cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Noam likes Jews, right?

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Sounds a lot like blaming your problems on everyone/everything else. You don't have to be born into a rich family or good school district to go to college. You also don't need to go to college to be successful. I know plenty of people who never went to college and did pretty damn well for themselves through old fashioned hard work.

My father for instance worked his way through the pest control industry and at one point was manager at a plant for ConAgra. He decided to switch careers to sales in 2007 and we all know what happened in 2008. He lost everything and what did he do? Went back to school and got into another career.

My grandfather came here from Germany and worked his way up in a pattern making shop which he eventually bought from the owner by mortgaging his home. When he was done with that shop he had taken it from 12 employees to over 120 and it was the largest privately owned pattern making shop in the US. He had contracts with Ford, GM, and Chrysler. He sold it and he lives like a boss.

I could keep going but I think you get the drift. You get out of life what you put into it. I am not saying you do not work hard but you probably make poor decisions when it comes to taking advantage of opportunities that are available to you. Sometimes you get burned like my father but you have to just get back up and not wallow in your sorrows.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

no one evil, like chomsky, likes the jews.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

**** unions, and the wusses who try to FORCE them on companies. Especially **** the government unions. Union and monopoly...unbelievable.

I'm a business owner who works 60 hours a week. I get paid last and sometimes not at all, while the ******* government gets paid first, and THEY are my main impediment to success. I spend more on government forms and byzantine accounting practices than I do on sales.

2ndGearRubber

Don't force them on companies, refuse to work and keep "scabs" out, until demands are met. But I guess It's better we all work for pennies building Carnegie's steel and pumping Rockefeller's oil. I heard the Asbestos industry is booming, they say they're no health risks!

The industrial revolution produced a huge economic boom, but for quite a while all they did for workers was send them to slums.


Chomsky "likes" communism because it can make huge advances in standards of living in a single generation. Not saying the "communist" regimes (which are not really communists by any stretch of the imagination, maybe socialistic dictatorships and oligarchies) are all good. But the system leads to rapid economic expansion. As for real communism, think native Americans. All for one, and one for all.

2ndGearRubber

And it's not that I want any government intervention either. Corporations buy the government, and to me, it makes them very much the same.

I just want people to stand up and realize that they have power. We don't need universal health care, we don't need government handouts, we don't need spoon-feed. We need common sense, less government, and an overhaul of the court system, in both criminal and civil matters. They (whether the church, state gov, local gov, the feds, the corporations) need they're crowned heads severed from the body of the devil. It's hard enough to protect basic rights and freedoms, without the evils of alarmist government and corrupt businesses working together.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

Gotcha; thanks. I was familiar with the SNAP program, just not the details of the card.

You made a mistake in your retelling of the story when you said the convenience store clerk had "showed a $7,000+ receipt" and SNAP card holders "drop $2,000 and more on their SNAP cards."

What the convenience store clerk said was that people had $2,000 or $7,000 balances on their SNAP cards. That's different - not necessarily better - than somebody coming in and spending $2k - $7k on stuff at a convenience store.


Making no value judgment one way or the other, it may be worth pointing out that those numbers above work out to a mean of $118 and $109 per person per month, respectively.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Jack, I think you can imagine the seeing the steam rising behind my eyes when I see stuff like this. I take it personally (and shouldn't) because I think these programs--short term--are OK. But I see them as enslaving another generation to the teat of the government at best, and pure thievery at worst.

As for our Chomsky-loving, union-friendly friend, the facts have NEVER borne out the rhetoric for Socialism or Communism. However, those "isms" have proven effective at murdering their own people--to the tune of 150 million in the short time they've been an idea. A failed idea.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

For sure. Social welfare programs like food stamps, Medicare and unemployment insurance that most of us imagine should be used as safety nets are a tricky one for me.

Growing up, my family went through some difficult periods where we utilized programs like food stamps and WIC. They were used as designed, as short term supplements during a transitional period.

On the other hand, there is fraud and abuse of almost every single progam known to mankind. The questions become how pervasive is that fraud and abuse and are there practical ways to reduce or discourage it?


That's why I pointed out that the mean payout to the SNAP recipipients based on the stats cited in the article you linked to were less than $120 per month per family. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the government should be giving $1,440 per year as gifts to people just because. And anyone who is able to accumulate thousands of dollars as balances on their SNAP cards are obviously not on the verge of starvation.

