Why Joe the Plumber is a Socialist (And You Are, Too)

M

midcan5

Member
By David Morris

"I can understand the appeal of taking sole credit for all of your achievements, of being a cowboy – a maverick. But most of us are grownups, through with our days of playing cowboys and Indians. What we are, instead, is socialists – part of a system larger than us, which requires careful management and sane regulation, preferably by someone who doesn't stand to gain from ripping the rest of us off. We are all socialists, whether we like it or not – the only choice you have now is what kind of socialism you want to live under. You can choose to support a socialism that calls itself capitalist until the profits run out, and then runs crying to beg a loan from the public piggybank. Or you can support policies that recognize how much we all depend on one another, and that seek to help us work together for a secure society."

http://www.counterpunch.org/morris10232008.html
 
This is typical of the left-wing gobbldy-gook we've heard for years. Nothing new! For months, they have denied Obama's plans are "socialist" ...fought tooth and nail against that assertion... claimed it was outrageous... became offended by the mere suggestion... Biden even banished a TV station from further interviews for mentioning the word... NOW, the "truth" comes out..... We are ALL Socialists! So, it's all okay!
 
I'm not a socialist. I'm against bailing out corporations and I'm against bailing out colossal fuckups at life (many democrats)
 
LOL - no substantive replies, why? because the word is bantered about to mean most anything today, but when thrown back at the republican silliness they can only sigh and cry. LOL

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names” Chinese Proverb
>
 
Grind said:
I'm not a socialist. I'm against bailing out corporations and I'm against bailing out colossal fuckups at life (many democrats)
Click to expand...
Most on this board were both against the bailout, and against fixing everybody's problems.

The argument is flawed because the article began from a false premise in the case of the majority of this board.
 
Damocles said:
Most on this board were both against the bailout, and against fixing everybody's problems.

The argument is flawed because the article began from a false premise in the case of the majority of this board.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks the bailout was flawed or wrong needs to read history. Hoover felt the same way after the 29 crash and through his inactivity helped strengthen and create the great depression. FDR bailed out the banks (Hoover may have even started to help) and economic growth continued to the war which finally helped put the bad ideas the republicans had to rest - till Reagan started the next collapse. Seems Paulson knew more than you guys.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-New-Deal-Introductions/dp/0195326342/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225225116&sr=1-12"]Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Eric Rauchway: Books[/ame]
 
FDR's policies extended the depression. Anyone who claims otherwise, including so-called economists, are deliberately skewing the data to support their own preconceptions. But that is the only way one can build a case for socialism.

The thing that brought us out of the Great Depression was the need to put the entire U.S. industrial complex on full production war footing. Lend lease put the shipping and airline industry on high production, which in turn pulled up steel, aluminum, plastics, and other materials industries, which created great demand in the mining industries, etc. Then when we were attacked and entered the war, the stimulus expanded exponentially to include agriculture and all other sectors of the economy.

The bottom line of the article posted is socialist morons are now redefining the term socialism, in order to get the general public to accept the liberal democrat's version. And has been pointed out, for all the false outrage against being called socialists, suddenly the idea is to get people to accept socialism.

If they are successful in their goal of socializing this nation, I advise all to quit recycling their phone books and let them pile up. Either that or plan to spent your Saturdays standing in line for a 4 pack of TP. (The end quality will be about the same, but you can at least save yourself some time.)
 
midcan5 said:
Anyone who thinks the bailout was flawed or wrong needs to read history. Hoover felt the same way after the 29 crash and through his inactivity helped strengthen and create the great depression. FDR bailed out the banks (Hoover may have even started to help) and economic growth continued to the war which finally helped put the bad ideas the republicans had to rest - till Reagan started the next collapse. Seems Paulson knew more than you guys.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depress...r_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225225116&sr=1-12
Click to expand...

What growth? There was growth from 1932-33, and then zero growth after that. There was even negative growth from 1936-39, until Hitler invaded Poland. Jeez. And the market didn't get cranking until 1950. From 1933-1957, the only real growth was the last 7 years (unless young count the war economy, where the market was still in ruins, as a real economy), and then it recessed again until JFK came along...
 
Threedee said:
What growth? There was growth from 1932-33, and then zero growth after that. There was even negative growth from 1936-39, until Hitler invaded Poland. Jeez. And the market didn't get cranking until 1950. From 1933-1957, the only real growth was the last 7 years (unless young count the war economy, where the market was still in ruins, as a real economy), and then it recessed again until JFK came along...
Click to expand...
The only way socialists can defend their theories is to lie, reinvent history, and change the definition of the word to include all cooperative endeavors.

Keep stacking those phone books!
 
Threedee said:
What growth? There was growth from 1932-33, and then zero growth after that. There was even negative growth from 1936-39, until Hitler invaded Poland. Jeez. And the market didn't get cranking until 1950. From 1933-1957, the only real growth was the last 7 years (unless young count the war economy, where the market was still in ruins, as a real economy), and then it recessed again until JFK came along...
Click to expand...

"Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent growth during his so-called 'Seven Fat Years!') When 1936 saw a phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the deficit spending, worried about balancing the budget. But this only caused the economy to slip back into a recession in 1938."

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html
 
midcan5 said:
"Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent growth during his so-called 'Seven Fat Years!') When 1936 saw a phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the deficit spending, worried about balancing the budget. But this only caused the economy to slip back into a recession in 1938."

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/great_depression.html
Click to expand...

If you bother to consult a chart, the only year of growth in the 30's (excluding 1939, because WWII broke out) was 1932-33, before FDR even took office. Basically, the economy bottomed out, so Hoover doesn't get credit for that year. You are familiar with the Second New Deal and the Roosevelt Recession? right? They were both initiated the same year.
 
You have to understand socialists, 3D. They are still composing data showing the former Soviet Union to be a resounding success until the Reagan years forced them into recession.
 
Good Luck said:
FDR's policies extended the depression. Anyone who claims otherwise, including so-called economists, are deliberately skewing the data to support their own preconceptions.
Click to expand...

You really enjoy making these "(insert bullshit here). Anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot." statements, don't you? YOU deliberately skewing the data to support your MISconceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top