Well, looks like Obama didn't go on a spending spree.

[Laissez-Faire]

Because increasing employment did nothing. Because increasing the total amount of money in the hands of workers did nothing. Because more workers with more money buying things in a consumption based economy did nothing. Because we totally paid for WWII as the spending happened.

Well to be fair, just increasing employment doesn't always get anything done. I work in a shipping hub: we could increase employment if we got rid of all our conveyor belts, but it would be hard or impossible to pay a wage worth the work (which is hard enough already) and the company would collapse. Also, we weren't really much of a consumer based economy until after the things you describe took place.

This. The conveyor belts wouldn't be a capital negative investment, because it still inputs something beneficial into the equation.

[Wamitoria]

I didn't realize that I had no brain.

Whats wrong with communism?

Damn near everything. There's no competition, no constant conflict to fuel changes in society.

[Divair]

Whats wrong with communism?

Damn near everything. There's no competition, no constant conflict to fuel changes in society.

That's why you make it voluntary. You only invite people who don't need money to contribute to society.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Communism is the ultimate form of freedom possible. Your so called freedom is the ability of the rich to enslave the poor.

That's called corporatism, which is the lovely form of government.

Communism keeps the individual strapped down with the 'security' of having 'no worries'.

Yes, democratizing the means of production will lead many people to have less worries. Secondly, Anarcho-Capitalism allows slavery. Someone having to choose between getting one meal a day and a bed of hay and starvation is nothing but slavery. You'd call that the free-market.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Whats wrong with communism?

Damn near everything. There's no competition, no constant conflict to fuel changes in society.

There can still be competition with market socialism. And with Parpolity individual communities are able to keep their identity.

[Ravineworld]

Get rid of government. No more problem.

[Divair]

Get rid of government. No more problem.

Somalia wants its tactic back.

[Wamitoria]

Damn near everything. There's no competition, no constant conflict to fuel changes in society.

There can still be competition with market socialism. And with Parpolity individual communities are able to keep their identity.

I don't have a problem with market socialism. But, as I understand, no individual markets would really exist in communism. All resources would be shared.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

There can still be competition with market socialism. And with Parpolity individual communities are able to keep their identity.

I don't have a problem with market socialism. But, as I understand, no individual markets would really exist in communism. All resources would be shared.

Well the way I see it, people are status seeking. It would still be technically communism as the resources are share, however, you'd still get a whuffie for producing a new product or mechanism that more people want.

[Melkor Unchained]

I don't have a problem with market socialism. But, as I understand, no individual markets would really exist in communism. All resources would be shared.

Well the way I see it, people are status seeking. It would still be technically communism as the resources are share, however, you'd still get a whuffie for producing a new product or mechanism that more people want.

A subset of people are status seeking; they get a lot of attention but I think they are ultimately a minority. Xerxes once said "Only a few prefer liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters." Most of us don't give a shit as long as we're reasonably comfortable.

I'm not a communist but if I were made Dictator of America tomorrow I'd probably put one or three in my cabinet. I think they are well suited to examine/redress some problems, but--like all ideological systems--lack all the answers.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Well the way I see it, people are status seeking. It would still be technically communism as the resources are share, however, you'd still get a whuffie for producing a new product or mechanism that more people want.

A subset of people are status seeking; they get a lot of attention but I think they are ultimately a minority. Xerxes once said "Only a few prefer liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters." Most of us don't give a shit as long as we're reasonably comfortable.

I'm not a communist but if I were made Dictator of America tomorrow I'd probably put one or three in my cabinet. I think they are well suited to examine/redress some problems, but--like all ideological systems--lack all the answers.

Lets be honest. Money is status. There is little functional difference in lifestyle or happiness once you reach the first $60000 yet people continue on. A Whuffie system can be used to encourage innovation. It may not be entirely "classless" but it's far better than allowing people amass money that can be used for political gain.

[Laissez-Faire]

That's called corporatism, which is the lovely form of government.

Communism keeps the individual strapped down with the 'security' of having 'no worries'.

Yes, democratizing the means of production will lead many people to have less worries. Secondly, Anarcho-Capitalism allows slavery. Someone having to choose between getting one meal a day and a bed of hay and starvation is nothing but slavery. You'd call that the free-market.

The free market presents opportunities to avoid this standard of living. Even in this case, the free market provides the individual with options for their own future. Sure, it might be 'safer' in communism (to a lower standard of living), but it is by no definition more free.

[Pope Joan]

I guess the GOP considered my getting a Social Security check to be some kind of big-government welfare scheme.

You know, it never used to be called an "entitlement". For decades we were told this was our property, an account into which we paid but which would pay us back.

Doesn't sound much like welfare to me.

[Laissez-Faire]

I guess the GOP considered my getting a Social Security check to be some kind of big-government welfare scheme.

You know, it never used to be called an "entitlement". For decades we were told this was our property, an account into which we paid but which would pay us back.

Doesn't sound much like welfare to me.

It's simply not the arrangement it was so many years ago. It's forever been something doomed to fail, and it's dragging down fiscal sanity with it.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Yes, democratizing the means of production will lead many people to have less worries. Secondly, Anarcho-Capitalism allows slavery. Someone having to choose between getting one meal a day and a bed of hay and starvation is nothing but slavery. You'd call that the free-market.

The free market presents opportunities to avoid this standard of living. Even in this case, the free market provides the individual with options for their own future.

Slavery or Death. Slavery or Death. Slavery or Death. Slavery or Death. Slavery or Death. Slavery or Death. Slavery or Death. And you wondered why I thought you were a sociopath?

Sure, it might be 'safer' in communism (to a lower standard of living), but it is by no definition more free.

Actually, the median income in America is less than forty thousand a year. The average income is more around fifty-six thousand. Most people would experience a rather nice boost if you just look at it nominally.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

I guess the GOP considered my getting a Social Security check to be some kind of big-government welfare scheme.

You know, it never used to be called an "entitlement". For decades we were told this was our property, an account into which we paid but which would pay us back.

Doesn't sound much like welfare to me.

It's simply not the arrangement it was so many years ago. It's forever been something doomed to fail, and it's dragging down fiscal sanity with it.

Actually, if we got rid of the cap on fica taxes, it will be sustainable into the 2090s.

[Alien Space Bats]

the thought if it gives me a little moment of panic.

Point of order: any modern president would have passed TARP and the auto bailouts had he been in office at the time. Those were both middle-of-the-road political maneuvers.

As for Romney? I don't like him but I'll probably end up voting for him anyway. I'd just as soon vote for Obama if it meant we could get a legit conservative in the running for 2016, but his court nominees are just too ridiculous. If he wins re-election and another justice or two retires, the courts will be fucked for the rest of my natural life.

WTF?!?

Listen, if Romney wins, Clarence Thomas will be part of the court's liberal minority. That's right, Clarence Thomas.

That's because Thomas is the only conservative who openly espouses the idea that the 14th Amendment actually means anything (cf. Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 [2010]), and Mitt Romney's adviser on judicial appointments is Robert Bork - a man who very clearly and openly doesn't believe that the 14th Amendment has any real meaning at all.

No, re-electing Barack Obama preserves the current balance of the U.S. Supreme Court. If Obama wins, the Court will remain conservative - rather than going back to where it stood in the 1870's.

</threadjack>

[Pope Joan]

I guess the GOP considered my getting a Social Security check to be some kind of big-government welfare scheme.

You know, it never used to be called an "entitlement". For decades we were told this was our property, an account into which we paid but which would pay us back.

Doesn't sound much like welfare to me.

It's simply not the arrangement it was so many years ago. It's forever been something doomed to fail, and it's dragging down fiscal sanity with it.

If we temper our application of Medicare we should be fine. Set up a separate fund for Medicaid while you're at it. Make it part of a one-payer health system.

Santorum wanted to put my SS funds into the competent hands of the financial professionals. You know, AIG. Jaime Dimon.

[Wamitoria]

I guess the GOP considered my getting a Social Security check to be some kind of big-government welfare scheme.

You know, it never used to be called an "entitlement". For decades we were told this was our property, an account into which we paid but which would pay us back.

Doesn't sound much like welfare to me.

It's simply not the arrangement it was so many years ago. It's forever been something doomed to fail, and it's dragging down fiscal sanity with it.

You don't get to claim that your own ideology-based economic scheme is "fiscal sanity."

Take a goddamn Econ 101 class and get back to me.

[Laissez-Faire]

It's simply not the arrangement it was so many years ago. It's forever been something doomed to fail, and it's dragging down fiscal sanity with it.

Actually, if we got rid of the cap on fica taxes, it will be sustainable into the 2090s.

Even Bernie Sanders can't answer for what would happen at that point. Shoving the can down the road won't help principle nor the structural issues of Social Security.

[Laissez-Faire]

It's simply not the arrangement it was so many years ago. It's forever been something doomed to fail, and it's dragging down fiscal sanity with it.

You don't get to claim that your own ideology-based economic scheme is "fiscal sanity."

Take a goddamn Econ 101 class and get back to me.

Look at the condition of Social Security and defend it's fiscal sanity. That's not an ideological issue.

And what do you assume is so imperative against this sort of economics?

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Actually, if we got rid of the cap on fica taxes, it will be sustainable into the 2090s.

Even Bernie Sanders can't answer for what would happen at that point. Shoving the can down the road won't help principle nor the structural issues of Social Security.

Yes he can. The amount that social security put out would reduce by a quarter.