But, to put that in perspective, my wife and I spend (way) more than that just on lunches in a given year. $120 per month is less than $4 per day of assistance.


My point is that it is completely unclear whether there is a significant amount of fraud and abuse such that the whole system is a failure or if there is a small minority of abusers that get all the attention. e.g. mass shooters who use semi-auto rifles.

2ndGearRubber

Again, I reiterate, there has NEVER been a communist government in the modern world. There have been dictators, hiding behind the veil of communism. If you think China, the USSR, or Cuba, are communists, you don't have the slightest idea what Marx was talking about. I don't dick-ride communism, or "communism" since the actions of modern "communists" aren't consistent with the original manifesto.

However, it does have a single advantage; massive increases in a nations economic power and average standard of living in a single generation. These are undeniable, but I don't think it makes up for the human rights violations in those same societies. Although, a stronger economy and higher standards of living seem like the kind of Machiavellian, ends justify the means, politics that often pop-up on this board.



As for unions, they can be part of the problem. People need to organize for themselves, not feed the modern union machine, which can be as dangerous as the corporations they "protect" workers from. There's a difference between staging a walk-out, or protesting, and being forced to pay union dues against your will. In my experience, the modern corporate unions are useless. At best, they put themselves out of business with unrealistic demands. At worst, they are a tool of the companies workers are trying to negotiate with,

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

What is clear is that there are now over 47 million Americans on food stamps at a cost of $78 Billion dollars. It's also clear now that this is the plan. Where historically government has been about 17.8% of GDP, we're now pushing 25-26%. That's not enough for Obama. He wants government to be at 45-50% of GDP, which is default fascism and socialist redistribution.

Food stamps is just one area of waste and overexpansion. That's the sad part.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

You're right, I don't, but to be fair, Marx didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about either, so I'm not too concerned.

Historically, what kind of societies and/or governments existed before these "massive increases in a nations economic power and average standard of living"? How do those "massive increases" compare to, say, the increase in average wealth and standard of living in nations moving from similar prior situations to a free-enterprise economy and representative government?

Lulz. That old trope? Primitive communism, indeed.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

[QUOTE=
Lulz. That old trope? Primitive communism, indeed.[/QUOTE]

Let the man have his pipe dream.

2ndGearRubber

Marx was a thinker, not a do-er. The manifesto, while a bit dry, is interesting reading. Amazing how something so small can start something like the cold war. Anyways, Marx didn't believe his ideas would work perfectly; it was more of a thought experiment.


Compare Russia before the revolution (right after the first world war, 1917ish) to fifty years later, in 1967. They went from peasant farmers under the rule of the Tsar, to one of the most powerful and economically significant countries in the world. In WW1, they sent ill equipped troops to be slaughtered, relying only the frigid winter and raw numbers to win. By the second world war, they were a true world power. They were the ones who captured Berlin. They launched the first object into space, the first nuclear power plant, and became a world power. This, in 50 years.

When you run a command economy (which is what all of these "communist" countries were/are), advancements in relatively short times are much easier than under natural progress under a free-market.



The native americans were just an example of what real communism is, not the BS China and the USSR claimed to be.

Just a reminder, Chomsky was accused of "suppoting" communism. He's never said Stalin era death camps were good. He said it is tempting to developing countries, as for what it promised in terms of quality of life.





TL;DR - Real communism, generally good, but no longer practical. Chomsky says command economies can have quick increases in standards of living. China, Cuba, and the USSR are not communists, they are oligarchical command economies.

EDIT: If only people watched the video. It was interesting. Instead we debate out-of-context chomsky quotes.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Communists, Socialists, Liberals...they have no room for the individual, just the group. Conform. Fit in. Freedom and individuality are subjugated to the "greater good", which is really only great for those in power. The more people on food stamps, assisted housing, medicaid and beholden to "the State", the better. Stay in line or you'll lose your "privileges". Saw it then and we see it now.

And now, of course, they're going for the "prize"; the right to bear arms. Mao and Stalin and Hitler had a field day with their own citizens, once they took their guns.

Is this hyperbolic and inflammatory? Sure...until It's not.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'm not sure that "pure" communism has ever been, or will be, achievable. There seems to be something which is fundamental to the emotional behavior of humans which is incompatible with communism.

