Pet Peeves -- What's yours?

[2bornot2bop]

Forum posts inquiring about pet peeves on the Gear page!

[Woody Sound]

Trump’s promise that Mexico will pay for the wall. How did that work out? When will people realize what a liar he is?

[DawgBone]

Not a very coherent post, this.

As far as I am aware I'm the only person on this forum who has argued in favour of socialism, and I certainly am not 'upper middle class'.

Maybe brush up on your reading comprehension because others understood it fine. You never argued in favor socialism, you are argued in favor of communism and then when it was pointed out that you are a dirty red you ran away.

[AllanAllen]

I just think you're misguided DawgBone. We have socialism already, it's just only for the wealthy, and it's not great for the country as a whole. Fox News talks about radical leftists socialists as if universal heath care, funding for schools and a living wage are going to destroy America. Really, 2/3 of this is the nostalgia that Trumps MAGA slogan hits so nicely.

I mean, GOP claims to be worried about Government debt and runaway spending, but Trump want's to remove the debt limit. You don't pull the governor off your car to drive 25mph.

[Stringswinger]

I just think you're misguided DawgBone. We have socialism already, it's just only for the wealthy, and it's not great for the country as a whole. Fox News talks about radical leftists socialists as if universal heath care, funding for schools and a living wage are going to destroy America.

I mean, GOP claims to be worried about Government debt and runaway spending, but Trump want's to remove the debt limit. You don't pull the governor off your car to drive 25mph.

You are misinformed. We do not have socialism, at least not yet. Forget Fox News and President elect Trump who label almost everyone in the Democratic Party as radical socialists. That is just hyperbole used to sway opinions in an election (and they do it because it works with low information voters). The left wing media and Democrat politicians are guilty of the same tactics when they call their political opponents fascists. Anyone who actually believes that Trump is a fascist who is going to end democracy in America is, to put it kindly, not very smart. No Scandinavian country is socialist either. They are all capitalist to the core. Why? Because capitalism works better than any other system.

What we have in America is a government that is too big and collects taxes at an absurdly high level. Our politicians from both parties are corporate whores who prevent things like more affordable health care and a fair minimum wage because they work for those who profit from the system as it is. Again, I believe that the alpha dogs among us (and there are such things as alpha dogs, those who think that alpha dogs do not exist are themselves clearly NOT alpha dogs) who will manipulate any system for their benefit. If you keep taxes high like they are, the rich will get the lions share of it and will give enough to the poor to placate and pacify them. The working people and middle class keep getting screwed.

The high tax European countries that have a big social safety net have a system that has seemingly worked well and I understand why many on the left who still believe in capitalism would want to emulate that model. I submit that their system only has worked because America has provided their defense since WW2. That arrangement has been good for the Euros and great for America's military-industrial complex, but not so good for ordinary Americans. Would it work without America's subsidizing their defense? We may be about to find out.

I do not advocate for an America without fully funded public schools or a fair minimum wage. In my view public education and a fair wage are good things. I also think we need a new system to deliver health care. I like the Australian system of medicare for all (flying coach) with private health care for the wealthy (flying first class). Things never work well unless there is some kind of competition. And reward. At some level, greed can be good. We would not have this Internet we use here without a modicum of greed.

I visited eastern Europe in the 80's when the iron curtain still existed and saw socialism up close. It was a dystopian nightmare. What? You say that was communism, not socialism? Both of those systems give government control of the means of production which IMO (and based on my own actual observations), is not a good thing.

Here is an article that tries to define socialism and communism (which is pretty hard as they are pretty much two different tastes of the same flavor).

Communism vs. Socialism: What’s the Difference?

[James W]

What? You say that was communism, not socialism? Both of those systems give government control of the means of production which IMO (and based on my own actual observations), is not a good thing.

You're misinformed. Actually while in Marxist thought the term 'socialism' does refer to a workers' state - that is, the workers having organised into a political party and appropriated the means of production, communism refers to a society where the state has disappeared and the society has become classless. This is a far cry from the tyrannical red bureaucracy of what most Americans probably think of as 'communism'.

On the other hand many people think of socialism and communism as basically synonymous, such as Chomsky -

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism

See also this analysis of the USSR - Tony Cliff: State Capitalism in Russia (1955/1974)

In any case, Allan was talking about socialism for the rich - which obviously the case in the US, as well as the UK. Quantative Easing and tax cuts for the rich and bankers, harsh austerity for everyone else.

Question - if these rich people are 'alpha dogs' why do they need so much of the public's money?

[AllanAllen]

Yeah, I'm talking more about corporate welfare and transfer payments being the socialism for the wealthy. Not literally a means of production, but the government funding their problems while letting everyone else flounder.

The 2008 thing is a nice example, where the government bailed out banks, letting all the regular people lose their homes and retirement accounts with little to no consequences for the people who knowingly caused the situation.

[Stringswinger]

Question - if these rich people are 'alpha dogs' why do they need so much of the public's money?

The answer is pretty simple. Because it is there for the taking.

I was a practicing attorney for about 15 years (I am still licensed in two US States) and I represented many clients with 8 and 9 figure net worths (I don't think I ever represented any billionaires. Perhaps they were able to obtain better lawyers than I was?) None of them had to work, but they all did and were more industrious than most people. For these alpha dog humans, money is just a way of keeping score and they like to beat their last high score by making more money. If they get it from the public sector or the private sector, it matters not.

As long as that public money is available, the wealthy will get most of it. Whether it is Donald trump or Daniel Ortega. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Stringswinger]

Yeah, I'm talking more about corporate welfare and transfer payments being the socialism for the wealthy. Not literally a means of production, but the government funding their problems while letting everyone else flounder.

The 2008 thing is a nice example, where the government bailed out banks, letting all the regular people lose their homes and retirement accounts with little to no consequences for the people who knowingly caused the situation.

In my view, corporate welfare is a way bigger problem in America than Reagan's "welfare queens" (That said, I would deal with the welfare queens after I was done with the corporate parasites.). And nobody, including publicly listed corporations should be "too big to fail". The bank bail outs were a disgrace. And both political parties were on board with that.

[James W]

The answer is pretty simple. Because it is there for the taking.

I was a practicing attorney for about 15 years (I am still licensed in two US States) and I represented many clients with 8 and 9 figure net worths (I don't think I ever represented any billionaires. Perhaps they were able to obtain better lawyers than I was?) None of them had to work, but they all did and were more industrious than most people. For these alpha dog humans, money is just a way of keeping score and they like to beat their last high score by making more money. If they get it from the public sector or the private sector, it matters not.

As long as that public money is available, the wealthy will get most of it. Whether it is Donald trump or Daniel Ortega. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Yes, it all sounds very sociopathic. I'd say anyone who hoards vast amounts of money is a massive sign of weakness, actually - far from what I'd regard as being in anyway an 'alpha dog'.

Anyway a system that rewards these people (or are they dogs lol) desperately needs to be overthrown.

[jazzshrink]

Anyway a system that rewards these people (or are they dogs lol) desperately needs to be overthrown.

I think we did that in 1776, don't you remember?

[lammie200]

One guy’s views of American myths. I think to be an American, and to also be realistic, you would have to acknowledge that most of the important things about America as a whole reside in the middle of success and failure. Not close to the extremes of either. That said, there are trends and one trend is the widening of the wealth gap. Another is that the deregulation of environmental controls is leading to climate crises all over the globe. Trends can lead to irreversible change that could be difficult to adapt to. But, personally, I am tired of worrying about any of it. If I see the sun rise for another day it is a good day.

[Stringswinger]

But, personally, I am tired of worrying about any of it. If I see the sun rise for another day it is a good day.

That is a good attitude. Yesterday is a cancelled check and tomorrow is a promissory note. Today is all the money you have. Spend it wisely.

[2bornot2bop]

I agree with both SS and James. But I absolutely draw the line at greed. Isn’t that in the Bible as a “deadly sin?”

With extremely wealthy people it’s as if they’re playing this game whereby there is only one rule:

Whomever dies with the most toys wins.

Having been a working stiff all my life, like the majority of us, I believe there is a limit to what Capitalism can achieve, for if it’s only beneficial for the wealthy, as it is, where the 1% has greater wealth than 90% of the country, you have a system that isn’t equitable for most people, your system is only beneficial for the wealthy.

[James W]

In my view, corporate welfare is a way bigger problem in America than Reagan's "welfare queens" (That said, I would deal with the welfare queens after I was done with the corporate parasites.). And nobody, including publicly listed corporations should be "too big to fail". The bank bail outs were a disgrace. And both political parties were on board with that.

Capitalism has ALWAYS relied on the state to bail it out. Then when it's bailed out, the people behind it go back to demanding cuts in public spending and wage stagnation for normal people.

So, your position doesn't seem coherent. You moan about the size of (the US) government and too high taxes, but also criticise corporate welfare recipients. I submit that the only way to deal with those who receive corporate welfare and the super-rich (short of some kind of communist or anarchist revolution) would be either a) to tax them or b) to nationalise them. Either one requires strong intervention from the state. But you don't want to do that seemingly, so what WOULD you do with the corporate parasites?

[Stringswinger]

Capitalism has ALWAYS relied on the state to bail it out. Then when it's bailed out, the people behind it go back to demanding cuts in public spending and wage stagnation for normal people.

So, your position doesn't seem coherent. You moan about the size of (the US) government and too high taxes, but also criticise corporate welfare recipients. I submit that the only way to deal with those who receive corporate welfare and the super-rich (short of some kind of communist or anarchist revolution) would be either a) to tax them or b) to nationalise them. Either one requires strong intervention from the state. But you don't want to do that seemingly, so what WOULD you do with the corporate parasites?

Good old fashioned Trust-busting along with removing the big pot of gold from the public treasury (through tax cuts combined with spending limits) would do the trick.

[Stringswinger]

I agree with both SS and James. But I absolutely draw the line at greed. Isn’t that in the Bible as a “deadly sin?”

With extremely wealthy people it’s as if they’re playing this game whereby there is only one rule:

Whomever dies with the most toys wins.

Having been a working stiff all my life, like the majority of us, I believe there is a limit to what Capitalism can achieve, for if it’s only beneficial for the wealthy, as it is, where the 1% has greater wealth than 90% of the country, you have a system that isn’t equitable for most people, your system is only beneficial for the wealthy.

I always figure that he who dies with the most toys, still dies.

[James W]

Good old fashioned Trust-busting along with removing the big pot of gold from the public treasury (through tax cuts combined with spending limits) would do the trick.

Nah, we had tax cuts along with spending limits in the UK over the past decade and a half and it does nothing other than rob the poor to benefit the rich.

[Mick-7]

What I find amusing about the libertarian/republican right-wing equivalency of socialism and progressivism is that it is "socialist" policies such as FDR's New Deal that "made America great." They were directly responsible for the development of American infrastructure like our national highway and electrical systems, our public school system, the creation of social welfare programs like the Social Security Administration and Workers Comp, our National Parks system, et.al.

These programs were all paid for by taxing the rich, with tax rates on the wealthiest Americans of about 90% under FDR, which continued through the 1970's, declining to about 74% under Lyndon Johnson. Reagan slashed these tax rates by over half in the 80's, claiming that his tax breaks would boost the economy by encouraging wealthy CEO's to increase their companies production and work force - so-called "trickle down economics" (a.k.a., voodoo economics). Unsurprisingly, this did not happen and in fact the opposite occurred: the wealth gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans began to increase and has rapidly expanded since then.

When you consider the policies that Trump and his billionaire buddies want to institute, it becomes obvious that the America they want to "make great again" is the quasi-feudal empire that existed in the early 20th century when rich robber barons were in charge, workers were powerless and trade unions did not exist, etc.

[DawgBone]

I just think you're misguided DawgBone. We have socialism already, it's just only for the wealthy, and it's not great for the country as a whole. Fox News talks about radical leftists socialists as if universal heath care, funding for schools and a living wage are going to destroy America. Really, 2/3 of this is the nostalgia that Trumps MAGA slogan hits so nicely.

I mean, GOP claims to be worried about Government debt and runaway spending, but Trump want's to remove the debt limit. You don't pull the governor off your car to drive 25mph.

Someday you will learn there is no such thing as a free lunch.

[RJVB]

... forums without rules about discussing politics or religion if they're not what the forum is about.

... (with a nod to the forum's TLD countries with supposedly democratically elected fake kings and emperors

Please, as long as there is/are no dedicated sub(sub) forums for those topics, can we at least put everything in a The eternal politics/religion discussion thread which anyone else can ignore?
(actually, better add a The eternal US politics discussion thread too )

[Peter C]

^ Good post by Mick-7

Not getting involved in this thread but I have to say: what a load of bollox regarding alpha dawgs! Greed and the relentless pursuit of social status are not, by any means, traits associated with "alphas". Just a minute: "they're eating the dogs" - That's where it came from, right?

[mr. beaumont]

If you gotta call yourself an alpha dog, I assure you, you ain't.

[DawgBone]

What I find amusing about the libertarian/republican right-wing equivalency of socialism and progressivism is that it is "socialist" policies such as FDR's New Deal that "made America great." They were directly responsible for the development of American infrastructure like our national highway and electrical systems, our public school system, the creation of social welfare programs like the Social Security Administration and Workers Comp, our National Parks system, et.al.

He is spun as some big hero for the "greatest generation" but I see FDR as the tipping point where American gov became too big and intrusive. Too many social programs enabling slackers. The national highway system, touted as being for defense, enabled globalists to sell out American manufacturing to LCD nations mostly in the orient. You can't brag about the public school system, it's a bucket of shit. National Parks=land grab. All government overreach. I would say though that allowing the private Fed reserve to control our currency was the worst of it all, and that can't be laid at FDR's feet....

[Litterick]

This is not an argument about socialism. This is an argument between Europeans and Americans about different interpretations of socialism. You might resolve this argument by defining the term. You might at least learn that the argument cannot be resolved.