What Is Socialism

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Show me in the Constitution where it is Constitutional to force me to give my earned wages to somebody that doesn't earn anything.

Quote:

The Congress shall have Power ..
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


The 16th amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You are free to not pay taxes LoneStarMadam. But don't call yourself a "patriot" while you do it.

The Constitution enjoins the government to "promote the general welfare"--i guess the framers were the victims of "creeping socialism" more than two hundred years ago, before the term socialism was even invented.

Almost no one lives long enough to get back the money which they have put into the Social Security Trust Fund and the interest it has earned. If Social Security is funded from general revenues, it's because the Congress so habitually loots the Social Security Trust fund and has to find the money to pay the checks from some other source.

The FICA tax is 12.4%. A self-employed individual pays the entire amount; a wage earner pays 6.2%, and his or her employer pays 6.2%. If a man today works from age 20 until age 70, and averages $50,000 per annum, $310,000 will have been paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. If he then draws $1,000 per month for the rest of his life (and at current rates, the minimum monthly payment is less than $1,000 per month), he will have to live past the age of 95 to even get his money back, never mind the interest which it was intended to earn by the terms of the Social Security Act.

Of all the examples of alleged socialism which one could have come up with, Social Security has got to be the most stupid, failed attempt to demonstrate it.

Our gov't has twisted the framers inntentions to an almost unrecognizable state.

Quote:

Our gov't has twisted the framers inntentions to an almost unrecognizable state.

Do you mean to say that the United states is now a twisted state and is unrecognizable to what the framers intended?

That is an awfully harsh thing to say about ones country.

I love and respect the United States for what she is now. We are not perfect, but I believe in and respect our system of representative democracy which was set up in the Constitution and has brought us to where we are.

I feel bad that you don't feel the way that I do.

I have given the definition of socialism, if you can't understand the words, get a thesaurus, it'll break down each word/term for you.

Few words can have suffered such varied renditions as "Socialism". For the greater part of the twentieth century it has been the espoused creed of leaders of vast numbers of Mankind. All manner of crimes have been justified in its name: almost every economic theory as at one time carried its banner. Yet the irony is, no one can claim experience of Socialism for it has never existed in practice.

If Socialism as a word is to have any meaning, by its nature it must be a precise one. As a science by which the nature of society might be understood and from which hypotheses about the future can be extrapolated, Socialism cannot be extracted from its nineteenth century grounding in the works of Karl Marx. Just as evolutionary theory and research has developed from the fundamentals established by Charles Darwin, so the basic principles established by Marx must be recognised in understanding Socialism. It is possible of course to claim, maybe even to demonstrate, that those principles are flawed or even wrong. However, that would negate Socialism as a useful concept, changing it into something other would not preserve some intrinsic value. If it could be demonstrated that new species arose because some previously unrecognised extra-terrestial intelligence dropped them fully formed onto the earth, it would be meaningless to call that process evolution.

So what is Socialism? Simply stated, it is the description of a certain set of economic and social relations. A worldwide society devoid of classes, money, national boundaries and Government (as opposed to administration of items). The means of production would be held in common, with people giving voluntarily to that society whatever they were able and taking that they required to satisfy their self defined needs. The productive forces in such a society would be so developed to meet those needs, liberated from the restrictive necessity to accrue surplus value, profit.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

I have given the definition of socialism, if you can't understand the words, get a thesaurus, it'll break down each word/term for you.

A personal vocabulary is it?



Humpty Dumpty, too as Alice discovered, had his personal vocabulary. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

When a word can mean anything you want it to mean, it has been rendered meaningless.

RESCUING SOCIALISM FROM HUMPTY DUMPTY (and the insane ass-hat known as massegetto)

http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/humpty.htm

Quote:

Few words can have suffered such varied renditions as "Socialism". For the greater part of the twentieth century it has been the espoused creed of leaders of vast numbers of Mankind. All manner of crimes have been justified in its name: almost every economic theory as at one time carried its banner. Yet the irony is, no one can claim experience of Socialism for it has never existed in practice.

If Socialism as a word is to have any meaning, by its nature it must be a precise one. As a science by which the nature of society might be understood and from which hypotheses about the future can be extrapolated, Socialism cannot be extracted from its nineteenth century grounding in the works of Karl Marx. Just as evolutionary theory and research has developed from the fundamentals established by Charles Darwin, so the basic principles established by Marx must be recognised in understanding Socialism. It is possible of course to claim, maybe even to demonstrate, that those principles are flawed or even wrong. However, that would negate Socialism as a useful concept, changing it into something other would not preserve some intrinsic value. If it could be demonstrated that new species arose because some previously unrecognised extra-terrestial intelligence dropped them fully formed onto the earth, it would be meaningless to call that process evolution.

So what is Socialism? Simply stated, it is the description of a certain set of economic and social relations. A worldwide society devoid of classes, money, national boundaries and Government (as opposed to administration of items). The means of production would be held in common, with people giving voluntarily to that society whatever they were able and taking that they required to satisfy their self defined needs. The productive forces in such a society would be so developed to meet those needs, liberated from the restrictive necessity to accrue surplus value, profit.

Now massegetto, will you please fall off your wall, and leave the site? You remain a prevaricator supreme, regardless of your new moniker and embarrass yourself each time you post your brain farts. Your fictional dopplegangers are as easy to spot as a blemish on the forehead of the Mona Lisa. You are not a smart person and trying to act so fools no one.

Again, report me if you believe that I am a re-incarnation.
However, you won't do that because you're afraid that you're wrong & don't have the guts to find out. Poor pitiful little dwarf

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Again, report me if you believe that I am a re-incarnation.
However, you won't do that because you're afraid that you're wrong & don't have the guts to find out. Poor pitiful little dwarf

since the current A2Ksoftware can detect and block out static ip addresses and multiple monkiers, and you possess a dynamic ip address there is no manner to do what you want or this site to rid themselves of such vermin. and you know it, since long ago you boasted as one of your other nutty monikers that no one could stop you from getting on site for that reason. so as usual you are simply flailing around and speaking nonsense.

leopards can't change their spots, skunks can't hide their smell and you are completely unable to mask your arrogant and ugly-ass personality regardless of what you call yourself.

i just don't understand why you don't leave the adults alone and return to your favorite GOP team sport, pederasty.

Setanta wrote:

The Constitution enjoins the government to "promote the general welfare"--i guess the framers were the victims of "creeping socialism" more than two hundred years ago, before the term socialism was even invented.

Almost no one lives long enough to get back the money which they have put into the Social Security Trust Fund and the interest it has earned. If Social Security is funded from general revenues, it's because the Congress so habitually loots the Social Security Trust fund and has to find the money to pay the checks from some other source.

The FICA tax is 12.4%. A self-employed individual pays the entire amount; a wage earner pays 6.2%, and his or her employer pays 6.2%. If a man today works from age 20 until age 70, and averages $50,000 per annum, $310,000 will have been paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. If he then draws $1,000 per month for the rest of his life (and at current rates, the minimum monthly payment is less than $1,000 per month), he will have to live past the age of 95 to even get his money back, never mind the interest which it was intended to earn by the terms of the Social Security Act.

Of all the examples of alleged socialism which one could have come up with, Social Security has got to be the most stupid, failed attempt to demonstrate it.

You believe that the framers meant the workers to support people that wouldn't work, even if they could? You believe that the framers meant that gov't should be this countrys biggest employer? You believe that the framers meant most laws in this country to be federalized? You believe that the framers didn't really mean that ones personal property could be snatched for a wal mart driveway? You believe that the framers meant for businesses to be owned by the gov't?
Our gov't has twisted the framers inntentions to an almost unrecognizable state.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Setanta wrote:

The Constitution enjoins the government to "promote the general welfare"--i guess the framers were the victims of "creeping socialism" more than two hundred years ago, before the term socialism was even invented.

Almost no one lives long enough to get back the money which they have put into the Social Security Trust Fund and the interest it has earned. If Social Security is funded from general revenues, it's because the Congress so habitually loots the Social Security Trust fund and has to find the money to pay the checks from some other source.

The FICA tax is 12.4%. A self-employed individual pays the entire amount; a wage earner pays 6.2%, and his or her employer pays 6.2%. If a man today works from age 20 until age 70, and averages $50,000 per annum, $310,000 will have been paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. If he then draws $1,000 per month for the rest of his life (and at current rates, the minimum monthly payment is less than $1,000 per month), he will have to live past the age of 95 to even get his money back, never mind the interest which it was intended to earn by the terms of the Social Security Act.

Of all the examples of alleged socialism which one could have come up with, Social Security has got to be the most stupid, failed attempt to demonstrate it.

You believe that the framers meant the workers to support people that wouldn't work, even if they could? You believe that the framers meant that gov't should be this countrys biggest employer? You believe that the framers meant most laws in this country to be federalized? You believe that the framers didn't really mean that ones personal property could be snatched for a wal mart driveway? You believe that the framers meant for businesses to be owned by the gov't?
Our gov't has twisted the framers inntentions to an almost unrecognizable state.

One thing i believe is that i shot your Social Security horsie poop out of the water, and you are floundering around now, completely out of your depth.

Think you can respond to the point you attempted to make about Social Security being shredded?

The government takes peoples money, of that there is no doubt. Given, however, that the government does not even give you back the money you put in, it is a little rich for you to claim that they're giving it to anyone else--unless you mean by way of tax breaks for millionaire Texas oil boys, or payments to Halliburton and Bechtel in Iraq.

You either did not read and understand what i wrote, or you are incapable of answering it. You lose . . . as usual.