Why does Socialism have a bad name?

Is it because of the Soviet Union? or because the Nazi's?

Neither of them actually practiced true Socialism.

Why can't socialism exist in a democratic society? It perfectly can exist.

In fact, socialism has a place for capitalism, because it distributes wealth according to your production, not your needs like the Soviet Union did.


Here in USA, we throw the word socialism around and link it to Soviet Russia and the Nazi's as if it's the same thing

IT'S NOT! We could benefit from it, couldn't we? A hybrid of capitalism and socialism economic models?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

A hybrid of capitalism and socialism economic models?

---

We've had this for almost a century at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

We've had this for almost a century at least.

---

So why are people freaking out and throwing the word around as if it's the end of America, the end of "freedom and democracy" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

So why are people freaking out and throwing the word around as if it's the end of America, the end of "freedom and democracy" ?

---

Why indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

So why are people freaking out and throwing the word around as if it's the end of America, the end of "freedom and democracy" ?

---

It's rhetoric people use to cause people to freak out. To divide everyone.

Government runs medicare, medicaid, and social security. We're already a socialist country in some ways.

The Cold War and the rhetoric that went along with it.

because socialism goes against the founding of our country.

Because Socialism is one of the core tenants of the Christian Bible and the people who cry loudest about socialism are definitely NOT Christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

because socialism goes against the founding of our country.

---

Which happened a long time ago when people walked or rode horses, and died before 50. The internet goes against their principles, too. Cars, also, you lazy sloths.

you should ask somebody that lived during the hottest time period of the cold war. communism meant being a 5 yr old on the sand thinking "when is it going to rain bombs?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

IT'S NOT! We could benefit from it, couldn't we? A hybrid of capitalism and socialism economic models?

---

:rollin

come on MH. any basic economics class would tell you thats all we've been about post-great depression.

Really, its because the word 'liberal' started losing its negative connotation.. so the free-market, sell-out-our-economy-for-cheap-chinese-crap crowd had to come up with a new word to scare the gullible....we're no more socialists than China is laize-faire...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

So why are people freaking out and throwing the word around as if it's the end of America, the end of "freedom and democracy" ?

---

because about 7 years ago the Right got smart and realized that calling people communists...what they really think the left's goal is...was too easily discredited by saying we aren't the Soviet Union.

So they chose to call the left socialists instead which encompasses a much broader scope and is an easier charge to defend.

I think its funnier that the left calls themselves "progressives" even though that term was about as dirty a word as you could call yourself, it basically did mean you were calling yourself a communist, during the early part of the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

I think its funnier that the left calls themselves "progressives" even though that term was about as dirty a word as you could call yourself, it basically did mean you were calling yourself a communist, during the early part of the 20th century.

---

It's not liberal versus conservative anymore, its Progressive versus Traditionalists, and there is some mixture of both in both movements...the tea-partyer and Progressive goals, while masked in procedure, are actually quite similar if you look at them...of course, the modern democratic party is going to attract real liberals too, just as the GOP attracts monetary conservatives...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

I think its funnier that the left calls themselves "progressives" even though that term was about as dirty a word as you could call yourself, it basically did mean you were calling yourself a communist, during the early part of the 20th century.

---

Is that why Teddy Roosevelt was so popular?

I would argue that most societies that have tried to implement heavily socialist policies tend to not fare so well. If you look at the highly socialist countries today, their citizen don't seem much better off in general than non-socialist societies. I think a mix of capitalism and socialism seems to work.

the problem is that the media and a lot of right wing nuts or political neophytes place all forms of socialism under one generalized banner. this is not the "socialism" of marx, engels or robert owen. this is a statist breed of socialism, where the government has been pushing for centralization of power in the hands of the state, via large proxi corporations to maintain the guise of "free market capitalism." and as admiral pointed out this has been going on for decades. in no way, did it start with obama.

Socialism defies basic human nature. Here's a better essay on the subject than I could provide.

Read it and critique.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...-a-hate-story/

Hot Air is the perfect name for that site. :tu

Ann Althouse is a poor writer, and regularly engages in logical fallacies. Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations? GTFO.

After that, she just knocks down strawman after strawman. Instead of, ya know, providing facts to back up her claims, or logical argumentation. Which is the status quo for her articles.

Edit: Ah, I misread it. Doctor Zero just used a quote from her. Regardless, his article is full of logical holes, as hers often are.

Also, a bright poster at the bottom skewered that old trope that humans are "rational actors". If anything, science is proving that rational reasoning regarding finances is limited at best. This is why "paternalistic libertarianism" is making a push nowadays.

Mixed economies as in Europe, aka, socialist democracies, are more stable and humane than cowboy/rugged-individual/bowling-alone/social-Darwinism America. Nearly all of them give 5 weeks vacation vs the USA barbaric 2 weeks (or none), have universal health care systems that cost 1/2 per capita as US's failed system. No families go bankrupt from medical bills.

Hard-core, 100% pure socialist/communist countries are failures or have failed.

Of course, "free market" capitalistic democracy in USA has also failed except for the very top and continues to fail worse for the lower 95%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Hot Air is the perfect name for that site. :tu

Ann Althouse is a poor writer, and regularly engages in logical fallacies. Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations? GTFO.

After that, she just knocks down strawman after strawman. Instead of, ya know, providing facts to back up her claims, or logical argumentation. Which is the status quo for her articles.

Edit: Ah, I misread it. Doctor Zero just used a quote from her. Regardless, his article is full of logical holes, as hers often do.

---

i love the way the author pointed out that: " Moore’s method involves finding people who are unhappy with their circumstances, lying about the particulars of the cases to make them illustrate his points better, and converting them into wholesale indictments of the free market, and America in general." and then goes on to make the same logical fallacies for the rest of the blog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

I think its funnier that the left calls themselves "progressives" even though that term was about as dirty a word as you could call yourself, it basically did mean you were calling yourself a communist, during the early part of the 20th century.

---

It wasn't a dirty word at all, considering in the election of 1912, all four of the candidates from Republican Taft to Socialist Debs all were calling themselves Progressives. They welcomed the label and even went out of their way to give reasons in their speeches why they were really Progressives and their opponents were not.

Because, on the continuum of the extreme you can't have freedom without capitalism and you can't have capitalism without freedom. They go hand in hand. On the other extreme, you can't have socialism without tyranny. Those are the extremes.

The fact of the matter is, any country, including ours, has a little bit of both. You have to have roads, for example. I'm pretty far right I guess but what irritates me about some right wingers is they act if if ANY regulation of the market is BAD, and it's not.

It absolutely infuriates me what telecom companies and credit card companies and banks get away with. At the same time, it irritates the fuck out of me what the government gets away with. Any man who is divorced and has kids knows the tyrannical hammer of the state. But, fairness is subjective. Anyone who's dealt with the IRS knows the power of the government. Get those guys on your back and you'll turn revolutionary 'overnight'.

With health care, the fact of the matter is, we already HAD socialized medicine. The very idea that if you're poor you can't get health care in this country was the biggest fallacy the left perpetrated and even with this health care bill, STILL, about 5 million will be without government health insurance and it was only 12 million when they started.

The idea here, is to get uninsured people out of the ER for health care, but as has been seen in Massachusettes, that hasn't worked, thus far. The health care system is going to be redesigned. Whether or not it's going to be 'better' will depend who you are.

But as far as 'straight socialism' just look at Cuba, land of the 58 chevy. It's all a matter of where you want to be on that continuum and people, as has often proven correct, are afraid of the slippery slope.

Further, what we're seeing is Alexis de Tocqueville's description of why America won't last. "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

He also said, 'Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.'

I'll add that in de Tocqueville's description, what we have here, is the public being bribed with their GRANDKIDS money, not their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

I'll add that in de Tocqueville's description, what we have here, is the public being bribed with their GRANDKIDS money, not their own.

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

I'll add that in de Tocqueville's description, what we have here, is the public being bribed with their GRANDKIDS money, not their own.

---

Gotta love moral hazard!

What's awesome in the current situation, is that banker CEOs pretty much used moral hazard to rake in cash for themselves at the expense of loans to ignorant people, screwing up the financial system. They do this knowing that by the time their screwups are found out, they'll have already raked in plenty of cash to survive comfortable in the future.

And to FIX the financial system, the government relies on money from future generations, compounding moral hazard.

Bottom line, repealing Glass-Steagall back in '99 was a bad idea and the consequences were disastrous. This is what gives republicans a bad name. They are incapable of understanding that regulation is a necessary thing.

Then again, zipper billy could have vetoed the damn thing so, plenty of blame to go around.

LnGrrrR,

You usually do much better than this.

You didn’t respond to a single point made in the essay, rather you criticized the writer’s talent and claimed she utilizes “strawman” arguments immediately after using one yourself: “Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations?”

Umm, no she doesn’t.

I think the most salient point made in the essay regards the tendency of those who favor socialism to assume that “greedy capitalist corruption” would magically go away if the state controlled the means of production. Many of you on the left are justifiably cynical of corporate America but you are incredibly naïve if you don’t think the political class is just as corrupt. The difference is that in a capitalist system, you have the freedom to choose to do business w/ a Walmart, Microsoft, whomever but in a socialist environment you would be compelled to do business w/ the state owned entity (potentially through the use of force).

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America. Our poor people live a lifestyle comparable to their middle class. This is despite of the fact that the U.S. has allowed Europe to largely ignore the enormous financial responsibility for their own military defense for the last 60 yrs. (another argument altogether).

I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect or even that the U.S. still qualifies as capitalist. But socialism defies human nature in that it expects people to work just as hard or be as creative as they can be without the opportunity to benefit from their effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

Bottom line, repealing Glass-Steagall back in '99 was a bad idea and the consequences were disastrous. This is what gives republicans a bad name. They are incapable of understanding that regulation is a necessary thing.

Then again, zipper billy could have vetoed the damn thing so, plenty of blame to go around.

---

Also important to note that congressional democrats overwhelmingly supported the repeals.

I know Volcker has been pushing to get Glass Steagel put back in place. Hopefully Obama and the dems listen to him.

They also need to change some of the tax code, and as I eluded to in another thread, how capital gains is taxed. It's going to be interesting to see what they do. The inheritance tax law has expired. No telling what they are going to put in place but I figure since they need money so bad, it's going to be pretty bad. I'm sure they're working on the loopholes as we speak, seeing that all the members of congress are rich, I'm sure the level will be right at the level of the wealth of the person needed for the last vote to pass it. It was 2 million, which is reasonable. My guess is, it will go up. No matter to me. My parents don't have that kind of dough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

LnGrrrR,

You usually do much better than this.

You didn’t respond to a single point made in the essay, rather you criticized the writer’s talent and claimed she utilizes “strawman” arguments immediately after using one yourself: “Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations?”

Umm, no she doesn’t.

I think the most salient point made in the essay regards the tendency of those who favor socialism to assume that “greedy capitalist corruption” would magically go away if the state controlled the means of production. Many of you on the left are justifiably cynical of corporate America but you are incredibly naïve if you don’t think the political class is just as corrupt. The difference is that in a capitalist system, you have the freedom to choose to do business w/ a Walmart, Microsoft, whomever but in a socialist environment you would be compelled to do business w/ the state owned entity (potentially through the use of force).

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America. Our poor people live a lifestyle comparable to their middle class. This is despite of the fact that the U.S. has allowed Europe to largely ignore the enormous financial responsibility for their own military defense for the last 60 yrs. (another argument altogether).

I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect or even that the U.S. still qualifies as capitalist. But socialism defies human nature in that it expects people to work just as hard or be as creative as they can be without the opportunity to benefit from their effort.

---

Nice post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

LnGrrrR,

You usually do much better than this.

You didn’t respond to a single point made in the essay, rather you criticized the writer’s talent and claimed she utilizes “strawman” arguments immediately after using one yourself: “Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations?”

Umm, no she doesn’t.

I think the most salient point made in the essay regards the tendency of those who favor socialism to assume that “greedy capitalist corruption” would magically go away if the state controlled the means of production. Many of you on the left are justifiably cynical of corporate America but you are incredibly naïve if you don’t think the political class is just as corrupt. The difference is that in a capitalist system, you have the freedom to choose to do business w/ a Walmart, Microsoft, whomever but in a socialist environment you would be compelled to do business w/ the state owned entity (potentially through the use of force).

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America. Our poor people live a lifestyle comparable to their middle class. This is despite of the fact that the U.S. has allowed Europe to largely ignore the enormous financial responsibility for their own military defense for the last 60 yrs. (another argument altogether).

I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect or even that the U.S. still qualifies as capitalist. But socialism defies human nature in that it expects people to work just as hard or be as creative as they can be without the opportunity to benefit from their effort.

---

i don't think it is a mistrust of a capitalist system. it is a mistrust of the policies (and the 2 guilty parties who have shaped them) that have helped to create inequitable power for corporate entities that are totalitarian in internal structure, increasingly interlinked and reliant on powerful states, and largely unaccountable to the public.

what we have allowed is for oligopolistic competition and strategic interaction among firms and governments, rather than the invisible hand of market forces, to condition today's competitive advantage.

this is statism at it's worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Also important to note that congressional democrats overwhelmingly supported the repeals.

I know Volcker has been pushing to get Glass Steagel put back in place. Hopefully Obama and the dems listen to him.

---

i have no reason to think he will. had he been willing to he would have already regulated the banks immediately after the stimulus bill passed.

It's been instilled in white american kids since the 1950s that socialism is 'the devil's work' it's because of the cold war. Now the decrepit white baby boomers and their offsprings have it in their subvoncious that it is "evil".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

i don't think it is a mistrust of a capitalist system. it is a mistrust of the policies (and the 2 guilty parties who have shaped them) that have helped to create inequitable power for corporate entities that are totalitarian in internal structure, increasingly interlinked and reliant on powerful states, and largely unaccountable to the public.

what we have allowed is for oligopolistic competition and strategic interaction among firms and governments, rather than the invisible hand of market forces, to condition today's competitive advantage.

this is statism at it's worst.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

LnGrrrR,

You usually do much better than this.

---

Fair enough Geezer. I'll respond cogently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

You didn’t respond to a single point made in the essay, rather you criticized the writer’s talent and claimed she utilizes “strawman” arguments immediately after using one yourself: “Does she honestly argue that Obama is the first administration to show favoritism towards corporations?”

Umm, no she doesn’t.

---

I think it was a he, but I could be wrong. I assumed it was an Ann Althouse piece, and I'm not a big fan of hers, hence my quick dismissal.

But writing things like this:

Quote:

---

Socialists despise competition – they find virtue in the idea that everyone deserves everything, and benevolent leaders have a responsibility to provide it. Competition doesn’t disappear under socialist control – that’s another childish fantasy. Instead, socialism replaces competition between individuals with competition between groups. The former is energetic and constructive, while the latter is bitter, and almost inevitably violent.

---

Well, let's break it down. First is an assumption: does the author speak for all socialists? How does our trusty narrator know that socialists despise competition?

Who is arguing that competition disappears in a socialist society? Is anyone? It seems a strawman to me.

What proof is given that competition between individuals is inherently wondrously good, while competition between groups is evil and destructive? The author just assumes it, ipso facto, prima facie. No evidence is given.

There are just some of the sections where Doctor Zero does that. Others:

Quote:

---

No one should have to die because they can’t afford health insurnce.” A slogan like that does not allow for argument, or even picky questions. You either support socialized medicine, or you want people who can’t afford health insurance to die.

---

Uhm.. actually, a slogan like that does somewhat allow for argument. It says "should"... that's not an imperative statement. And the logical implication that only socialists come up with these arguments is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

When everything you have is provided by the State, you will easily come to hate anyone whose demands take priority over yours. They are not your competitors. They are your enemies.

---

Has the author suddenly become omniscient?

Quote:

---

There is only one reliable way to hold those bands together over the long term, only one predictable response to the diminishing returns gained by each sacrifice of liberty… and only one emotion the leaders of each collective entity can easily encourage, to maintain their own power: hatred.

---

The tactic of using hatred to misdirect, though, is certainly not limited to socialist regimes. Do all socialist regimes use hatred? That might be an interesting point to use, but the author doesn't convey the point strongly enough, in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

I think the most salient point made in the essay regards the tendency of those who favor socialism to assume that “greedy capitalist corruption” would magically go away if the state controlled the means of production.

---

I don't think many believe greed will just disappear, but that social regimes will provide a means to curb excesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

Many of you on the left are justifiably cynical of corporate America but you are incredibly naïve if you don’t think the political class is just as corrupt. The difference is that in a capitalist system, you have the freedom to choose to do business w/ a Walmart, Microsoft, whomever but in a socialist environment you would be compelled to do business w/ the state owned entity (potentially through the use of force).

