1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Socialism Explained

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Bucko43, Nov 23, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bucko43

    Bucko43 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,811
    Location:
    Lakeside, California
    This guy is a genius! Here's what Obammy wants for us:

    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

    The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

    After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

    The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

    When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

    As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

    All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

    Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)

    Please remember, there is a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
     
  2. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    Obummer's socialism plan is working very well, just look at the flea party.
     
  3. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,236
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    And he said they were the reason he ran for office

    He's a scum bag representing scumbags
     
  4. stokinpls

    stokinpls Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,486
    Slowly, but surely, they're figuring it out.
     
  5. Claymuncher

    Claymuncher Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    837
    Hey John Galt : Is that your name or did you like the book / caracter? I liked the book a lot, long but interesting.......

    Socialism caracterized at the highest level.
     
  6. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,644
    Gentlemen:

    The bottom line is always the same. Socialist policies never work.

    Margaret Thatcher understood that decades ago. The Iron Lady is often credited with saying, "the problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". That version and several variations were spawned by her response to a question about the socialist British Labour Party in a February 1976 TV interview…

    “I would prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they’ve made the biggest financial mess that any government’s ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they’re now trying to control everything by other means. They’re progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people."

    Read her comments again carefully. It’s a spot on description of the U.S. economy and the first three years of Obummer's Socialist administration.

    Here's another bottom line from a famous Brit, "those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill


    sissy
     
  7. b12

    b12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,049
    Please inform other people about this socialist hope to be gov. before the next election. Or we are done for. Wild Bill
     
  8. pyrdek

    pyrdek Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,296
    The best definition of Socialism I have heard is that "Socialism is a parasitic disease that drains the lifeblood of viable parts of a body until the entire body is no longer capable of surviving. It is a disease that only ends when it kills its host!"
     
  9. Shooting Sailor

    Shooting Sailor Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,083
    Sissy - If you actually look at how the UK was when the Iron Lady left office, you wouldn't be so impressed. She got into office on a platform of balancing the budget and not spending more than was taken in. An admirable position, to be sure, and one that no intelligent person would argue with. HOWEVER, her idea of balancing a budget was to sell off a bunch of government owned profit generating enterprises, like the power and water utilities, and put the resulting monies into general revenue to balance the budget. That worked for one year, but the next year she didn't sell anything, and had a bigger than ever before deficit budget. She then went after the major unions, on the basis that if she broke the unions, the corporations would make more money, and pay more taxes. The UK had the greatest labor unrest ever, because to the workers, it seemed like class warfare had been declared. Mines,railways, ports, it seemed every sector of the economy was being targeted. For a country with an already high cost of living, being singled out to have your wages cut because you were unionised WAS tantamount to class warfare. It seemed to the unionised work force that Thatcher wanted to have everyone unemployed, or at least underemployed, so they would be hungry and willing to accept whatever was on offer by the corporations. The result of her actions was apparent in very few years, as the corporations to whom she sold the profit generating enterprises put very little or no money into infrastructure, maintenance and upkeep, and instead skimmed the profits for a few years. When the systems began to break down and cost money, they for the most part just threw up their hands and walked away, leaving the British government to take over,put the business back into government hands, and do the necessary fixing so that things worked safely and efficiently. Her problem was that she ran out of other people's (the taxpayers) money, because she really didn't understand the results of her actions in the long term. You cannot sell profit generating assets to run government, unless you cut the cost of government annually, forever, by an amount equal to or greater than the amount brought in by the entity sold. You also can't lower the wages of large sectors of your tax base without having a plan in place to replace the lost tax revenue. Raising taxes won't be a viable option, because raising taxes on an already burdened society will result in your losing an election and being turfed out of office. If socialist policies never work, as she stated, neither do unrestrained actions such as hers.
     
  10. Model Number 12

    Model Number 12 TS Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    622
    The founders of our Republic had it right-provide for the common defense, establish post offices and post roads, referee the differences between the states, negociate treaties with foreign governments. The federal government of today has strayed wildly from those principles.

    I understand that everything, including a peaceful, safe and civil society has a cost. Criminals need to be punished, roads and bridges need to be built and maintained, aircraft carriers need a crew. What galls me (as well as a lot of other Americans) is that the federal government has become an all-powerful entity that now uses MY money (that's right- it's mine; I'm the one who earned it)to further a social agenda that is so foreign to what the founders of this country envisioned.

    What surprises me most is when somebody tells me that we live in a Democracy. When I reply that our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic, I get either a blank stare or an irrational arguement in defense of the indefensible.
    Democracy, unless it is guided and restrained by something, is nothing more than mob rule. What the federal government seems hell-bent on doing is using my tax dollars to purchase enough votes to legislate and judiciate socialism onto our country, and increase and protect their political power in the process.

    How long do you expect me to work hard, take risks and make personal sacrifices just so the government can take what I've earned and give it to people who haven't earned it?

    When I've had enough of it and decide to go fishing instead will it be you who happily forks over the fruits of your labor to keep it going?
     
  11. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    The Iron Lady is often credited with saying, "the problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money".

    Isn't that precisely what the Dems see as the solution to our debt problem - use someone else's money to pay it down. What happens when they have used all of that up as well?

    Obviously, that is not a solution or even a viable tactic. The only solution is to spend less, improve tax collections by improving the economy and use the surplus to pay down the debt. That is the ONLY way it can work!
     
  12. halfmile

    halfmile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    15,643
    Location:
    Green Bay Wisconsin
    They can tax all they want. The problem is that with our present group of lawmakers, the so called leaders, is that spending will expand as necessary to cover all availble money, both real assets and borrowed. The remainder will be called a "deficit". That sounds so much better than the old fashioned word, "debt".

    The Muslim in Chief is promoting the idea of class warfare, and the fallacy that the wealthy are not paying their fair share.

    The reality is you could tax them 100 per cent, and still not fix the problem.

    We borrowed a whole bunch of money, and Gee Whiz, we couldn't spend our way ot of the problem.

    blechhhh.

    HM
     
  13. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    If we had an economic boom and tax revenues expanded exponentially, the Congress would merely spend all that new money as well. That's why a balanced budget amendment will not work. With more money coming in, the Congress would merely spend more. The budget would be balanced but the debt (and the debt service) would not go down. Unless the principle on the debt is paid down, the debt service will eventually destroy us!
     
  14. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    Anybody who believes that the government is capable of running "profit generating enterprises" needs to stop drinking the kool aid. Same for those who can't understand that capitalism and competition will beat government monopolies every time, especially unionized government monopolies.
     
  15. Claymuncher

    Claymuncher Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    837
    Old proverb from somewhere in Russia or Los Angeles : " As long as you work the fields to grow the grain that makes the bread, I will continue to eat it."

    CM
     
  16. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    Shooting Sailor,


    You sound like the genuine article. What were the cash-generating operations Thatcher sold off that were later taken back in?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.