there is nothing to get. It's been known since the dawn of civilization that no one works for the sake of working.
capitalism has the plus value and is given to the boss for your labor the working class doesn't get as much as the first class even though they put more time and effort. In socialism you work for yourself and the community. Socialism is less selfish and greedy and as a matter of fact, socialist countries have lower unemployment rates than capitalist countries.
"Legalized theft" doesn't show it in a good light like "rewards"...
Still, it wouldn't be theft, if everything produced is publicly owned, who are you stealing from? You would technically be stealing from yourself as well as everyone else. There should be enough 'x' to supply the entire nation anyway, so nobody loses anything.
So? They still will earn more and still have better means. They will still be, for all intents and purposes, richer. Capitalism on the other hand would allow the poor to either die or be taken over complete control. Where are you morals in that scenario?
"how fair is that"
Well the rich people can't complain because they still remain richer and the poor don't complain.
I would read whatever right wing article you posted but you never give me the courtesy of addressing my whole argument so I will ignore it.
The morals and solution lies with the people who have hearts and donate to the poor WILLINGLY.
You can't come along and say...hey you have more...hand it over. If that person wants to give...then so be it. If they don't then they should not be forced. To take away unfairly is stealing.
I tithe to my church...I give money to support two children ever month. I make blankets for those poor in nursing homes and for crisis pregnancy centers. And when I see someone standing outside asking for money....I give. I am fortunate to be able to have a girl come clean my house every week...and I help her out with extras. I bought four bus tickets last year for part of her family to travel to Mexico City to see her mother and family. That was not cheap. I am not saying this to pump myself up...and look great because I could always do more. I am blessed to have a lot. The point is I give WILLINGLY. And I know a lot of people who do this same. A man in my bible study last week bought a car for a woman who had none, who is poor and had no way to get to work or church. There are wonderful people out there who come through in times of trouble. Look at the outpouring of love after Katrina. At our church people took some in that came from that area. We set them up in apartments with clothes and everything they need. People helped from all over the country.
Whether the rich complain or not is not the issue. The issue is...is taking more from the rich because they make more...right. Is it stealing?
What did I not address? I would be happy to do so. Right wing article? How so?
All taxes are "theft", how such "theft" is done is irrelevant to whether or not it is what it is.
Technically, taxes are not theft because the government doesn't define them that way for obvious reasons.
The real question, without all the fanciful imagery of "theft" is : Are voluntary donations good enough when compared to progressive taxation? I would reckon math and game theory supports progressive taxation as superior to voluntary donations. It would be difficult to use empirical data, since it would be difficult to eliminate the presence of tax in experiments. The government would have to agree to some type of secret double blind study involving tax breaks to representative samples of society.
If you would like, I can show you the math on why progressive taxation is preferred over a flat tax, in terms of wealth distribution(a major factor in general quality of life) and the flow of money.
Also, I would argue there is nothing inherently socialistic about progressive taxation, especially since it may even help the rich if they own a business which sells domestically. (it creates a more lucrative market, capable of buying a wider range of products,with more niches(assuming production costs might be prohibitively high for some niches and such, if wealth distribution was too imbalanced))
Capitalism and socialism both operate off of similar principles, (well, depending on if we have the same concepts in mind) the difference is who has the power and control. The difference is if capital is privately owned, or commonly owned. Rather than the rich owning things exclusively, the poor and middle class would also share in ownership. This can be done in a free market, if only co-ops could manage to compete. However, like in politics, the more owners/voters, the slower things get done. A dictator has his military advantages.
"The morals and solution lies with the people who have hearts and donate to the poor WILLINGLY"
Willing donation is not numerous enough.
"You can't come along and say...hey you have more...hand it over. "
In a capitalist state no you can't but in an idealist socialist state people would gladly accept. That is the reason it is an impossible system, such thought isn't dominant.
"The issue is...is taking more from the rich because they make more...right. Is it stealing?"
Considering their means surpass their utility, yes it could be right from a point of view. And again, it wouldn't be stealing because the product is the product of community.
"What did I not address? I would be happy to do so"
Let's see, your posts on school politics sprout from a single sentence on one of my posts however you left the rest of the arguments presented unanswered. Other then that, there are a couple of posts you have failed to respond to. And I assume that the article I will not read is more right wing nonsense as your other articles are.
Cuba is easily one of the best examples right now, though under a communist regime. With an effective planned economy, generally great universal health care and an impressive literacy rate, it's doing quite well for itself. Hell, they even have the best carbon output ratio.
The fact is the people in Cuba are NOT FREE. How good could that be, you tell me? Would you rather have a roof over your head even if it is a shack, or be free? They don't have great anything....not when they are not free. Not when they try to flee Cuba in small boats...most that don't even make it to our shores.
" In Castro's Cuba, it is a crime to meet to discuss the economy, to write letters to the government, to report on political developments, to speak to international reporters, to advocate human rights, to visit friends or relatives outside your local area of residence without government permission. Cubans are arrested without warrants and prosecuted for "failing to denounce" fellow citizens, for general "dangerousness," and, should some crime not be covered by these criminal code provisions, for "other acts against state security."
I wouldn't trust most sources on Cuba, the cold war still has its ghost hanging around. Mis-information is common.
You should read up on the cia, they are a intriguing organization with a interesting history, especially when it comes to "socialist or communist agents".
Would you like to live there. The average wage is 16 dollars a month. Not that much freedom.Was voted ranking 114 of 226 world countries. The best example is rated 114 that's pretty bad.
You don't get it do you, we're not talking about theft like stealing someone's wallet, we're talking about theft of skill, of labor, of the sweat on a man's brow. Also, by it's vary nature socialism doesn't reward anyone, that's the whole point of socialism, you get everything for nothing. Socialism is the belief that there's an infinite anoumt of sandwiches and homes just coming into existance when someone's hungry. Both socialism and classical liberalism have the same problem, they don't know why we have jobs in the first place.