---

I think you'll find many lefties believe the government is corrupt too. :) Anywho, what of the bankers? Supposedly a free market system, and yet taxpayers bailed them out. Didn't they essentially force the taxpayer to do business with them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America. Our poor people live a lifestyle comparable to their middle class. This is despite of the fact that the U.S. has allowed Europe to largely ignore the enormous financial responsibility for their own military defense for the last 60 yrs. (another argument altogether).

---

No argument there, though I don't have any facts to counter/agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect or even that the U.S. still qualifies as capitalist. But socialism defies human nature in that it expects people to work just as hard or be as creative as they can be without the opportunity to benefit from their effort.

---

True, 100% socialism yes. But some aspects of socialist-type thinking CAN work... I think welfare, social security, and the like are good ideas when implemented effectively.

Socialism is great, they say, till you run out of other peoples money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

Socialism is great, they say, till you run out of other peoples money.

---

While I do believe in the legitimacy of social programs for overall economic health, I also agree with you that over-expansion of entitlements is a sure recipe for bankruptcy. See: California, where fanatically socialistic Democrats approved program after program while fanatically conservative Republicans cut tax after tax. One can only hope Washington understood what happened there and begins toning down the partisan extremism to enact sustainable legislation. I won't hold my breath.

I wouldn't either. One day, we shall hang them all. And it might be sooner than we think.

I'll also say, that if the US Government bails out California, look out. The floodgates will open and that will be the end of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Because Socialism is one of the core tenants of the Christian Bible and the people who cry loudest about socialism are definitely NOT Christian.

---

Really? In which passage of the Bible will I find it saying that those who produce should give the fruits of their labor to the government so it can be redistributed to those who don't?

At best, Christ taught communism -- that a band of people should take care of one another, a practice best realized in small to moderate sized civilizations. However, I don't recall Him ever teaching that government should be responsible for this.

In fact, I'd say the old Communist slogan, popularized by Karl Marx, would have been adopted by Christ -- without the insinuation of government control of course; "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I don't see anything wrong with voluntarily associating with a group of people that chooses to live by this credo. In fact, I'd say it's honorable...so long as there is enough ability to offset need and everyone is okay with it. I just don't see where government fits in to this. Every time it's tried, it turns into an oppressive, fascist nightmare.

But, again, I'm open to whatever scripture you'd like to offer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Fair enough Geezer. I'll respond cogently.

---

Much better effort but I don’t think you’ve thought your arguments all the way through so in the immortal words of Jules Winnfield, “allow me to retort:”

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: Who is arguing that competition disappears in a socialist society? Is anyone? It seems a strawman to me.

If the definition of socialism is “system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution in the State”, then tell me, who is going to compete w/ the State?

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: What proof is given that competition between individuals is inherently wondrously good, while competition between groups is evil and destructive?

Are you really challenging this? The group identity politics that pits one race against the other, sexes against each other, promotes class warfare, and encourages base bigotry is pretty tough to defend.

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: I don't think many believe greed will just disappear, but that social regimes will provide a means to curb excesses.

So you believe that a greedy industrialist who becomes a greedy politician will have less influence? Even in a more expansive and totalitarian government that has the means to use force to accomplish his goals? Seriously?


Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: I think you'll find many lefties believe the government is corrupt too.

And yet you’d favor granting ever more power and control to an institution that is not only corrupt but has the power to use force to implement its will.

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: Anywho, what of the bankers? Supposedly a free market system, and yet taxpayers bailed them out. Didn't they essentially force the taxpayer to do business with them?

Think about this carefully. Who is it that can force the taxpayer? The cozy relationship between corporate American and our government is NOT an indictment of capitalism. It is precisely because we have allowed government to become so omnipotent that corporations use it as their tool to stymie competition.

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR: But some aspects of socialist-type thinking CAN work... I think welfare, social security, and the like are good ideas when implemented effectively.

Several TRILLION $ have been confiscated since Johnston’s “Great Society” to what effect? Do you think that idea was implemented effectively?

I don’t know how old you are but I suspect you’re younger than me yet I know I’ll never benefit from the social security money that has been confiscated from my wages for the last 30 yrs. It was a ponzi scheme from the start. Was that idea implemented effectively?

I strongly encourage you to read Friedrich A. von Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom http://72.167.56.43/content.php?id=1...enu_item_id=82 for a much more articulate critique of socialism if you are truly interested in this subject.

Quote:

---

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

---

That's a sort of 'system' neutral statement. It's more like Christs two most important instructions. Love god and your neighbor as you would yourself. And of course, we all can argue over the word 'need'. The house across the street from me is a section 8 house. They have 6 kids, the dude is always out working on his lincoln with the big rims and booming sound system. What they 'need' is to stop fucking and putting their money into worthless shit.

What so often happens is that 'your money' is used for their 'needs'. A home and food. And THEIR money is used for their toys. It has nothing to do with 'needs'. That's what 'socialism' is, in front of my face, every day.

AND mind you, when he needs help to start his car because his stereo has run his battery down while he works on it, he comes to me to borrow jumper cables, which I give to him, because he can't even buy that. Or should I say, 'won't'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

That's a sort of 'system' neutral statement. It's more like Christs two most important instructions. Love god and your neighbor as you would yourself. And of course, we all can argue over the word 'need'. The house across the street from me is a section 8 house. They have 6 kids, the dude is always out working on his lincoln with the big rims and booming sound system. What they 'need' is to stop fucking and putting their money into worthless shit.

What so often happens is that 'your money' is used for their 'needs'. A home and food. And THEIR money is used for their toys. It has nothing to do with 'needs'. That's what 'socialism' is, in front of my face, every day.

AND mind you, when he needs help to start his car because his stereo has run his battery down while he works on it, he comes to me to borrow jumper cables, which I give to him, because he can't even buy that. Or should I say, 'won't'.

---

Exactly my point, word. When government is introduced, personal responsibility is the first thing to go.

If those in "need" were forced to personally face those from whom the money is taken to meet those "needs," maybe they'd be a bit more responsible with the "wants" they buy.

I have no problem with helping people out. I DO have a problem with people on welfare ..... that is 'chronically' on welfare....reproducing. After two, their kids need to be state raised. After all, they are our kids and we should be able to dictate what is done with them.

And hence, the danger of socialism ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angrydude

I think its funnier that the left calls themselves "progressives" even though that term was about as dirty a word as you could call yourself, it basically did mean you were calling yourself a communist, during the early part of the 20th century.

---

It's funny when the right calls themselves Christians.

I'm with Kierkegaard: there have been very few Christians since the time of the disciples. Presumably you single out the hypocrisy of the right because you oppose it. But yeah, the conceit is galling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SierraHotel

It's funny when the right calls themselves Christians.

---

why?

Quote:

---

The European models of socialist democracies do not provide the vibrancy or standard of living that we enjoy in America.

---

What world do you live in? There are countries with better 'standard of living' indexes than the U.S...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

I have no problem with helping people out. I DO have a problem with people on welfare ..... that is 'chronically' on welfare....reproducing. After two, their kids need to be state raised. After all, they are our kids and we should be able to dictate what is done with them.

And hence, the danger of socialism ....

---

It's 'a danger' of free-market global corporatism too...suppose this mom left her children, lets say 2, to go work 40/week at Walmart...at $10.00/hour that's 1600/month, minus taxes, that's a little over 1300/month....a two bedroom apt in San Antonio is around 650-1000/ month..a car payment would be a luxury....after food, electricity, water, insurance, doctor bills etc.....

Yeah, so ? Welcome to life. I didn't fuck her. Funny thing, when my wife and I decided to have kids, we took our financial situation into account, and planned it for when we had some things in place, financially. It's not like people don't realize kids are a financial burden. Please tell me this isn't news to even the most ignorant retard.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/erik...vings_rate.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

Yeah, so ? Welcome to life. I didn't fuck her. Funny thing, when my wife and I decided to have kids, we took our financial situation into account, and planned it for when we had some things in place, financially. It's not like people don't realize kids are a financial burden. Please tell me this isn't news to even the most ignorant retard.

---

That right there is exactly why you can't take tea-baggers seriously...fuck everyone else, I got mine, no social security, no medi/cade/care, in fact, no more free care at all...until I get sick and lose my home, money and spouse, then gimme, gimme, gimme...

The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

When you do, game over. Between Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the likely coming cap & trade, those will be enough to finish off this country economically and financially.

To the OP - you want to know why it has a bad name? If you're still alive in 50 years you'll likely have gotten to see the ugly answer to your question when the house of cards that is our national debt comes crashing down.

Quote:

---

The problem with socialism (capitalism) is sooner or later you run out of other people's money (to take).

---

:lol

Cute Dan. Seriously, everyone needs to go look at the U.S. Debt Clock and if you are capable of some basic reading comprehension, take a look at it.

To help all you idiotic libtards out, you can do all the taxing of the evil rich folk, business owners, etc. and not come close to covering the debt the fine folks in D.C. are racking up at record pace.

Sooner or later the Chinese will decide to stop financing our debt (ie, raising the limit on the credit card), and when it does it's game over.

Quote:

---

Sooner or later the Chinese will decide to stop financing our debt (ie, raising the limit on the credit card), and when it does it's game over.

---

The Chinese only own $800 billion of our national debt and if they sold that they would be undermining the value of its own currency...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezerballer

Much better effort but I don’t think you’ve thought your arguments all the way through so in the immortal words of Jules Winnfield, “allow me to retort:”

---

Fair enough. :toast

Quote:

---

If the definition of socialism is “system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution in the State”, then tell me, who is going to compete w/ the State?

---

That's why I said I wasn't in favor of a socialist state, but aspects of socialism, such as welfare and other "safety net" measures. I agree that socialism as a total governmental system has failed in many areas. Pretty much, socialism fails as soon as someone who doesn't want to participate is forced to.

Quote:

---

Are you really challenging this? The group identity politics that pits one race against the other, sexes against each other, promotes class warfare, and encourages base bigotry is pretty tough to defend.

---

How is that any different than the individual battles, writ large? In fact, it's EASY to defend identity politics. One, not allowing it would go against the liberty of someone to freely choose their associations. But even easier, it's NATURAL. There's a reason that people form into groups; it greatly increases your chances of survival. It's why animals form packs; it's why humans do too. To decry group on group warfare as something inherently bad is simplistic and misguided.

Quote:

---

So you believe that a greedy industrialist who becomes a greedy politician will have less influence? Even in a more expansive and totalitarian government that has the means to use force to accomplish his goals? Seriously?

---

I'm not for a more expansive and totalitarian government. I approve of some policies on the left, and disapprove. If you've read my posting history, you will see I'm somewhere between left and libertarian, holding strong views on civil liberties and more liberal ones on financial policy.

Quote:

---

And yet you’d favor granting ever more power and control to an institution that is not only corrupt but has the power to use force to implement its will.

---

Again, somewhat putting words into my mouth. Would I favor granting more power and control to the government? Of course not, if the current system were working. However, it's clear that the system of health care we have now ISN'T working.

I've seen evidence that universal health care could cut emergency room costs. I also think that we should provide a basic level of care to all citizens, as a moral... well, imperative is a strong word, but something along those lines.

I can see the reasons for those who disagree, and admit that there seems no perfect way forward.

Quote:

---

Think about this carefully. Who is it that can force the taxpayer? The cozy relationship between corporate American and our government is NOT an indictment of capitalism. It is precisely because we have allowed government to become so omnipotent that corporations use it as their tool to stymie competition.

---

Just because you insist that the relationship isn't an indictment of capitalism doesn't make it so. When you have money, you have influence; this is basic. After all, greed is good, right? So why do capitalists expect government to NOT help out lobbyists, who in turn help them out once they retire?

I think, on the whole, that capitalism is a great system of government. I'm willing to point out the flaws when and where I see them though.

If the government DIDN'T intervene with TARP, there was a very good chance of going through another Depression with a capital D. I understand why they did it, and also hate that they had to.

Quote:

---

Several TRILLION $ have been confiscated since Johnston’s “Great Society” to what effect? Do you think that idea was implemented effectively?

I don’t know how old you are but I suspect you’re younger than me yet I know I’ll never benefit from the social security money that has been confiscated from my wages for the last 30 yrs. It was a ponzi scheme from the start. Was that idea implemented effectively?

---

Yes, I'm younger than you. I can't speak to the effectiveness of social security; I've heard mixed support from both sides. I think the greatest problem was lack of foresight in assuming how much longer we'd live, and how much more medical technology we'd have in the future.

What of other social programs? Do you think all should be done away with? Food stamps, welfare, unemployment? (Note: Just because there has been fraud in the system doesn't, in my mind, necessarily make the system flawed. If the frauds can be fixed, or reduced to an acceptable level, the system can work.)

Quote:

---

I strongly encourage you to read Friedrich A. von Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom http://72.167.56.43/content.php?id=1...enu_item_id=82 for a much more articulate critique of socialism if you are truly interested in this subject.

---

I'm not a big fan of socialism. :) But thanks for the suggestion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I'm with Kierkegaard: there have been very few Christians since the time of the disciples. Presumably you single out the hypocrisy of the right because you oppose it. But yeah, the conceit is galling.

---

Don't read Kierkegaard; he'll just depress you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

because socialism goes against the founding of our country.

---

And it becomes redistribution of wealth, allowing others to live off others hard work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Because Socialism is one of the core tenants of the Christian Bible and the people who cry loudest about socialism are definitely NOT Christian.

---

My God. You are dead wrong!

To practice what the Bible says is not socialism. Example please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Which happened a long time ago when people walked or rode horses, and died before 50. The internet goes against their principles, too. Cars, also, you lazy sloths.

---

No, they may not imagined it, but how can you claim it goes against their principles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by word

Socialism is great, they say, till you run out of other peoples money.

---

Absolutely. And that doesn't take long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, they may not imagined it, but how can you claim it goes against their principles?

---

I think he was referring to DARPANet, which was created by the government. Ie. it was a project started by the gov, instead of created by private parties. *shrug*

It is hated because it violates freedom, which is rather sacred in the states. Nothing special. It has to do so by it's very principal.

Perfect freedom doesn't exist anywhere. Like all things, society will find a compromise between how much freedom it is willing to exchange for other protections. Taxation is a good example. A pretty massive assault on your personal property and liberty, yet it is regarded as necessary by nearly everyone.

The American and world economy is a mixture of command and control with capitalism. Only radicals think that it is one and should be the other. There are thousands of thousands of government controls on the economy that are viewed as necessary. There are also thousands of totally free markets. Even underground black markets. We have every base covered. A single type only works in theory on some paper of a PhD student.

Socialism is for the weak.

u weak brah?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

The Chinese only own $800 billion of our national debt and if they sold that they would be undermining the value of its own currency...

---

is that why Geithner is begging them to unpeg their currency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I think he was referring to DARPANet, which was created by the government. Ie. it was a project started by the gov, instead of created by private parties. *shrug*

---

Boondoggles! :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

We have every base covered. A single type only works in theory on some paper of a PhD student.

---

"We"?

:lol

I don't want my wealth "distributed" i work hard for every penny i earn. I want to keep it.
and i don't want the Gov't telling me how much i can earn, what car to drive and what insurance to get.

Our country was founded on the concept of getting OUT of those types of European philosphies. Now our Potus wants to take us back to the days of "Jolly Old England"
NO Thanks!

One Big Ass Mistake America

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 41times

I don't want my wealth "distributed" i work hard for every penny i earn. I want to keep it.
and i don't want the Gov't telling me how much i can earn, what car to drive and what insurance to get.

Our country was founded on the concept of getting OUT of those types of European philosphies. Now our Potus wants to take us back to the days of "Jolly Old England"
NO Thanks!

One Big Ass Mistake America

---

not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I think he was referring to DARPANet, which was created by the government. Ie. it was a project started by the gov, instead of created by private parties. *shrug*

---

So my early military encounters using the AN/FRC-109, 159, 162, 165, etc...

Those radios that started communications backbones were were created by the military?

NO! They were made by Linkurt and Collins, and were making equipment for AT&T also.

How about the multiplexers?

Oh lets see... I worked on muxes made by Rockwell, TRW, General Electric, Seimens, etc.

As for the DARPA net? It was a contract to a commercial business as well, to simply make a digital switching system.

Guess what, it was a variant of what AT&T used, in fact a later packet switch I worked on was an AT&T DACS III frame. It used over 100 386 processors, a Hewlett Packard microsequencer running UNIX.

Only the demand was created by the government. The supply was created all by civilian ventures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 41times

I don't want my wealth "distributed" i work hard for every penny i earn. I want to keep it.
and i don't want the Gov't telling me how much i can earn, what car to drive and what insurance to get.

Our country was founded on the concept of getting OUT of those types of European philosphies. Now our Potus wants to take us back to the days of "Jolly Old England"
NO Thanks!

One Big Ass Mistake America

---

I agree.

I say that everyone who believes in socialism, should give 80% of their salary to the government so the can fairly redistribute it back to them and their like minded buddies.

Just stay out of my pockets. Not to go religious, but back in the time, the church was the controlling body. They expected a 10% tithe. I say we all pay 10%, no deductibles, and see how that goes.

Before you cry about the poor not being about to afford it, remember, if the government thinks they need it, it will get redistributed to them. At the same time, it gives all wager earners "skin in the game," so they think before they elect politicians wanting to spend more tax payer dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I think he was referring to DARPANet, which was created by the government. Ie. it was a project started by the gov, instead of created by private parties. *shrug*

---

It's actually ARPANET and the dept of defense contracted BBN Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBN_Technologies) for its development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 41times

Our country was founded on the concept of getting OUT of those types of European philosphies.

---

Actually, it was founded on one of two things, depending on how you look at.

Original Pilgrims - Religious tolerance (coupled with opportunity)

Founding of America - Taxation without representation

Last time I checked, you have representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Only the demand was created by the government. The supply was created all by civilian ventures.

---

I think this is along the lines of what he was saying.. .that the project was originally started by the government, and used civilian contractors to help them. (Like the way fighter jets are made... civilian production with military leadership involved in the design.)

I don't think he was implying that the military/government alone did all the work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

It's actually ARPANET and the dept of defense contracted BBN Technologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBN_Technologies) for its development.

---

Eh, tomato tamahto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Last time I checked, you have representation.

---

Not in my opinion.

We need to go back to having one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. There would be too many representatives to be bought-off, and the people can actually meet their elected officials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Not in my opinion.

We need to go back to having one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. There would be too many representatives to be bought-off, and the people can actually meet their elected officials.

---

I can't really argue with that idea too much... though the idea of MORE politicians somewhat makes me cringe. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I can't really argue with that idea too much... though the idea of MORE politicians somewhat makes me cringe. :lmao

---

There would be about 100,000 representatives. Do you think corporation could buy 50,000 votes, or donate to that many during election time?

I think this put our political system back where it was intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There would be about 100,000 representatives. Do you think corporation could buy 50,000 votes, or donate to that many during election time?

I think this put our political system back where it was intended.

---

On the one hand, I really like your idea of more specific, err, representative representation and would be more than willing to investigate it's feasibility.

At the same time, considering the pittances (proportionately to their earnings) corporations donate to politicians as is, I have trouble believing corporations would so much as break a sweat paying off a larger number of them, so I'm not convinced your idea would put a damper on graft/corruption. The cost/benefit ratio for buying off politicians makes them one of the safest and most profitable investments a company can make.

You also have to consider how much harder journalistic oversight would become of such a vast body of politicians. A whole army of reporters would have to spring up out of nowhere to keep these guys honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

You also have to consider how much harder journalistic oversight would become of such a vast body of politicians. A whole army of reporters would have to spring up out of nowhere to keep these guys honest.

---

We can subsidize the free press with some stimulus money and create jobs. We'll all be iReporters. :downspin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

We can subsidize the free press with some stimulus money and create jobs. We'll all be iReporters. :downspin:

---

I guess that's what the world is moving towards (iReporters, not subsidies), but talk about shit getting complicated... not only would we need more reporters to keep the increased #'s of politicians honest, we'd need a geometrically larger amount of reporters to keep our political beat-writers honest... what a fucking mess, man! :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

To the OP - you want to know why it has a bad name? If you're still alive in 50 years you'll likely have gotten to see the ugly answer to your question when the house of cards that is our national debt comes crashing down.

---

Yes, but objectively speaking, socialism has nothing to do with that said ruin. Our "need" to borrow outweighs our "want" to repay.

System of financial and social structure a complete afterthought under that way of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

i don't think it is a mistrust of a capitalist system. it is a mistrust of the policies (and the 2 guilty parties who have shaped them) that have helped to create inequitable power for corporate entities that are totalitarian in internal structure, increasingly interlinked and reliant on powerful states, and largely unaccountable to the public.

what we have allowed is for oligopolistic competition and strategic interaction among firms and governments, rather than the invisible hand of market forces, to condition today's competitive advantage.

this is statism at it's worst.

---

I have not read all the posts in this thread (out of pocket for a week or so), but I have to say that this is one of the most cogent comments on this topic I have ever seen anywhere

Insightful.


Articulate.

Impressive.

Thanks, rjv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There would be about 100,000 representatives. Do you think corporation could buy 50,000 votes, or donate to that many during election time?

I think this put our political system back where it was intended.

---

....so how would you pay this new army of Representatives?

Tax hikes for everybody! Whoot!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Not in my opinion.

We need to go back to having one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. There would be too many representatives to be bought-off, and the people can actually meet their elected officials.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

There would be about 100,000 representatives. Do you think corporation could buy 50,000 votes, or donate to that many during election time?

I think this put our political system back where it was intended.

---

You mean ~10,000 representatives...

The idea does have some merit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

....so how would you pay this new army of Representatives?

Tax hikes for everybody! Whoot!

---

I will contend it will pay for itself by saving on unnecessary spending. There will be too many to develop the same mindset. they will be more accountable to the people since they don't have an unmanageable number to see as "pests."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

You mean ~10,000 representatives...

The idea does have some merit.

---

Ooops...

Thanx for the correction.

I would rather drastically reduce or instate a hard cap on all campaign funds.

You can only raise and spend x amount of money. That's it. Make it a manageable number and a number that the public can raise for the candidate.

Next, guarantee 1 commercial spot that run for a week or 2 for the top x candidates. The commercials can be on the channel of their choosing, the government gives a tax credit to the TV network for running the commercial.

stuff like that. remove the financial power that these corporations have.

the secret to fixing all of this is to empower political candidates to be able to run a campaign, win the campaign, and serve the public without owing anything to anyone but their constituents.

biggest problem left, after implementing that, would be the temptation of greed while in office, but that will never go away.

that's much more manageable than actually owing people things.

The legislators, aided by the extreme activist pro-institution/anti-citizen Supreme Court, won't ever take corporate/capitalist money out of politics because the legislators, in office, coming into office, after-office, all are captured by/dependent upon those dollars.

And those dollars go to political campaigns run on corporate media, $Bs back into corporate pockets.

American democracy is long dead, the American voter long disenfranchised.

American corporatocracy is The Only Game in Town.

My humble attempt to answer a very tough question.
But first what is socialism?
Wikipedia describes it as follows:

Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions, the method of resource allocation and post-monetary calculation based on some physical magnitude;[4] often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution.[5]
Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

1) As an American I've been steeped in the history of individual responsibility, taking risks but reaping the majority of the rewards if successful and the belief that the state need not interfere with my individual pursuits. That old saying - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Pure socialism threatens those very ideas. If enacted it would take away the majority of the rewards people would have otherwise had in order to redistribute wealth on a perceived equal and fair basis. Since most people pursue their best interests socialism would threaten the productive/very productive segment of society. That to me helps explain somewhat it's and communism's lure to the least/less productive segment of society. They get something more than they have presently at little perceived cost to them.

Viewing the definition of socialism above it seems to me that it's very essence is contrary to the "American Way".

2) Communism or the fear of - For 70 years, highlighted by the Cold War, this country has had a bad taste towards government intervention into the lives of it's citizens. Heck the USA was started over that very idea. The preception that socialism could lead to communism I think still persists among the people. Back in the 50's with both sides having the BOMB and after Sputnik there was a real perceived fear of utter and total destruction. Even our response to the Soviets was MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. The selling of bomb shelters proliferated and even movies and TV shows touched on this. On the beach with Gregory Peck was a movie about a world wide nuclear holocaust and The Teilight Zone produced several episodes about this subject, too.

3) Passed failed experiments - Great Britain back in the early 70s went that way. And what did they do? Nationalized major industries in order to "help" the citizens get a shot at a better way of life. They felt that in nationalizing the major industries of the country they could consolidate and therefore make more effecient those services they provide the public. Health was the PM and by the late 70s he was out and that set up Thatcher's rise to power in the 80s. Regardless of what he was trying to do he did pass laws that took over private property in the name of the state to benefit the people. It failed and failed miserably. Otherwise Thatcher wouldn't have had such an overwhelming victory with years in office.

Primarily I think it is the fear of "Big Brother" that still permeates most people's thinking on the subject. The Republican party has played this card many times when describing in what direction the Democratic party really wants this country to go. If a pure form of socialism were to be enacted I believe that the only way for it to succeed would for the USA to become a one party state. You just can't put socialism in place and not give it time to take hold and work. And I believe that 4 - 8 years (two presidential terms) isn't enough time. In order for it to really be effective you will have to keep it in place for several decades. The massive social and economic upheavel that would occur in order to truly socialize (according to the above definition) this country would be monumental. All major industries to be nationalized and the greatest redistribution of wealth the world had ever seen. That wont go down without a fight. We are presently socializing this country a little bit at a time. Hopefully we can strike a good and fair balance between capitalism and socialism. I think they can both co-exist but each side will have to give something to get something. With socialism the nationalization of major industries will have to go. It's not compatible with capitalistic thought. Capitalism will have to scale back the materialistic inequity in society by giving up the large concentration of wealth at the very top and spread it around. People need incentive to achieve and at the present rate many feel that the incentives are disappearing. I think I saw a survey several years ago that stated that the upcoming generations don't feel that their children will have a better life than they do. Take hope out of the human equation and misery soon follows. And its consequences, too.

I guess it boils down to the individual vs. the village. And most people will choose their wants and needs over the group's. At this point in our history most want to "get theirs" and its up to you to make it happen. JFK's famous statement:"Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country" is an ideal that for most, if not forced to do so out of the sheer necessity, wouldn't embrace. Or at least to the point I think socialism would want the individual to.

And the socialists are correct about an unequal society. But to me if you look at the human species you will see an unequal distribution of talent. We are like a bell curve with the few very talented and brilliant at one end with their counterparts on the other end of the scale. And to different degrees the rest of us are stuck in the middle. So it would seem obvious that those on the "plus" side of the curve will come to dominate the ones on the other side and especially those at the very end of the 'plus" side.

Quote:

---

And the socialists are correct about an unequal society. But to me if you look at the human species you will see an unequal distribution of talent. We are like a bell curve with the few very talented and brilliant at one end with their counterparts on the other end of the scale. And to different degrees the rest of us are stuck in the middle. So it would seem obvious that those on the "plus" side of the curve will come to dominate the ones on the other side and especially those at the very end of the 'plus" side.

---

That's completely true, but no man is an island to himself, although some try to be...so it is up to the 'most talented' individuals to look out for the 'less talented'...we don't see a lot of that these days....it's more of the 'every man for himself, screw everyone else' capitalism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

That's completely true, but no man is an island to himself, although some try to be...so it is up to the 'most talented' individuals to look out for the 'less talented'...we don't see a lot of that these days....it's more of the 'every man for himself, screw everyone else' capitalism...

---

Agreed. We need more Hersheys in the world. But if you look at our species and consider some of the advances made so far then there is hope that we will move towards a more compassionate society eventually. But knowing our past that road will be pretty bloody. We have such an amaing ability ot come together in the most terrible of times to do much good but on the other hand can take life in large quantites so callously and with little if any feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

I would rather drastically reduce or instate a hard cap on all campaign funds.

You can only raise and spend x amount of money. That's it. Make it a manageable number and a number that the public can raise for the candidate.

---

There would be constitutional problems doing that. I think we need to limit that contributions can only be given by those who are, or would be represented by them. Still have legal issues with that, but can probably be overcome.