Posted by Tina
Although we defeated the fascist in WWII the end of that war didn’t mean an end to socialism. War, it was observed, was destructive to infrastructure and inflicted crippling damage to the work force. A new idea was hatched to fundamentally transform free nations from within; Social Democracy is form of government the resulting form. European countries having been feudal were a natural fit, ideas of dependency still thrived in the DNA. America, a republic, was more resistant but still, doable even if it could take a hundred years or more to accomplish. It’s incredible to think about how far we’ve gone down that road.
Democratic Socialism – Wikipedia
Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and social democracy, where “social democracy” refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[2] The distinction with the former is made on the basis of the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century,[3] while the distinction with the latter is made in that democratic socialism is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while social democracy is not.[4] That is, whereas social democrats seek only to “humanize” capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as being inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality, and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, so that capitalism can never be sufficiently “humanized” and must ultimately be replaced by socialism. (emphasis mine)
Several things things strike me immediately about this definition. The first is that America was founded as a republic, not a democracy.
The second is the word “solidarity” in the phrase, “values of freedom, equality, and solidarity.” America wasn’t founded on the value of “solidarity.” It was founded on the values of individual freedom, equality, and property rights. The word solidarity in this context connotes a group. The individual become secondary to the group. (Invariably a group decides that some don’t belong in the group. In Germany it was the Jews. Today’s Democratic Socialists single out corporations but if you dig deep in many cases you find it’s once again the Jews who “own” the corporations and banks).
The third is that democratic socialism is a form of government that is completely incompatible with our founding values and as such, completely at odds with our Constitution, which guarantees every citizen the right of individual freedom and property rights.
The fourth is that Social Democracy acts simply as a bridge to the ultimate goal which is socialism. The leadership of the Democrat Party, and many of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, embrace Social Democracy. Whether this embrace evolved from fascist or Marxist principles matters not. The end goal is still central control and an end to private ownership and our personal liberties..
We must reject these socialist ideas. The Conservative movement is dedicated to returning our nation to it’s intended form and restoring lost liberties to make us one nation of free and equal citizens.
Tina: “he first is that America was founded as a republic, not a democracy.”
Tina, tell me what is wrong with the following sentence:
“Tina is a Republican, not an American.”
If your answer is “A Republican is a type of American, you moron,” then you can see what is wrong with your own sentence. A republic is a type of democracy, just as a Republican is a type of democracy. You would not say “I am a Republican, not an American,” so you should not say “America was founded as a republic, not a democracy.”
Do you understand this now?
Ack! The above should say “A republic is a type of democracy, just as a Republican is a type of American.”
Thanks for the arrogant response. Now you answer one.
Why do you think Benjamin Franklin responded with, “A Republic, if you can keep it,” when asked at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
OK, I’ll say it. I mean, really, how can anyone resist that perfect set up from the quintessential arrogant quibbler who just happens to be also wrong?
Chris a type of moron.
(He is the worst type of moron, a snotty, condescending, self aggrandizing one.)
I would request that Chris refrain from using these pages to wag his appendage, but I know that would go unheeded. To play the pompous, sneering jerk is cemented in his personality (if you could actually say that he has a personality.)
A republic is not a type of democracy although it is similar in some respects. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. In socialist democracy — for example the Democrat Party concept of democracy — sovereignty is vested in the state (particularly when Democrats are in power) and the individual is a but a subject of the state.
Bless you Pie. Yet another fabulous way to describe what is the meat of the article as well as the important distinction that our founders deliberately made when forming this nation.
It’s the individual person stupid!!!
Tina: “Thanks for the arrogant response.”
It isn’t arrogant to criticize someone for telling the same disproven lie over and over again for years.
“Now you answer one.”
You haven’t answered mine, but I’ll answer yours: because the United States is a republic. What is your point? The quote differs between a republic and a monarchy, not between a republic and a democracy, so that quote proves nothing.
Democratic Socialism has a specific definition. You seem to be avoiding that subject.
Why on earth should Chris address Democratic Socialism? He is a socialist. Besides, if he actually addressed the subject he would likely had to abandon his main interest in making a snotty, condescending comment that satisfies his voracious troll ego.
Where is the fun in that?
Tina, I’m trying to show you that when you make ridiculous factual errors like the above, it automatically detracts from whatever meaningful points you’re trying to make. I’ve been trying to show you this for what, eight years now?
If you don’t know the basic definition of the government you *live* in, then what’s to discuss? How could a conversation about social democracies be valuable with someone who doesn’t know what their own type of government is?
It would be one thing if you would ever admit error and we could move on, but you and Jack cling so bitterly to them. It’s this whole anti-elitist thing you have going; whenever someone corrects you, you immediately call them “arrogant” and they become the problem, not your own factual errors. It’s very effective with a certain type of voter, but I wonder how many more commenters you might get here if you handled these things differently.
You just demonstrated beautifully how arrogant you are.
What I wrote is not a lie.
You see it as a lie because you are unwilling to expand your understanding or even address the subject at hand…to place the word in context.
If anyone clings bitterly to a belief it is you. Your education is sadly wanting if you cannot even admit that your nation was founded as a republic and for a very good reasons.
“The quote differs between a republic and a monarchy, not between a republic and a democracy, so that quote proves nothing.”
The quote exists in the context of differentiating between a republic and “social democracy,” a republic and “tyrannies of any type. The quote extends from rebellion against the tyranny of a king but the same principals apply against the tyranny of “SOCIAL” democracy. You conveniently left that word out. But even if I had been talking about a democracy as opposed to a republic, the argument remains as distinct. Democracy amounts to mob rule, another system the founders rejected, fiercely!
“Plato’s observations about governments over 2,000 years ago might seem disturbingly familiar to us now”:
Obama represented the epitome of this. One woman who was following him actually believed he was going to give her a house! Too many of our representatives have listened to the siren’s song and believe this is what elections and governing are about.
Conservatism is about honoring the founding principles and the Constitution. It’s about serving the public rather than satisfying the demands of special interests or following popular whims.
Ted Cruz cares deeply about the founding principles. Which is why my first choice is Ted Cruz. Our republic is the form of government that has given flawed humans the best form of government devised to protect the rights of the individual and establish opportunity for every citizen to advance as far as his desires and ambition will take him…the pursuit of happiness.
Social Democracy moves toward tyranny and away from our Constitution and republic. The leadership of those pushing SD formed their ideals from Marx and Lenin, systems that produce at best mediocre results (See Greece, the old USSR, Venezuela…).
“Democracy is the road to socialism.” — Karl Marx (father of communism)
The founders chose to give us a republic. As Pie articulated so well: “Sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. In socialist democracy — for example the Democrat Party concept of democracy — sovereignty is vested in the state…and the individual is a but a subject of the state.
Tina: “What I wrote is not a lie.”
Yes, it was. So is this:
“Your education is sadly wanting if you cannot even admit that your nation was founded as a republic and for a very good reasons.”
I literally just admitted that our nation was founded as a republic:
“You haven’t answered mine, but I’ll answer yours: because the United States is a republic. What is your point?…”
I know you read that comment, because you quoted a part of it.
Why did you claim that I have not admitted the United States is a republic, when you knew that I had just said that? And what am I supposed to call it when you say things you know are not true, other than “lies?” Is there a more politically correct word you prefer?
Do you see why I find it pointless to engage with you on the larger subject, the merit of social democracies? You’ve made it abundantly clear that you will misrepresent my arguments in the most obvious ways possible, and that you will twist yourself into absurd logical pretzels to avoid ever admitting error. So yes, it is more productive to simply correct your many, many factual errors so that readers on the fence won’t be swayed by them instead of engaging your larger point.
“The quote exists in the context of differentiating between a republic and “social democracy,” a republic and “tyrannies of any type. The quote extends from rebellion against the tyranny of a king but the same principals apply against the tyranny of “SOCIAL” democracy.”
You have no idea what you are talking about. The quote from Franklin we are talking about could not possibly have differentiated between a republic and a “social democracy,” because there was no such thing as a social democracy in that time. The quote very clearly refers to the differentiation between a republic and a monarchy. That is exactly what it says, and that is exactly what it means.
“You conveniently left that word out.”