You've mentioned native American tribes in the past tense, but those were not communist societies. Tribal structure is, by definition, hierarchical in nature. True, these tribes tended to display collectivist attributes, but an Indian tribe is not at all a classless society, and that is one of the necessary attributes of true communism.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Quit crushing the dream Joe!

2ndGearRubber

I think you're making the mistake of believing that corporations are not trying to accomplish the same things.

I'm as close to 100% pro-gun as they get. I think you should have to register it, at no cost to you, just to say you have it. Kind of like declaring assets. Honestly, I don't really care, but as a political opinion, I extend the no-direct-cost registration as a concession to the "other" side. There is a good discussion about the affect of indirect regulation of consumer choices and how that affects national productivity, and individual economic growth, in there somewhere.


The thing is, the "free market" and "conservative ideals" are not about the individual either. The very rich (1% of 1%) benefit from things like NAFTA. It actually hurts trade, and it only serves as a protection racket for US and First world interests. By controlling trade, and using the "rights" of a corporation, they control the population. "Stay in line, or else." Sound anything like a corporation? Do what we say, stay in line, keep your head down. Or else you'll be blacklisted. So you trade your life to become an indentured servant of such. Business buys legislation allowing them to further expands the "rights" of a non-living entity, then, they control the flow of capital, and suddenly a group of 100 people can control the country.


The main issue in our country today is wage disparity. As the rich get richer, the poor start to realize "hey, us 99% have numbers on our side, lets turn the tables!" Except they can't. Politicians are buffers between the government, and "we the people". Instead of democracy, instead of the "common good", politicians keep the public from raising too much trouble. So why don't the poor create their own party, with their own candidate, and run against the status quo? The answer is business. To compete in such a fast paced environment, with so many distractions, politicians are sold like a product. Neat and tidy, in a nice little wrapper for the consumer to gobble up. Business creates politicians to serve their own goals, this is why we are a republic and not a democracy, despite what they made have told you in school about out great "democracy".


So, in the end, the 99% are kept out of politics, which is really just an elaborate scheme to increase profits of business. The consumer keeps consuming. This is why total deregulation DOES NOT WORK. By unregulated control and speculative investment of capital, the government works to benefit no-one but those who already control the capital, financial institutions and multinational corporations. So the consumer gets boned, since all regulations affect the base, individual consumer, not those actually selling, controlling, and manipulating the market, the people then call for deregulation, as that must solve the problem, right?

We need deregulation of marketplaces (which, for instance, sell guns), and to reinstate the limits we put on the movement of capital and speculative investment. The same regulations we removed to "help the economy".

Opti

Most studies show that free trade helps an economy as a whole, yes it can have some declines like killing non competitive industries/businesses in one country and a loss of some jobs as they migrate to a lower labor cost country but under normal circumstances consumers would see lower costs on goods.

I could barely follow along in some of your paragraphs, but you mentions the poor cant turn the tables on the rich.

Uh I disagree, the poor want entitlement programs and the libs give it to them to buy votes. The go out and earn it attitude is gone from most Americans. They have been taught to hate the rich, because they are rich and obviously dont deserve it. So the poor elect politicians that promise no tax hikes on people making less than 200K, why does there have to be a modifier of less than 200k. How about no tax hikes for anyone? We are all supposed to be equal and have equal rights so how is it fair or right to target certain groups and try (notice I said try, Laffer curve is a bitch) to tax them higher and then it be celebrated, Ill tell you why, because people believe wage disparity is the biggest problem in America. It's no longer "I should do/make/be something productive and I will be rewarded" it has become "Well I have a normal job/no job and instead of doing something to change my circumstances, because it's obviously impossible, Im just going to accept my situation but instead of be happy, I'll just hate people who are making money, because they dont deserve it, because rich people dont work, they are all evil Wall street people and CEOs."

Id say the biggest problem in the country is the 50% of people on gov't assistance instead of being productive members of society, or maybe the gov't raising taxes and giving people "free" **** and hurting the economy. Hell I cant decide whats the biggest problem in the country there is just too many problems to decide.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

BWHAHAHAHAAa....

OMFG. thanks for the laugh.



You fail to remember one thing: