What to Do with the Deficit?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:It’s a little like the communism apologism: “Communism would work if every single person in society would suspend their basic human nature for their entire lives!”

Who says that, except for capitalists trying unsuccessfully to parody communists? Communism does work, if it’s not headed by an authoritarian beaureacracy, and instead adheres to libertarian principles of organization.

LOL!!! Holy shit that’s funny. Communism works! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Where?

“From each to his ability to each according to his needs”…Marx.

So let me get this strait, you are willing to work really hard, then take your earnings and put them in a pot for anybody to take as that need?

My parents escaped from communism risking their lives to provide me with freedom, I’ll be fucking damned if I’ll let the likes of you or anybody to take my freedom from me…But you have confirmed my suspicions.

Spain in 1936. And, not surprisingly, you disaply a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism. In a socialist society, you still get paid for the work you do. And a truly socialist society MUST be a democracy, it ceases to be socialism without it, as the USSR ably demonstrates. It’s funny that you cling to a system that is the cause of inequality and coercion.
[/quote]

The year the Spanish Civil war started? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Please tell me you’re shitting me. Now THAT was truly funny…Thanks for the laugh.

82

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No, you just refuse to think about it. Authoritarian “socialism” just becomes state capitalism. Like the USSR. Capital is still owned by a small group of individuals. That they claim to represent the people is irrelevant.

The fact that you think in theory, what has been proven completely false in practice over and over again, proves only that you are not fucking thinking or are incapable of it. Communism/ Socialism has a 100% failure rate. One hundred percent! It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

They had to build fences and arm guards to keep people from escaping. What do you think the barbed wire fence in East Germany was for, decoration? You think people in Cuba build rafts out of raincoats to escape because they did not think they deserved such a good system?

Communism makes everybody poor, that’s how it is kept equal, but some are “more equal than others” (Animal Farm).

The fact that you look no further than the labels on things, and disdain to actually examine their arrangements is telling.

[/quote]

Labels? Is that what you call years of oppression and tyranny?

Look, it’s been tried to death, literally. It failed miserably not in theory, but in actual reality. It failed every where, where it still is, it is failing. This is a matter of fact, not theory…Wow, I mean just wow!

83

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
choir…you’re preaching to it, dude.

I just thought we’d be able to silence our buddy, Mr. McCarter.[/quote]

[EDIT: I am pulling this off, again, because I think it was to mean. Warning, this edit button does not work all that well.]

84

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
choir…you’re preaching to it, dude.

I just thought we’d be able to silence our buddy, Mr. McCarter.[/quote]

I just thought I would explain for some of the others that feel the need to comment on things they no nothing about and refuse to learn about. He will forever be silent to me.

85

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
So basically, “I don’t think the spending justifies the future debt.” Fine, but don’t pretend that’s authoritative, as many people disagree with you. But we already had a huge debt. Since you don’t want to raise taxes during a recession, we’ll have to borrow a bunch of money anyway just to run the government. The choice, basically, is do you want to have to pay this debt back with your economy in the toilet, or do you want to borrow more now so that you’ll actually be in a solid position to be able to collect revenue in the future?
[/quote]

There is a much simpler solution than you think. Just fire all the federal government employees and send the entire executive and legislative branch of government on a cruise to the Persian Gulf on a permanent tour of duty.

86

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:Fixed it for you Ryan. Not only are you now historically correct (you know, what actually happens in practice?), you’re theoretically correct too. Even the socialists believed a “temporary dictatorship” to be necessary - you know, the one that was eventually supposed to “wither away”?

Besides the fact that “the socialists” are a fairly diverse set of people in their beliefs, “dictatorship” is not used in the same way we use it. Remember, it’s translated from German, and it basically just means that the workers will run things for a while.
Besides that, some socialists reject that aspect.

Wait, why am I even wasting my time? You’ve completely bought into Uncle Sam’s propaganda. There’s no way you can think critically about this.
[/quote]

lol…“Uncle Sam’s propaganda” - pray tell, Mr. Carter, what the fuck is that? Please be specific.

Seriously, for the sake of reason and sanity, what it is you’re trying to say?

Are you trying to say that historically there has EVER been a case where the “state” has “withered away” in a socialist economy? Can you point to an example?

Are you trying to say that a socialist economy was EVER established without a strong state? Anywhere? Can you point to an example?

Are you actually denying that Marx, Engels, Lenin, et al were explicitly advocating a strong state to bring about their dream of social ownership of capital? Are you denying that they equivocated about whether or not this strong state would be permanment? If you deny any of this, you are poorly read in the literature. (NB: I said “the literature,” not socialist propaganda meant to confuse the citizenry, of say, Bolshevik Russia.)

Are you actually saying that you have found some neo-marxist who argues that either historically and/or theoretically, social ownership of capital can happen either without an initial strong state or - if a strong state is required, that it will wither away? If so, can you please explain? If you cannot, and you still believe this silly claptrap, Ryan, it is YOU, my friend, who “has bought into” propaganda and is unable to think critically.

Now answer, or STFU.