Are you high? YOU are the one who left the word “social” out when you wrote this(!):
“The first is that America was founded as a republic, not a democracy.”
How can you possibly accuse me of taking you out of context when you purposefully, intentionally left out context that would have made your statement more accurate?
More later.
Pie: “A republic is not a type of democracy although it is similar in some respects”
Forget that several dictionaries, Founding Fathers, and every modern president has called us a democracy; Pie has spoken, and his word is God.
Right-leaning law professor Eugene Volokh weighs in:
“I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.
The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/
The terms “democracy” and “republic” have been conflated ever since this country was founded and before. The people at that time understood the context and used them interchangeably, but the distinction is not a false dichotomy, it is a rigorous application of meaning for each term. Dictionaries go follow current common usage.
I find the distinction important, you could not care less, and in that I think you are wrong. Eugene Volokh is entitled to his opinion as are you, and Supreme Court Justices can be a sloppy as they like.
Your snotty, condescending attitude towards Tina and your ceaseless nitpicking and tedious harangues disgust me. Tina is not wrong, nor is she a liar.
Re “Pie has spoken, and his word is God.” Drop dead.
Most of this response is fair.
There’s the Democrat party (notice I did not say “democratic”) that our parents grew up with, and then there’s today’s Demwits.
Doubt if our parents would recognize or agree with much of what the Demwits stand for today. The Repubs are nearly unrecognizable as well these days with their “go-along-to-get-along” attitude and their lack of backbone on serious issues.
Gonna be snowing in Hades before I ever vote for an incumbent again . . . . .
“we are a representative democracy”
Yes…a republic. Representative democracy is called a republic.
“Social democracy” is a different animal. That is what you lefties want for America and YOU HAVE SAID SO…that is what exist in Europe, your favorite socialist bastion!
The article was about social democracy (socialism defining democracy). It was not about the word democracy or it’s definition. Get with the program and admit it…you love socialism and support the idea that we in America should continue to become as serfs, dependent and controlled by the state!
Tina: “Yes…a republic. Representative democracy is called a republic.”
Thank you. Why couldn’t you have said that at the beginning?
The above statement is completely antithetical to this quote of yours:
“America was founded as a republic, not a democracy.”
It makes no sense to say “We are X, not Y” and then say “These Ys are called X.”
But you can’t admit that this is a contradiction because I’m “arrogant.”
““Democracy is the road to socialism.” — Karl Marx (father of communism)”
Karl Marx never said that. The quote is made up.
Chris you are one piece of work. You nit pick…you joust at windmills…all to prove I’m a liar?
As always I will leave it to our readers to decide for themselves.
Okay, the quote is “made up.”
What about the sentiment expressed in the quote?
Wikipedia
The abolition of private property. Bernie Sanders is driving this train, as is Dewey. Libby, Like Bernie, comes right out and claims her preference for a communal society, so she too is on that train. And you? You are under the delusion that a social democracy, a la Europe, is somehow is different.
The President is out campaigning with his “peddling fiction” speech. His polices have led to the worst economy since the great depression. His “signature achievement” was a huge step toward total control of the healthcare industry. His environmental polices have controlled private industry in fuels and energy. Government interference has never gotten greater than it has under this president but it’s been happening incrementally for decades.
Today he’s out there trying to tell people we’re doing just fine under the weight of “progressive (socialist) policies.
If you want to tackle a lie you might want to take that one on…it’s a doozy.
Tina: “His polices have led to the worst economy since the Great Depression”
Lie. By every measure, our economy is doing better than it was in 2010, the peak of the Great Recession, which began before Obama had implemented a single policy and which was a worldwide event. Since then our economy has slowly but steadily improved. You may not be satisfied with the pace of the recovery, but to say our economy is worse today than at any time since the Great Depression is flat-out bonkers, and relies on having the memory of a hamster.
You say I’m nitpicking but you’re the one who keeps saying we are a republic not a democracy. How is that not nitpicking? At least my nitpicks are true.
So What Does This All Mean?
The economy under the presidency of Barack Obama has performed well. However, the economy is a beast of its own. Just because the economy has shown positive growth under Barack Obama doesn’t mean he is directly responsible for it. I’m not saying he hasn’t done a good job, but rather that correlation does not prove causation. The real question is: how much have Barack Obama’s policies contributed to the growth of the economy since The Great Recession? Now, that is a subject for much more debate…
https://www.equities.com/news/how-has-the-economy-performed-under-barack-obama
That is a surprisingly fair and balanced article, and should be required reading for everyone on both the left and the right.
Surprisingly? What a jerk. You might not be so despised if you were not such arrogant jerk. Yeah, I know, you don’t have it in you. Troll.
Yes, Pie, “surprisingly, because most of the articles you link to have a right”-leaning bent, and are thus not exactly “fair and balanced.” That wasn’t a criticism, that’s just reality. I’d say I’m sorry you took it as an insult, but you’re responsible for your own overly emotional reactions, not me.
I can just imagine the high praise a President Republican would be receiving with this record. A stock market propped up artificially through QE to it’s highest level ever and the rich making more and more money from it while the middle class falls into the ranks of the poor. Black unemployment even worse. Oh, and how about economic stats being manipulated to make the president look good and then quietly adjusted downward the following month…that would become a huge reason to mock a President Republican.
A smiley face can be placed over any group of statistics. As always the liberals, and the liberal press, rely on symbolism and magic to paint a lovely positive picture.
The question for me is how does this economy stand up compared to an economy built on actual robust growth?
And why are we pretending that, since the stock market numbers are up, the middle class and the poor have fared well under Obama? The left should be ripping it’s communal hair out in anger! These people are “their people.” Or are they? The rich, the big banks, the big health insurance companies, Big GM, the big green technology companies, have done extremely well under Obama!
“Black unemployment even worse.”
False. Black unemployment is at a seven-year low.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/07/news/economy/black-unemployment/
Will you correct this false claim, please?
“Oh, and how about economic stats being manipulated to make the president look good and then quietly adjusted downward the following month…that would become a huge reason to mock a President Republican.”
Yes, it would be, if there were any actual evidence of it.
Do you care at all about the actual conditions in peoples lives over the last seven years?
September 2011, Investment Watch Blog, “African-Americans are suffering inordinately in the Obama aftermath of the Bush Great Recession. While overall U.S. unemployment stands at 9.1%, black unemployment has jumped to 16.7%. Black teenage unemployment is bordering on 50%, and that figure doesn’t even take into account “discouraged” workers, “involuntary” part-time workers and “underemployed” workers. But even these numbers don’t tell the real story. They represent real people who are suffering deeply and have been suffering for a long, long time.”
January 2013, NewsMax, “Ben Jealous, CEO and president of the NAACP, said on Sunday that the unemployment rate for blacks is worse now than when President Barack Obama first took office.”
August 2013, Washington Examiner, “Black unemployment, which at the end of the Bush administration broke a decades-long pattern of being twice white unemployment, has resumed its disturbing and prolonged trend under President Obama, with the rate among African Americans now at 13.4 percent, according to a new Pew Research report.”
May 2014, National Review, “While 29.6 percent of blacks aged 16 to 19 were working when Obama took power, only 27.9 percent were employed last month. • Poverty has increased under Obama. Overall, 14.3 percent of Americans were below the poverty line in January 2009, versus 15.0 percent in 2012, according to the latest available data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. Similarly, the share of black Americans living in poverty expanded from 25.8 to 27.2 percent.” … America’s population of food-stamp recipients soared overall …For blacks, the analogous numbers are 7,393,000 when Obama arrived to 10,955,000 in 2012.”
January 2016, NewsMax, “The national unemployment rate has dropped to 7 percent, but the jobless rate for blacks has hardly moved since Obama took office, declining from 12.7 percent in 2009 to 12.5 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report. … The poverty rate for blacks sharply increased, rising from 12 percent in 2008 to 16.1 percent Wednesday. Median income declined by 3.6 percent for white households to $58,000, but fell 10.9 percent to $33,500 for black households, Census Bureau figures show.”
I watch the Fox Business channel every morning. I have personally witnessed government statistics being adjusted following the “official monthly report.” One of the reasons is that some states, including California, don’t get their statistics reported in a timely fashion.
There’s your evidence.
Quoting myself: “As always the liberals, and the liberal press, rely on symbolism and magic to paint a lovely positive picture.”
Chris’s response included the following: “Black unemployment is at a seven-year low.”
Case closed.
What a load of crap!
Fred Koch Ideology via 40 years of changing how America thinks.
Chris why bother, it is futile. Critical Thinking will never be an option here.
Truth be told if the mainstream of America read this crap they would say Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs…
Epic Fail.
I smell Blueberry Pie do you?
I smell a narcissistic jackass.
😀 Bingo!
Tina: “Do you care at all about the actual conditions in peoples lives over the last seven years?”
Once again you respond to a question with a question. I asked you if you would retract your false claim that black unemployment is worse now than it was when Obama took office. Instead of answering that, you responded with your own (incredibly vague and essentially meaningless) question. That’s cheating at baseball, Tina.
Again, to be the bigger person, I’ll answer:
Yes, I care about the actual conditions in peoples’ lives over the last seven years. That’s why I think it’s a good thing that the black unemployment rate is lower than it was seven years ago. It’s also why I object when people tell lies about what is actually going on in our economy.
Now will you answer the question I asked you? Will you retract your false claim about the black unemployment rate?
“September 2011, Investment Watch Blog”
Why would you rebut an article from 2016 with an article from 2011 to defend your claim that black unemployment is higher now? Do you believe an article from 2011 could somehow tell us more about the black unemployment rate today than an article from 2016?
“January 2013, NewsMax, “Ben Jealous, CEO and president of the NAACP, said on Sunday that the unemployment rate for blacks is worse now than when President Barack Obama first took office.””
And in 2013, that was true. As of 2016, that is no longer true. This does not support your claim that black unemployment is worse “now” than it was prior to Obama.
This graph shows that, like the unemployment rate for everyone, black unemployment peaked in 2010 and has fallen slowly and steadily ever since. If Obama’s policies were half as destructive as you claimed, that would not have happened.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=V0F
“August 2013, Washington Examiner,”
See above.
“May 2014, National Review, “While 29.6 percent of blacks aged 16 to 19 were working when Obama took power, only 27.9 percent were employed last month.”
You did not say “the black youth unemployment rate.” You said the “black unemployment rate.” I didn’t bother to fact check this statement, because if true, it still wouldn’t support your original claim.
“Poverty has increased under Obama.”
See above, re: having nothing at all to do with your original claim, which was false.
“January 2016, NewsMax, “The national unemployment rate has dropped to 7 percent, but the jobless rate for blacks has hardly moved since Obama took office, declining from 12.7 percent in 2009 to 12.5 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report. …”
That Newsmax article is from 2014, not 2016. You are very bad at knowing what year it is. As the CNN article I linked to showed, the black unemployment rate is now 9%, not 12%. That is the lowest the black unemployment rate has been since August 2008.
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You cite outdated evidence, you can’t remember what year the evidence you’re citing is from, you pretend that unrelated statistics support claims that have already been proven false, and you refuse to acknowledge when you have been proven wrong.
“I watch the Fox Business channel every morning.”
That would seem to be a large part of your problem.
“There’s your evidence.”
It really, really wasn’t.
“Quoting myself: “As always the liberals, and the liberal press, rely on symbolism and magic to paint a lovely positive picture.”
Chris’s response included the following: “Black unemployment is at a seven-year low.”
Case closed.”
I’m sorry; did you just say that citing the black unemployment rate–to rebut a claim you made about the black unemployment rate–is “magic” and “symbolism?”
What is the point of replying to me if you are just going to say such clearly ridiculous things?
” I asked you if you would retract your false claim that black unemployment is worse now than it was when Obama took office. ”
Sorry Chris, I thought you were brighter than you demonstrate. I answered your question by offering a boatload of information that showed the extremely poor condition blacks have been in for seven years. I guess that has no meaning for you.
But your question to begin with is just another sham. Your pathetic little quote does nothing to illustrate the true condition of the least seven years. You don’t want to talk about that so you make an attempt to shame me, to make me the bad guy. You just end up looking like an a$$ as far as I’m concerned.
I posted current BLS and Census Bureau information via NewsMax: “January 2016, “The national unemployment rate has dropped to 7 percent, but the jobless rate for blacks has hardly moved since Obama took office, declining from 12.7 percent in 2009 to 12.5 percent, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report. … The poverty rate for blacks sharply increased, rising from 12 percent in 2008 to 16.1 percent Wednesday. Median income declined by 3.6 percent for white households to $58,000, but fell 10.9 percent to $33,500 for black households, Census Bureau figures show.”
I don’t know what the he77, “Black unemployment is at a seven-year low” is supposed to communicate but I’m pretty sure the information doesn’t adequately express the truth about how blacks have suffered under Obama’s economic policies.
And it certainly didn’t come from the latest reports by the census bureau or the BLS. In fact, if .2% is something to brag about over a seven year period when median incomes have fallen and poverty rates have risen that’s downright pathetic! Especially when this man came to office bragging about how much better things would be with him in charge and denigrating his predecessor:
“America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”
Our debt is now $18.9 trillion, more than double in less time.
When will you admit that this President has failed the American people through his economic policies and that blacks have fared the worst?
“I posted current BLS and Census Bureau information via NewsMax: “January 2016…”
Tina, one more time, and please read carefully:
That Newsmax article was written in 2014, not 2016. Click the link you provided yourself if you don’t believe me. I pointed that out in my previous comment, but I can understand why in your anger at me you didn’t fully read it.
According to the latest BLS report, the black unemployment rate last month (December 2015) was 8.3%, far lower than the 12% rate mentioned in your 2014 Newsmax article.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
You provided no other current stats for the black unemployment rate, other than the 2014 Newsmax article which you erroneously thought was from 2016.
Now that you know your article was not current, and that the black unemployment rate is 8.3%–lower than it has been in seven years–will you acknowledge your error and admit you were wrong to claim that black unemployment is worse now than it was when Obama took office?
Enjoy watching Milton Friedman OWN this socialist who thinks he can equate greed with capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs
Peggy I remember those Phil Donahue shows when he interviewed important thinkers. I didn’t know who Milton Friedman was back then. Donahue always looked so interested but I’m sure the pure logic and truth Friedman spoke escaped Donahue completely…he remained a staunch liberal. It ‘s seems like lefties can’t conceive of a charitable heart unless it resides in the seat of government. They reject freedom and the “greed” of capitalism, people pursuing their own interests and taking care of themselves and their families, believing that it means they are better people…kinder and more compassionate. There’s no evidence of that but it feeeeels good.
I’ve heard so many wealthy people say that they never thought about getting rich, that they simply pursued what interested them and the money followed. Some say they got lucky but can you call achievement like that luck? I don’t think so…fate maybe…or Gods blessing.
Loved Friedman’s point that it’s always the other guy, and never ourselves, who are thought of as greedy.
Thanks for the great video…great way to dust off my feet.
I’m off to catch some Zzzzzzzzzzz.
I was a fan of the Donohue show too. It was a new and unique format and quit entertaining.
D’Souza in his new book “Stealing America” does a good job of pointing out the differences between greed, jealousy and envy. And how jealousy can be a motivator for improving our position in life, but greed and envy is driven by taking what others have.
Progressivism is based on a con to obtain what others have because of their envy and belief that they can’t earn it on their own. Therefore, they can only move up the social/economic ladder by taking from those who have more lowering their standing.
Alinsky learned from the Chicago mob how to master the con artist game of extorting from others on a local community level. Hillary during her time with him learned the process but believed she could expand the process from just the local level to the national and global level. She’s had a successful run of pulling off her plan for decades, time will tell if she will continue or the con is over.
The gov’t has taken over people’s charitable hearts. Church attendance is declining and with increasing taxes people are feeling they gave at the office through forced withdrawals to fund all of the gov’t’s charity programs. When the church only ask for a 10% tithe and the gov’t takes 30% and more taxpayers are feeling they’ve already given their share.
Christ taught take care of those who couldn’t take care of themselves, but he also taught, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.”
2 Thessalonians 3
Those Who Are Lazy
3 1-3 One more thing, friends: Pray for us. Pray that the Master’s Word will simply take off and race through the country to a groundswell of response, just as it did among you. And pray that we’ll be rescued from these scoundrels who are trying to do us in. I’m finding that not all “believers” are believers. But the Master never lets us down. He’ll stick by you and protect you from evil.
4-5 Because of the Master, we have great confidence in you. We know you’re doing everything we told you and will continue doing it. May the Master take you by the hand and lead you along the path of God’s love and Christ’s endurance.
6-9 Our orders—backed up by the Master, Jesus—are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don’t permit them to freeload on the rest. We showed you how to pull your weight when we were with you, so get on with it. We didn’t sit around on our hands expecting others to take care of us. In fact, we worked our fingers to the bone, up half the night moonlighting so you wouldn’t be burdened with taking care of us. And it wasn’t because we didn’t have a right to your support; we did. We simply wanted to provide an example of diligence, hoping it would prove contagious.
10-13 Don’t you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” And now we’re getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediately—no excuses, no arguments—and earn their own keep. Friends, don’t slack off in doing your duty.
14-15 If anyone refuses to obey our clear command written in this letter, don’t let him get by with it. Point out such a person and refuse to subsidize his freeloading. Maybe then he’ll think twice. But don’t treat him as an enemy. Sit him down and talk about the problem as someone who cares.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+3&version=MSG
Good wisdom Peggy. Our country has sure moved away from such wisdom.
I don’t think of “freeloaders” as an enemy. I think of those who use them as an enemy to our values and Constitution. They have made themselves our enemy through their efforts to undermine the one system that respects every individual and offers each the opportunity to work for and realize their dreams.
Within this system was the realization that a well educated populace would help to sustain the nation. We set about to make certain that a good education was available to all children. The enemies of freedom have undermined education in America too, filling young minds with crap and robbing future generations of the opportunity the American system afforded them. They’ve taught young people that covetousness is honorable and government dependency derives from caring! Their efforts are even more evil for the pretentious face of compassion they wear to sell their communal commie garbage. At this point it’s difficult to view them as other than scum.
There is something screwy with the Newsmax article. The article is dated 2014 but the BLS page is dated 2016, and the census bureau link leads to a New York paper. So you got me there.
If I’m cheating at baseball you’re claiming to be observing a soccer game while seated at the Met.
I didn’t say the black unemployment rate was worse now than when Obama took office…YOU DID.
I said, “I can just imagine the high praise a President Republican would be receiving with this record. A stock market propped up artificially through QE to it’s highest level ever and the rich making more and more money from it while the middle class falls into the ranks of the poor. Black unemployment even worse.”
I was talking about how the left media would be talking about this record were it a Republican sitting in the oval office. I was talking about the overall record of a seven year sitting president. And Overall the situation for blacks has been worse under Obama.
You put thoughts in my head and then rail against them.
You don’t want to address either the issue that BO gets propped up by the media or the fact that this lousy economic record under a republican term would have gotten, would get, a lot of really bad press.
I should learn to ignore your crap Chris, as others on this blog have wisely done.
Moving on…
“I didn’t say the black unemployment rate was worse now than when Obama took office…YOU DID.”
HAHAHAHAHA
What the hell is “Black unemployment even worse” supposed to mean other than that?! This is your worst excuse yet.
“I was talking about the overall record of a seven year sitting president. And Overall the situation for blacks has been worse under Obama.”
As usual, you made a specific claim. You spent a lot of time and effort trying to prove that specific claim, and when that specific claim was proven incorrect, you try and cover by saying you were talking about the “overall situation,” so it doesn’t matter that your specific claim was wrong.
This is dishonest, Tina. I know you will never admit it. But that doesn’t mean I’ll ever let you get away with it.
Believe what you want…
That specific claim is accurate.
This economy SUCKS. It has sucked for seven years. The economy is “doing better” is a lousy excuse for a total failure to create policy that creates a robust economy offering the middle class and the poor a chance to better themselves.
You are a liar and a snake for trying so damn hard to prop up Obama’s LOUSY record on the economy and for using me as a whipping post in your sick game. You disgust me Chris. You’ve called me a racist, which I am not, and here you are placing politics above the well being of real live human beings.
I am done.
Tina: “That specific claim is accurate.”
WHICH specific claim? The claim “Black unemployment even worse?” No, that is not accurate, as I have conclusively proven: it has fallen from 12.7% in 2009 to 8.3% now.
Are you denying that fact?
“You are a liar”
Oh, go look in a mirror. This isn’t the first time you have clung to a lie after it’s been proven wrong and I guarantee it won’t be the last.
Tonight socialist snow plows are out in a DMV area storm. The socialist police are being called out as needed.
Imagine that in the Conservative privatized narrative where if you do not pay a company who’s goal is to make money for investors the streets are not patrolled and no plows come to your area.
Your house burns down if you can not afford to pay. The cops do ot show up unless you have a card card.
This whole socialist narrative is crap. Do not cash your socialist Social security checks, do not use those socialist vets benefits and medicare and print this crap. Hypocrisy period.
This country was a democratic socialist country which balanced a capitalist economic system.
We are not selling off America. We will fight for clean water and food. Healthcare as well.
We are now a fascist country ran by the few.
When 62 people own more than 1/2 the worlds wealth we have a problem.
When Tea Party Gov’s allow people to be poisoned to make more money for a privatized water company I think the agenda is clear.
#Flint
Tonight local civil servants are plowing roads and the local police, also civil servants, are on the streets, as usual, serving the local public. Dewey is once again confused and imagining he knows how conservatives think. Too bad he s unwilling to know the truth. Then he spells out an Oh S#!*, we’re all going to die scenario because he can’t imagine that people are capable of locally organizing and taking care of themselves. His solution of course is a big powerful benevolent dictator with a vast bureaucracy to handle our lives right down to the cops on the street. Really?
Go ahead and cash that social security check; it’s the only option available for those of us forced to pay into it for all of our working lives.
However, I suggest we also be willing to consider alternative ideas for retirement plans for future generations; I do so for several reasons. 1. Americans should have choices, SS commands participation in only one (monopolistic) plan. 2. The current SS plan is not sustainable. 3. The current SS plan is adding greatly to our debt. 3. The baby boomer generation was a large body paying into a system to support the smaller body of retirees, our parents. The reverse is true now. The large baby boom generation will require support from a smaller body of workers placing a greater burden on them and/or more debt. In years with high unemployment (ahem, the lest seven), the burden and debt are bound to be greater. 4. There are examples to draw from that have shown private accounts offer retirees a much better return for their money. 5. I have children and grandchildren that deserve better than this antiquated, socialist centered plan.
Also consider this: You don’t have to “fight” for clean water and air when you realize other people are just as interested as you are in both for their own survival and that of their families. Calling attention to unperceived problems is a noble thing to do in a free country. Using what you have discovered as a weapon to demonize companies, to extract cash from citizens, to create a false crisis, to divide and shame them, is anything but noble…it is profoundly immoral and vile.
To the degree that we have adopted socialist policies and programs we have become fascist. Obamacare is such a program. Our government worked with the biggest health care insurance providers to control the industry from Washington DC. Let me remind you what fascism is:
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls…
The remainder of the definition comes from the fascism of WWII but we can even see the seeds of these in our society today:
“…violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”
We’ve seen attempts to violently suppress cops and turn blacks and other minorities against whites and Jews.
62, 75, 90, 56 people will always be among the worlds wealthiest people. They will not always be the same people. This is a condition that will not change unless the fascist and communists have their way and finally destroy the last vestiges of independence and freedom. Capitalism is not a zero sum game.
“When Tea Party Gov’s allow people to be poisoned to make more money for a privatized water company….”
Or when the EPA allows the clean up of an old mine to become a toxic spill in a Colorado river that flows through several states….
According to Huffington Post it’s unclear how the decision was made to opt for the Flint River for it’s water. The problem has it’s origins in a poorly run city (Democrat), that was dead broke and looking for answers:
The Governor appointed a manager to oversee the debt problem. There was a breakdown in communications. In the aftermath there seems to be a lot of finger pointing and passing the buck. Only the governor, as far as I can tell, is willing to shoulder the responsibility:
Come on Dewey, people make mistakes, all people!
Radical Democrats like you seem to enjoy using them to further your fascist ambitions.