Currently "socialist" is not much of anything but a word Republican mothers use to frighten their naughty children with.

Under socialism the government would own and operate most commercial property. During the 1930s and much of the 1940s socialism was popular among many intellectuals in the West. These blamed capitalism for the Great Depression. It was obvious that a socialist economy had enabled the Soviet Union to produce the weapons that enabled it to defeat the German invasion. It was only later that the full extent of Stalin's crimes became known.

Hardly anyone of any prominence advocates socialism in the United States, not even democratic socialism. Nevertheless, it should be obvious that most Americans have not benefited from the deregulation and lower taxes for the rich that began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Real after tax income for eighty percent of the country has declined. Recessions have become more severe.

http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn=389436&pt=msg&mid=10153698

 

The civil rights legislation of the 1960s was followed by five years of black ghetto rioting, and more durable increases in black social pathology. I sometimes get flamed for pointing that out, but no one can deny that it is true.

The New Deal was only possible because civil rights legislation was not on the agenda. Social Democracy has only worked well in countries where nearly everyone is white.

 

Really with all the name calling aside, it would seem that someone somewhere could have the smarts and the will to say piss on the two parties fighting lets straighten this shit out and do it. Right now the american people are the only ones hurt in all these games they play. They get their money regardless.

 

that's part of our problem, way too much legislation and way way too many laws. The people have a say in nothing anymore

 

As I have already pointed out in comment #41, real after tax income for eighty percent of the American people declined when Reagan was president. There was less job creation per year than when Carter was president. Unemployment got higher. I get tired of repeating these facts, but they are facts that I have documented again and again.

 

why do it? all the bitching, arguing, name calling, and proving anything will never have a real world effect on people. Their ideas are concrete just like yours, and no one outside this forum will ever see it.

 

odd 'if then' assertion. Being diametrically opposed to big government (and liberal ideology in general) is in support of individual liberty and private property rights. That's freedom and yes, it is counter to liberal ideology.

Those who advocate for individual liberty and private property rights ARE considered 'far right' now. ...but I find it humorous that you proclaim yourself an 'independent' with any doubt who you will support in 2012. Good one.

 

Gross oversimplification of the scale of political ideology. Too many assumptions.

 

i support individual liberty and private property rights. but their is not one person of either party i would vote for. i say don't vote just leave the country but that is a bad idea too

 

my apologies baddog, I had you confused with another poster. That comment wasn't intended for you and doesn't fit. Sorry!

 

There is nothing "small government" about the republican party Republicans simply choose to spend tax dollars growing diferent sectors of government than democrats. We have yet to see a republican president reduce the actual number of people or the number of agencies in government or to reduce the number of dollars spent by government. They just want the money to go a diferent direction once they get thier hands on it.

As for property rights...your property rights end at exactly the spot where your property line is. Once you do something on "your property" that leaves those boundaries and impacts "my property" you are violating my property rights. That applies to commercial interests too. Once XYZ corperation starts doing something that impacts my standard of living they have exceded thier rights and are held accountable. Why is that so hard for "property rights" advocates to accept? It simply means you are going to be held to certain standards regarding what you do on or with your property to prevent you from harming others and that means regulations. Get used to it.

 

let there be a mineral or precious metal on your property, or a company that wants to build on your property and pays off a judge, or the government wants a new office on your property and claims imminent domain and see how quick you loose those property rights. you have no property rights, you rent your property from the government for a tax fee every year, don't pay property tax and see what happens. try to add a simple addition to your home, you have to get the governments permission plus pay them more money. You have no rights

 

HTML:

HTML:

LOL This is what I like about progressives, it is never their fault only others as they think (in their own minds) they are perfect.

If you want to know how this whole mess started it was with the housing and how the banks were forced to give loans to people that did not qualify and who did that you ask (not that a progressive cares) ACORN did along with the CRA (community reinvestment act) I could go on yet again about this but as I said a progressive never takes any responsibility for their actions.

As a side note how about we try TRUE capitalism and see who wins, That means getting the government out of Americans lives.

 

I'm not a republican, technically I'm an independent. At this point in time, republicans are less obnoxious with their appetite for confiscating and spending what little money I am able to earn.

you should broaden your understanding of 'private property.' When the government steps in and tells me that I am unable to use my land because some stupid bug lives there, that's not right. When the government takes from me one dollar in every four that I earn, effectively forcing me into slave labor for 25% of my working life ...and blows it on random unnecessary bullshit pork that I don't agree with, that's not right. When the government continues to spend money that my children and grandchildren haven't even earned yet to support unrealistic entitlements for the current generation, that's just disgusting in soooo many ways.

'Justifying' these practices requires one to believe that the intended (rarely realized) impact is worth the surrender of liberty to the central authority. I don't agree, and no amount of emotional fringe case explanation will change that.

You and I obviously have a drastically different view of personal liberty, private property rights, and what it means to be 'free.'

 

You're actually just another brainwashed parrot that thinks he can live in the greatest nation on earth and not have to pay any taxes. Another brainwashed parrot that would not last 30 days without the government he constantly cusses.

The kind of brainwashed parrot that believes Rick Perry created jobs in Texas.

And the kind of brainwashed parrots that thinks he had more rights 250 years ago than he does now without admitting that yes the founding fathers also believed in eminent domain and as early as 1798 were taxing shipping companies in order to set up a federal system of hospitals for seamen.

 

No Carter did not, you stupid, lying, brainwashed pile of shit!

Sorry. I was channeling stumbler there. Now, I'm back to my usual courteous self.

Jimmy Carter's economic problems were caused by the rise in the price of petroleum that followed the Iranian Revolution. Carter was not responsible for the Iranian Revolution. President Eisenhower was. When he directed the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and install the Shah as dictator he guaranteed that when the Iranian people overthrew the Shah they would hate us.

 

Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last 3 Decades

You ought to have studied the website you posted with greater reading comprehension. According to my reading of it real after tax income for the middle one fifth of the population did not rise during the Reagan years, anyone below that lost income. In our evaluation we also need to include the near tripling of the national debt under Reagan.

This is what I also get from the website you posted:

Between 1979 and 2007:

The top 1 percent’s share of the nation’s total after-tax household income more than doubled, from 7.5 percent to 17.1 percent.

The share of income going to the middle three-fifths (or 60 percent) of households shrank from 51.1 percent to 43.5 percent.

The share going to the bottom fifth of households declined from 6.8 percent to 4.9 percent.

The share going to the bottom four-fifths (80 percent) of the population declined from 58 percent to 48 percent.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

 

According to the following data, compiled by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., you are wrong. Under Carter there was a fairly brief recession from January 1980 to July 1980. During this time the unemployment rate reached 7.8 percent in July 1980.

The Reagan recession began July 1981 and lasted sixteen months. Unemployment reached 10.8 percent during November and December of 1982.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt